Aims, objectives and research questions
Introduction
Linwood College is an urban, co-educational, decile 2 school with a roll of 880 students from Years 9–13. Its student population is diverse in many ways: culture, race, academic ability, attitude to schooling, home socioeconomic status, personality and personal interests, and ability to cope with instructional English. In terms of ethnicity, the students are predominantly European New Zealanders, Mäori, and Pasifika. The school also has international students from Asia, South and North America, Africa, and Europe.
The college delivers a broad curriculum, inline with national requirements, and caters for students across the academic and social spectra.
In its strategic vision and its policy statements the school is committed to embrace and celebrate aspects of diversity. At the same time, staff wrestle with pressures that often appear to be oppositional—curriculum delivery, assessment requirements, and the fostering of meaningful learning for diverse learners. In this project, the school wanted to examine its current practices in responding to diversity and investigate ways to narrow the gap between policy and practice.
Aim of the project
The aim of the project was to examine how Linwood College responded to the diversity of its students. Findings from the research will be used to inform future policies and practices. A further aim of the project was to develop a core group of teachers as critically reflective practitioners who have the capacity and capability within the school to research their own practice, and thus build a research platform for change. It is hoped that this core group will become mentors for their colleagues in the future.
Objectives
The aims above gave rise to the following specific objectives:
- to examine school-wide systems and policies relating to diversity
- to examine departmental strategies on diversity
- to examine teaching practices in relation to diversity
- to sample student voice concerning a wide range of learning and social outcomes
- to develop the skills of participating teachers as researchers.
Research questions
The overarching question was:
- How is the school aligning policies and practices to help support teachers to facilitate learning for diverse learners?
From this research question came a number of specific investigative questions. They were:
- How are school-wide systems and policies impacting on the ability of departments and teachers to respond to the diversity of their students?
- What departmental strategies target a response to diversity? y How do teachers respond to the diverse needs of students in their classes?
- What are the students’ understandings of their experiences in the classes where teachers consciously address diversity in their pedagogies?
2. Research design and methodology
General approach
This project was a case study invesitgating Linwood College as a learning community in 2005. It was also a series of embedded case studies (Scholz & Tietje, 2002), in that different parts of the larger project formed smaller case studies in their own right. All of the small projects undertaken as part of this initiative were connected by the need to address and respond to raising awareness across the school of the multidimensional nature of diversity. Small groups of teachers chose to investigate particular aspects of diversity in the light of existing literature, using appropriate strategies for addressing their particular area of study.
The approach taken was action research, in which investigation, planning, action, and further investigation are integrated into a cyclic pattern of research and reflective action (Cardno, 2003; Stringer, 2004). It was informed by the principles of action research in being participatory, critical, and emancipatory (Wadsworth, 1998; Zuber-Skeritt, 1992).
The overarching project within the school had a number of embedded components: critical analysis of policy, reflective practice, and students’ voices.
Critical analysis of policy
School-wide policies and practices were analysed for their alignment with the school’s commitment to addressing diversity. This involved document analysis, two questionnaires, and structured interviews with middle management staff. As a result of this project, further revision of the school’s policies will occur in 2006. How the school implements these policies will also be considered. It became apparent that individual staff members and various policies consider diversity from multiple and often differing perspectives. Reflection on these understandings is part of the intended outcome of this project.
Reflective practice
Eight teachers and two tertiary researchers for the Christchurch College of Education were involved in the case studies. Some teachers worked on an individual case study while others worked in small groups of two or three. Each group selected a different aspect of diversity that they saw as important to their own work. The researchers acted as mentors to guide the teachers in their reading and develop their research understandings. The teachers also found their own sources for valuable information about their areas of focus and research metHoDs. The mentoring process was mostly conducted through focus-group meetings, but also included one-on-one coaching in person and online.
The groups shared their understandings at the focus-group meetings. Some of these were held at the school, after school hours, and for two meetings the teachers were released from classes for the afternoon to come to meetings at the College of Education. At these meetings, the teachers formulated their questions, reviewed their growing understandings, and developed a research process and method. Shared reflection allowed them to discuss their changing practice and the responses they received from their students. The teachers were also mentored through the writing phase of their projects. Their original case study reports have been edited and included in this report.
Student voices
The value of student voice is illustrated in the Te Kotahitanga research project (Bishop, Berryman, Tiakiwai, & Richardson, 2003), in which student voices were used to investigate how a number of influences were experienced by Mäori students. Nuthall (2002, p. 45) has also emphasised that “teachers must have an understanding of how their actions or requirements affect what is going on in the minds of their students”.
Student voices were used to provide data for the teachers who specifically examined their classroom practices. Students’ comments are quoted in the individual reports. The primary datagathering instrument for this was student interviews. In two nested case studies (English and social studies), the electronic journals kept by students were used as a source of student voice.
Developing effective partnerships
This project involved a partnership between teachers at Linwood College and two researchers from the Christchurch College of Education. This partnership was established through consultation with the principal and the teacher who would be the project leader within the school. Lindsey Conner had previously been a teacher at the school and had previously worked with its staff on the Ministry of Education’s Schools Making a Difference (SMAD) initiative, so there was a history of trust and mutual respect. There was also an understanding about what the school wanted to focus on and what might be needed to motivate and implement such a project. Such an understanding takes time to establish. It was fortunate that it was already in place before the project began. The school also has a reputation for participating in new initiatives, and is currently carrying out six other research-related projects. It is a school that wants to make a difference for its students.
The initial discussions centred around the focus and scope of the project. They aimed to establish common understandings and develop a protocol for working together that included a process for elective participation in the action research teams and agreed funding arrangements.
Once the project was established, it was important to have regular meetings between the teachers and the tertiary mentors to keep the process moving. These meetings provided occasions to discuss process and progress, troubleshoot any hitches, make plans, and tease out emergent themes. Towards the end of the project, the researchers spent three full days at the school to help the teachers with their writing and provided subsequent one-on-one mentoring by email.
Ethical issues
Ethical approval for the project was gained from the Christchurch College of Education Ethics Committee. Its guidelines were followed for specific procedures and processes to protect the participants who chose to participate. The school was very willing to be identified as the school undertaking this research project. The nature of the project (i.e., researching a particular, identifiable community) made it difficult to preserve the teachers’ anonymity, but we negotiated how the information that they provided would be used. The teachers were also involved in writing and disseminating the findings, including presenting at the NZARE conference at the end of 2005.
The rights and obligations of the researcher–researched relationship were clearly stated in an information letter to participants. The participants gave written consent, which included their right to withdraw from the project at any time. Only members of the research team have access to any raw research data.
Individual students were offered anonymity. Informed consent was gained from the students in the classes where teachers were observing their own practices. Students were also consulted before allowing TVNZ to film classes in action, and to report the project on “The Breakfast Show”.
3. Findings
General findings
The project was couched in the context of one school trying to grapple with a phenomenon experienced by many schools throughout New Zealand, that of an increasingly diverse student population. Therefore, there was a need to examine what the school was currently doing to enable teachers to respond to the diverse needs of their students (Biddulph, Biddulph, & Biddulph, 2003; Bishop, Berryman, Tiakiwai, & Richardson, 2003).
Initially, the teachers found it difficult to define diversity, since it has multiple dimensions. AltonLee (2003, p. v) defines diversity as encompassing “many characteristics including ethnicity, socio-economic background, home language, gender, special needs, disability, and giftedness”. She points out that “teaching that is responsive to student diversity can have very positive impact on low and high achievers at the same time” (p. v). Given this statement, the teachers had to reflect on how they could address multiple diversities (even within an individual student) at the same time. This is no small task. One of the positive outcomes of this initial process was that teachers had to seriously think about what they meant by diversity. This is perhaps encompassed by Fraser and Spiller (2001), who state:
Students are not empty vessels … They are individuals with unique constellations of needs, abilities, traits and behaviours. Effective teachers recognise this and therefore endeavour to match the students’ readiness, prior knowledge and motivational needs. This requires that teachers avoid blaming students for not learning. Instead, they carefully examine their own practices to ensure they are not impeding students’ development, and they innovate, adapt and expand in order to provide meaningful, rich and stimulating learning experiences. (p. 70)
The analysis of school policies and subsequent interviews with HoDs revealed that many had different conceptions of diversity and gave different emphasis to different dimensions (as discussed in Case study 1: Policy analysis). The science department study also revealed that staff had different notions about diversity and how it should or could be addressed. The discussions have helped the staff to arrive at more of a shared understanding about what is meant by multiple diversities. Some staff now face a challenge over their beliefs and assumptions about the concept of “other” and how teachers might embrace and use the diverse characteristics of the students they have in their classes (as indicated by Cummins, 2003). This is in line with Quality Teaching for Diverse Students in Schooling: Best Evidence Synthesis (Alton-Lee, 2003), which emphasises the need to recognise the diversity within individual students and how this is influenced by the intersections of gender, cultural heritage(s), socioeconomic background, and talent.
Rodriguez (2005) discusses how difficult it is for teachers to change their long-held beliefs and value systems and so change their teaching practices. It seems that such resistance is often linked to a belief that to achieve well, students simply need to work hard enough. For teachers to address the issues of diversity effectively, they need to be more aware of how these differences influence learning. They also need to be confident that their knowledge and processes will have some effect so that they are more likely to implement more culturally congruent and socially relevant approaches (Rodriguez, 2005). The teachers in this project are emergent in their knowledge, understanding and skills, but the action research process (and the group sharing this has entailed) has focused their attention on addressing diversity and enhanced their teaching approaches.
At a recent meeting we asked the question: What are the biggest things we are learning from this project? It was suggested that the single strongest factor in addressing diversity effectively in classrooms was recognising the mindsets (assumptions, expectations, blinkers) that each of us brings to our work. The discovery seems very simple when put into words, but it held the truth of an “ah-ha” moment for many of the participants, who recognised in it a challenge for change that would be the next stage of their development as teachers. Brookfield (1995) indicates that examining assumptions is essential to critical reflective practice. The teachers have also developed their awareness of the complexities and contingent factors that influence how they operate as professionals (Grainger, 2003) who continually have to make decisions and choices about teaching.
Summary of general findings
The teachers who elected to be part of the action research have shown enormous enthusiasm for investigating an issue that they see as relevant to their particular practice, and for developing their own skills and knowledge as researchers. Developing and carrying out mini action-research projects while also teaching is challenging for teachers.
The research demonstrated that diversity within a classroom is very dynamic, in that the needs of students change with time. For example, a theme or topic that individuals might find interesting in one circumstance could be problematic if personal circumstances change (as found in the study of able students in social studies).
Through the research process, the teachers gained a greater awareness of factors that contribute to student learning. The specific details they reflected on led the teachers to identify aspects of their practice that they could modify. There was not sufficient time, within the scope of this project, to establish whether these modifications led to changes in student outcomes.
Specific findings
Groups of teachers established and investigated the following projects as separate case studies. These have been written up and presented individually as appendices. The following is a summary of their findings for each of the case studies.
Case study 1: Policy analysis
The school-wide policy analysis identified a commitment to several diversities within the college, primarily those of culture, race, socioeconomic background, and educational needs, but also those of social diversity, home background, and parental/guardian relations. This did not include diversities such as age range (which are more evident in year levels), or specific pastoral needs and subject areas. This analysis was not evidence of the implementation of strategies to address diversity. Rather, it reflected the intent to provide flexibility to meet the needs of diversity. However, little was actually in the policies that indicated how the school could celebrate diversity or make use of diversity for positive outcomes. The research showed that there was a need to question the use of generic language for policy statements and explore concepts such as “fairness” rather than “equality”. The researcher has identified a need to review the school’s policies to ensure they express shared understandings of diversity and develop ways of implementing those policies.
Case study 2: Addressing diversity in science through planning schemes and teaching approaches
This study considered the use of computer-based teaching schemes (a teacher resource) to classify classroom activities and strategies (including the use of a common language and notation for strategy types) and incorporate them into teaching practice. The basis for this was the Science “Road Map”, which is an electronic scheme of work linking to resources, developed by the college’s science department to provide a system to communicate overviews of units between staff in the department. It grew to incorporate lessons and teaching–learning strategies, suggested vocational and cultural considerations, literacy and numeracy requirements, and the social skill levels required for particular pedagogies. The inclusion of hints about what teachers need to do to set up activities distinguishes this model from previous unit plan outlines. Also, because of its electronic format, teachers are able to access and modify it whenever they choose.
This project reports how the Road Map was expanded to enable science department staff to consider multiple aspects of diversity and draw on the range of activities provided. Gaps in the Road Map were identified, some of which will be the focus for developmental activities in 2006. The science department identified and developed a system that will help them to implement teaching and learning strategies that meet the needs of diverse learners. They also identified potential teacher and student resources for development.
Case study 3: Responding to diversity in physical education
A physical education department study evaluated what key skills staff wanted Year 9 students to attain by the end of Year 9. These were communication skills, collaborative skills, fair play/Olympic ideals, and fundamental physical skills. The department designed and implemented the use of a workbook with Year 9 students. As a team they wanted to evaluate current practice and use of the workbook. This resulted in a departmental action research cycle to revise the whole Year 9 physical education programme. Students were instructed to identify their own strengths and areas for development, to help them identify their uniqueness, thus drawing out their individual identities. The department looked at ways to embrace differences among students and use these positively for everyone’s learning. Through the project they, developed a Year 9 programme that moved away from a focus on teaching sports skills and performance, to teach social and collaborative skills through physical activities.
Case study 4: Unity and diversity with the Integrated Studies Syndicate
The staff of the Integrated Studies Syndicate (ISS) identified a need to ease the transition of students coming from Year 8 into the Year 9 secondary environment. The three teachers in this syndicate considerd that the students in their syndicate had a huge array of different needs ranging from extended pastoral care and social support to assistance with specific learning skills. They wanted to establish a calm and stable homeroom environment with set structures that incorporated behavioural routines. They also saw the need to review their current practices of teaching in order to refine, improve, and regulate the underlying learning processes.
Through this review, several initiatives have been put in place to raise academic achievement. These are: behaviour plans for each student and the development of an anger “toolbox” as strategies for students to use when appropriate, class programmes on rights and responsibilities in the wider historical and cultural contexts, and an introduction to the qualities of leadership. The philosophy of the staff in the ISS is to value students for what they bring, what they share, and who they are as a person. By developing and implementing these processes, the ISS staff considered that they now had a plan for responding to the multiple diversities that each student may bring to classes. The integrated studies syndicate refocused their overall philosophy to take account of the diverse needs of their students and revised and developed a new scheme. This focused on developing positive student–teacher relationships through teaching positive social skills and creating an atmosphere of respect within defined boundaries. Initial reflection on the new approaches indicates that students are engaging in more on-task behaviour and there is more mutual support amongst them.
Case studies 5 and 6: Diversity in a social studies classroom, and co-operative learning in drama
Two teachers teaching the same class for social studies and English respectively developed a collaborative study on the use of co-operative learning within a Year 9 class to address the needs of more able and GATE (gifted and talented education) students and extend them more. The teachers tracked the same five volunteer students in both social studies and English classes. For three weeks the students were asked to keep a journal in which they wrote down how they felt about their experiences in English and social studies. They were then interviewed, so that both teachers could evaluate the teaching approaches they had used. Both teachers learned about student preferences in working with peers. They found that their original assumptions about what made a difference to student learning (interruptions and who they worked with) were not as important to the students as they had expected. The teachers involved have presented separate reports that include their individual differences in understandings and in specific findings.
Each teacher has commented on how much more complex the concept of diversity has become for them. They still find value in focusing on a particular dimension that seems relevant to their situation, such as the ability of a student, or culture or gender, but they acknowledge that there are many interrelated dimensions and they are now more reluctant to be reductionist. They are also more aware that they need to base their ideas and beliefs about their students on evidence rather than just their initial perceptions. Their knowledge about each situation has been increased through carrying out their research projects. Previous studies have also indicated the importance of increasing teacher knowledge and awareness, especially when teachers have considered the implications of evidence of student achievement for their teaching (Symes & Timperley, 2003; Timperley & Wiseman, 2003).
The research process turned out to be more fluid than the teachers expected. Problems arose when they discovered that their questions were not specific enough, or that the students were not using the data-gathering tools (e.g., student journals) as much as they had hoped. Some of the findings surprised the teachers and enhanced their understandings about the complexity of their classroom dynamics and environments.
The findings indicate that teachers often have tacit assumptions and understandings that they bring into their work. The research inquiry process revealed more information about specific aspects of teaching and learning, which on reflection led the teachers to identify and modify their practices. They will continue to determine whether the changes they have made lead to changes in student outcomes. This project allowed the teachers to become more aware of the contextual and contingent nature of their decision making about their teaching.
4. Limitations of the project
Workload commitments of the teachers, particularly an Education Review Office (ERO) visit, report-writing and compliance with other school documentation has at times slowed progress. Much enthusiasm for the project was expressed by the staff at Linwood College and many staff volunteered to be involved. However, an ERO inspection early in 2005 took the attention of many staff, affecting the numbers of staff involved in the remaining projects and their starting dates. Consequently, the interview process with middle management was modified to take the pressure off the middle managers during the ERO visit. Teachers are very busy people and they have had to snatch small windows of opportunity to work on their projects. However, their findings are profound in relation to their personal and professional journeys and have altered the ways they perceive their practice.
This was a one-year project. It took several months of discussion to frame the teachers’ ideas and what metHoDs they would use. It must be remembered that the research process is a new way of operating for most teachers and, therefore, they needed time and support to develop their ideas.
5. Building capacity
The project team
Dr Lindsey Conner, Christchurch College of Education, project leader.
Dr Janinka Greenwood, Christchurch College of Education.
Peter Buyers, Linwood College.
The participating practitioner partners.
Building capacity and capability
The teachers involved in the pilot project are at present very tentative researchers, full of enthusiasm for the work and its possibilities, but still discovering the meaning of “evidencebased” theorisations and reliant on the researchers as mentors to guide their processes. Nonetheless, they have developed capability as practitioner researchers and have acquired a sound understanding of the processes and principles of action research and reflective practice. Their readings have given them a substantial body of conceptual knowledge. Their confidence in their own standing as practitioner researchers is gaining momentum and they are becoming more able to lead their colleagues in further research projects.
For each of the participants, the breakthroughs in understanding about aspects of teaching have been quite profound. We have been heartened by their willingness both to consider alternative ways of operating and to risk putting their practices in the limelight, to be creative and inventive and thereby make a difference to their teaching practices and student outcomes.
We, as mentors, are also developing our own understandings of the challenges of diversity in the contemporary classroom and of the range of strategies teachers may use to address that diversity. This is informing our own practice in pre-service teacher education.
As a result of this project, the school is continuing to build its own capacity for developing considered, grounded, and supported policies.
In addition, the teachers involved in the project are aware that they have developed their own capacity for being learner-centred in adapting their programmes to reflect responses from their students and themselves as learners.
Through this project the participating teachers have gained research skills that they would not have had the chance to acquire otherwise. As a result of this experience, they have also realised that investigating an issue and finding evidence can indeed highlight areas for change in practice and uncover areas that warrant further research. Some of the teachers who were involved in this project will be leading other teachers to investigate their own practices in 2006. However, time is required for mentoring and to make the research effective.
Dissemination
A description of the project appeared in The Colleague (Stanbury, 2005), a quarterly newsletter published by the Christchurch College of Education that is distributed to every school in New Zealand. The project also featured on TV One’s Breakfast show on 13 December, 2005.
A description of the project and its preliminary findings was presented at the 50th World Assembly of the International Council on Education for Teaching (ICET), which was held at the University of Pretoria, South Africa, on 12–15 July, 2005 (Greenwood & Conner, 2005).
More details of the individual projects were presented at the December 2005 conference of the New Zealand Association for Research in Education (Conner, Greenwood, & Buyers, 2005). Peter Buyers who co-ordinated the project within the school, was a co-presenter at the NZARE conference.
We are planning to write an article for publication in the New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies.
References
This list of references includes publications cited in the appendices.
Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Biddulph, F., Biddulph. J., & Biddulph, C. (2003). The complexity of community and family influences on children’s achievement in New Zealand: Best evidence synthesis: Report. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Bishop R., Berryman, M., Tiakiwai, S., & Richardson, C. (2003). Te Kotahitanga: The experiences of Year 9 and 10 Mäori students in mainstream classrooms. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bruce-Ferguson, P. (2003). Action research transforming practice. In N. Zepke, D. Nugent, & L. Leach (Eds.), Reflection to transformation: A self-help book for teachers (pp. 52–67). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Cardno, C. (2003). Action research: A developmental approach. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Clark, B. (1992). Growing up gifted. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1997). Research metHoDs in education (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
Conner, L. (2004). Teaching values through the process of facilitation. Pacific Asian Education, 16 (2), 65–80.
Conner, L., Greenwood, J., & Buyers, P. (2005, December). Addressing diversity in a secondary school context: A research partnership. Paper presented at the annual conference of the New Zealand Association for Research Education (NZARE), University of Otago, Dunedin.
Cowling, K., & Cowling, H. (1993). Toe by toe. West Yorkshire, UK: K. & H. Cowling.
Cummins, J. (2003). Challenging the construction of difference as deficit: Where are identity, intellect, imagination, and power in the new regime of truth? In P. Trifonas (Ed.), Pedagogies of difference: Rethinking education for social change (pp. 41–60). London: Routledge.
Department for Education and Children’s Services. (1996). Understanding giftedness: A guide to policy implementation. Adelaide: Author.
Fraser, D., & Spiller, D. (2001). Effective teachers. In C. McGee & D. Fraser (Eds). The professional practice of teaching (2nd ed.) (pp. 67–84). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Gallagher, J. J., & Gallagher, S. A. (1994). Teaching the gifted child (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Garry, A. (2005). Keys to competence. The New Zealand Education Gazette, 84 (21), 11–12.
Gillies, R. M. (2002). Residual effects of cooperative-learning experiences: A two year follow-up. Journal of Educational Research, 96 (1), 15–20.
Grainger, S. (2003). Accessing the professional artistry of teaching. Doctor of Education thesis. Brisbane: Griffith University.
Greenwood, J., & Conner, L. (2005, July). Responses to diversity: Practices and policy. 50th World Assembly of the International Council on Education for Teaching (ICET), University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Gross, M., MacLeod, B., & Pretorius, M. (2003). Gifted students in secondary schools: Differentiating the curriculum (2nd ed.). Sydney: University of New South Wales.
Mawer, M. (1995). The effective teaching of physical education. London: Longman Group.
Mills, C. J., & Durden, W. G. (1992). Cooperative learning and ability grouping: An issue of choice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 (1), 11–16.
Ministry of Education. (1999). Health and physical education in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2000). Gifted and talented students: Meeting their needs in New Zealand schools. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2002). Initiatives in gifted and talented education. Wellington: Author.
Ministry of Education. (2005). Making a bigger difference for all students: Schooling strategy 2005–2010. Wellington: Author.
Nuthall, G. (2002). Knowing what we know and need to know about effective teaching. In B. Webber (Compiler), Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? (pp. 41–61). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Priestley, J. B. (1948). An inspector calls: A play in three acts. London: Samuel French.
Ramsay, S. G., & Richards, H. C. (1997). Cooperative learning environments: Effects on academic attitudes of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41 (4), 160–168.
Riley, T., Bevan-Brown, J., Bicknell, B., Carroll-Lind, J., & Kearney, A. (2004). The extent, nature and effectiveness of planned approaches in New Zealand schools for providing for gifted and talented students. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Robinson, A. (1991). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14 (1), 9–27.
Rodriguez, A. J. (2005). Teachers’ resistance to ideological and pedagogical change: Definitions, theoretical framework, and significance. In A. J. Rodriguez & R. S. Kitchen (Eds.), Preparing mathematics and science teachers for diverse classrooms (pp. 1–16). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scholz, R., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study metHoDs: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Siedentop, D. (1991). Developing teaching skills in physical education. London: Mayfield Press.
Stanbury, T. (2005). Investigating diversity. The Colleague, 1, 2.
Stringer, E. T. (2004). Action research in education. Auckland: Pearson.
Symes, I., & Timperley, H. S. (2003). Using achievement information to raise student achievement. set: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 36–39.
Timperley, H. S., & Wiseman, J. (2003). The sustainability of professional development: Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
TV One. (2005, 13 December). Breakfast [Television broadcast]. Wellington: TVNZ.
University of Salford. (2000). Interview techniques. Retrieved 11 October 2005, from http://www.chssc.salford.ac.uk/healthSci/resmeth2000/resmeth/intervie.htm
Vaughan, W. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on achievement and attitude among students of colour. Journal of Educational Research, 95 (6), 359–364.
Wadsworth, Y. (1998). What is participatory action research? Action Research International, Paper 2. Retrieved 30 October 2005, from http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-ywadsworth98.html
Working Party on Gifted Education. (2001). Report to the Minister of Education. Retrieved 20 May 2004, from www.executive.govt.nz/minister/mallard/gifted_education/
Zepke, N. (2003) Inclusive teaching: Making space for difference. In N. Zepke, D. Nugent, & L. Leach (Eds.), Reflection to transformation: A self-help book for teachers (pp. 89–104). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Zepke, N., Nugent, D., & Leach, L. (2003). Reflection to transformation: A self help book for teachers. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Zuber-Skeritt, O. (1992). Action research in higher education: Examples and reflections. London: Kogan Page.
The appendices for this online version of the report have been removed. However, you can access them here
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Rob Burrough, the principal of Linwood College, for allowing this project to proceed and for providing release time for staff to participate. We also acknowledge the leadership of Peter Buyers in his unrelenting enthusiasm for the project and his help in motivating and mentoring the teacher partners through the research process. The participating teachers can be congratulated for their willingness to reflect on their teaching and make this public through writing up their projects.
We would also like to acknowledge the students of Linwood College, who were enthusiastic participants in the process.
Without the support of the funding we received from the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (TLRI), this project would not have taken place. We wish to acknowledge the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER) for administering the fund and the Christchurch College of Education for assisting us to implement this project.
