Dispositivo de control de aire para los calentador con ventilador

The underpinning principles of what may constitute personalised learning

seem to be able to be expressed clearly within the context of this research.

Whilst some literature may express personalised education as essentially

placing the student at the centre of all provisions (Hopkins, 2007), this

research suggests that student centricity must also be coupled with the

concepts of partnership along with increased meta-cognitive ability of

students. This creates a need to focus on the whole, rather than any one

principle in isolation, to create an effective personalised learning

environment . The following diagram seeks to express the necessary

interdependency between all three underpinning principles that is required

for personalised learning to take place:

Partnerships & Relationships

Student Centricity

Meta-cognition

The prior diagram indicates that the essential target for personalised

learning is the cumulative effect of all three underpinning principles. Similar

to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, as expressed by Bishop and

Glynn (1999), all three need to be actively worked towards if the full spirit of

the concept is to be realised. A focus on any one principle in isolation may

have limited positive effects, but only in that specific area which may have

little effect on the concept of personalising learning as a whole.

In practical terms for New Zealand secondary schools, the revised

curriculum clearly suggests a focus towards personalisation as a direction

for schools to be heading in. The underpinning values of the curriculum are

clear that partnerships and relationships need to become more of a focus

for school leaders, particularly in regard to all decision making. Additionally,

the key competencies appear as a potential guide for directing teachers

towards developing the meta-cognitive abilities of students.

However, in implementation it appears that the current secondary school

structures, as experienced in New Zealand, may be a barrier for

personalising education. This research seems to suggest that whilst some

aspects of the researched schools may be student centric, the existing

norm is one of being program centric, with the emphasis on transmission of

subject content.

As Kelly clearly suggested, making personalised learning a reality for all

a huge challenge within the traditional confines of timetable, structures of school, staffing, facilities. Unfortunately, I think those things can hamstring us, that traditional stuff (Kelly).

This traditional stuff may be creating a situation that not only limits

personalisation, but also perpetuates the ‘innovatitus’ that may afflict

schools and teachers alike. Personalisation for students may run the risk of

simply being tacked onto the existing education system whilst failing to get

to the heart of educational change (Deal, 2007, Hood, 1998).

In making this educational shift, it appears that a clearer vision or statement

from the Ministry of Education would assist school leaders in removing any

doubt as to whether personalisation of education and a subsequent

transformation of structures to facilitate this, is a desired future outcome for

New Zealand secondary schools. If the underpinning principles of

personalised learning are a desired outcome for New Zealand education,

with many government documents suggesting that they are (House of

Representatives, 2008, Ministry of Education, 2006, 2007a, 2008, Tolley,

2009), then it seems that this should be urgently discussed with all

educational leaders as it appears to indeed be a precursor for a

transformational shift in education.

Conversations amongst educational leaders may need to revolve around

providing differentiated learning in the secondary classroom, teaching

understandings of students. In terms of future research, the development of

a New Zealand model for life-long, self-directed or autonomous learners

within a secondary context may be imperative in assisting with teacher

training and subsequent implementation of personalised learning.

However, the reality may be that school leaders may simply have to get on

with the job of shifting their own school towards personalised learning in the

classroom. A shift of this nature will require a high element of ‘unlearning’ in

terms of educators being able to let go of deep seated behaviours and

beliefs that may prevent them from moving from the comfort of established

routines (Deal, 2007, McWilliams, 2002, Senge, 2006, West, 2000). In this

regard it may be that the concept of strategic abandonment of certain

school structures may be necessary to facilitate the integration of

personalised learning into secondary school structures. As an example, two

of the researched principals alluded to their strong pastoral networks of year

level deans. In one case, it appears the deans required the reversal of

vertically aligned tutors for their benefit. The other principal, whilst highly

commending the deans, also saw them as a potential barrier to developing

individual teacher responsibility for the pastoral care of students within their

classroom. In this second example, by having an effective deans system,

this principal felt that teachers may be less likely to accept responsibility for

student behaviour when they can pass it on to someone else. In either

example the purpose is not to criticise individual circumstance, but simply to

suggest that the time to fix a roof is when the sun is shining. The strategic

may create the pressure required to shift educators in a direction that is

more aligned with an overall vision incorporating personalised learning.

If we are seeking a transformational change in our schools, it will require

support from both the public and educators alike. Whilst personalised

education can alter peripheral practices, if we actually seek significant

change to the traditional rituals and structures of the school then we must

seek to personalise the core business of our schools. This shift may be

likely to face a barrage of criticism and attacks to maintain the status quo

(Fullan, 2003). In this respect a more pragmatic approach, in terms of

forestalling proponents of the status quo, may be to suggest a revival of

small school thinking, based upon these principles of personalised learning,

rather than a wholesale transformational change of education (Deal, 2007).

Small school thinking within existing secondary organisations could be

achieved through expanding the use of both tutor and house systems in an

effort to align the core business of schools with the underpinning principles