draft chapter one jan 2001 -...

document.docGlobalism Research Centre

January 2009 of 66

Catalyst: Changing Practice

Report on the Catalyst Partners in Learning (PiL) Project

February-December 2008

Peter BurrowsLes MorganHelen Smith

Globalism Research Centre RMIT


January 2009 of 66

ContentsIntroduction......................................................................3The Catalyst: Changing Practice project...........................................................3The Catalyst evaluation program.....................................................................6

Catalyst in semester two.................................................10August Workshop...........................................................................................10Evaluation team and eLearning Unit school visits..........................................14School progress reports.................................................................................15

2008 Catalyst school outcomes.......................................16General observations.....................................................................................16Individual school outcomes............................................................................20

Reflections on the first year of the Catalyst project...........27The question of pedagogy..............................................................................27Engagement and action through professional dialogue.................................33Dialogue, pedagogy and professional learning..............................................34

Catalyst school case studies............................................35Recommendations for Catalyst in 2009............................361. Negotiate individual school programs........................................................362. Reinvigorate the critical friend strategy.....................................................373. Negotiate targeted critical friend relationships..........................................374. The role of professional dialogue...............................................................38

The contribution of Catalyst to PiL 2.0..............................41Introducing a pedagogical change model......................................................41

Attachments...................................................................42Attachment One: Overview of Catalyst school projects..................................42Attachment Two: Summary of semester one school reports..........................44Attachment three: Summary of semester two school reports........................48


January 2009 of 66

Introduction

The Catalyst: Changing Practice project

The Catalyst: Changing Practice project is a two year school-based initiative jointly sponsored by Microsoft Australia and the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD). Coordinated by the eLearning Unit in the Office for Government School Education’s Student Learning Programs Division, Catalyst: Changing Practice aims to use ICT as a catalyst for the development and documentation of strategies and practices to transform classroom practice and improve student outcomes.

Catalyst schools are supported with a grant of $40,000 over two years to enable teachers to be released from classrooms and other duties to act as Catalyst coordinators and peer coaches. Catalyst schools also receive support in the form of:

Professional learning for Principals, school leaders and teachers;

Advice about how to use the ePotential ICT Capabilities survey data and the eLearning planning matrix to help develop and strengthen school based strategic plans;

Assistance to develop an Action Learning Research project1.

The Catalyst aim of transforming classroom practice for improved student learning outcomes is being addressed through a focus on four key areas of ICT school practice:

1. ICT professional learning;

2. ICT and school leadership;

3. ICT for improved curriculum planning, delivery and assessment; and

4. ICT to support improved pedagogy.

In the first year of the project nine participating schools engaged in whole of school capacity building, by designing and implementing an action research project and a peer coaching program. In the second year, these schools will be expected to share their findings with other schools. At the conclusion of the project curriculum resources and tools to monitor and evaluate change

1 See DEECD website:http://www.education.vic.gov.au/studentlearning/teachingresources/ict/catalyst.htm

http://www.education.vic.gov.au/studentlearning/teachingresources/ict/catalyst.htm


January 2009 of 66

in teacher classroom practice which have been developed by the Catalyst schools will be made available to all Victorian schools.


January 2009 of 66

The first year of the Catalyst project has been tracked and evaluated by an external research team from the RMIT Globalism Research Centre. An interim report in July 2008 identified trends and issues in implementation and made recommendations for implementation in Semester Two. This final report provides a summary of developments during 2008 and makes recommendations for project implementation in 2009.

The Catalyst Schools and their projects

There are nine Catalyst schools, one from each DEECD region across Victoria. Participating schools have been nominated by their Regional Directorate and supported by the region during the project. The regions and schools are as follows:

Barwon South West Region - Ocean Grove Primary School

Eastern Region - Doncaster Gardens Primary School

Gippsland Region - Korumburra Secondary College

Grampians Region - Dimboola Memorial Secondary College

Hume Region -Wangaratta High School

Loddon Mallee Region - Bendigo Senior Secondary College

Northern Region - Dallas Primary School and Kindergarten

Southern Region - Silverton Primary School

Western Region - St Albans Meadows Primary School

Summaries of each school’s action learning project and peer coaching plan are included as Attachment One to this report.

Catalyst: Changing Practice – key milestones

December 2007 workshop: introduction to action research

The eLearning Unit was keen to get the Catalyst project off the ground early in February 2008. Being aware of the difficulties of launching an entirely new and challenging project at that busy time of year, the eLearning Unit conducted a preliminary Catalyst workshop in December 2007. The idea was to introduce school leadership teams to the aims of the project and the principles and practice of action research; giving them time to reflect on possible areas of research before the project commenced. The program


January 2009 of 66

featured a keynote presentation on Contemporary Learning by Kim Nadebaum from SA DECS Learning Technologies Unit; and an interactive session on action research led by Maureen O’Rourke of EdPartnerships International.


January 2009 of 66

February 2008: the Catalyst ‘Kick-off program

The project got underway in February with a two-day workshop attended by the principals, action research teams and peer coaches from the nine Catalyst schools. The program for the first day of the workshop addressed the planning and implementation of an action research project. Five key elements of effective research were covered:

deciding on a research question;

identifying success indicators;

implementing an effective inquiry;

collecting evidence; and

documenting outcomes.

School team members worked in teams to plan their project, and also participated in cross-school group discussions. Schools were provided with an action research template to guide their planning.

The second day of the workshop involved two parallel workshops: a leadership workshop for principals; and a workshop on peer coaching for Catalyst coordinators and team members.

The two-day workshop was also used as an opportunity to collect some base line data on the Catalyst Schools in the form of video interviews with principals and peer coaches. Principals were asked to describe their school and to explain how the Catalyst action research project would be used as a framework for innovation in the use of ICT. Peer coaches were asked to describe their role in working with other teachers and to identify the major challenges they would face.

The August workshop: considering evidence and success indicators

The broad aim of this workshop was to enable schools to take stock of their progress during semester one and address any issues arising during that period. The program for the workshop, decided on the basis of the mid project review in July, focused on refining success indicators and collecting evidence of success. The program and outcomes are discussed later in this report.


January 2009 of 66

The Catalyst evaluation program

The aim of the 2008 Catalyst evaluation program is to report on the first year of the Catalyst project and make recommendations to the DEECD eLearning Unit to support that Unit as it plans for program implementation in Year 2. Data collection, consultation and report writing has been organised into a three-phase research schedule as outlined in Table One below.

Table One: Research project schedulePhase &

datesActions Outcomes

Phase 1 – Dec 2007-March 2008

Refine project plan in consultation with elearning Unit and Action learning Research consultant

Agreed research project plan

Elearning Unit staff and Action Learning Research consultant interviewed

Collection of data on policy, expectations, project aims and strategies

Review policy and research literature and collect Catalyst project documentation

Contextual data collated; relevant research findings identified

Meet school leaders and participating teachers

Times and agendas for first school visits negotiatedData on school expectations collected and analysed

Monthly review meetings held in Feb and March

Progress reports tabled; issues identified and resolved

Phase 2 – April – July 2008

Visits to all schools. Leaders and teachers interviewed; meetings and classes observed;

Initial data collected; Agreement on collection of documents; agreed dates and agenda for second visit.

Collate first survey and other initial data

Draft progress report

Monthly review meetings held Progress reports tabled; issues identified and resolved

Progress report drafted by end of July

Report discussed with DEECD in context of planning for second half of 2008

Phase 3 – August 2008 - Jan 2009

Second school visits Data collected including individual and collective reflections on the projectReflections and analysis of experience collected and collated

Elearning Unit staff and Action Learning Research consultant interviewed

Reflections and analysis of project outcomes collected and collated

Draft individual case studies Case study data reviewed by eLearning Unit


January 2009 of 66

Final report drafted Draft reviewed by elearning UnitFinal report submitted Report informs Catalyst

implementation in 2009


January 2009 of 66

Four main mechanisms have been used to track school progress:

1. Action research plan submissions – indicators may include: relevance to school vision; clarity and specificity of focus question; identification of success indicators and measures; relevance and specificity of success indicators; and focus on pedagogical as well as technological innovation;

2. Peer coaching plans – indicators include: appropriateness to identified staff needs; relevance to ICT goals; sustainability; and link with AR plan;

3. Monthly ‘Traffic Light’ and PMI progress reports – issues raised and resolved;

4. School visits – feedback from Catalyst action research teams on progress; evidence that the team is engaged and being supported by the school; and evidence that research team is addressing pedagogical issues.

An interim report in July 2008 analysed the progress made by the nine Catalyst schools in the first five months of the project and commented on the implementation of the project as a whole. This report made a series of recommendations for the coordination and evaluation of the project in the second phase of 2008 which are summarised below:

1. A team approach to evaluation

This recommendation noted that because the objective of the Catalyst evaluation is to inform and improve the implementation of the project rather than to provide a summative evaluation of outcomes, it made sense for the eLearning Unit and the evaluation team to join forces and adopt a continuous improvement model for working with schools. The approach recommended for working with schools involved each evaluation team member taking on responsibility for working with three schools in conjunction with an eLearning Unit team member. It was proposed that visits early in term three focus on addressing issues identified in progress reports and fine tuning success indicators and measures; and that follow up visits later in term three assess progress made on success indicators and review the implementation of the peer coaching program.

2. Providing support to schools


January 2009 of 66

This recommendation reinforced the notion of a formative approach to evaluation and supported a more interventionist approach. When evaluation team members visited schools to collect data in term one, we found that schools were seeking input from us – including feedback on their research plans and methods and ideas about how to measure research outcomes. They also wanted to know how other schools had worked through and implemented their plans. We thought it was consistent with the objective of evaluating Catalyst for the evaluation team to provide schools with mentoring and coaching support as we collected data for the end of year report. In particular we saw a value in assisting schools to develop research tools and strategies to measure outcomes as we reviewed the ways in which they were translating success indicators into strategies for collection of evidence.

3. Troubleshooting

This recommendation recognized a need for timely interventions: where Action Research Update reports from the schools contained issues and uncertainties that could be addressed by external intervention, contact was to be made with the school as early as possible in term three to check whether issues had been resolved and to organise appropriate support strategies where needed.

4. Slowing down and modifying goals and objectives

Because Catalyst is an ambitious project which seeks to make fundamental shifts in learning and teaching practice we recommended that the eLearning Unit review project goals to assess whether these, or at least the objectives for the first year of the project, needed to be modified, for example to enable schools to carry project activities over into 2009. While we noted that such changes would have timetabling implications for sharing eLearning practices and pedagogical innovations during 2009, we believed the proposed slowing down would ensure the capturing of a more realistic picture of the experiences and challenges faced by 2008 Catalyst schools. We believed this would ultimately benefit other schools considering, or choosing to embark on, a similar journey.


January 2009 of 66

We also suggested that the August workshop be used as an opportunity to review overall goals and 2008 objectives with Catalyst schools.

5. Reviewing the Catalyst Action Plan Template

We also identified value in reviewing the design of the Action Plan template to include more specific guidance and scaffolding – alternatively this guidance could be provided by a research mentor.


January 2009 of 66

Final report for 2008

This final report provides an overview of the implementation of the Catalyst project in 2008 and makes recommendations for implementation of the Catalyst project in 2009. It also provides a synopsis of outcomes of individual school action research and peer coaching projects, which are aligned to four dimensions of innovation and change. Appendices to the report include summaries of each school’s progress, and case studies of the implementation of each Catalyst schools’ action research project and peer coaching program – these are produced as individual volumes.


January 2009 of 66

Catalyst in semester two

August Workshop

This workshop was held following a review of the progress made by Catalyst schools in launching their action research plans and peer coaching programs. Through this review the evaluators and eLearning Unit identified a number of issues to be addressed, for example:

Some schools were struggling with the concept of success indicators, and a number of success indicators identified by schools were in fact examples of evidence.

There was some uncertainty about what constituted effective baseline data, and a lack of awareness of the relationship between baseline data and action research strategies.

In some cases, baseline data was sketchy, or a reference to data collection methods (eg numeracy/literacy testing) rather than the data itself.

At least one school had launched straight into plans for a new approach to teacher professional learning and student learning without a review of current practices.

On the other hand there were schools which had clearly articulated both baseline data and success indicators and which were starting to collect and analyse evidence. This range of different experiences in getting the action research projects off the ground provided the basis for dialogue between schools. Examples of successful implementation strategies assisted those still working on scoping their current situation or trying to identify success indicators and define realistic plans for later stages of their project.

The workshop program comprised three sessions:

1. Considering Evidence;

2. Refining Success Indicators through Peer Coaching; and,

3. Catalyst school team reflections to refine action research plans in the light of insights gained in the two earlier sessions.

The model of engagement for the first session was structured enquiry, using a set of enquiry protocols implemented in a controlled time sequence. Extract one (see page 11), illustrates this model. The second session adopted a coaching approach in groups comprising a coach, observer(s) and


January 2009 of 66

presenter(s). The approach was adapted from the GROW model developed by John Whitmore, where GROW is an abbreviation for Goal, Reality, Options, and Will. These four topic headings frame questions asked by the coach-participant which aim to ‘shape a purposeful collegial conversation’ (EdPartnerships International Catalyst workshop program, 22-08-08). Coaches were provided with further guidance through a set of coaching questions (see extract two, below).

In the third session a similarly structured protocol was used as a framework for critical reflection on action research practice. In the first two sessions groups were made up of a mix of schools and in the third session school teams came back together to reflect on the insights they had gained from the practice of others in the context of their own situation.

August Workshop: Extract One2

August Workshop: Extract Two3

2 Adapted by EdPartnerships International from Project Zero © Harvard Graduate School of Education3 Adapted by EdPartnerships International from http://www.alliance.coaching.com

http://www.alliance.coaching.com/


January 2009 of 66


January 2009 of 66

Reflection on the workshop process and outcomes

Of the five groups involved in the first two workshop sessions, three responded enthusiastically to the structured enquiry method, with a fourth gradually warming to a modified version of this approach. The fifth group found the proposed structure too restricting, and followed a quite different and more loosely structured dialogical model. However, this group did make use of other scaffolds which were outlined by EdPartnerships presenters during the introduction to the workshop. For example, a schema for naming and differentiating points of intervention for different members of the Catalyst team and school leadership, and for relating success indicators to each point of intervention which is illustrated below.

Source: Model presented by EdPartnerships International, August 22 2008

The point made here is that, like their students, teachers have different learning preferences. While the highly structured scaffold was helpful to some, to others it was restricting and confusing because it added another layer of interpretation and organisation. What proved to be particularly useful for the fifth group was an informal debrief over lunch in which group

Points of intervention: for: Success Indicators about:

Interventions related to a vision for student learning in your context

Interventions related to pedagogical practice

Interventions related to the leadership capacity of peer coaches, PLT leaders and curriculum coordinators

The point of intervention for classroom teachers

The point of intervention for peer coaches, PLT leaders and curriculum coordinators

The point of intervention for school leadership

Student learning

Pedagogical practices

Leadership capacity &


January 2009 of 66

members reflected on their response to structure in the context of what they demanded of their students.

The August workshop proved to be a positive intervention for the nine Catalyst schools. First, the workshop reassured many participants that they were on the right track – and indeed that there were many ‘right tracks’, depending on the circumstances and needs of individual schools. A number of school teams reported that it was reassuring to know that the difficulties they had experienced in getting their project started were not unexpected, and that taking on an Action Research approach was an acknowledged challenge. Secondly the workshop was a valuable learning experience. As the Ocean Grove Primary School team later reported:

The Action Research Day in Melbourne was extremely helpful for reassessing where we are and where to next. From this, re-engaging with our indicators of success has been the most beneficial outcome.

Thirdly, as well as refining their skills in identifying sources of evidence and success indicators and having an opportunity to try out the tools and frameworks presented throughout the program, participants learned from each others’ experiences. In at least one instance, the workshop crystallised the need for collection of evidence in a way that had not previously hit home. This is what one of the Doncaster peer coaches commented, having observed a presentation from Dallas Primary School and Kindergarten in which it was clear that the Catalyst team was spending considerable time refining and critiquing their evidence collection methods:

When I came here today I really hadn’t though seriously about the collection of evidence. I was tending to come out of a coaching class thinking: ‘Gee, the kids did great stuff – they had a good time – that really worked’. But after this morning’s work I’m suddenly thinking: “if we’re going to be able to extend the peer coaching to all classes, we need the evidence to demonstrate to other teachers that this is really producing outcomes’ (Doncaster peer coach, August 2008)

Thirdly, the workshop offered school teams an opportunity, away from the busyness of the school day, to cast a new lens over their action research plans. For Dallas Primary School and Kindergarten, the workshop proved to be a significant watershed in this regard. The Dallas action research leader, Amanda Henning, and peer coach, Michelle Meracis, went into the workshop confident that they were on track with their Catalyst project. They had


January 2009 of 66

identified the need to ‘move from a teacher directed curriculum into a model based on personalised learning’ (AR Plan May 2008), and had intensively reviewed the current school situation as a baseline from which to develop approaches to personalised learning. It was when Amanda and Michelle were presenting their progress report in a small group session that they realised that there was an issue with what they were naming as success indicators. As Amanda said later: ‘the penny just dropped; what we though were success indicators were in fact examples of evidence!’ (Discussion notes, September 2008)

Evaluation team and eLearning Unit school visits

One of the outcomes of the mid year review was an agreement to allocate responsibility for supporting and monitoring Catalyst school progress to members of the evaluation team and eLearning Unit so that each school would have two external reference points. The plan was for the relevant evaluation team and eLearning Unit members to visit their allocated schools together wherever possible. The pattern of visits that eventuated during terms 3 and 4 is outlined below.

Schools Term 3 and Four MeetingsDate Attending

Korumburra SC August 8th October 10th November 5th

Helen SmithHelen Smith & Rita EllulHelen Smith & Rita Ellul

Silverton PS September 17th November 17th

Helen SmithHelen Smith

Dallas PS August 14th September 18th October 16th

November 13th

Helen Smith & Rita EllulHelen Smith & Rita EllulHelen Smith Helen Smith & Rita Ellul

Wangaratta HS October 20th Follow up phone interview with evaluator:11 December

Peter Burrows & Mark Dixon

Dimboola Memorial SC

October Follow up phone discussions with evaluator:Friday November 28Friday December 5Friday December 12

Peter Burrows & Mark Dixon (separate visits)

St Albans PS September OctoberNovember

Peter BurrowsMark Dixon (separate visits)


January 2009 of 66

Bendigo Senior Secondary College

October 8th December 16th Follow up phone call with evaluator December 10th

Les Morgan & Rita EllulRita Ellul

Doncaster Gardens PS

September 16th

Follow up phone call with evaluator December 12th

Les Morgan & Louise Bowe

Ocean Grove PS October 27th Follow up phone calls with evaluator December 10th, 11th

Les Morgan & Mark Dixon


January 2009 of 66

School progress reports

The response to the request for monthly or bi-monthly reporting, whether in ‘traffic light’ or ‘PMI’ form, has, for the most part, been spasmodic. This issue is the subject of recommendations for 2009.

The term 3 and 4 reports received by December 2008 are indicated in the table below. A summary of these reports is presented in attachment two.

Region and school August progress report

September progress report

End of year report

Ocean Grove Primary School

Doncaster Gardens Primary School

Korumburra Secondary College #Dimboola Memorial Secondary College * * *Wangaratta High School


Dallas Primary School and Kindergarten

Silverton Primary School

St Albans Meadows Primary School

# Korumburra provided a written December PMI and a final podcast report

* Although Dimboola has not provided progress reports according to the specified proforma, the Catalyst team has developed an extensive web-based record of their work in 2008, including a final web-based report – see case study report for details.


January 2009 of 66

2008 Catalyst school outcomes

General observations

At the end of the first year of implementation there is evidence that many Catalyst teams are producing discernable improvements through their action research projects and peer coaching programs. The individual case studies provide examples of action research skill development; improvements in teacher practice; innovative uses and applications of ICT in the classroom; and enhanced ICT leadership.

Different rates of progress

There are four Catalyst schools which the evaluation team would regard as being in a position to start realising the Catalyst goal of sharing their professional learning with other schools. These schools are:

Dimboola Memorial Secondary College;

Dallas Primary School and Kindergarten;

Silverton Primary School; and

St Albans Primary School.

Each of these schools will need to be supported by the eLearning Unit to carry out their new role during 2009, and guided in presenting their 2008 outcomes as effective examples of how to plan and implement change using an action research model.

While Bendigo Senior Secondary College has a long established record as a teaching and learning innovator, there is a sense that the Catalyst project has become lost in the midst of other ICT priorities including the purchase and installation of over 700 new computers and peripherals. Further, and unsurprisingly, in such a large senior college where individual faculties are involved in a wide range of specific initiatives, and where whole-school communication is managed through formal structures and meetings, securing a place on the agenda for a relatively small whole-school project can be difficult. A stock-take early in 2009 will be needed to assess the relative success of Catalyst, as distinct from ICT developments in general; and to make a judgement about when Bendigo will be in a position to share


January 2009 of 66

its Catalyst outcomes with others, and how this sharing role might best be achieved.

Ocean Grove Primary School and Korumburra Secondary College are heading in the right direction, with Korumburra in particular making great strides in the collection and use of evidence. Both will benefit from extra time in 2009 to progress their own ICT leadership and professional learning arrangements before they will be in a position to share these with other schools.

Doncaster Primary School has been able to consolidate its peer coaching program during 2008. However, the school has not shown evidence of innovation in pedagogy and elearning practice and will need extra time to tackle these changes.

For reasons which are discussed in detail in the school case study report, Wangaratta High School will effectively be starting over with their Catalyst project and would benefit from working closely with another school during 2009. Perhaps Dimboola Memorial Secondary College could be enlisted as a critical friend school.

The challenge of collecting and analysing evidence

Not surprisingly, this is the domain of practice which has been least well developed across the Catalyst schools – though some exemplary analysis of practice has been demonstrated – notably by Dimboola and Silverton; and Dallas in particular has made good use of ePotential and PoLT data to interrogate changes in teacher behaviour. For the most part however, while the Catalyst schools have been able to identify ICT issues and needs, and to trial solutions, they have struggled to systematically capture and analyse evidence of changes and in particular, to document their findings4.

Regarding the role of Catalyst schools in communicating to other schools about leadership capacity building and the role of ICT in changing pedagogies we would suggest that the schools best able to effectively

4 In reflecting on this issue we have wondered whether another impediment in the development of reflective practice is one of perception of benefit. That is: because the work of documentation and analysis of evidence has traditionally been externally driven and undertaken, that it is primarily of benefit to others outside the school. In conversations with school teams we have gained the impression that capturing and documenting evidence is perceived as ‘reporting back’ or ‘we’re doing it for them’ – something that is done in order to meet obligations as a participant in the project rather then something of intrinsic value to the school. This issue is also discussed later in this report in relation to the completion of progress reports.


January 2009 of 66

contribute to these goals will be those which have embedded the practices of the learning organisation in their ongoing work (see discussion below). Such schools will not only be engaged in developing more effective pedagogical practices and using ICT in innovative ways, but also tracking, documenting and analysing their practice. This reflective dialogical engagement will benefit such schools directly while preserving practices and outcomes in forms which can be shared with other schools.

Realising Catalyst goals: becoming a learning organisation5

(a) Demonstrating ICT professional learning strategies and ICT as an enabler of new learning and teaching approaches

Given the progress made this year, the evaluation team believes that with sufficient time to refine and reflect on their learnings, and with targeted support from the eLearning Unit and one or more critical friends, all Catalyst schools will be in a position to share their experiences in relation to two of the project’s goals6:

Demonstrating ICT ‘as an enabler of new learning and teaching approaches to support VELS implementation’;

Demonstrating ICT Professional learning strategies to support UltraNet implementation.

The potential for these goals to be realised reflects the success of Catalyst in modelling a peer coaching approach to professional learning, and the capacity of participating schools to extend their teaching and learning role to take on responsibility for the professional learning of their own teachers and those in other schools using this peer coaching model.

(b) Expanding understanding of capacity building and ICT as an enabler to change pedagogies

The other goals of the Catalyst project were to provide a model for developing, delivering, documenting and expanding understandings of:

5 The concept of learning organisation encompasses and extends the notion of learning community. Where a learning community is seen as an inclusive group of practitioners whose reflections contribute to improvements in learning and teaching practice within that community, a learning organisation extends this notion recognising a role for a school's reflections on practice to contribute to improvements in the systems that support learning and teaching.6 As recorded in the DEECD Catalyst Research Project Brief, December 2007


January 2009 of 66

How to build the capacity of principals, school leadership team and teachers to create and sustain an innovative ICT rich learning organisation’

How ICT can act as ‘an enabler to change pedagogies’

For the Catalyst schools to play a role in achieving these goals, they need to embrace the idea that they are learning organisations. While this is an identity entirely consistent with the core learning and teaching role of the school and with the sense of community engendered by schools, the identity of learning organisation is not necessarily an integrated part of the collective school community perception. Schools have traditionally been in the business of learning and teaching about the world at large. To become a learning organisation the school needs to deliberately set out to learn about itself and its operating context, and to use this learning to adapt and achieve better outcomes. And for teachers to regard themselves as members of a learning organisation they need to see themselves as reflective practitioners and to have incorporated structured reflection and discussion on practice – practice based research – into their everyday routine7.

Becoming a learning organisation represents a challenge – no less so for an educational organisation than for others. For a learning organisation to capitalise on its self knowledge, it has to capture reflections on practice as evidence, and to interrogate this evidence to (a) assess the effect of an intervention on practice, and (b) to enable successful interventions to be reproduced.

While educational professionals are skilled in planning and enacting learning and teaching, they are not necessarily as skilled in planning and enacting structured reflective practice. Nor does the everyday routine of a school encompass the space and time needed to regularly capture and discuss reflections and effects, and to document these as evidence. This is a space which has to be created, and a set of skilled practices which have to be learnt.

7 In proposing that ‘research’ should be part of the repertoire of teachers and educational leaders, it is important to note that we are not referring to the paradigm associated with dedicated research sites such as laboratories and university research centres, but to that associated with learning organisations. Some core skills and attributes are the same: construction of research questions, collection and structured interrogation of data and recording and analysis of evidence. It is the subject and use of the research which differs. In a learning organisation research on practice enables improvements in practice and outcomes in a core business which is not research.


January 2009 of 66

To carry out their adaptive, reflective, learning role, professionals in a learning organisation need to:

Formulate research questions associated with their work;

Systematically scrutinise their practices;

Capture, analyse, document and discuss evidence of outcomes – as individuals and as a community of learners.

It is through these processes, which learning organisations have adapted from a research paradigm, that reproducible effects are created. When learning and teaching practices, that are otherwise ephemeral and transitory, are transformed into durable artefacts, they can be the subject of analysis, dialogue and further testing. In this way insights which bring about deep understanding, professional growth and changes in practice can be reliably demonstrated and made available to other dialogical communities.


January 2009 of 66

Individual school outcomes

The following synopses of Catalyst school outcomes for 2008 are classified against four dimensions of innovation and change which reflect Catalyst goals and processes:

1. Practice-focused teacher-led research

2. More effective pedagogy

3. ICT know-how and application skills

4. ICT leadership

Ocean Grove Primary School

Practice-focused teacher-led research

The Catalyst team have demonstrated a capacity for critical reflection and an awareness of how to use evidence, from successful and less successful interventions, to shape their planning. Action Research plans for 2009 show evidence of growth in research expertise.

More effective pedagogy

By the end of 2008, the Ocean Grove Catalyst team had realised that they needed to focus on pedagogical change in order to capitalise on the extension of ICT skills and know-how, and are factoring a whole school pedagogical intervention into their 2009 planning.

ICT know-how and application skills

The initial focus of the peer coaching program was on technical skill development. Changes made after the August workshop shifted the focus onto curriculum application skills and by the end of the year there was a core of committed staff who provide PD for their peers, and a widespread awareness of the potential of ICT to improve teaching outcomes.

ICT leadership

The four person 2008 Catalyst team will increase to eight members in 2009, indicating an increase in ICT leadership capacity across the school. The OGPS principal has played an active role in the Catalyst project and will take a leading role in steering the pedagogical intervention in 2009.

Doncaster Gardens Primary School


Doncaster Gardens was slow to pick up on the importance of structured reflection and evidence collection, and by November there was no systematic evidence that 2008 progress had been subjected to scrutiny in the context of the action research focus.


January 2009 of 66


There was no indication in the action research or peer coaching plans of intentions to address pedagogical change. Plans for 2009 indicate that ICT is regarded more as a subject specialisation rather than enabler of pedagogical change.


This has been the focus of the peer coaching program and action research project, and peer coaches indicate that good progress has been made in embedding peer coaching as an ICT skill development strategy. ePotential data in 2008 placed teachers at foundation level. 2009 survey will provide indications of impact of peer coaching on progress in ICT know-how and skills application.

ICT leadership

The leadership provided by the Catalyst team in peer coaching and analysis of June 2008 ePotential data has been important in shaping the 2009 ICT plan, which should assist in developing a distributed ICT leadership model encompassing all year levels.

Korumburra Secondary College


The action research project has remained firmly in the hands of the Catalyst coordinator and peer coach, who expressed his attitude to the role as ‘protecting the teachers’ from an extra workload. The Catalyst team’s involvement in the research project (as distinct from the peer coaching program) has been limited to participation in the mid-year and end of year reflections on their practice, and on student outcomes. However, it should be said that all Catalyst teachers have been aware of the goals of the action research which are the framework for discussions in their coaching debrief sessions. In the end of year evaluation discussion, these teachers expressed their appreciation of the value of reflective practice to the quality of their teaching.


The question of pedagogical innovation is on the table as a result of Korumburra’s involvement in the Catalyst project. As the peer coach and Catalyst coordinator, Don Patterson remarked in September: ‘now that we have all of these ICT skills in place I am starting to wonder what it’s all about’. This remark became the introduction for a dialogue on pedagogical transformation, and Don is reviewing pedagogical models with a view to introducing the ‘how’ of ICT enabled teaching and learning into his dialogue with coachees in 2009.


This has been the focus of the Korumburra Catalyst peer coaching program, and by all accounts has been highly successful. The peer coach worked with six teachers in semester one and seven in semester two on individually negotiated ICT applications. The coachees have reported favourably on their relationships with their peer coach and on their ICT skill development and increased confidence. This has encouraged more teachers to become involved. 2009 will see the school taking on the INTEL program and extending its peer coaching


January 2009 of 66

program to reach all teachers. Outcomes of the 2008 program have been measured by changes in ePotential survey results

ICT leadership

The principal and the Catalyst coordinator/peer coach have been successful in seeding an ICT peer coaching program. An expanded program has been supported by the school council for introduction in 2009. It is not clear whether a year level and faculty-based ICT leadership structure has evolved during 2008, however, plans for peer coaching across all learning domains in 2009 has the potential to support the integration of ICT leadership into the roles of domain teaching and learning leaders.

Dimboola Memorial Secondary College


The Action Research team has begun to see their teaching spaces and practices as sites for research, capturing and analysing data in purposeful ways and making decisions informed by their findings. They have used this evidence to sustain school initiatives and to garner administration support and budget approvals. They demonstrate an understanding of the role research can play in creating a professional dialogue and in improving pedagogical practice. The web-report which they created offers a practical framework for other schools involved in the project to explore and adapt.


The emphasis of the Dimboola project team in the second half of the year became more squarely focused on pedagogy and the development of a collaborative team-teaching approach to working with the combined Year 7 classes which was afforded by the larger teaching space. During the second half of the year the focus of the two peer-coaches shifted to pedagogical coaching and to supporting the teachers as they made the shift to more collaborative team-oriented practices in the shared space.


There is evidence of development in how the teachers are using the Interactive Whiteboards (IWB) - evidence that they are continuing to develop their ICT know-how and application skills. This development, at least in the Maths classroom, has involved a shift to greater student uses of, and engagement with, the Interactive Whiteboards (IWB). The teachers have noted that having multiple whiteboards in the same teaching space means that the boards can be used to show different things at the same time to address different student needs or provide multiple levels of explanation

ICT leadership

There are a number of indicators of leadership development present in the work of the project team, particularly in the efforts of the peer-coaches. These indicators are evident in the significant shifts made by everyone involved in the project along the previous three developmental continuums – the development of teacher-researchers capturing and analyzing data, making decisions based on this data; the development of more effective team-based pedagogies; and the continuing development of ICT know-how and application skills matched to


January 2009 of 66

these team-based pedagogies.

These shifts are a direct consequence of the leadership at DMSC; the design and coordinated carriage of the various classroom and research interventions initiated by these school leaders; and to the effectiveness of the work of the two peer-coaches.


January 2009 of 66

Wangaratta High School


The Catalyst project at Wangaratta High School was disrupted by a number of factors which included the departure of the original project coordinator, along with the school principal and several of the assistant principals; extensive building works at the school; and the school's Learning Management System 'Moodle' crashing several times losing teachers' data. The Catalyst project team at WHS are more or less starting their project again in 2009.


WHS has an existing ICT professional learning infrastructure. Apart from the Catalyst coach the school has an elearning coordinator and eight elearning mentors. Individual Performance and Development Plans required every teacher to have an Action Research Project with an ICT focus supported by the eLearning Mentors. The school course accreditation process ensures that there is a measure of ICT in every course to address the VELS ICT requirements.


For much of the year, the unreliability of the Moodle software has impeded the Catalyst coordinator’s ability to carry out her role as an ICT coach. This problem has been compounded by a lack of dedicated release time to work on the project. By the end of the year the situation was improving, and a new approach to Catalyst is anticipated in 2009, with the e-learning mentors playing a greater role in the Catalyst project and taking on roles as peer coaches.

ICT leadership

The development of ICT leadership has been inhibited by the departure of the original Catalyst coordinator, the school principal and assistant principals. The new Catalyst coordinator is confident that 2009 will see greater stability and the formation of a leadership team around the Catalyst project which will be supported by Wangaratta’s previous work as a CeLL school to develop an effective elearning infrastructure and ICT leadership.



While gains have been made in peer coaching, it is not clear whether participating teachers have also seen themselves as engaged in an action research project. Difficulties have been reported in securing engagement in some aspects of the project including engagement in professional reading. It is also not clear how much of the anticipated evidence has been collected and analysed.


It is not yet clear how the 2008 Catalyst project has contributed to pedagogical development.



January 2009 of 66

The Catalyst coordinator has worked with 50 staff during 2008 and has reported particular success in empowering ‘low-end users’. The structure of the peer coaching program has meant that the Catalyst coordinator and the Learning & Teaching Development Manager are also supported in their Catalyst role by the Learning and Teaching Innovations Team.

ICT leadership

BSSC has a well established reputation for ICT leadership and a strong ICT and curriculum leadership structure. However it is not clear how the Catalyst project has contributed to the enhancement of ICT leadership across the school.

Dallas Primary School and Kindergarten


The research team led by the Assistant Principal has worked hard at coming to grips with what it means to be a participant-researcher in a school initiated action research project. Survey data has been collected and used as a framework for analysis of progress and issues, and as input to teacher reflective practice.


The Catalyst action research project has been used as a vehicle to promote a pedagogy of personalised learning, in line with the goals of the Broadmeadows Schools Regeneration Project, and to address impediments to this approach. The Dallas plan, with its focus on socio-spatial arrangements and student agency, offers a whole of school strategy to support students in progressively taking responsibility for their learning. The prep year operates in a defined space, with learning led by teachers and social interactions strongly scaffolded. As students move through the school the classroom spaces are progressively opened up; and students given more responsibility for managing their learning. PoLT survey data and interviews with students have generated data about impediments to personalised learning which will be the subject of action in 2009.


Dallas has been active in promoting the ICT curriculum integration, having been an IWB trial school and currently in a VELS partnership with Sound House. The whole school approach to ICT professional learning is based on year level professional learning teams. Catalyst has been integrated with this whole school approach. Peer coaching has provided support to year 3&4 teachers, with evidence of ICT improvements becoming apparent in students’ work.

ICT leadership

The Catalyst project has been led by the Assistant Principal with strong support from the principal, both of whom have ensured that the Catalyst peer coach has a time allowance for her coaching work and that teachers at all year levels have been able to play a part in the Catalyst project. Goals of the Dallas Catalyst project are closely integrated with those of the Broadmeadows Schools Regeneration Project. Leadership team has promoted the use of survey data (ePotential survey and PoLT) to establish a base line, measure progress, identify issues and plan strategies for improvement.


January 2009 of 66


January 2009 of 66

Silverton Primary School


The 2008 Silverton Catalyst action research project demonstrates all elements of successful practice focussed research: careful planning and construction of research questions, regular reflection on practice; taking action to address issues; collection and analysis of multiple forms of evidence; evidence based planning; presentation of findings and amendment of plans in the light of ongoing reflection and analysis.


The struggle to articulate what multimodal literacies might look like in practice led Silverton to embark on a strategic intervention which focused attention on the importance of meta-language to the introduction of new multimodal practices. The Catalyst team became aware that although the school was technology-rich, it was not making the most of the opportunity presented by ICT to enhance deep learning. The outcome of the project in 2008 is a whole school plan to make multimodal engagement more meaningful.


This has been the focus of the peer coaching and action research. In the middle of the year Silverton organised a workshop for the Catalyst team with Kym Nadebaum where they focussed on technical skill development and metalanguage. The plan developed as a result of this workshop aimed to transfer skills and know-how to other teachers and to students in all grades.

ICT leadership

The Catalyst team was led by the assistant principal, Amanda Prosser, and actively supported by the principal. Amanda structures the Catalyst team to ensure that leadership was distributed across all grade levels. The action research program had this leadership team developing skills and ICT curriculum plans together and returning to their year level teams to implement plans. Teacher feedback indicates that this model has been successful in increasing overall teacher confidence, developing a capacity for planning, implementation of new ideas and critical reflection thereby inspiring teachers to embark on new directions.


January 2009 of 66

St Albans Meadows Primary School

Practice-focused teacher-led researchSt Albans Meadows Primary School (SAMPS) has developed an innovative practice-focused research technique for the Catalyst project. This technique involves the relatively unobtrusive use of a laptop video to film teaching practices and their effects. These short films were then used as reflective prompts in peer-coaching discussions. The films were deemed to be effective in supporting the peer coaching process and in prompting changes in teachers’ practices. The peer coaching sessions though were not filmed nor analysed.

More effective pedagogyAs with many of the Catalyst schools SAMPS has a number of school initiatives to improve pedagogy and student learning outcomes underway at any given time as well as a wide range of previously successful projects – UltraNet pilot school. SAMPS have a long history of active and continuous improvement and a culture which offers teachers latitude and support. There is evidence that the Catalyst teachers at SAMPS have developed more effective approaches to their teaching. This is evident in a number of short films – in particular the ‘Where’s Richo?’ sequences. The films hint at changes in teacher pedagogy and shifts in how ICTs have been used, however, the peer-coaching discussion which might provide insights into these changes has not been captured.

ICT know-how and application skillsAgain there is evidence via the short films of significant developments in ICT know-how and use. This development sits within the context of a well-resourced, well-organised school where teachers and students have ready access to all forms of ICT. Teachers have received ICT coaching from a skilled and knowledgeable coach for several years – the school recognises this coach as being crucial to its ICT professional development agenda. Catalyst has provided an opportunity for SAMPS to engage in targeted coaching with associated release time and this seems to be making a qualitative difference to teachers’ practices.

ICT leadershipSAMPS is one of Catalyst’s leading schools in terms of its innovative uses of ICT, though it is not possible to disentangle the impact of Catalyst from SAMPS other initiatives, which include: a take-home laptop program for all students in years 5 and 6; data projectors in all classrooms and Interactive Whiteboards in many others; an iPod project involving Year 2 students; links on the school's website to the schools own digital video archive KidsTube and links to SAM Radio podcasts produced by Year 5/6 students; these students also have comprehensive e-portfolios; and the ‘I learn u learn’ lunchtime program in which students provide ICT peer-coaching. The school is also well advanced in planning a digital storytelling program for 2009.

ICT leadership extends all the way through SAMPS from the principal to the students.


January 2009 of 66

Reflections on the first year of the Catalyst project

The question of pedagogy

In the interim Catalyst evaluation report, in commenting on school-based change strategies, the evaluation team pointed to the extensive array of tools that have become a part of the 21st century teacher’s repertoire and which can enable new modes of practice in relation to curriculum development, lesson planning and delivery, and professional learning. Such tools include standards and frameworks (e.g. VELS, PoLT), professional development continua and matrices (e.g. the ePotential Capabilities resource; the eLearning Planning resource for school leaders); and cognitive scaffolds and taxonomies (e.g. Six Hats, Bloom’s Taxonomy, and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences).

In this report we turn to the question of pedagogy: the ‘how’ of teaching which is at the core of the Catalyst project, and reflect on the availability of tools to enable pedagogical innovation. We argue that while teachers have a number of excellent tools with which to plan and implement lesson content and to organise learner activities, teachers do not systematically name and design the practices in which their students will engage in as learning, or ‘knowledge processes’. For example, while a teacher may organise students into literacy teams and assign each team member a role (eg ‘Character Captain’; ‘Discussion Director’; ‘Word Wizard’, ‘Summariser’) as a way of making reading a collaborative activity, or use the Habits of Mind as a framework to assist students to reflect on their learning, they may not be invoking an overall schema, or pedagogical metalanguage which can track the scope and depth of their students’ learning.

‘Pedagogy’ refers to teacher practices, and covers the many facets of these practices and their context including:

the ways in which teachers design their teaching;

the spaces in which teaching and learning takes place;

the modes of teacher-learner and learner-learner interaction;

the ways in which ideas are communicated and meaning is made.


January 2009 of 66

Pedagogies are commonly named according to three orientations. First, according to their orientation to the learner – as recipient of instruction (didactic pedagogy), or situated actor (progressivist pedagogies) or active meaning maker (constructivist pedagogy). Secondly, pedagogies are named for their orientation to stages in learner development, and to theories of cognitive development. Thirdly, they are named for their orientation to the ways in which teachers perform to engage learners in pedagogical activities.

While pedagogies are themselves historically and culturally located, they tend to approach ‘knowledge’ and ‘learner’ as if they are not similarly located, but instead universal in nature.

The starting point for the Multiliteracies pedagogical framework (Kalantzis and Cope 1996) is the notion that knowledge and meaning are historically and socially located and produced: that they are the products of ‘design’. The Multiliteracies pedagogy makes three claims about teaching and learning performance:

1. That diversity matters, and has an effect on learner engagement and transformation;

2. That meaning making through communication is increasingly multiple in a number of ways – in terms of languages, dialects etc. and in terms of modality. The advances in the new information and communications technologies make the visual, the aural, the spatial and the gestural as important as the linguistic mode of making meaning;

3. That the processes used to engage, harness and deploy pedagogy are the key to learner transformation. Pedagogy here is understood as knowledge processes, not just tasks and activities.

(Kalantzis and Cope 2004)

When it was first formulated in 1996, the Multiliteracies pedagogy focussed on four pedagogical elements, that is, four aspects of teacher performance: situated practice; overt instruction; critical framing; and transformed practice. These four elements are described as follows.

1. Situated practice

Situated practice has the learner immersed in authentic, real-life experiences; and promotes direct participation as an important means of learning. Typically a learner experience first-hand, and in embodied ways,


January 2009 of 66

how something looks, sounds, feels, smells, tastes and works. In this way the learner experiences their known world and new ideas, and is prompted to connect these new ideas to existing experiences and characteristics of their lifeworld. Learners are encouraged to make their own meaning; to collaborate, engage in dialogue and learn from and with colleagues and peers. Practical exercises, work experience, group work, field trips, workshops and excursions are characteristic of this pedagogical element.

2. Overt instruction

This element sees the teacher in the role of expert and mediator of expertise, directly instructing students about the names and/or meanings of things; how these things function, their roles and purposes; and the theories to which these things are related and make possible. Typically this pedagogy is practiced in a traditional classroom and in a teacher-centred mode. The textbook, printed guide and handbook are familiar pedagogical supports for overt instruction.

3. Critical framing

This element involves learners in questioning and analysing the significances, consequences and impacts of what they are learning – asking questions about cause and effect and consequence: ‘what will happen as a result of this?’ ‘who is affected by this and how?’ Learners are engaged in questioning, delving into matters, dialogue, discussion and debate about the meaning, purpose and effects of the ideas they are exploring. It is through use of the critical framing pedagogy that learners develop a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of study and its consequences.

4. Transformed practice

This element involves learners in demonstrating their understanding of what they have learned by presentations and applications of their learning, in reflective self assessment and in receiving guidance, critical advice and feedback from their teachers and peers. By designing-in these opportunities, the learning becomes part of the learners’ store of knowledge and know-how: anchored in their lived experience. This element is typified by coaching, mentoring, guiding and the provision of critical feedback by teachers, peers and expert others.


January 2009 of 66

Knowledge processes and Learning by Design

In 2006 the Multiliteracies pedagogy was reformulated and extended to foreground four fundamental ways of knowing - four processes through which meaning is made: experiencing; conceptualising; analysing and applying. Kalantzis and Cope called the mindful use of these four processes as learning-by-design.

Meaning-making in formal learning situations through pedagogical practice involves teachers in knowingly or unknowingly utilising some – but not necessarily, nor commonly – all of these knowledge processes. It is the contention of the Learning by Design pedagogy that the mindful, considered and explicit selection, use and documentation of these knowledge processes will result in more effective learning; and more effective reflection on learning. This is a process of ‘learning-by-design’ where the teacher becomes a reflective designer of learning experiences: a ‘teacher-as-designer’. In this process learning plans become shareable ‘designs-for-learning’; and learners are progressively provided with the meta-cognitive tools with which to name and understand their own learning. The following diagram illustrates the four main knowledge processes and two basic forms through which each process is articulated; mapped against the four elements of the multiliteracies pedagogy8.

Learning by Design: knowledge processes

8 Learning by Design with its four sets of knowledge processes is the pedagogy which the evaluation team has been working with and applying over the past three years through an ARC funded participative co-research project.


January 2009 of 66

Why is this important?

Pedagogy is important because it addresses the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of teaching and learning, complementing and enabling the ‘what’ of curriculum planning. We believe the Learning by Design pedagogy and its use of the knowledge processes is important because it provides a systematic expression of teaching and learning which enables teachers-as-designers to readily check that their designs for learning address an appropriate spectrum of meaning making and teaching and learning practices, and that they are not stuck in a busy-work pattern of situated practice where learners experience and re-experience known worlds and receive instruction in new concepts, without any analysis or opportunities to apply what they are learning. Learning by Design means that teachers draw on all eight knowledge processes and gradually expand their repertoires of practice.

Evidence from the Learning by Design ARC project also shows that this pedagogical approach encourages a collaborative approach to learning design and to the formation of a community of reflective, considered practitioners. Because Learning by Design names pedagogy as embodied practice (i.e. rather than as an orientation, or a theory of learning); and


January 2009 of 66

names pedagogical practice according to a systematic schema, it becomes a dialogical tool – enabling teachers to talk about their different plans and teaching experiences within a common framework and a shared pedagogical language.

One of the pre-workshop reflective exercises used during the ARC project had teachers (and in some cases their students) take photographs of three typical learning experiences in their classroom – responding to the prompt: ‘How do learners learn around here?’ In the workshop teachers were asked to respond to a series of meaning-making prompts in relation to each photo, such as: 'What kind of learning is going on? Please name and describe… What are the aims and purposes of this learning?' This activity was designed to ensure that teachers came to the workshop tuned-in to their own classroom practices and equipped – via their photographs – to share and discuss their pedagogical practices with colleagues.

At a subsequent workshop teachers worked in groups of four to six, using their photographs and a placemat version of the knowledge processes to map and discuss their existing pedagogical practices – how learners learn around here – captured, represented and preserved in their photos. The photographs and placemat functioned as both a heuristic and as dialogical tools prompting reflective conversations between peers.

The participants in this exercise reflected on, named and discussed what was happening in the photographs; referring these reflections to the knowledge processes, and mapping their photographs onto the relevant quadrant of the placemat. In this way a visual representation of the four teaching and learning settings was built up, and subjected to analysis,


January 2009 of 66

reflection and discussion – creating the conditions for professional engagement. Typically, teachers discovered that they were not addressing all of the knowledge processes or were heavily favouring one or two; and importantly these insights occurred in the safety of a non-judgmental peer setting. Some teachers recognised that they had not been offering their learners sufficient opportunities, or the tools with which, to critically reflect on their learning or to participate in its design.

The Learning by Design ARC project demonstrated that teachers become able to, and most often choose to change their pedagogical practices when they have been through a process of naming, reflecting on and discussing their current practices and teaching designs. This process is one of critical reflection and professional dialogue made possible by a language of pedagogical design. The insights gained in the role of practitioner-researcher and the dialogue which supports and enables this role, prepare teachers for a move into new pedagogical domains – armed with the vocabulary to name and articulate the directions they decide to pursue.

Why the Multiliteracies pedagogy and Learning by Design?

Our rationale for advocating this approach is that we have seen it contribute to pedagogical change in participating schools. In particular it has been seen to work as an effective pedagogy for elearning. Because the approach is based on teacher and learner practice, and because it is inclusive of a range of pedagogical processes, teachers can relate their own practices to the nomenclature of the pedagogy, and are readily engaged in dialogue. Moreover, because the Multiliteracies pedagogy is inclusive of other current and emerging pedagogical models, such as the Queensland Productive Pedagogies; the NSW Quality Teaching Framework; and the newly released E5 instructional framework, it can be regarded as an additional tool for teachers rather than simply a serial replacement for previous models.

This is why we regard the Multiliteracies pedagogy and Learning by Design as having potential for the Victorian PiL program. If the Catalyst project was to run for longer we would recommend that it be considered as a possible framework for promoting pedagogical change. However, in consideration of the time constraints on the current project we have instead highlighted the potential of Learning by Design as part of the longer term planning for PiL


January 2009 of 66

2.0, which is scheduled to commence in mid 2009. A recommendation to this effect is made at the conclusion of this report.

Engagement and action through professional dialogue

A significant feature of Catalyst during 2008 is the many conversations and professional discussions – dialogue – which the project has engendered: at the workshops; in the schools; between teachers and peer-coaches; between teachers and their colleagues; between peer-coaches and school-based project leaders; between peer-coaches, project leaders, departmental mentors and research coaches. It was in this dialogical milieu of conversation and discussion that reflections were provoked, insights emerged and the project took shape.

By dialogue we mean the kind of open-ended talk between people that leads to the respectful sharing and valuing of multiple perspectives and which results in a multi-faceted more complex understanding of a situation or phenomenon. The unfolding character of this type of understanding means that those involved in the dialogue feel no compulsion to arrive at once-and-for-all conclusions or closure. Instead it is the multi-faceted unfolding quality of the understanding which carries and sustains the dialogue. Therefore, any changes in thinking or practice which ensue from such understanding are both self-initiated, creating a strong sense of agency, and products of the dialogue. This conception of dialogue allows for more knowledgeable others to offer advice or to guide – in much the same way that Vygotsky conceived of in his ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ – and takes place in a shared and respectful context of mutual benefit.

Rather than regarding dialogue as just an incidental outcome of the project-design it is the evaluators view that professional dialogue offers developmental base for Catalyst to build on next year. This means deliberately foregrounding, scaffolding and imbuing engagement and action through discussion and dialogue into every facet of the project. It means providing multiple opportunities for talk and reflection – both scheduled and ad hoc. The evaluators believe it is very important that such talk is scheduled into the school timetable rather than left to chance. In this way


January 2009 of 66

professional dialogue can become part of the structure and firmament of practice, integral to school culture and ‘how we do things around here’.

A number of Catalyst schools, including St Albans Meadows, Dimboola and Silverton have recognised this need and scheduled time for regular professional discussion into their timetables. However as the Catalyst teams at St Albans and Dimboola in particular acknowledge, impromptu conversations ‘around the photocopier’ or ‘in the lunchroom’ have also made a significant contribution to the project; to the professional development of the teachers; and to the more productive relationships which developed between the teachers who were involved.

Dialogue, pedagogy and professional learning

Here we return to the theme of teacher-as-researcher, and the significance of the Catalyst project as both a research project and a professional learning program aiming to transform pedagogical practice. Teachers will not learn new pedagogical practices through professional learning programs based on overt instruction alone. The only truly effective and credible vehicle for learning about new pedagogical practices involves teachers directly experiencing those new pedagogical practices as learners. In this way the knowledge processes, their various affordances, impacts and outcomes are modelled and experienced first-hand. Like their students, teachers need to be able to engage in a full range of pedagogical practices and engage with all knowledge processes in order for new practices to become embedded.

It is worth noting that such dialogue will further deepen professional development if founded on a shared professional language composed of four separate but interconnected meta-languages: (1) a language of pedagogy, the ‘knowledge processes’ through which learning is activated and the tools which can be used to enact these processes; (2) a language of multimodalities or multiliteracies, through which different forms of learning and expression are catered for and afforded; (3) a language of socio-spatial-interpersonal relationships, through which the teacher can recognise, and design for, conditions which foster collaboration, teamwork and peer-supported learning; and (4) a language of practice-focused research through which teachers can explore their practice and its impact on students, gather


January 2009 of 66

evidence, and analyse and discuss this evidence with colleagues. The learning and combining of these meta-languages creates the conditions for a rich, rolling and unfolding dialogue between teachers and establishes a professional language of teaching practice which can be harnessed and which will support the design of more effective teaching sequences.


January 2009 of 66

Catalyst school case studies

The nine school case studies are presented separately as individual documents which should be regarded as drafts for consideration by each school.

Some data on action research and peer coaching outcomes during 2008 was not available to the evaluators at the time of writing. We recommend that the Catalyst schools be asked to review their own case study draft and offered the opportunity to comment, make amendments and add details based on current data and their own reflections of progress during 2008.

The following data has been used in assembling the case studies:

1. Background data from the school website and documents provided to the evaluation team;

2. Video records of interviews with school principals and peer coaches conducted in February 2008 during the first Catalyst workshop;

3. Action Learning Project proposals and peer coaching plans submitted to the eLearning Unit by each school;

4. School progress reports submitted to the eLearning Unit;

5. Discussions held between the evaluators and school principals and action research teams in Semester One and team visits in semester two.

6. Follow up phone calls towards the end of the year.


January 2009 of 66

Recommendations for Catalyst in 2009

1. Negotiate individual school programs

The nine Catalyst schools have made different rates of progress towards achieving their action research goals. There is also evidence that individual schools have adopted different orientations to research as a developmental tool. Some schools are becoming quite adept at collecting and analysing evidence, and using this process to inform their next steps. Others are just starting on this journey.

In the preceding section of this report we made interim assessments of the progress made by each school, grouping them as follows:

Four schools which are ready, with support from the eLearning Unit, to start sharing their professional learning with other schools:

Dimboola Memorial Secondary College; Dallas Primary School and Kindergarten; Silverton Primary School; and St Albans Primary School

Two schools which are heading in the right direction but need further work to progress their own leadership, research and professional learning arrangements next year before they will be in a position to share these with other schools.

Ocean Grove Primary School and Korumburra Secondary College

Needing a stock-take early in 2009 to assess progress.


Needing extra time and external support to tackle the question of innovation in pedagogy and elearning practice.

Doncaster Primary School

Effectively starting over in 2009, however from a more stable and solid base.

Wangaratta High School

Given the different stages represented by this analysis, we recommend that individual school programs are negotiated for 2009, and that those schools which are moving to share their experiences early in the year also participate in a special workshop program in which they compare and share approaches, and pool resources where appropriate.


January 2009 of 66


January 2009 of 66

2. Reinvigorate the critical friend strategy

By and large the Catalyst schools did not take up the critical friend strategy during 2008. However it is the evaluators’ view that the strategy should not be abandoned. At present there does not seem to be a widespread awareness amongst schools of the benefits of such relationships, and the motivation and supporting structures necessary to establish and maintain them are largely absent.

The first workshop in 2009 could include activities designed to critically reflect on the strategy and identify ways in which each school can foster and build these relationships. It may also be useful to precede the workshop with some targeted critical friend pairings within the Catalyst group of schools (see below), as well as asking Catalyst schools to think about possible critical friend schools in their cluster/region.

If the critical friend strategy is to succeed in 2009 it will need to be supported structurally via regular scheduled sessions between the critical friend pairs, with the early sessions scaffolded by provision of reflective questions or prompts. These sessions could be scheduled once or twice per term with the aim being for schools to share ideas and discuss progress and gradually establish productive professional dialogues. The evaluation team believe that it is through such initiatives that the significance and value of critical friend feedback and engagement will become apparent and eventually self-sustaining.

3. Negotiate targeted critical friend relationships

Given the widespread support that inter-school visits have received; the fact that the Catalyst schools have had time to get to know each other; and the different rates of progress made by the nine schools during 2008, we believe that there is potential in targeting pairs of Catalyst schools as critical friends, with one school also taking on a mentoring role. On the basis of our discussions with Catalyst schools, and observations of relationships formed during 2008 workshops and interschool visits, we would suggest the following critical friend relationships could be readily facilitated in 2009:


January 2009 of 66

1. Dimboola Memorial Secondary College with Korumburra Secondary College

2. Dallas Primary School and Kindergarten with St Albans Meadows Primary School

3. Silverton Primary School with Ocean Grove Primary School.

There are other critical friend arrangements which have potential:

Pairing Dimboola Memorial Secondary College with Wangaratta High School, or inviting Wangaratta to join the Dimboola/Korumburra relationship to create a three-way relationship.

Offering Doncaster Gardens the opportunity to join Silverton and Ocean Grove in a three-way relationship.

Establishing a critical friend relationship between Bendigo Senior Secondary College and Wangaratta High School.

Finalisation of the configuration of these targeted critical friend relationships is a job for the eLearning Unit, in which the evaluation team is happy to assist as required. In all cases we would recommend that the facilitative role of the eLearning Unit in setting up the relationships be kept fairly low-key, so that schools can take the lead and approach each other. If the eLearning Unit decides to go with the first three suggested pairs above, a phone call to each school to suggest the critical friend relationships should be sufficient. If this is the case we further suggest that these relationships are established first, and the other options outlined above then considered, so that all schools which wish to are included in a critical friend relationship are progressively incorporated into the scheme.

4. The role of professional dialogue

(a) To promote the Catalyst community

All Catalyst schools have commented favourably on the workshops held during 2008. Support for the workshops has been explained in terms of the relevance of the structured activities to the issues being addressed by the schools, but also, and perhaps to a greater extent, because the workshops offered opportunities for cross-school communication, sharing of experiences and dialogue about matters of common interest. The evaluation


January 2009 of 66

team recommends that a workshop be planned for early in the year and that the program be focused on professional dialogues (in small groups and as a plenary group) about experiences and outcomes from 2008, and key Catalyst topics which may include:

Strategies to facilitate reflective practice (including use of ePotential and PoLT surveys as reflective instruments);

Options for documenting practice and outcomes; and

How to turn data into evidence.

The workshop may also provide an opportunity to put the issue of reporting (see (b) below) on the table, and to seek input from schools on the most effective ways to create an audit trail for each participating school which is useful to the school as well as to the eLearning Unit.

(b) As a monitoring and reporting strategy

There has been a distinct lack of interest in, and responsiveness to, the idea of monthly reporting, whether in ‘traffic light’ or ‘PMI’ form, and for the most part reporting was spasmodic. It has become apparent, through talking with Catalyst teams, that this is a consequence of a perception that progress reporting is solely an ‘administrative requirement’– something that ‘the department’ needs to do to account for project outcomes. Schools, for the most part, have been unable to see any professional or developmental benefit in report writing and the reports have seldom been used as a stimulus for reflection and/or a possible source of insights.

Clearly there is a need for reporting in a form that enables progress of individual schools and the project as a whole to be monitored, and efforts should be made to ensure that this accountability requirement also plays a positive part in the project by identifying issues as they emerge and facilitating successful interventions and encouraging two-way communication between schools and the eLearning Unit9. The evaluation team suggests that this form of one-way reporting and follow-up comments is replaced with a professional dialogue which will result in a record of project progress being assembled as an outcome of the dialogue, and also 9 The evaluation team notes that such two-way communication has been attempted by the eLearning Unit, through written comments on plans and reports as schools submitted drafts, plus follow-up phone conversations. However, for reasons that have not been clearly explained – and which need to be discussed with schools, this interaction has not been widely perceived as communication, but rather as one-way monitoring.


January 2009 of 66

allow for timely and informed interventions. While this dialogical approach will initially mean more work for the elearning Unit, we think it will pay off in the form of higher quality regular reporting and a reduction in the time taken to follow up on missing reports. The approach may involve the following:

Allocation of schools to eLearning Unit mentors (as has been done in 2008 to manage school visits);

Regular telephone conversations, at least once per month, between the Catalyst team leader and eLearning Unit mentor, where the mentor takes notes and emails these to the team leader for confirmation, and subsequent use with their team in reflecting on progress; and

eLearning Unit mentors to visit the school at least once per term and meet with the whole Catalyst team. The agenda for the meeting to be guided by the needs, interests and concerns expressed by the Catalyst team members, while also following the outline of the school’s action plan and planned initiatives, and offering feedback and advice. If resources (including time for review and transcription) permit, this meeting should be audio recorded. If not then both the elearning mentor and a nominated team member should take notes to be written up and made available to the school as well as being used as part of the overall monitoring process.

Perhaps the most significant benefit of such a dialogue-driven approach – where collaborative conversation and discussion imbue every aspect of Catalyst from the workshops to the peer-coaching, to the project team meetings, to the critical friend relationships, to the departmental mentoring and reporting – would be the regular foregrounding of the project as a vehicle for reflection and professional development, which should ensure an even, more sustained involvement in the project.

In making this recommendation we are aware of staffing constraints that will be faced by the eLearning Unit in the first half of 2009. If numbers are severely depleted then a modified approach will need to be canvassed, and consideration given to assigning lead roles to selected schools in coordinating a dialogue based strategies to monitor project progress and support schools.


January 2009 of 66

The contribution of Catalyst to PiL 2.0

Introducing a pedagogical change model

In view of the limited time remaining for the Catalyst project in 2009 it would be inappropriate to launch into a major pedagogical change model such as the Learning by Design (LbyD) framework discussed in a previous section of this report. However we believe that our findings in relation to pedagogical change may be relevant to the next stage of the PiL 2.0 project. For example: LbyD could be used to reframe the enabling relationship between ICT and pedagogy. In the rationale for Catalyst the emphasis is on ICT as an enabler of pedagogical innovation to support the effective implementation of VELS. Framed as a question this is something like:

How can we use ICT to change the way we teach and the spaces/arrangements through which our students learn?

If this enabling relationship is reversed, the Catalyst project could see teachers exploring how appropriate pedagogy can be an enabler for the effective use of ICT to implement VELS priorities. This generates the following questions:

Do we have a pedagogical framework which ensures that ICT is being used to support deep learning capable of enabling learners to manage themselves and their relations with others; understand the world and act effectively in that world?

How do we use that pedagogical framework to design learning which incorporates appropriate ICT applications and to make our designs explicit to ourselves and our students?

Testing this option

On the basis of current information about PiL 2.0, it appears that each state/territory will select one or maybe two schools10 to be part of a national network of PiL Innovative Schools. If this is the case, and the eLearning Unit decides to test the relevance of the pedagogical change model, a pedagogy workshop (along the lines of the SparkL project) could be organised for the selected school(s).

10 The notes of the September PiL 2.0 planning meeting suggest that the first round of Innovative schools would be selected by the end of March 2009, and there was a suggestion that Victoria, Queensland, SA and NSW might select two schools.


January 2009 of 66

The evaluation team suggests that this be the subject of further discussions once the 2009 Catalyst project is underway.


January 2009 of 66

Attachments

Attachment One: Overview of Catalyst school projectsRegion and school

Action Learning Research focus Peer coaching plan

Barwon South West Region Ocean Grove Primary School

Assisting students to develop lifelong learning dispositions through use of ICT to enhance student reflection in numeracy to guide their future learning; and enable students to develop a better understanding of themselves as a learner of numeracy and become more independent learners

Initially peer coaches will work with teachers who have recently acquired interactive white boards and involved in the action research to technically ‘skill up’. The focus will then move to teaching and learning. A one to one coaching approach is planned with teachers from a range of levels.

Eastern RegionDoncaster Gardens Primary School

Using ICT to increase students’ capacities to communicate and participate effectively in the communities in which they live now, and will live in the future. Key focus on role of ICT in enhancing the development of contemporary literacies within the classroom and identifying those beyond the classroom with whom the students may safely communicate and collaborate in worthwhile learning experiences.

The peer coaches’ role is to assist and support the classroom teachers to develop the use of ICT in their classrooms across a range of curriculum areas. Two peer coaches will each work with two teachers. Two hours per week (one hour for classroom teaching and observation, and one hour for reflection, evaluation and planning of the next session) will be timetabled for six weeks for the initial peer coaching project.

Gippsland Region Korumburra Secondary College

How to use ICT to improve student motivation.The research project will use student feedback as a starting point for rethinking curriculum practice and working out what role ICT may play.

The peer coach will meet with each of the 4 – 6 teachers each week to review ideas, share new understandings and develop new techniques to improve student motivation. The coach may also team teach with the classroom teacher.

Grampians RegionDimboola Memorial Secondary College

Creating a collaborative learning environment to improve literacy and numeracy learning. Focus on development of new learning relationships in an environment where communicating and collaborating effectively is emphasized and encouraged. Key questions: Does the use of ICT in a group environment enhance their application in the classroom? How have other schools effectively integrated a team teaching approach into their curriculum?

Peer coaches will operate across the staff to identify staff with greatest need including new staff and teachers of new initiatives. Initially, the target will be a group of seven staff involved in a Literacy and Numeracy focus initiative which is part of the ALR. Peer coaches will work with small groups (2/3), bringing these together to share ideas and progress as part of a larger group to foster the Critical Friend Program. ePotential survey results will be used to focus and steer peer coaching discussions.

Hume Region Wangaratta High School

Using ICT tools to promote independent learning and to help students to develop the ability to think and work creatively. Improving our teaching pedagogy and practice using ICT to develop independence in our students

Peer coached will work with small teams of year 7 staff (3 in a team) both independently and as a team, to develop and implement strategies to foster independent learning with groups of year 7 students; share knowledge gained with eLearning Mentors to enable them to use the peer


January 2009 of 66

Region and school


coaching process when appropriate; share knowledge of the Peer Coaching Process within the wider school community.

Loddon Mallee Region Bendigo Senior Secondary College

Exploring ways to use ICT to build the learning culture of every classroom. Using ICT to enable students to explore, experiment with and develop deeper levels of thinking in order to create new knowledge.

Peer coaches will lead the Action Research and train other members of the Learning and Teaching Innovations Team to become Peer Coaches whose role will include observing classes, collecting evidence, reporting back on ALR, ICT training and providing support. Peer Coaches will primarily work with small teams within subject areas to plan units of work and suggest ways in which ICT could be used to promote learning outcomes. They may also work with teams made up of different curriculum areas, and with individual teachers.

Northern Region Dallas Primary School and Kindergarten

Working within the Broadmeadows Regeneration Project which will bring fourteen schools together to form five new entities to introduce personalised learning a negotiated curriculum and develop the pedagogical understandings needed to support personalised learning.

Through peer coaching, it is hoped that students in the grade 2/3/4 team will be able to begin to select, negotiate and manage their own ICT tasks based on concepts / topics being covered and BIG ideas. Peer coach will (a) work with area teams over the year to ensure consistency of ICT integration; (b) work in the grade 2/3/4 classrooms on a one-to-one basis to assess how teachers are using ICT in their classrooms and identify their own personal ICT needs (ePotential ICT Capabilities); (c) work with individual teachers on developing a Literacy or Numeracy activity or project to integrate. Teachers will set individual goals for personal professional development. Peer Coach and the Catalyst team will facilitate forums where staff will be able to showcase and share their knowledge, skills and successes.

Southern Region Silverton Primary School

Research question: How do we develop Multimodal Literacies (MML) across the curriculum? Focus questions: What are MMLs? How do we implement MMLs into our curriculum planning? Can we find examples of MML use in classrooms?

Peer Coaches, who are members of the Action Learning Research team will reinforce the ideas and research being implemented by the ALR team members across their team levels and support teachers to implement new ideas as classroom practice.

Western Region St Albans Meadows Primary School

How can ICT be integral in establishing and sustaining a learning environment supportive of personalized/independent learning in grades 5&6?The focus questions are:What are we already doing to support a personalized/independent learning environment in Grades 5/6?

Aim is to extend the lived experience of an active and engaged learning community to as many teachers as practicable. Initially, the Peer Coach will work with 2 coachees identified through a process of ‘intentional invitation’. Coaching will be 1:1 and will include the non participant coachee in the role of observer. In addition, the coach will work with teachers across the school to address curriculum, ICT, support and


January 2009 of 66

Region and school


Who would be worth connecting and collaborating with?How is it possible for both teachers and students to ‘develop and be helped to develop capacities for taking risks, dealing with change, and undertaking inquiries when new demands and novel problems repeatedly confront them.’ (Hargreaves 2003, 27)How is it possible to provide a learning environment that best addresses knowing how, who and why?How is it possible to provide a learning environment tailored to the fomenting those skills and attributes necessary for a changing and increasingly digital world?

succession needs. The model will be evaluated to assess its relevance for application from P-6, both within the classroom and to meet specialist and special needs.


January 2009 of 66

Attachment Two: Summary of semester one school reportsRegion and school

April progress report May progress report June progress report


Issues:Data collection not ‘going well’-this is delaying coachingUncertainties:What is the ‘right’ data to collect?Are we on track?Critical friend-who and how?

Issues:It’s report writing time – everybody’s head space is in a different place. Stopped coaching plans until reports out of the way – still talking, thinking and meeting – just lower key for now.Under prepared ….not definitive direction for teamMeetings that revolve around ‘chats’ – set better/more formal agendas and clear outcomes with dates for completion etcUncertainties:Teacher data – who would be the right person to interview teachers involved? Someone they feel more comfortable with? As I am recently returned to the school there are a few catalyst teachers that don’t know me that well and vice versa – does this matter…..is this the best scenario for effective interviews? Working with team looking at planning documents – analyse to focus on change or simply collect as base line data for starters?


Issues: Finding time for coachingDeadlines and meetings are clashing with commitments that were in place prior to the Catylst projectUncertainties:How do we analyse the ePotential data?What will be the form of the journals, reflection blogs and evaluations?


January 2009 of 66

Region and school


What will happen after the initial peer coaching has been completed?


Issues:Technical issuesTime – 2 days not enoughUncertainties:How will INTEL fit into the program?Transition to semester 2 – same or new group of teachers?

No issuesUncertainties:Will we get 10 teachers to be involved in INTEL?

IssuesThe Intel training! I am at least 3 weeks behind. Hopefully I will get some time (maybe a whole day) in the semester transition/ reporting time later this week and next week to devote to this.Uncertainties:Who will volunteer for next semester? (I have already flagged the possibilities in last week’s staff bulletin.) How many will volunteer? Not 13 again!What modifications will we make to the program next semester. Tonight’s PLT should provide some direction here.

Grampians RegionDimboola Memorial Secondary CollegeHume Region Wangaratta High School

Issues:Added workload - timeNeed more visible presence, in-school PRCompeting demands - time Uncertainties:Using social-network tools for e-portfoliosHow to make better use of staff timeHow to accurately measure progressHow to document results


January 2009 of 66

Region and school


Ask Dept about a research mentor


Issues: no meeting space; lack of resources (posters, key quotes etc); some staff set in their wayslack of interest for lunchtime staff info sessions on skype etc.Uncertainties:How to increase staff interest; How to promote a purposeful approach to the use of ICT; Webpage as a common site to facilitate communication


Issues:Time to meet, may need adjust timetableUncertainties:Technical issue – One Note to plan-track; Review planning documentation so ICT is incorporatedStruggling to include partner schools


Issues:Time to meet – hard to find a time that suits all grade levelsA lot going on!Uncertainties:Next steps in creating an action planHow to collect data from staff and team before we continue

Issues:Time to meet: It’s hard for all of us to meet as we can’t use sub school meeting times, the team is made up of every level. There are a lot of things happening at Silverton at the moment.Uncertainties:We need to finish our visual diagram of what we believe Multimodal Literacies are and present this to staff. If other teachers jump on board with some of our ideas.


January 2009 of 66

Region and school


Make sure we collect work samples and record our / teachers observations when implementing the activities next term.Involve the students - maybe by having a focus group and evaluating at the end of the term.



January 2009 of 66

Attachment three: Summary of semester two school reports Region and school

August progress report September progress report End of year report summary


The structured coaching is beginning to work with better overall understanding between coaches and coachees who are now team teaching with good results. Consequently the goals concerning ICTs for maths are being addressed.

The AR day in Melbourne in August was viewed as ‘extremely helpful for reassessing where we are and where to next’. In an reinvigorated coaching program, the coachees ‘are seeing the value in comprehensive planning’. The inter-school visits funded by Catalyst were viewed as ‘morale boosting’.

The staff at OGPS have made significant steps in identifying the learning needs concerning the use of ICTs. According to principal Lindy Judd, in order to capitalise on the new learning and teaching environment the OGPS now requires a whole school pedagogical intervention in order to address the potential for ICTs in the classroom.


The peer coaching is proceeding well for both coaches and coachees who are able to share ideas and plan together. Staff benefit from the Catylst project by ‘Having time to plan together and discuss what worked and what didn’t.’ Staff at DGPS have noticed an increase in student engagement.

Emerging from the new ICT needs is the schools eLearning plan. It situates 7 ICT leaders (along with 7 literacy and 7 numeracy leadership positions) with responsibility for the incorporation of ICT within the each grade level of the school. These leaders will report directly to Jan and Sue. Another output of the Catalyst project is the planning of an ICT conference at the school on the first curriculum day of 2009.


Semester 1 review completed and semester 2 has started well with 7 teachers being coached, and all domains represented in the program Peer coach completed Intel training. Two issues: teachers seem to have less time for coaching, and there has been a slow response to a proposal to extend Catalyst benefits throughout the Sth Gippsland cluster.

Acceptance by the school of the peer coaching model which will be broadly applied in 2009. Teacher reflections show indications of improved student attitudes.Much improved ePotential results for the teachers involved in Catalyst.Intel program to go ahead in term 1, 2009.2009 Peer coaching plan progressing well – two 2008 coachees will become informal coaches. Catalyst coordinator will work with 4 science teachers and two of the 2008 coachees. Uncertainty about Intel numbers for 2009. The face-to-face component has been reduced to 1 day, plus 5 after-school 1 hour sessions.


January 2009 of 66

Region and school


Grampians RegionDimboola Memorial Secondary College

Dimboola Memorial Secondary College did not present progress reports, however the Catalyst team has constructed a web-page which is regularly updated with reports on activities – see case Study report for details.

Hume Region Wangaratta High School

Wangaratta High School submitted a draft ePotential report in December 2008, however little data was included


Considerable number of positive outcomes were reported:o Working with interested staff and

having staff willing to come on boardo Working with the Ultranet Coach one

day per weeko The Leading Professional Learning

Project offering tailored PL has been used by many teachers as an opportunity to see how other teachers were using ICT in real practice. In this way the project has provided staff with networking opportunities across different learning areas. Certificates have been provided and afternoon teas hosted to recognise staff efforts and commitment.

o An eLearning section of the Parent Newsletter has been started with positive feedback received already by a very interested parent.


January 2009 of 66

Region and school


o Participation in KBNG Web20 Projecto Continual working with Learning Area

Leaders to determine gaps in Learning Areas and ICT integration.

There were two issues reported:o Mini ICT sessions held after school or

during lunchtime were not taken on board by many staff and a decision was taken to discontinue.

o Difficulties following up with teaching teams after team based external PD


Discussions focused on developing a shared understanding and common language. Central question is about what skills need to be mastered in order for personalised learning to be implemented. Data collection includes ePotential data, teacher priorities for PD; teacher multimedia presentations on ICT successes.Peer coaching is going well and participation rates in both internal and external PD have been excellent. The fortnightly ICT PD/Share sessions continue to be an effective forum for disseminating and sharing of information and skills. All areas of the school are participating in, or about to participate in an ICT based project (including the kindergarten).Issues include competing priorities when Catalyst coordinator became acting principal for most of term 2.

Many positives reported:Skilling up teachers and students; engaging students; sharing expertise, knowledge and skills; learning from and with staff and students; modelling classes to staff; Engaging students; Inspiring staff and students and noticing staff growth in confidence and skills over the yearOpportunities for discovery learning and exposure to new learning technologies – flip videos, classmates, IWBs, flip videos, classmates, laptops, web cams, headphones (with microphones), digital cameras, video cameras. Seeing ICT as an enabler… integrated into the program to support learning;.Only issues reported were to do with time and scheduling. Initial uncertainties have been overcome.Observation re opportunity for all coaches to meet with Maureen or Rita to go through in depth expectations and process: The initial meeting was great… just would have been nice to meet as a


January 2009 of 66

Region and school


Disappointing results on PoLT regarding student autonomy. Delay in implementing digital portfolios with grades 5&6. Uncertainties and challenges – how to encourage teachers to hand over some control of ICT decision making to students

group, form a support network to share what we’re doing and how we’re going.


Teachers ICT skills and self esteem have increased, and ICT use has extended (e.g. now being used in Visual Arts and Dance) and is becoming embedded into the curriculum planning. Teachers are sharing resources and expertise, taking risks and reflecting on current practiceTeachers report that students’ engagement increasing in certain classes and learning outcomes especially in ICT improving.Some issues including time, timetabling, staff changes, and extra load on coaches. Notes of interest: informal Peer Coaching occurs every time we have Internal ICT Professional Development; and team planning is also an informal way for ICT Peer Coaching to become embedded into our planning documents.

Leadership skills developing and evidence of increase in staff ICT skills and knowledge, and uptake of team teaching and ICT planning embedded in the classroom and being used as needed by students. Issues continue as per August report.Note of interest: coaching in planning – which is more important for the school; question of how can this be used in the classroom.

Positives continue as do issues. Coach is stressed by having to be out of her class for 3 hours per week (even though this time is covered by CRT. Positive outcomes: All planning documents have ICT embedded in their programs. ICT is used as a vital learning tool and resources are available when needed by students.Teachers are now asking questions such as ‘What does the classroom environment look like?’ ‘How can I do this activity differently by using ICT? Give students an activity and let them decide what learning tool to use? Evidence of changes visible via observations in all learning centres; Planning documents; POLT student data; epotential Data; Work samples; ICT VELS levels


Good support from school ‘Catalyst’ team with sharing of resources and time set aside for reflection/discussion, not after school. Staff have been free to explore various uses of ICT have been willing to deeply reflect on what they do and why they do it. A positive outcome has been

The positives reported in August have been sustained and the issue of misunderstanding of the program has been addressed. Plans are underway for 2009 The program be supported at the school level through ongoing dialogue between the leadership group and staff to facilitate the necessary structural changes, resourcing, and time


January 2009 of 66

Region and school


seeing the growth in teachers and their understanding of how and why to effectively use ICT. The only negatives have been some misunderstanding of what the Catalyst program is and some disruptions to program (staff away, ‘special’ days, etc)We are now asking whether the changes seen in the teachers approach to ICT can be sustained and how to provide appropriate professional learning for peer coaches.

for innovation, learning, planning and reflection.

draft chapter one jan 2001 -...

Documents