learner wellbeing inquiry: what has been learned, and what are the implications for future...

Learner Wellbeing Inquiry: what has been learned, and what are the implications for future directions?

Jan WarrenManager, Better PathwaysDepartment for Education and Child Development

www.decd.sa.gov.au/learnerwellbeing

A bit of background….

The work to strengthen the place of learner wellbeing within DECS commenced in 2004.

The project had a direct link to the objective ‘Improving wellbeing’ of the Strategic Plan for South Australia, focused on improving the quality of life and wellbeing for the community and individuals, emphasising a preventive approach.

The DECS Statement of Directions (2005-2010) identified Engagement and Wellbeing as one of seven goals with the following objectives: improve levels of child and student attendance, retention and engagement in learning programs; and improve child and student wellbeing.

Sites engaged in LWBF development

62 Pilot Sites (representing childcare centres, preschools and schools) explored a locally relevant aspect of learner wellbeing using an inquiry process, and documented their process to inform future professional development and collate tools, measures, materials and examples of promising practice.

These outcomes led to the final version of the Learner Wellbeing Framework that was released in early 2007.

The DECD Learner Wellbeing Team implemented multiple strategies to assist sites, Regions and other Central Office Units become actively involved and fully engaged with the Learner Wellbeing Framework in pursuit of shared recognition of three main principles:

Wellbeing is central to learning and learning is central to wellbeing.

Educators make a significant contribution to learner wellbeing.Wellbeing is built on the strengths of individuals, groups and

communities working together.

All DECD sites, from birth to year 12, were required to include an inquiry into a locally relevant wellbeing issue in their Site Learning Plan as an implementation strategy.

During this phase, eight Pilot Sites participated in a research project to track their inquiries into the second year, and were known as the Phase 4 Project Sites.

2007-2008

Evaluation 2007-08

The outcomes achieved through the combined efforts of the LWBT and involved sites and Districts were formally evaluated in 2007-2008 through an internal-external evaluation partnership.

In response to 2007 evaluation findings, over the 2008-2010 period, the work was guided by the following goal: To embed the Learner Wellbeing Framework into system and site practice, and four related objectives:

To increase the reach of the Learner Wellbeing Framework. To strengthen the consistency of engagement with the Learner

Wellbeing Framework across sites. To increase site staff understanding of and engagement in

inquiry as an approach for improving learner wellbeing. To improve site staff capacity to identify and document

improved wellbeing and learning outcomes as a result of their learner wellbeing initiatives.

2008-10

2008-10

Throughout 2008–2010, the Learner Wellbeing Team supported an additional 58 sites, funded through an expression of interest, to participate in the Wellbeing for Learning Inquiry.

The Team also supported the work of individual Regions to improve levels of student engagement, and to integrate the Learner Wellbeing Framework with other site improvement policies and frameworks e.g. DIAf, and TfEL.

The resource Understanding student engagement was developed and associated professional learning provided for schools and the tertiary sector.

A range of other resources, professional learning, and inquiry opportunities were provided for all sites and Regions, and two wellbeing research partnerships undertaken with Flinders University and the University of New south Wales.

Outcomes of the 2010 evaluation

1: Reach of the LWB Framework

The reach of the LWB Framework LWBT is growing. A minimum of 44% of DECD sites are actively involved in addressing learner wellbeing to some degree due to greater familiarity of site leaders and/or senior staff with the LWB Framework.

2: Engagement with the LWB Framework

The level of site and regional engagement with the LWB Framework is slowly increasing. The evidence suggests that once sites are engaged they are likely to sustain their engagement, even if the level varies from year to year due to site-level changes. In addition, sites commonly refine or adapt their focus to respond to site and learner needs.

3: Understanding of and engagement in inquiry processes

Site understanding of and engagement in inquiry processes has improved over the past two years although it was apparent there are sites that would benefit from learning more about how to use inquiry as an ongoing improvement process.

Sites that participate in formal inquiry processes, and achieve positive learner outcomes and change in staff/site practices, were more likely to embed a culture of inquiry within their site as a result of directly experiencing the benefits of an inquiry process.

The LWBT assisted sites to link their work on learner wellbeing to DIAf Self-Review and their Site Improvement Plan. This has complemented the team’s mentoring and professional learning strategies, and contributed to improved site understanding of and engagement with inquiry.


4: Identify and document improved wellbeing and learning outcomes

The LWBT placed increasing emphasis on identifying, documenting, analysing and reporting change in learner wellbeing over the past two years, however, ongoing effort is required as it remains a more challenging area for sites.

Only sites showing higher commitment to addressing learner wellbeing through a whole of site approach had and/or developed better capacities in data collection, analysis and reporting.

Sites with higher commitment to addressing learner wellbeing based on a whole of site approach were also more likely to be pro-active in addressing learner voice in an authentic manner. This contributed to them achieving real outcomes from their inquiries.

Improving site capacity in this area contributes to site uptake of and skills in other improvement related initiatives.


5: Embed the Learner Wellbeing Framework into system and site practice

Wellbeing for learning as a principle and practice is apparent in several key DECD initiatives, particularly where the LWBT has facilitated collaboration with other units. While this indicates progress in having the LWB Framework embedded within system practice, this can occur more frequently and be initiated by other units in DECD.


5: Embed the Learner Wellbeing Framework into system and site practice

Implementing multiple rather than single strategies has assisted sites to embed learner wellbeing in site planning and structures, with the most critical being:

ensuring learner wellbeing is included in site improvement plans and review processes (including DIAf)

proactive leadership that coordinates whole of staff involvement with learner wellbeing

a genuine commitment to speaking about and enacting democratic relationships with learners

active engagement of parents and community members as valued members of the school community with a stake in achieving improved learner wellbeing.


Recommendations:1. Engagement with the learner wellbeing framework and inquiry

Recommendation 1 – Support sites implement the LWB Framework: Continue implementation of intensive site-based support strategies, with an emphasis on an integrated approach to improvement that addresses local, state and national priorities.

Recommendation 2 – Regional engagement: Continue implementation of the LWBT’s regional engagement strategies with a focus on supporting Regional staff and clusters of sites to address locally relevant Regional and site priorities.

Recommendation 3 – Embedding the LWB Framework in site culture: Continue to profile effective strategies that sites employ to embed the LWB Framework in site structures and culture through professional learning, communication mechanisms and further research.

Recommendation 4 – Learner voice: In all intensive site-based support strategies, continue to sustain an emphasis on sites taking steps to strengthen learner voice in authentic ways due to the time it can take to gain full staff support for this focus.

Recommendation 5 – Peer presenters: Continue the successful strategy of supporting sites to present at forums and professional learning options, including actively involved and highly engaged sites not currently involved in intensive support strategies.

Recommendation 6 – Peer support: Encourage sites actively undertaking learner wellbeing inquiries to work in clusters of either like-minded or geographically-based sites to support each other in their work, in addition to LWB Project Officer support.

Recommendation 7 - Strategies for engagement of learners and parents: Ensure that further professional learning includes a specific focus on strategies or resources that assist with engaging both learners and parents in site learner wellbeing inquiries.

Recommendation 8 - Twilight sessions and cluster forums: Continue with negotiating twilight sessions and other variations on cluster forums, particularly for sites that have difficulty attending larger events that involve travelling significant distances.

Recommendations: 2. Professional learning and presentations

Recommendations: 3. Supporting sites to assess progress and document outcomes

Recommendation 9 – Assessing site progress: Develop the draft site-assessment tool created through the WfLI meta-analysis so it can be practically applied by both the LWBT and individual sites to assess progress in implementing and embedding the LWB Framework.

Recommendation 10 – Collection, analysis, and reporting of data: A two part approach is required to addressing this area:

maintain and strengthen the LWBT’s focus on how sites can be more effective in collecting, analysing and reporting data regarding learner outcomes and change in staff/site practice through all professional learning, site-support and regional engagement work

collaborate with other Central Office units on exploring a whole of DECD approach to collecting, analysing and reporting improvement-related data.

Recommendations: 4. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the LWB Framework

Recommendation 11 – Monitoring and evaluation strategy: Utilise the existing evaluation methods and outcomes used in the 2008 and 2010 evaluation to provide a longitudinal picture of ongoing involvement, degree of engagement and focus on learner wellbeing within DECD sites and Regions.

Thriving at our place: Findings from the Wellbeing for Learning Inquiry 2008‐10 58 sites, funded through an expression of interest, to participate in the

Wellbeing for Learning Inquiry.

Site inquiry questions demonstrate the significant diversity of the contexts, issues and perspectives each site brings.

Sites explored locally relevant issues by examining, for example, the impact of their own wellbeing programs on learning achievement; how relational teaching and learning might improve relationships and student engagement; how boys could become more actively involved and thus improve their future pathway options.

Sites conducted local inquiries and reflected on the effectiveness of practices to improve learner wellbeing and engagement through extensive and broad action research.

Much has been learned, affirmed, challenged and extended…………

In attempting to deepen understandings of wellbeing and its connection to learning achievement and engagement, inquiry has become not only more sophisticated, but also more dynamic, more discursive, more creative and more speculative.

Meta‐learnings arising from the projects detail the consistent elements, approaches, strategies and capabilities that, when embedded in educator practice, improve wellbeing for learning and learner outcomes.

Thriving at our place…

harvests the learnings from a range of

Learner Wellbeing inquiry sites

conveys a sense of the journey travelled by

the many educators who participated

identifies future challenges

reflects the research partnership with Flinders University’s School of Education through the Flinders/DECS Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Project.

Meta learning from the inquiry

When sites saw wellbeing for learning as ‘core business’ by embedding it across the site, by fostering a learner‐centred ethos, and by working in partnership with all staff, students, their families and the wider community, they demonstrated both improved wellbeing for learning and learner achievement.

Although these sites were subject to the same challenges as all other sites, they were committed to devoting time, energy and resources to make cultural change.

Outcomes often surpassed their expectations, as they found their sites transformed into places where ‘mutual respect and learning combined to produce improved learning outcomes and wellbeing for learners’ (Stacey & Armitage, 2010, p.67).

Meta learning

Higher performing inquiry sites demonstrated that when a consistent set of elements, approaches, strategies and capabilities were embedded in educator practice, wellbeing for learning and learner outcomes improved.

Domain of practice: Learning environment

Wellbeing for learning and learner achievement improve when sites:

take a whole of site approach where learner wellbeing practices are not seen as an add‐on but which underpin and are embedded in all domains of practice

have effective leaders who recognise the high importance of wellbeing, both for learners and staff, and who drive significant cultural change by fostering in all staff common understandings of site, behaviour, and learning values

where staff understand, respect, respond to, engage with and address the individual learning and wellbeing needs of all learners through the five dimensions for wellbeing for learning: the cognitive, emotional, physical, social and spiritual dimensions



involve all staff in focused professional learning so they recognise the significance of wellbeing for learning and are involved in the inquiry process to increase understandings of the connection

make wellbeing a priority at all meetings, so all staff are continually engaged in meaningful and reflective discussions about practice to increase wellbeing for learning, including understanding that behaviour and engagement issues usually have a deep and underlying cause that needs to be addressed



create caring and safe environments which promote democratic relationships across all domains of practice, recognising that relationships between staff, between learners and staff, and between learners are key to learning

provide regular release time for staff to build professional learning communities, so they can better understand, reflect on and take collective responsibility for learner wellbeing and increase their personal and professional capacities by using and reflecting on current educational research

embrace a culture of success, which is mapped, celebrated, and shared with other sites.

Domain of practice: Curriculum and pedagogy


create learning environments which recognise that positive relationships between learners and staff are critical for learning, and which encourage democratic relationships and authentic student voice create, in partnership with learners, teachers and parents, individual learning plans and goals for all learners, so learning is strengths‐based, where learners understand and utilise their preferred learning styles, and participate in collective and individual inquiry

Domain of practice: Curriculum and pedagogy


create a community of learners involving learners, staff, parents and the community in which they collaboratively learn and deliver programs and activities

increase learners’ social and emotional competencies and empower them to gain a good understanding of wellbeing and wellbeing for learning, whilst encouraging them to see and map their own progress, and to celebrate successful outcomes.

Domain of practice: Partnerships


support parents and the community through active and regular communication in understanding the significance of wellbeing for learning and involve them as partners in inquiry

establish a synergistic dedicated wellbeing action committee, based on democratic relationships and strong authentic voice, which includes learners, staff, parents, the community and outside agencies in collaborative inquiry and in influencing decisions about site and classroom practices, procedures, pedagogy, curriculum, programs, assessment, activities, and the learning environment



promote communities of learners, including cross‐age group relationships, in which staff, parents, learners and the community share skills and knowledge to run and participate in programs and activities which benefit the whole learning community

provide leadership training for learners so they understand the nature and responsibility of effective leadership and can act as representatives in community forums and committees.



provide leadership training for learners so they understand the nature and responsibility of effective leadership and can act as representatives in community forums and committees.

Domain of practice:Policies and procedures


embed wellbeing for learning inquiry into site improvement planning processes and self review

recognise the interconnectedness with other state and national frameworks and initiatives

collect, use and report on meaningful data, including learner, staff, parent and community surveys and forums; anecdotal data and learner observations; and other DECS data, such as NAPLAN, attendance, retention, behaviour incidents, student subject selection, and engagement data, and use this data to inquire deeply into site practices and measure distance travelled


map approaches and initiatives to the Learner Wellbeing Framework, focusing on local wellbeing issues and using inquiry to drive further change, recognising that meaningful change takes time to allow for thinking, reflection, adaption and evaluation

allocate resources for a dedicated wellbeing leadership or staff role to oversee wellbeing across the whole site

use an inquiry approach for continuous improvement by encouraging collaboration to harness the multiple talents and abilities of learners, staff, parents, the community, and outside agencies to strengthen positive learning cultures



recognise and understand that site attendance and behaviour issues usually have a deep and underlying cause that needs to be addressed and that they improve when attention is paid to learner wellbeing and engagement and when there are good peer and staff/student relationships.


Future challenges

Since its inception in 2005, the Learner Wellbeing Framework has provided a solid underpinning to guide educators in their mission to create positive learning environments for all learners.

The results of inquiry projects and other forms of collaborative research have contributed to the development of increasingly more sophisticated understandings of wellbeing, as demonstrated in this resource.

While much has been achieved during this time, there remain a number of areas worthy of further consideration.

Engaging with learner wellbeing

Lack of time was frequently cited as a reason to not engage with and embrace the learner wellbeing inquiry. Some sites considered they were too busy managing their sites— due to a busy and overcrowded curriculum, or because they were dealing with crises—to plan strategically and audit and map strategies.

Some educators continue to argue against a responsibility to build positive relationships. There is a reluctance, particularly in secondary schools, for teachers to become involved and to see that wellbeing is everybody’s responsibility and that wellbeing goes beyond settling yard disputes and bullying to a wider and more holistic focus on wellbeing for all learners.


Some educators are either unaware of or devalue their student‐teacher relationship role in influencing student wellbeing in relation to either learning or social/emotional outcomes or to both.

There is a need therefore to provide further professional development in order for them to become more aware of the impact of supportive or stressful learner‐teacher relationships and develop their own relational competences.

Professional learning presentations by inquiry and non‐inquiry sites has been successful, as peer to peer learning is valued and respected.

When sites work in clusters, peer support is fostered, particularly when sites with a varying degree of experience in learner wellbeing work collaboratively.


Sites that had made the most progress in increasing learner wellbeing were those who had focused on learner voice and engaging parents and the wider community in their journey. Many sites expressed a desire to gain more professional learning opportunities in these areas.

Engaging in site inquiry

While all sites were supported with their inquiries, there was considerable variation in sites’ understanding of the need for record keeping and data collection and the very real opportunities these offered in gaining deeper understanding about the interconnection between wellbeing and learning.

For some sites there was a reluctance to engage in site inquiry, with a preference to receive a checklist of ‘answers’ as to how to ‘do’ wellbeing, rather than inquiring into wellbeing in the local context of the site.

Frequently these same sites would focus on ‘fixing up’ marginalised learners, often based on narrow constructs of the ‘normal’ 21st century child/student, instead of embracing whole‐school wellbeing strategies for all of their learners.

Engaging in site inquiry

There was evidence amongst some inquiry sites that teachers do not always have the confidence or trust in their peers to work collegially as learners to share and negotiate with their colleagues and engage in new ways of ‘deep thinking’ to change embedded practices.

For these teachers, even more challenging was seeing learners as co‐inquirers who could be invited to collaborate in inquiry around policies and procedures or even to construct and negotiate their own learning. Regional personnel could play a greater role in supporting this work.

The dimensions of wellbeing

Frequently sites were not seeing wellbeing holistically, and were focusing on only one or two dimensions, generally the emotional and social, particularly with a focus on disruptive behaviour or bullying.

There is a need for more balance and integration between the dimensions, since they often tend to be treated separately as 'wedges'.

Each dimension could be explored further for its distinctive richness and potential to move on from what appears at times be a somewhat generalised approach to wellbeing.


There still seemed to be a focus on the intellectual or mental dimension, although not in its higher forms.

This may well be driven by a societal demand, through parents, politicians and the media, to focus on the cognitive dimensions of learning to the exclusion of the other four dimensions. This could be alleviated by including the wider community in pedagogical research and improvement initiatives.


The emotional realm could have been delved into more deeply as an inner experiential domain of students and teachers.

The social dimension appeared often to be confused with the emotional dimension and the focus seemed to be more on the outer dimension.

The physical dimension did not seem ‘embodied’ enough. There was not enough clarity about the inner or outer dimensions of wellbeing.

The dimensions did not seem connected enough: a weakness of the model may have been its inability to convey a holistic approach to moving cyclically through the sections.


There is also potential for much more widespread use of strategies to develop cognitive wellbeing. According to researchers from the Flinders University Centre for Analysis of Educational Futures, who worked collaboratively with the Learner Wellbeing project officers, there is a gap between their research findings and teaching‐learning practices in some classrooms.

There is therefore scope to further develop students’ use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies: these have been shown to have a positive and powerful effect on learning achievement, particularly for those students who cope less well with schoolwork. Instruction in cognitive and metacognitive strategies needs therefore to be ‘woven into the fabric of regular class lessons’ (Centre for Analysis of Educational Futures, 2010, p16).


There may be a need for more exploration into the spiritual dimension of wellbeing.

Case study research conducted by Burrows (2009) indicated the potential value for educators in learning more about how to provide conditions in schools and other settings that have the capacity to generate spiritual wellbeing and even stillness, particularly for the most vulnerable and reactive young people.

Enhancing educator wellbeing

There is potential to further develop an understanding of the impact of the schoolyard on the physical, emotional and social wellbeing of educators (Centre for Analysis of Educational Futures, 2010).

Findings from collaborative research into teacher wellbeing in the yard indicates that educators’ emotional or physical wellbeing may be at risk in some sites, as approximately 25% of educators reported that yard duty had a negative impact on their wellbeing.

A wider view of wellbeing

The model of wellbeing in the Learner Wellbeing Framework appears to focus in the main on personal, rather than societal transformation, as in a psychological approach. Yet many educators appear to have approached their inquiry projects with a strong understanding of the impact of political, cultural and social factors on individual learner wellbeing.

Flinders University researcher Krieg (2009) cautions that learners who are experiencing non‐wellbeing due to the social conditions that underpin community patterns of health and illness, are at risk of being further marginalised and excluded from access to and participation in the curriculum when wellbeing is regarded as ‘an individual problem for both teacher and child’.


Peppard, also a Flinders University researcher, suggests that too much responsibility for wellbeing is placed on the individual child and the individual educator.

Peppard proposes that the focus should be broadened to include ‘issues of inequity and strategies for closing the gap in learner wellbeing’ to encourage a greater focus on the ‘historical, social and economic antecedents of wellbeing and the issues that prevent young people and families from leading flourishing lives’.


Similarly Murray‐Harvey and Slee (2010) argue that there is a need to shift from conceptualising school bullying in terms of individual‐perpetrator‐vs‐victim pathology towards a focus on wider school community relationships that also consider families and teachers, along with individuals and peers.

A whole‐school or centre approach is likely to be more successful than responding to individual learner’s problems.

Changes in student wellbeing over time

Of some concern is the finding that students’ rating of their general contentment and ability to cope with different aspects of school seem to be at a high point when they leave primary school.

Scores on several indicators in a research project conducted in collaboration with Flinders University show a decline as students move into high school.

General contentment with school appears to be at a low point in year 10.

Murray‐Harvey & Slee (2010) suggest that there is a need therefore for different approaches to support learner wellbeing in primary and secondary schools, that are responsive to both learner and educator needs.

Changes in student wellbeing over time

Students feel less supported and more stressed in relationships with educators in their secondary (middle) years of schooling.

Murray‐Harvey & Slee (2010) suggest that there is a need therefore for different approaches to support learner wellbeing in primary and secondary schools, that are responsive to both learner and educator needs.

Relational wellbeing

The wellbeing of any individual is highly dependent not only on his or her personal wellbeing, but also on the wellbeing of his or her relationships.

Murray‐Harvey & Slee (2010) argue that there needs to be a greater focus on building supportive relationships and reducing stressors.

There is a need to pay more attention to the impact of supportive and stressful relationships amongst all members of school and centre communities. In this way a more positive ‘relational field’ can contribute to the experiences of individual and collective wellbeing for learners, educators, parents and other professionals and community members working in school and centre communities (Centre for the Analysis of Educational Futures, 2010).

Relational wellbeing

There is a need to pay more attention to the impact of supportive and stressful relationships amongst all members of school and centre communities.

In this way a more positive ‘relational field’ can contribute to the experiences of individual and collective wellbeing for learners, educators, parents and other professionals and community members working in school and centre communities (Centre for the Analysis of Educational Futures, 2010).

Building the capabilities of school communities to improve their wellbeing, an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant Project, Centre for Analysis of Educational Futures, Flinders University, 2010. The research was undertaken through a partnership between DECD and Flinders University as a component of the Learner Wellbeing Project.

learner wellbeing inquiry: what has been learned, and what are the implications for future...

Documents

learner wellbeing framework

learner wellbeing inquiry

student wellbeing

place of learner wellbeing

learner wellbeing initiatives

decd learner wellbeing

relevant wellbeing issue

document improved wellbeing