steps action plan: negotiating, monitoring, … · web viewauthor gail chittleborough, coral...

http://www.stepsproject.org.au/

Produced by The STEPS Project, February 2015

Research Team:Dr Linda Hobbs (Deakin University)Assoc Prof Coral Campbell (Deakin University)Dr Gail Chittleborough (Deakin University)Dr Sandra Herbert (Deakin University)Dr Mellita Jones (Australian Catholic University)Dr Christine Redman (University of Melbourne) Dr John Kenny (University of Tasmania)Dr Jeff King/Andy Gilbert (RMIT)

Reference group:Professor Russell Tytler (Deakin University)Professor David Clarke (University of Melbourne)Professor Annette Gough (RMIT)

Evaluator:Mr Paul Chesterton

Project website: http://www.stepsproject.org.au

Contact:Dr Linda Hobbs (Project leader): [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Table of Contents

Action Plan explained.........................................................................................................4

Partnership Negotiation Tool – Initiate contact, Negotiate actions...........................6

Partnership Negotiation Tool Template..............................................................................8

Partnership Monitoring Tool – Monitor and reflect on current levels of commitment and involvement......................................................................................9

Partnership Evaluation Tool – Evaluate and respond with change as necessary...10


Action Plan explained

This accompaniment to the STEPS Interpretive Framework has been developed to support the smooth uptake and efficient use of the Interpretive Framework. The Action Plan is informed by the four-part Interpretive Framework, as indicated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The STEPS Interpretive Framework

The STEPS Interpretive Framework focuses on describing practices in a number of ways:

1. Growing partnerships as a process comprised of different stages involving various key stakeholders working together for educational benefits. Narratives are used to illustrate practice;

2. Representing practices in diverse ways depending on the degree of cooperation and collaboration inherent in the partnership. Narratives are used to illustrate practice;

3. Capturing the principles underpinning quality partnerships and the changes that can be enabled through partnerships. Vignettes are used to illustrate principles in practice and aspects of participation for the various stakeholders; and


4. Capturing pedagogical principles underpinning the practices that can be enabled by partnerships.

The structure of the STEPS Action Plan, while appearing intuitive, reflects the deep reflection of the STEPS Project team who have been long-term effective partnership builders. The result is a set of Tools that have been distilled, and then reconstituted, and structured through guiding headings, subheadings and key focus questions. The intent is to support the Lead partner to quickly and clearly see and monitor the roles and responsibilities of each key stakeholder, and for the Lead and Invited partner/s to come to some common understandings.

The process is offered in a linear structure through three Tools so that each stage can be foreseen and the actions can be anticipated and in place for when they are going to be most useful.

Partnership Negotiation Tool (PNT): To support InitiationKey elements to guide discussions, and to prepare ahead for, have been indicated at critical points of the partnership’s growth and change. This is evident, for example, in the Initiation Phase of the GUSP. The Partnership Negotiation Tool supports the time when significant discussions need to take place about each site’s institutional needs, roles and responsibilities. These have been highlighted as required in the Initiation phase as it is here that they need to be established and clarified. In particular, when a lead partner initiates contact there should be careful consideration to how contact is made and the process of entering into a partnership. A template has been provided to enable this process to be achieved by providing the pathways and outcomes needed as a quick reference point.

Partnership Monitoring Tool (PMT): To support implementationMonitoring of the partnership and ensuring the outcomes are being achieved, or moderated as needed, has been explicated to ensure all elements and responsibilities are covered and working to everyone’s expectations. The Partnership Management Tool is designed to assist in this Implementation Phase of the GUSP. This process is likely to be informal and should facilitate the modification of practices as the need arises.

Partnership Evaluation Tool (PET): To support evaluationThe outcomes of the partnership are of concern to all, therefore, the Evaluation phase should be comprehensive and productive for each participant. Evaluation occurs at a time when it is possible to respond with change as necessary, such as at the end of a year or after completion of an iteration of the partnership practice. Evaluation is informed by data. Sustainability of the practice depends on continued common understanding of what they are committing to. The Partnership Evaluation Tool can be used to guide the focus of formal evaluation methods, such as interviews or questionaries, or less formal discussions.


Partnership Negotiation Tool – Initiate contact, Negotiate actions

“Issues for Discussion” and brief summary of project to be shared with partner prior to initial contact: Who we are, project description, request for discussion about their needs and requirements, willingness to be part of a partnership Who is initiating the partnership, and how will initial contact between potential partners be made?What type of partnership is being envisioned (Connective, Generative, Transformative)?

GUSP Component Questions to Guide Initiation (from STEPS)Aims and Rationale

Identify mutual and differing needs and provide rationale

How do you cater for science in your school?What would you like changed about the way you cater for science in your school?What can we do to support your school with science teaching?What our pre-service teachers coming and teaching science to your students, and your teachers are able to observe, be of benefit to you?

Institutional Requirements

Identify requirements, constraints and enablers governing the approach to partnership development

UniversityWhat timetabling/staffing issues arise?What support mechanisms are available at the university?What resources are available to support the program?

SchoolHow will this program align with your curriculum requirements, teaching program?How does the school structure influence the way the partnership will run?What are the schools’ expectations of tutors and students: codes of behaviours, policies and procedures, discipline processes, parking, access to school and students, access to resources, school plan, signing and outDo parents need to be informed?Do you see any barriers/situations/events/structures that might interfere with the program?

Relationships

Negotiate roles and responsibilities and define value and parameters defining the nature of the partnership

What specific key processes, activities and people will be required?What is expected of pre-service teachers?What is expected of teachers and principal?What is expected of the teacher educator?What is the time commitment for teachers and schools? And tutors?What level of involvement will each member have?Who are the key contacts for each partner?Is there benefit in the tutor coming to speak to staff?What benefits would are desired for the different partner members involved?What sort of communication will work?Who will be involved in planning, teaching, reflection & feedback?How will staff be recruited into the program?What should happen throughout the program to ensure everything is on track?


Should we plan for this to be a long-term or short-term partnership?How will the teachers interact with university students and tutors and for what purpose?

Nature and Quality of Learning

Conceptualise an approach to learning in line with the focus of the partnership

How does the intended program relate to school curriculum?What learning experiences and learning outcomes are expected for the school (science programs, students, teachers, principal) and university (PSTs, teacher educators, science education units)?What is needed to support the learning outcomes?What feedback is needed? How will this be obtained?How will the schools obtain evidence of what has occurred? Eg. Written report, unit plan, student outcomes


Partnership Negotiation Tool Template

Lead Partner Invited Partner

A. RationaleIdentify mutual and differing aims and provide rationale

B. Institutional and Program DemandsIdentify requirements constraints and affordances governing the approach to partnership

developmenti. Requirements

ii. Institutional enablers

ii. Institutional constraints

C. RelationshipsNegotiate roles and responsibilities and define value and parameters defining the nature of

the partnership

D. Nature and Quality of the LearningConceptualise an approach to learning in line with the focus of the partnership


Partnership Monitoring Tool – Monitor and reflect on current levels of commitment and involvement

Are there milestones we need to be considering along the way?What feedback is needed? How will this be obtained?How will the partners respond to feedback?At what point will reflection be useful? What will this reflection look like?

GUSP Component Questions to Guide Monitoring of ImplementationAims and Rationale

Be mindful of the needs and rationale and be responsive to emerging needs

Has what you expected from the partnership eventuated to date or have your expectations changed?Are we meeting the needs of your school?Are we best responding to your needs relating to science education?Have the needs of the school changed with respect to our partnership?


Manage, compromise, justify and respond to requirements (limitations and possibilities)

Is our presence in the school and the activities of PSTs in keeping with school requirements?Is there need for modification of the program – either in terms of the PST experiences within the classroom or in terms of PST learning?

Relationships

Maintain and work with partners to meet individual and differing needs of partners

Are partner members happy with the progress?Are you happy with the way everyone is interacting?Is there enough support from each member of the partnership?Is communication between the partners working?Are the roles of each member clear?


Enable interactions with children that reflect subject-related and general content and pedagogy

Are the current professional learning needs being met?Is the current interaction between teacher and PST meeting the learning needs and outcomes?Is PSTs’ contribution to classroom teaching adequate for enable learning?Are there any issues or concerns that need to be addressed?How are the students in the classroom responding?Is there any further support that the University could offer?Are there curriculum links that can be fostered more?


Partnership Evaluation Tool – Evaluate and respond with change as necessary

What data will provide a means for evaluation? Who will take responsibility for what? (what, how, when, why)How will data be distributed and to whom, for what purpose?How do each partner need to respond to the evaluation? What is working well? What could be improved? Who will take responsibility for changes, how will agreement be made about the changes needed?

GUSP Component Questions to Guide EvaluationAims and Rationale

Evaluate the needs and rationales for their continued relevance and future possibilities

Has the rationale for partners’ involvement changed?Have the partner needs been met?Is the partnership relevant to the needs of the school?Are there future needs of the school that can be meet through the partnership?


Evaluate against institutional requirements, and consider different possibilities & approaches

Has the delivered curriculum of the program, met with requirements of the university and the school?Can the program be modified to better meet the needs of participants?How can participation in the program be leveraged to provide students with greater recognition of graduate attributes?

Relationships

Evaluate the nature of the partnership to respond to current and future needs and possibilities

Is there capacity and interest in the partnership be made ongoing?Are there ways we can improve the way each partner interacts?Can the methods/nature of communication be improved?Is everyone focused on the shared goals/expectations?Is each partner happy with his or her current role? Can roles be altered/enhanced to better meet needs/expectations?Are there ways in which the partnership could be more powerful?Are there any other ways in which the relationship can be improved?


Evaluate the nature of interactions drawing on a range of evidence, including key stakeholders’ reflections and educational research.

What science learning has occurred (for school students, PSTs, teachers)?Has the program provided for the learning needs of the PSTs and the school?What was the quality of the experience for PSTs, for example, teaching children, interacting with school staff, collecting and assessing students’ work as evidence of learning?Has the feedback and interaction between teachers, PSTs, teacher educators and principal been adequate in meeting the expected learning outcomes? Which interactions have been most fruitful, which have been less effective?What future learning needs could to be considered? What changes would be needed to enable further learning?How will the partners respond to feedback?

steps action plan: negotiating, monitoring, … · web viewauthor gail chittleborough, coral...

Documents