Reshaping the curriculum to enhance student outcomes

Ms Christine Meharg Magdalene Catholic High School Narellan, NSW, Australia

The setting

The high school described in this paper is located in an outer Sydney, south-western metropolitan area that caters for approximately 950 students. As part of the building program for the school, the principal has provided some initiatives that are aimed at delivering better educational outcomes for students.

Three initiatives are the creation of a large open learning space equal to five classrooms. We also decided to use mobile laptop trolleys rather than computer rooms and we equipped all teachers with a laptop, each so as to improve their understanding of the tool. This will ensure that when the school introduces a one-to-one student laptop program in 2008, the staff will able to use laptops effectively.

The big driving force currently at this school is the performance of students in the external assessments of the NSW Higher School Certificate exams and the NSW School Certificate tests. These two tools, as well as the De Courcey Analysis, an analytical measure, provide a vast body of information that is useful in the review of the core business of education - the teaching-learning cycle - and the way that the curriculum is interpreted at this site. This information has highlighted the need to reflect on, as Glickman states, ‘The curriculum or what is taught, the teaching methods or how it is taught and diagnostic assessment’ (Glickman 2002). Student learning is influenced by these three elements directly and they are at the heart of the daily teaching routine.

The use of this data has allowed for some distinct curriculum issues to be identified and have been translated into action at the workplace.

Developing an effective curriculum

1. Stage 4 and Stage 5 Geography, based on quality teaching principles (what to teach). After I attended a professional development event, which included a brief session on the element of deep learning, I decided to review the geography curriculum as it was delivered at my school. This required the model being explained to the Key Learning Area (KLA) team, drafting a basic plan of what this new program would look like so people could make their own connections, and then forming a team to work on the new program. The quality teaching model is intended to ‘focus attention on the work of the school, so as to improve teaching practice and hence improve student learning outcomes’ (DEET, 200:3) The framework focuses on three dimensions:

• intellectual quality
• a quality learning environment
• pedagogy that makes significance of what the students learn.

The element of intellectual quality can be further broken down into six elements. It was three of these elements that were to be the focus for the initiatives of the KLA team to bring about a change in student learning experiences. The three elements of focus include:

• deep knowledge
• deep understanding
• problematic knowledge.

Taking the view that building on knowledge (Hirsch 2001) will lead a student to experience a deeper knowledge and understanding, the KLA team was able to find situations to make this explicit in the geography curriculum. Up to this time, this was not the case: each year was treated as an isolated unit, with no connectedness between the years occurring.

A main contributing factor to this lack of continuity was the non-involvement of Stage 5 teachers in the teaching of the Stage 4 Geography course.

In order for the students studying Geography to experience this interconnectedness, and to experience deep learning and understanding, a rethink about the way that the Geography course was structured and delivered had to take place. The outcome of this reflection was a rearrangement and rewrite of the Stage 4 Geography syllabus, with direct links to the Stage 5 Geography course occurring. Now, year 8 students deal with coastal environments, year 9 students study coastal communities and year 10s explore coastal management. Deep knowledge was able to be accommodated.

The outcomes of this explicit link to the quality teaching model include:

• saving time not having to teach coastal processes in year 10
• students being more confident with their learning, as they were building on prior knowledge
• time saved, allowing for greater concentration on exam skills, literacy and numeracy skills
• Hopefully, stronger HSC and SC results, as well as improved learning outcomes for the students.

2. Implementing team teaching in a high school environment (how to teach it). The principal built a new block and took the dividing walls out of it to create a large open teaching space equivalent to the size of five classrooms. At the end of 2005, the timetable team asked if any KLAs would be prepared to have classes allocated to this space. When reviewing the timetable, there were two opportunities for the Human Society and Its Environment (HSIE) KLA team to have multiple classes of the same cohort allocated into this large space. The two cohorts included five classes of year 7 and four classes of year 9.

One element of the cycle is the way teachers teach. High schools are arenas of specialist subject teachers who practice a ‘closed door policy’ (Glickman 2002) when it comes to the classroom. Yet in the current education environment, there is a need to have a more open door approach. The closed door prevents others learning new ways to teach and reflect on their own practice. In effect, it prevents teachers from learning how to improve their own teaching.

One strategy to improve the quality of teaching is to provide opportunities for teachers to work together, in effect to create a learning community (Le Cornu & Peters 2005). With the use of team teaching, people are able to plan together, teach together and evaluate together. They are exposed to a greater range of experiences – both good and bad and are able to reflect on their own classroom practices and hence improve the quality of experiences for the students (Glickman 2002).

During 2006, the faculty was able to ‘experiment’ with a team teaching situation. What we expect of our students, to work in teams, was finally part of the teaching agenda, as to work in teams is a desirable skill (Dede 2000). This move also enabled students to be with peers, as well, in ‘like ability’ groupings (Harrison 2004). The idea stemmed from a request to utilise a large open space in the school that is the equivalent of five classroom spaces.

The challenges

The staff of the KLA were not consulted about this allocation. Instead, they were thrown into this new, challenging environment. On a ‘wing and a prayer’ they had to work closely together, each fortnight, in front of each other for the first time, with no closed doors.

What happened was a testament to the preparedness of the teachers to be a part of this journey. Ultimately, it created an opportunity for the team to solve problems together (Le Cornu & Peters 2005), it enabled different teachers to take responsibility for planning, presentation, and direct a range of different experiences for the students, with the support of extensive ICT.

The more confident or experienced team members went first, modelling the new practice to the rest of the team. The learning started immediately in a supportive environment.

Why was it significant?

This ‘experiment’ provided many learning gains. In particular, it enhanced the trust and sense of importance of each member of the team (Tomlinson 2004). It also aided in delivering opportunities for some peer critiquing to take place. (Glickman 2002).

It enabled a higher level of professional reflection to take place immediately after the learning experience event, and a greater level of trust to grow amongst the staff.
It also became a way to change the pedagogy existing within in the KLA, and changed the ‘closed doors ethos of the school. This practice has undoubtedly improved teaching practice, and this will onto improved learning gains for the students.

The new model also helped to model good practice among the team in a non-threatening way. Procedures were refined, dialogue was increased between staff and students, there was increased professional discussion about practice, and students were given the chance to work outside the usual classroom arrangements (they could pick to work with their friends from other classes or were placed in ability grouping levels) (Harrison 2004).

This pedagogical practice continues in 2007 in year 8 and year 9. The process is more successful this year because of the learning gained by the teachers last year.

3. Using ICT to deliver cutting edge pedagogy (how to teach). Computers are here to stay. To prepare students for the world ahead of them, many schools have well developed ICT plans (Dede 2000). My school announced that a one-to-one laptop program, is to be implemented in 2008. Many staff take the view that ICT is a tool, and its inclusion ‘remains a contentious point’ (Reynolds, Treharne, Tripp 2003). Also, many teachers ‘fear change’ (Watson 2001).

To support the staff in accepting this new venture, and to create confidence, each staff member has been given a laptop, from 2007. The aim is to ensure that all are comfortable with the tool and will use it in 2007 to improve their pedagogical skills. This simple plan is ‘reshaping the way that teachers teach and the skills that students learn’ (Dede 2000). If students are to be prepared for the uncertain world ahead of them, it is important for their teachers to master new ICT tools now.

Why is it significant?

Not many schools in NSW can boast of having a one-to-one laptop program. The principal has been very innovative in taking this leap, as all NSW Board of Studies syllabus have ICT imbedded into them. Therefore, for teachers to be delivering the curriculum, they must incorporate specific technology elements. Yet many teachers are not as supportive of this as they might be (Reynolds, Treharne, Tripp 2003). So, by equipping the staff with this technology, it should provide opportunities for them to overcome their feelings towards it.

Again, by engaging students differently, teachers have a unique opportunity to provide students with elements from the quality teacher model (DEET, 2003): that of real life connectedness and quality learning environments. However, it is vital for the ICT coordinator to show links with the curriculum, rather than just focus on the hardware side of ICT. If they are able to show the ‘blockers’ how the computer can be used to effectively stimulate students, rather than just providing opportunities for smaller tasks, such as editing (Dede 2000), then ICT will be integrated more fully, leaving students to focus on higher order thinking activities.

Outcomes

The teachers have been very positive of the opportunity they have been given, although it has been a very steep learning curve. Yet it is interesting to observe the rate of use of the laptops amongst the staff. Many set up the laptop each day, check their mail and create documents.

If teachers know how to use the laptop effectively, then they will be able to lead change in pedagogy and create an environment that is truly rich for the students.

Conclusion

All of these measures are aimed at improving the learning outcomes of our students. They focus on changing the teacher, and the way he or she thinks about curriculum and pedagogy. By improving these areas, there should be an improvement in the performances of the students in external measures, such as the HSC and the SC. The question to ask is how long a time lag will there be between the initiatives and the gains demonstrated in the external assessments.

References

Deed, C (2000). ‘Emerging influences of information technology on school curriculum’. In Journal of curriculum studies. 32 (2) pp. 281-303.
Glickman, C (2002). Leadership for learning. Alexandria, Va: ASCD.
Hirsch, ED Jr (2001). ‘Seeking breadth and depth in the curriculum: Why broad knowledge of selected topics is the best entree to deep knowledge of many more’. In Educational leadership. 59 (2) pp. 22-25.
NSW Department of Education and Training (2003). ‘Quality Teaching in NSW public schools’. Discussion paper. Sydney: Professional Support and Curriculum Directorate.
Tomlinson, CA (2004). ‘Sharing responsibility for differentiation instruction’. In Roeper review. 26 (4). pp.188–189.
Watson, D (2001). ‘Pedagogy before technology: rethinking the relationship between ICT and teaching’. In Education and information technologies. 6 (4), pp.251-266.
Harrison, Matthew, Waters, James (2004). ‘Vertical timetabling in year 4 mathematics: teachers’ reflections and perceptions’ in McWilliam, Erica and Danby, Sue and
Knight, John, eds. Performing educational research. pp.151-169. Post Pressed Flaxton, Queensland. See: eprints.qut.edu.au.ezproxy.uow.edu.au:2048
Le Cornu. R & Peters, J (2005). ‘Towards constructivist classrooms: the role of the reflective teacher’. In Journal of educational enquiry. vol. 6, No.1 2005. School of Education, University of South Australia.
See: www.literacy.unisa.edu.au.ezproxy.uow.edu.au:2048
Silins, H, Zarins, S and Mulford, B (2002). ‘What characteristics and processes define a school as a learning organisation? Is this a useful concept to apply to schools?’ In International education journal. Vol. 3, No. 1, 2002. See: ehlt.flinders.edu.au.ezproxy.uow.edu.au:2048
Stein, S, Campbell, J and Ginns, I (1998). ‘Introducing technology education: using teachers’ questions as a platform for professional development’. Centre for Mathematics and Science Education, University of Queensland. Paper presented at the Annual conference of Australian Association for Research in Education.
See: www.aare.edu.au.ezproxy.uow.edu.au:2048
Fogarty, T (2006). ‘Thinking to learn’. In Geography bulletin. Summer, NSW. See:
search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.uow.edu.au:2048