Fulbright Postgraduate Scholar Raechel French shares her research progress with the Innovative Learning Environments and Teacher Change research project in Melbourne, Austraila.

Learning Down Under

Melbourne, Australia, was my home for 10 months in 2017, where I had the incredible opportunity to study school design and use with some of the brightest minds in the world. As a Fulbright Postgraduate1

S cholar, I co l laborated wi th the Lear ning Environments Applied Research Network (LEaRN)2

at the University of Melbourne on the Innovative Learning Environments and Teacher Change (ILETC)3 research study to better understand how teachers and students actually use the great spaces we design, and create tools to help them reach their full potential in regards to teaching and learning opportunities.

A study to determine how we avoid the disconnect between the vision of a facility and its subsequent use.

Maximizing School Design to its Greatest Potential: Takeaways from Fulbright Postgraduate Scholarship Research in Australia

Deerfield Primary School

Learning Down Under: School Research from Melbourne, Australia p 2

Why this is important? Many schools desire innovation and turn to their facilities as catalysts for change. However, there is often a disconnect between the vision of a facility and its subsequent use. I have personally witnessed this scenario play out in the majority of buildings in which districts attempt to utilize an innovative space to bring about a desired change, but fail to supplement with any professional development or cultural/organizational shifts. Educators sometimes cover up windows with butcher paper or use break out rooms for storage, going against the original design intent. These behavioral traces signal that teaching and learning practice has not evolved as envisioned. In sum, the observed use of the facility can be a proxy measure for pedagogy.

How did I spend my time? I met with stakeholders on both sides of the issue: schools (administrators, teachers, students) and designers. My days involved conducting interviews, observations, and specific case studies diving in to what activities these facilities should support, how well they do so, and what factors contribute to their success in terms of professional development and organizational shifts. I also collaborated with other PhD candidates on the project and their individual focuses ranging from design affordances, spatial literacy, team teaching, to curated learning, and more.

Why Australia? Recent shifts in Australian education policy and economic priorities have resulted in an influx of innovative learning environments with the potential to support new methods of teaching. The gap between design and use is apparent. Nearly 3,000 new or

renovated schools were designed and constructed since the ‘Building Education Revolution4’ program intended to avoid the global economic crisis from 2007-2010, but it was unclear if these tax dollars actually improved academic outcomes. Researchers are learning what tools can help educators successfully make the transition to utilize their new spaces to their full potential, and reach a deeper level of learning with their students. Few, if any, other countries have seen a transformation mandate of this scale and thus, it’s a prime location for this specific research.

How will DLR Group and our clients benefit from my experience? The design process often only touches the physical structure, not the entire operational and organizational system it supports. We need a new paradigm offering a strategic teaching and learning and organizational alignment process integrated within design work to help school clients holistically realize their vision. This research will align with DLR Group’s K-12 education research initiatives to understand and assist districts with their organizational shifts to innovative spaces.

One of my first experiences in Australia was attending a two-day conference, Talking Spaces5. The event concluded with a story by Assoc. Professor Clare Newton. To paraphrase Newton: “Just because you have a state-of-the-art kitchen doesn’t mean you’ll cook great food. To that end, however, a great chef can do amazing things with a small outdoor grill, though perhaps with some difficulty. The same goes for school design and educators.”

This is why I came to Australia – to help us all be great cooks!

“These behavioral traces signal that teaching and learning practice has not evolved as envisioned. In sum, the observed use of the facility can be a proxy measure for pedagogy.”

Learning Down Under: School Research from Melbourne, Australia p 3

The ILETC project, along with the space design itself, is focusing on teacher mind frames and student deep learning. These three components make up the conceptual framework for the entire study. In May 2017, John Hattie6, one of the Chief Investigators on the ILETC, presented on the importance of teacher mind frames. The core emphasis of his message was simple: “It only takes one.” A single educator misaligned with an overall vision can throw the entire trajectory off track. For example, hiring an educator to work in an open plan school who doesn’t believe in the value of this unorthodox environment or understand the “why” behind its academic direction would be a critical misstep on the part of the hiring staff or principal. Culture is a critical element of the holistic approach to success and all staff must be willing and onboard the shift.

This discord isn’t isolated to educators. It can be true of any person within any environment or organization, and it gets to the heart of my work with LEaRN, and why I believe professional development and organizational alignment are the next frontiers in learning environment research and design. Throughout my experiences, I’ve seen beautifully photographed educational environments that appear to hit all the right marks, yet when you visit in person and walk the halls of the building, you see only lecture instruction taking place, break-out rooms being used as storage, and an overall sense of disengagement. On the flip side, there are similarly designed schools that seem to foster excitement, and in which the buzz of learning is visceral. So what’s the difference? One proposal is rooted in the mind frames of the educators working in these spaces.

Innovative space needs innovative practice to achieve deep learning.

Teacher Mind Frames and Student Deep Learning

Joplin High School

Learning Down Under: School Research from Melbourne, Australia p 4

Teacher mind frames are proven indicators of successful learning. In his presentation, John Hattie6 argues that out of ten identified mind frames, the first is the most important: “I am the evaluator of my impact on student learning.” When an ownership mind frame is realized, other mind frames will follow. Educators begin to see themselves as change agents, paving the way for student engagement that is equal parts dialogue and monologue, and building relationships around trust and collaboration.

While teacher mind frames may be the key component, there are a myriad of other issues that work together to allow for the successful inhabitation of a school. This drove my research question - What are the characteristics of a successful transition of a school from traditional classrooms to an innovative learning environment in the context of the design and construction phase.

S tu d e n t D e e p L e a r n i n g : Re d e f i n i n g O u r Measures of SuccessThrough research, we seek to understand how the use of space impacts teacher mind frames and student engagement. Success for learners is more so a result not of how an educator teaches, but of how an educator thinks. The same is true for the use of space.

Policy makers and school leaders often look to student test scores to measure success. I contend, however, that using this metric is flawed. Exams often only reflect surface learning – isolated facts, or temporary knowledge usually achieved through lecture instruction and worksheets. Surface learning, while a crucial first step to achieving deeper learning, does little to contribute to the ultimate goal: a student’s ability to transfer knowledge.

If a district is only interested in students memorizing dates or passing an exam, the traditional classroom with one teaching wall and immobile furniture will work just fine. If, on the other hand, a district wants students to think critically, learn to collaborate, and be creative, they should be looking not only at test scores, but the learning space as a pathway to achieve this deeper learning. Schools reaping the greatest benefit from space are those with a variety of environments that support all steps in an academic journey: space for educators to gather and facilitate conversations, and areas for learners to work together and brainstorm, to retreat and reflect, create or present. The traditional classroom is not dead, but it is certainly no longer in charge.

I have had many conversations with school representatives, and we all agree, the skills needed to thrive in the workforce today are vast and evolved, yet often absent in the young people who populate that workforce. We must think critically about how we measure “success,” considering not the numbers on a test page, but the ability of our students to go out into the real world more prepared, more confident, and ready to take on the many challenges they will surely face.

The traditional classroom is not dead, but it is certainly no longer in charge.

Learning Down Under: School Research from Melbourne, Australia p 5

Prior to my departure to Australia, I met with leaders from 15 Texas school districts. Districts ranged from small to large, rural to urban, and discussions centered around direct experience, or lack thereof, with a shift to innovative spaces. My goal was to venture to Australia understanding the state of play in the United States and knowledge gaps school leaders hoped I could help fill. This section addresses the former: What is working, and what are the struggles of transitioning to innovative learning spaces?

Embrace Guerrilla TacticsMany leaders mentioned the elusive “critical mass” and how it, while hard to obtain, is crucial for creating real shifts in school culture. One superintendent found success in what he called “guerrilla warfare.” While the negative connotation caught me off guard, there is some truth to the premise: empower your motivated educators to do things differently. Be bold. Break the rules. A certain level of risk must be tolerated to see substantive shifts.

I see these guerrilla educators throughout U.S. schools. These educators embrace free form seating and are replacing their provided desks with IKEA furniture, camping chairs, bean bags, etc. And they see great results. Their students are having fun, and they share their stories. This guerrilla strategy is also used in schools that embark on partial school renovations, or create centralized shared spaces to trial space variety and support additional teaching modalities. Teachers can then opt-in to use these spaces. They model new strategies for other teachers, share their successes, and snowball into a critical mass of whole-school change.

Schools that prioritize communication among stakeholders—including principals and parents—generally see greater adoption rates of new ways of learning.

Successful Shifts to Innovative Learning Spaces

Woodleigh School, Victoria, Australia

“Be bold. Break the rules. A certain level of risk must be tolerated to see substantive shifts.”

Learning Down Under: School Research from Melbourne, Australia p 6

Teachers are encouraged to make their classrooms their own and give students a five-star experience.

Ormeau Woods State High School, courtesy of Ormeau Woods Principal

Ormeau Woods State High School7 in Australia is an excellent example of this concept. Located in Queensland, the school features fairly traditional architecture but is led by a visionary principal. Teachers are encouraged to make their classrooms their own and give students a “five-star experience”. Students are excited to come to class, behavior management is vastly improved, and slowly, more educators are opting in. The spirit of this school is palpable.

Principals are the LinchpinMore than half of the Texas school leaders I interviewed indicated the principal was the make-or-break hiring decision for the success of any initiative. A motivated principal can make great strides despite systemic or top-down barriers, but a passionate school board or superintendent can fall flat when pushing initiatives to an unwilling principal.

When faced with brand new schools, districts that have seen success:

1. hired their principal at least one year prior to occupation;

2. afforded principals great levels of autonomy; 3. prioritized the creation of a clear vision to

guide their own hiring of teachers and the construction of school culture.

The same focus on school leadership rings true in Australia. Templestowe College (TC)8 is a secondary school outside of Melbourne that faced dwindling enrollment and threats of closure. As a government school (similar to U.S. public schools), TC must still work within the systematic requirements of the Victorian Department of Education. However, leadership completely disrupted the system and did away with grade levels, initiated a hyper-individualized philosophy, while demonstrating a continuous commitment to innovation. Their enrollment numbers have soared and TC is often highlighted as one of the most successful government schools in the area.

Learning Down Under: School Research from Melbourne, Australia p 7

A Simple Communication Problem?This last point is a complicated one involving a variety of opinions on accountability and assessment, yet boils down to the toleration of risk at a community level. Parents are a powerful force opposing change in schools, and can be most resistant in districts already doing well in terms of student achievement.

In these situations, best intentions can fall on deaf ears so some districts are creating new, in-house public relations positions to bolster communication with parents.

This is needed for a couple of reasons. First, there is a common failure to communicate the “why” of shifting to more student-centered learning and student-centered space. The world is different than the one in which most parents matriculated and what set them up for success likely won’t do the same for their children. Second, it is commonly accepted with any new initiative that there is an initial dip before gains are realized. However, starting early and purposefully with hiring and professional development can minimize this impact. The goal is to “do no harm” to test scores while bolstering engagement and building soft skills most impacted by the implementation of

multi-modal, student-centered spaces. Community expectations must be set appropriately.

While in Melbourne, I had a conversation with the leadership at Ruyton Girls School9 where I learned about their use of student exhibitions to bring the community along on their journey. With a focus on project-based learning, parents are invited at the end of a project to view all student work. As a result, parents have become incredibly engaged. Witnessing their children’s learning experience helps them overcome the initial fear of the unknown when it comes to these new ways of teaching and learning Further, parents often end up pushing the educators when they see different levels of rigor in the various types of projects assigned, encouraging educators to try new things. It’s a win-win situation with growth all around.

These are just a few specific examples, but these themes are consistent with my experience with Australian schools as a whole. Many have started small with educators ready and willing to stand on the front lines, and a priority to hire the best principal. Parents need to be brought along the same growth journey as teachers and students. In these scenarios, communication is key, risk is embraced, and growing pains are expected.

“Parents need to be brought along the same growth journey as teachers and students.”

Parents are a powerful force opposing change in schools, and can be most resistant in districts already doing well in terms of student achievement.

Learning Down Under: School Research from Melbourne, Australia p 8

Despite the compelling anecdotal data I was starting to collect, there is a need for real data and evidence to support this shift to innovative learning environments. This was palpable in a research symposium and Think Tank10 the ILETC hosted in September 2017 at Steelcase in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This was part of a three-city international tour, the North American Think Tank represented five U.S. school districts, the Association for Learning Environments11 (A4LE), the National School Board Association12 (NSBA), the AIA CAE13, Grand Valley State University14, Western Michigan University15, Columbia University16, and Ohalo College of Education17 in Israel.

There is a history of well-executed research making real impact. In 1999, the oft-cited Heschong Mahone study18 revealing the importance of daylighting was published. The research correlated the prominence of daylighting to improved elementary student test scores, pushing the pendulum away from artificial into natural light, setting the stage for the sun-lit schools we find common today. At scale, the world shifted its reliance on intuition to depend on evidence supporting the integration of daylight above perceived energy savings or minimizing distractions. As I reflect on the ILETC Think Tank, I wonder and I hope that a sea change around the broader design elements of a school is imminent.

A think tank in Grand Rapids, Michigan underscores the need for data supporting the transformative power of innovative learning environments.

Innovative Learning Environments and Our Heschong Mahone Moment

Joplin Interim High School

Learning Down Under: School Research from Melbourne, Australia p 9

Transitions 2017 North America symposium, Steelcase, Grand Rapids.

How can we get the evidence?Empirical data is a challenge to obtain in schools due to an inability to control all variables, or achieve a large sample size. The Heschong Mahone study was conducted through a sample of over 2,000 classrooms and test scores of 21,000 students. The results were deeply significant. The ongoing ILETC project has the potential to influence this type of scale but, as it currently resides in Australia and New Zealand, its potential sample sizes are much smaller than that of the United States.

However, scale is just one way to satisfy the needs of generalizability: Another is control, which spawned a bold idea in the think tank session. Why not create a “living lab” disguised as a typical public school, purpose-built for experimentation? The goal would be to rigorously test the things we have seen work anecdotally–from space variety to agile furniture to transparency to technology integration–within typical constraints, such as public education school district standard accountability metrics, for increased generalizability. This scenario would also allow for systematic testing of various professional learning initiatives and toolkits in the transition to and use of the innovative learning environment.

“Why not create a “living lab” disguised as a typical public school, purpose built for experimentation?”

Learning Down Under: School Research from Melbourne, Australia p 10

What would such a school look like? One school leader in the room gave an example of a school consisting of identically designed wings, each with an assortment of operable partitions allowing for various configurations of space, and degrees of openness. One wing could then resemble a traditional, single-cell classroom model with another nearly completely open, and others falling somewhere in between. In this environment, we could investigate a range of space variety, connectivity, and openness. Teachers from one wing may be given purposeful training regarding the use of space while others adopt more organic approaches to the transition. Wings may implement different pedagogical approaches or curricular structures. Timetables could even vary to identify the best amount of time needed to fully utilize opportunities provided by the space. In addition to a variety of design-impact demonstrations, outcomes could include quasi-experimental methodology to obtain evidence regarding the correlation of space, furniture, technology, and training.

What impact are we measuring?Those in the Think Tank agreed that academic test scores are not the ideal metric. We must instead think beyond, and measure areas innovative learning environments support most successfully: student engagement, soft skills, and wellness. Many organizations are already developing such measurement tools. DLR Group is one of those, with the ongoing development of its Student- and Educator-Engagement Indexes19, a research project that helps our designers better understand ways in which the environments we design impact the learning experience. We set out to answer the question: Can we demonstrate that the design of the built environment for grades 9 through 12 impacts student academic engagement levels?

How can this be accomplished?One of the goals of the Think Tank was to begin connecting the design industry and academia for funding and feasibility of these research pursuits. The bold idea would require support from the technology industry to assist in its seamless integration, furniture manufactures to outfit the space, and ongoing funding to support research manpower. Research takes time and longitudinal opportunities are especially attractive. Big funding will be key.

This purposeful test environment was one of many ideas percolating throughout the conversation. I left the room feeling optimistic about where next steps may lead. While all the participants have leveraged personal experience as a primary tool to influence their respective organizations in support of innovative learning environments, we need proof to see large-scale change and impact. We have to collect irrefutable volumes of evidence proving the power of design to shift space priorities and impact policy. We need our “Heschong Mahone moment.”

“Can we demonstrate that the design of the built environment impacts student academic engagement levels?”

Learning Down Under: School Research from Melbourne, Australia p 11

In the spirit of collecting evidence, I completed four research case studies during my time in Australia, which will inform and shape subsequent phases of the ILETC study, resulting in evidence at scale. While analysis is still ongoing, initial themes from these case studies have emerged, identifying best practices in sustaining shifts in education and revealing additional benefits of these innovative learning environments.

Sustaining the ChangeUnderstanding how to change is equally as important as knowing how to sustain change. A big piece of my research focused on the critical steps schools take to embed the change so that it outlasts natural attrition and turnover in staff and leadership while evolving as needed to keep up with current and future educational needs.

• Structure: Structure here refers to policies, processes, routines, and other explicit strategies of space, learning, and organization management. Structure involves intention and accountability and is a constant theme across all schools that have effectively implemented change. It is important in a new space to have a plan for how you will inhabit them and success comes down to the proper induction of teachers and students to create the “new normal” in the learning experience. Research shows that without any structure

guiding use of space, teachers will revert back to what they know. This often means teacher-centered, direct instruction. Thus, as one principal in New South Wales stated, they had to “restock their toolkit” with new behavioral expectations. This is important for students as well. When students are no longer required to sit at a desk in a chair, facing the teaching wall, we must guide them into what new behaviors are expected of them.

• Vocabulary: In addition to defining structures, adopting a shared language for new space types and associated behavioral and learning expectations is helpful. One team-teaching based primary school I worked with was outfitted with a wide variety of furniture options that were configured based on David Thornberg’s archetypes20. Teachers developed icon cards for each archetype with a description and behavior expectation on the back for students to learn and master. Over time, students associated different furniture arrangements with expectations transforming the novel environment into obvious learning spaces with clear expectations. Teachers in turn became more comfortable with their furniture options and adapted to their new norm. Together, teachers and students set expectations through a shared vocabulary.

Identifying ways to support teachers and students capped off the ILETC research study in Australia.

Final Reflections as a Fulbright Scholar

Missouri Innovation Campus

Teachers had to ‘restock their toolkit’ with new behavioral expectations.

Learning Down Under: School Research from Melbourne, Australia p 12

Supporting Students with Sensory SensitivitiesSchools are shifting to a variety of space types that support multiple modes of learning. This often entails more openness or transparency and focuses on collaborative learning. However, how do students with special needs fit into the equation, especially those with sensory sensitivities?

Innovative learning spaces can at first glance appear to be chaotic, open spaces. However, after gaining a deeper understanding, teachers view them as environments in which students can work in different spaces, attuned to their personal needs and

comfort. When students with sensory sensitivities learn in traditional classrooms, they must leave the room if they feel overwhelmed. In an open learning environment, these students simply move to find a more comfortable space if necessary. They blend in and are able to “hide” in the open while remaining within their cohort. In one secondary school in New South Wales, a social psychologist evaluated their open learning space in relation to its impact on students with special needs and found that students were better adjusted and felt more included in the natural flow of learning.

In this picture, two students are on the autism spectrum and another is chronically shy, can you tell who they are? Open space accompanied by personalized, differentiated learning creates an even playing field where all can assimilate and be mainstream.

“How do students with special needs fit into the equation, especially those with sensory sensitivities?”

Learning Down Under: School Research from Melbourne, Australia p 13

Teacher Development and InductionWhile the easiest solution to transitioning into a more collaborative, open setting is to hire teachers already familiar and prepared, this is not practical when a teacher cohort is moved from an existing school to a new facility. Thus, many school leaders are interested in precedents of ongoing teacher development and induction into their different space types. The key here is embedding reflective practice into all aspects of the teaching profession with ongoing critical analysis of one’s teaching and one’s use of space.

One group of educators from a secondary campus in New Zealand reflects on their practice in two-week cycles, discussing which spaces are used best, resulting in the redistribution of students and activities accordingly. Another Kiwi school incorporates the use of space into lesson planning, asking educators to explicitly identify how the layout of furniture or choice of learning space would be leveraged. The use of space is a new language for many educators, making these tasks difficult at first. However, over time teachers’ spatial literacy increases and the use of space as a tool becomes inherent.

A more open or transparent learning space also proves to positively enable teacher reflection and development. Educators and school leaders involved in my study all mentioned the benefit of being able to easily and authentically observe their fellow teachers. They admitted the difficulty in adjusting to this at first, as teaching is historically an independent, autonomous activity. This discomfort quickly passes resulting in a trusting culture in which teachers cannot and do not want to hide practice but instead learn from each other and improve.

As designers, we must recognize that change is scary and difficult. It is on us to work with our clients to resolve the perceived barriers that come along with these innovative learning environments so that the benefits of the spaces can be reaped. We should engage in conversation around the issues, bring them out early in the design process, and challenge educators and school leaders to begin thinking of ways in which they can “restock their toolkit” to make the new spaces a success.

This is more traditional example of teaching on display - multiple educators cohabitating results in improved practice. The benefits can be reaped even with separate classrooms as long as transparency is ubiquitous.

The key here is embedding reflective practice into all aspects of the teaching profession with ongoing critical analysis of one’s teaching and one’s use of space.

This discomfort quickly passes resulting in a trusting culture in which teachers cannot and do not want to hide practice but instead learn from each other and improve.

Learning Down Under: School Research from Melbourne, Australia p 14

What’s Next?These initial findings are just the first step. While I was in Australia, the ILETC was completing Phase 1 of a multi-year process. In addition to the case studies, survey data21 from more than 800 school principals throughout Australia and New Zealand was analyzed. Most notably, findings showed that participants from schools with more traditional classrooms have lower assessment on teacher mind frames, with the reverse in more flexible learning spaces; and students in traditional classrooms exhibited less deep learning characteristics, with the opposite in more flexible learning environments. Simply stated, flexible learning environments are good for teaching and learning. This is the type of data our industry is hungry for!

While the data does reflect schools in Australia and New Zealand, the dynamics between principal and educator(s) in Australia is very similar to that in the US. Since the survey was completed at the school level, the results can be generalized to the American classroom. Further, there is as much variance between participating schools in regards to systematic constraints, assessment requirements, and other organizational issues as there are between schools in the states. The scale of the survey and number of schools reached helps to even out any differences.

An additional outcome from Phase 1 was further refinement of the definition of an innovative learning environment. It was clear in my own case studies and those completed by other PhD students, that physical space is just one component. A truly innovative learning environment must consist of both innovative learning spaces and innovative teacher practices.

In 2018, the ILETC is moving on to Phase 2, in which I will continue on as a PhD student. Phase 2 involves the creation and piloting of tools and strategies, informed by the case studies completed by myself and the other PhD students, that are intended to help teachers shift practice and better inhabit their innovative learning spaces. Now that I will be working on this research stateside, we have the opportunity to extend scope from just schools in Australia and New Zealand, to piloting tools with local U.S. schools.

My case studies were focused on the transition teachers make from traditional spaces to those more innovative in the context of new design and construction. My tool development will follow-suit, pulling from my initial themes to assist teachers, school leaders, and designers in reaching a school’s preferred future. I will spend months crafting, piloting, and refining research-informed tools with local school districts with the goal of distributing them at scale.

Reach out to me if you’re interested in learning more about my research and findings. I‘d love to connect with others researching or experiencing the use of innovative learning environments.

Raechel Frenchrfrench@dlrgroup.com281.407.1599

Simply stated, flexible learning environments are good for teaching and learning. This is the type of data our industry is hungry for!

Learning Down Under: School Research from Melbourne, Australia p 15

Resources1https://us.fulbrightonline.org/about/fulbright-us-student-program2https://msd.unimelb.edu.au/learning-environments-applied-research-network-learn3http://www.iletc.com.au/4https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/building-education-revolution-primary -schools-21st-century5https://research.unimelb.edu.au/learnetwork/courses/talking-spaces6https://visible-learning.org/john-hattie/7https://ormeauwoodsshs.eq.edu.au/Pages/default.aspx8https://tc.vic.edu.au/ourphilosophy/9http://www.ruyton.vic.edu.au/10http://www.iletc.com.au/events/transitions-industry-think-tank/11http://a4le.org/websites/main/index.php?p=13912https://www.nsba.org/13https://network.aia.org/committeeonarchitectureforeducation/home14https://www.gvsu.edu/15https://wmich.edu/16http://www.columbia.edu/17http://www.ohalo.ac.il/ohalo/portal18http://h-m-g.com/downloads/Daylighting/schoolc.pdf19http://www.dlrgroup.com/media/732030/european-scientific-journal.pdf20https://www.nsd.org/cms/lib/WA01918953/Centricity/Domain/87/TLC Documents/Other TLC Documents/ CampfiresInCyberspace.pdf21http://www.iletc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/TechnicalReport_Web.pdf

Learning Down Under: School Research from Melbourne, Australia p 16