The ecology of learning: factors contributing to learner‐centred classroom cultures

This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 02 November 2014, At: 13:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research Papers in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rred20

The ecology of learning: factorscontributing to learner‐centredclassroom culturesRuth Deakin Crick a , Barbara McCombs b , Alice Haddon c ,Patricia Broadfoot a & Marilyn Tew aa University of Bristol , UKb University of Denver , USAc University of London Institute of Education , UKPublished online: 24 Jul 2007.

To cite this article: Ruth Deakin Crick , Barbara McCombs , Alice Haddon , Patricia Broadfoot &Marilyn Tew (2007) The ecology of learning: factors contributing to learner‐centred classroomcultures, Research Papers in Education, 22:3, 267-307, DOI: 10.1080/02671520701497555

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671520701497555

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rred20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02671520701497555

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671520701497555

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Research Papers in EducationVol. 22, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 267–307

ISSN 0267-1522 (print)/ISSN 1470-1146 (online)/07/030267–41© 2007 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02671520701497555

The ecology of learning: factors contributing to learner-centred classroom culturesRuth Deakin Cricka*, Barbara McCombsb, Alice Haddonc, Patricia Broadfoota and Marilyn TewaaUniversity of Bristol, UK; bUniversity of Denver, USA; cUniversity of London Institute of Education, UKTaylor and FrancisRRED_A_249629.sgm10.1080/02671520701497555Research Papers in Education0267-1522 (print)/1470-1146 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & Francis223000000September 2007Ruth [email protected]

This paper reports on a cross-sectional case study designed to explore the relationships betweenlearner-centred variables in five schools from Years 5–9. The variables examined were elicitedthrough three self-evaluation tools: (a) students’ self reports of their learning power measured onseven dimensions of ‘changing and learning’, ‘meaning making’, ‘critical curiosity’, ‘creativity’,‘learning relationships’, ‘strategic awareness’ and ‘resilience’; (b) students’ perceptions of theirteachers’ learner-centred practices, based on ‘teachers’ ability to create positive interpersonal rela-tionships’, to ‘honour student voice’, to ‘stimulate higher-order thinking’ and to ‘cater for individualdifferences’; and (c) students’ perception of their schools as emotionally literate places, that isschools which enable students to interact in a way that builds understanding of their own and others’emotions and then to use this understanding to shape their actions. These three sets of variableswere compared with student attainment based on teachers’ assessment of National Curriculumlevels in English, maths and science. These data suggest that there is a complex ecology of learningin schools and classrooms which works to promote or inhibit higher achievement, and which canalso predict attainment. We argue that: learning power seems to be a form of consciousness charac-terised by particular values, attitudes and dispositions, with a lateral and a temporal connectivity. Itis powerfully influenced by the learning relationships within which individuals find themselves,particularly with their teacher and with key people in their school community. These three self-eval-uation tools in this study provided a way of enabling learners to become agents of their own learning,and, to some extent, of their learning environment. The ELLI learning profiles in particular arebeing taken up by a range of LEAs and schools, as well as other learning contexts.

Keywords: Learning power; Learner-centred practices; Emotional literacy; Attainment; Learning ecology; Classroom culture

*Corresponding author. Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, 35 Berkeley Square,Bristol BS8 1JA, UK. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

268 R. Deakin Crick et al.

Introduction and background

This paper reports on a research project designed to explore how the creation oflearner-centred classrooms may be supported by the development of students’ owner-ship of their own learning power, teacher learner-centred practices which respectstudent voice and through an emotionally literate school climate. The relationshipsbetween these variables are explored as well as their relationship to attainment.

The individual learner was addressed through the ELLI learning power profile andits associated materials and strategies developed by the research team at the GraduateSchool of Education, University of Bristol (Deakin Crick et al., 2004). Both the indi-vidual teacher and teacher and learner interactions in the classroom were addressedthrough the Assessment of Learner-Centred Practices (ALCP) survey tools and otherprofessional development materials from McCombs (1997, 1999, 2001; McCombs& Lauer, 1997, 1998; McCombs & Whisler, 1997; McCombs & Miller, 2007;McCombs et al., in press). The organisational component focused on the concept ofemotional literacy and the Emotional Literacy Audit designed by Antidote.

The Effective lifelong learning inventory (ELLI) is an assessment tool designed toassess an individual’s learning power. It has demonstrated its value in enabling learn-ers and their teachers to identify the qualities that enable young people to learn andto go on learning (Deakin Crick et al., 2004). It produces a ‘learning profile’ forindividuals and groups of learners that indicates where they perceive themselves to beon seven learning dimensions. These are: changing and learning; meaning making;critical curiosity; creativity; learning relationships; strategic awareness; and resilience.This information can then be used by the individual learner and their teacher in twomain ways: first, learning profiles can be used to help to develop personal responsi-bility for learning on the part of the learner; secondly, they can be used for the teacherto devise learning strategies and create a climate conducive to the development oflearning power. Learning power is defined as a form of consciousness characterisedby particular dispositions, values and attitudes with a lateral and a temporal connec-tivity. That is, it is expressed in relationships and shaped by the stories and aspirationsthat shape that consciousness.

The first two years of the ELLI project (2000–2) focused on the identification ofthe seven dimensions of learning power, the development of the ELLI profile and anexploration of the optimum conditions for the implementation of the ELLI profilesin school classrooms. The third year of the ELLI project (2002–3) focused on thedevelopment of the ELLI profiles online and an exploration of the relationshipsbetween learning power and other learner-centred variables.

The initial findings of the research indicated that the assessment tool alone was notsufficient for the creation of a learning culture in a classroom or school and that thereare other variables that have an impact on the development of learning power itself.These included: the quality of relationships between learners and their teachers; thenature of the curriculum; the emotional climate of the classroom; the forms ofpedagogy engaged in by teachers; and the quality and nature of educational leader-ship in the school. These factors were identified as aspects of what can be described

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

The ecology of learning 269

as the ecology of learning, those interdependent factors which together constitute apsychosocial ecosystem that is favourable, or not, to the natural processes of learning.

Aims and rationale

The purpose of this research was to explore the relationships between the seven learn-ing power variables and other constructs known or presumed to be key features of aneffective learning environment. These were teacher beliefs and practices; students’perceptions of their teachers’ practices; student motivational variables; organisationalemotional climate; and student attainment outcomes.

The research reported here was a cross-section evaluation of a multi-level systemic,learner-centred model. It addressed variables at the level of the individual learner andteacher, at the level of teacher and learner interactions in the classroom and at the levelof the school as a living organisation. These variables have a theoretical and empiricalgrounding in a learner-centred framework for systemic reform that addresses thepersonal, technical and organisational domains of schools as living systems.

A systems approach to learning

Focusing the interventions on students, teachers and the organisational structuresand processes of the school community as a whole, provided a systemic model thatfacilitated learning, personal and organisational development and the building oflearning communities. Since all of the components were ‘content-free’, they provideda framework for creating learning environments capable of supporting any curriculaor other content-focused programmes in the schools. Thus, the project offeredsystematic ways of adding value to communities and cultures of learning. Integratingand testing these systemic components was the focus of this research project and thispaper.

The project aimed to show how the development of learning power in schoolsettings may be supported by research-based teacher professional development andthrough a particular approach to school ethos and climate through an exploration ofthe relationships between these components. Research has shown that viewingschools as ‘living systems’, in which the focus is on supporting human learning needsat all levels, can lead to the creation of learning climates and contexts best suited topositive human development (Senge, 1990; Whatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1998;Wheatley, 1999). Thus, the most effective interventions are those that address allpeople in the system, including the students, teachers, other staff, parents andcommunity members.

A ‘learner-centred’ framework

With a person-centred approach to educational reform, the focus is on psychological,emotional and social needs of learners and interventions that maximise healthy func-tioning and promote motivation, learning and achievement for all learners. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


research-validated Learner-centred Psychological Principles (APA, 1993, 1997)provide a knowledge base for understanding that learning and motivation are naturalprocesses that occur when the conditions and context of learning are supportive of indi-vidual learner needs, capacities, experiences and interests. Attention to the knowledgebase about learners and learning is essential in defining the personal domain ofeducational systems. This domain is often overlooked as attention is focused on thetechnical domain of education that is concerned with the content, standards, methodsfor organising/delivering instruction, and strategies for assessing the attainment ofknowledge, skills and understanding. The personal domain is concerned with thehuman processes that operate on and/or are supported by the standards, curriculum,instruction and assessment components in the technical domain. The personaldomain is also fundamental to the organisational domain that is concerned with themanagement structure, decision-making processes and policies that support thepeople and content requirements of education. That is, the personal domain empha-sises personal and interpersonal relationships, beliefs and perceptions that are affected byand/or supported by the organisation and educational system as a whole.

In many schools, reform efforts focus primarily on technical issues (e.g. highacademic standards, increased student attainment, alignment of curricula and assess-ment) that serve and emphasise accountability. High-stakes testing places the bruntof accountability for student attainment on teachers, carrying punitive consequencesfor them, as well as for students and for administrators when standards are not met.To bring the system into balance the focus must also be on personal issues and theneeds of all people in the system, including students and the adults who serve themin the teaching and learning process (cf. McCombs, 2003). The research base for theLearner-centred Psychological Principles can justify transformational practices forachieving a balanced focus on technical, organisational and personal educationalissues. It can also provide the foundation for practices that enhance students’ learningpower (Figure 1).Figure 1. Balancing three domains for a learner-centred school

Providing a research-validated solution

In 1990 the American Psychological Association appointed a Task Force for Psychol-ogy in Education. One of the primary goals of this task force was to review over acentury of research relevant to education. This review of research on learning, moti-vation, development and individual differences led to the development and dissemi-nation of the Learner-centred Psychological Principles (LCPs). Originally, the taskforce identified 12 principles, which were revised as 14 statements in 1997 (http://www.apa.org/ed/lcp.html). According to the Preamble:

These principles emphasize the active and reflective nature of learning and learners. Fromthis perspective, educational practice will be most likely to improve when the educationalsystem is redesigned with the primary focus on the learner.

The credibility of the LCPs comes from consensus among researchers who identifiedthose principles that have stood the test of time in studies using a variety of research

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


methodologies. The research on effective educational principles and practices basedon the LCPs characterises learning as a whole-person phenomenon (McCombs,2003). This involves cognitive and meta-cognitive, as well as motivational and affec-tive, social and developmental and other individual difference factors, important tooptimal learning, motivation and development. Practices based on these principlesare consonant with recent discoveries from psychology relating to positive youthdevelopment and prevention interventions (Larson, 2000; Seligman & Csikszentmi-halyi, 2000).

The learner-centred principles as a framework for building learning power

When learner-centredness is defined from a research perspective that includes theknowledge base about learning and learners, a foundation is established for buildingpositive learning contexts and communities at the classroom and school levels, therebyincreasing the likelihood of success for teachers and students. This is critical to achiev-ing enhanced teacher quality and increased motivation, learning power and academicattainment for a significant proportion of students, including many who are currently

Learner-centred domain

Technicaldomain

Organisationaldomain

Personaldomain

Figure 1. Balancing three domains for a learner-centred school

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


underachieving or dropping out. In addition, a research-validated foundation thatfocuses on both learners and learning can lead to increased clarity about the requisitedispositions and characteristics of people in our schools who are in service to learnersand learning. It is the people who must be the focus, along with the learning process asan innate and lifelong experience. Without this dual focus, the learning process itselfruns the risk of contributing to and heightening the growing alienation, fear and stressevidenced in schools today. A deeper understanding of current research is needed inorder to challenge misconceptions about learners and learning, to identify commonelements of successful programmes and create better ways for teachers to create qual-ity learning contexts (e.g. Feistritzer, 1999; Putnam & Borko, 2000).

If teachers are to be held accountable for student success and failure, they shouldbe given the tools and support necessary to bring about successful learning. The term‘learner-centredness’ in the context of teachers’ professional development (Darling-Hammond, 1996, 1997; Sparks & Hirsh, 1997) refers to learning new beliefs and newvisions of practice that are responsive to and respectful of the diverse needs ofstudents and teachers as learners. Additionally, professional development strategiesmust mirror those that support diverse learner needs and perspectives, provide timefor critical reflection and opportunities for teachers to re-create their practices andbeliefs about students and instruction. Learner-centredness also means that teachers,like the students they teach, must be actively involved in their own learning andchange processes, collaboratively with other teachers, educators and experts fromhigher education and the community. This view of ‘learner-centredness’ is a transfor-mational, research-validated perspective needed in building professional learningcommunities and improving schools.

Structure of the paper

In this paper, we discuss the research design, the sample of students and schools andmethodologies employed for data collection and analysis. We then explore the statis-tical relationships between all of the variables in the model, including attainment,and, finally, discuss the findings of the study and draw conclusions. The detaileddevelopment of each of the assessment tools in this study is described elsewhere.

Research design and methodology

The research was a cross-sectional case study designed to explore the relationshipsbetween a range of learner-centred variables in order to develop hypotheses aboutlearner-centred cultures. Data were collected from students and their teachers in fiveschools during the academic year 2002/03. The key variables were students’ selfreport on seven dimensions of learning power; students’ perceptions of their teacher’slearner-centred practices on four dimensions; student motivational variables;students’ perceptions of their school’s emotional climate; and student attainmentdata based on teacher assessment of National Curriculum levels in English, Mathsand Science. Figure 2 sets out the key variables which were used in the model.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Figure 2. Variables explored in cross-sectional designData collection

Quantitative data were collected through the administration of the three assessmentinstruments: ELLI learning profiles for individual students (ELLI), Assessment of learner-centred practices surveys (ALCPs) for teachers and their classes and the Emotional literacyaudit (ELA) for all students, teachers and staff. In addition to this, data were collectedfor student attainment (teacher assessment of National Curriculum levels in Science,Maths and English), age, gender, eligibility for free school meals, religion and ethnicity.

Qualitative data were collected in relation to the introduction and implementationof the three instruments (ALCPs, ELLI and ELA) in the three primary and twosecondary schools of the project. Once the instruments had been administered,researchers used participant observation, semi-structured interview and focus groupfeedback sessions to record the processes and responses of giving and receivingfeedback. Data were collected in relation to the impact of the feedback on teachersand on their classroom practices. These findings are not reported in this paper.

Access was gained to the five project schools (three primary and two secondaryschools) during November 2002. All the schools were participants in a values and

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� � ��

��

��

��

Figure 2. Variables explored in cross-sectional design

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


learning network and saw the project as congruent with and building on the valuesconsultation work they were currently undertaking. Two of the primary schools werefrom middle-class suburban areas, one was from a middle-class town and the otherwas urban working class. The two secondary schools were city centre comprehensiveschools, although one of those drew students from all over the city.

The process of data collection provided schools with professional learning as wellas research data. This was facilitated through teacher focus groups throughout theproject and provided a means of collecting qualitative data about the assessmentinterventions. The data collection process was managed by a team of four researchersand involved teachers in administering the various questionnaires.

In each of the primary schools, more than 50% of the adult members of the schoolcommunity filled in an ELA questionnaire and all of the students in Years 5 and 6(ages 9–11). All teachers opted to take part in the ALCP survey and all key stage 2(ages 7–11) students completed an ELLI questionnaire. Each member of staffreceived individual feedback of the ALCP results; the senior management team of theschool received feedback on the ELA profile and all teachers looked at the interpre-tation of ELLI data and its implications for classroom practice in focus groups. By theend of May 2003, the three primary schools had completed the ELA survey and allstaff who chose to had completed an ALCP survey and received their feedback. TheELLI profiles were completed by the end of June.

In one secondary school there were 15 teacher participants in the project with theirclasses across a range of subjects and year groups. In the second school there were eightteachers and their classes from Year 8, but the school found the demands and timeconstraints of the project onerous and only provided ELLI Learning Profile data. Thusthe data reported in this paper refer to one secondary school and three primary schools.

Data were analysed in three cohorts: students from Reception to Year 4 (ages5–9), students from Years 5 to 9 (ages 9–14) and students from Years 10–13(ages 14–18). This paper only reports on the Years 5–9 cohort because of thecomplexity and length of reporting.

Altogether there were 724 students contributing to this Years 5–9 cohort study,359 male and 365 female. Some 87% were white British, the remainder predomi-nantly black British and Asian. 9.7% were reported as having free school meals. Thedemographic details of the students providing data are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Description of key variables

This section provides a short description of the key variables assessed in this study.More detailed explanation of the genesis of these variables is reported elsewhere(Deakin Crick & McCombs, 2005; Hadden et al., 2005).

Learning power

The ELLI learning power profiles were administered through an online questionnaireadministered to students. The following seven dimensions were identified as the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


hypothesised dimensions of ‘learning power’ as they emerged through the factoranalytic studies in part 1 of the research programme. These dimensions are presumedto reflect cognition, affect and action:

Changing and learning

• Effective learners know that learning itself is learnable. They believe that, througheffort, their minds can get bigger and stronger, just as their bodies can and they haveenergy to learn.

Critical curiosity

• Effective learners have energy and a desire to find things out. They like to get belowthe surface of things and try to find out what is going on.

Meaning making

• Effective learners are on the look out for links between what they are learning andwhat they already know. They like to learn about what matters to them.

Fragility and dependence

• Fragile and dependent learners more easily ‘go to pieces’ when they get stuck ormake mistakes. They are risk averse. Their ability to persevere is less, and they arelikely to seek and prefer less challenging situations.

Table 2. Year group distribution, Years 5–9

Year Group N

5 2116 2077 568 1479 103Total 851

Table 1. School distribution, Years 5–9

School N

Primary 1 89Primary 2 107Primary 3 222Secondary 1 306Total 724

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Creativity

• Effective learners are able to look at things in different ways and to imagine newpossibilities. They are more receptive to hunches and inklings that bubble up intotheir minds, and make more use of imagination, visual imagery and pictures anddiagrams in their learning.

Learning relationships

• Effective learners are good at managing the balance between being sociable andbeing private in their learning. They are not completely independent, nor are theydependent; rather they work interdependently.

Strategic awareness

• More effective learners know more about their own learning. They are interested inbecoming more knowledgeable and more aware of themselves as learners. They liketrying out different approaches to learning to see what happens. They are more reflec-tive and better at self-evaluation.

Students’ perception of teachers’ learner-centred practice

ALCP data were gathered through an online questionnaire administered to teachersand their students. US samples of middle and secondary school children and theirteachers were used in validation analyses of the equivalent ALCP surveys (cf.McCombs, 2003). Four critical domains of learner-centred practice were identifiedfor the Years 5–9 educational level, as described below:

Creates positive interpersonal relationships/climate

• Teacher practices in this domain focus on the positive interpersonal and learningclimate factors that help students feel appreciated as individuals, respected, caredabout, and that they belong and in a safe environment for learning. These practicesinclude fostering a caring personal relationship with each student, helping studentsalso to create caring personal relationships with their peers and helping students valuetheir unique abilities.

Honours student voice and encourages perspective taking

• Teacher practices in this domain focus on providing opportunities for students toexpress their own perspectives while learning and listening to the perspectives of otherstudents. These practices also include encouraging students to challenge and thinkfor themselves while learning, as well as helping other students to express theiruniqueness, develop personal responsibility for their own learning and learn to under-stand multiple perspectives.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Encourages higher-order thinking and self-regulation

• Teacher practices in this domain focus on providing opportunities that encouragestudents to develop higher-order thinking and learning strategies that can help themregulate and direct their own learning processes. These practices include helpingstudents relate materials to their own interests and make learning more personallyrelevant, providing students with choice and control over their own learning processto develop personal responsibility for learning and supporting students in acquiringskills for directing their own learning.

Adapts to individual differences and provides developmentally appropriate challenges

• Teacher practices in this domain focus on adapting instruction to a range of indi-vidual differences in students’ backgrounds, cultures, prior knowledge, preferencesfor learning and development. These practices include focusing attention on gettingto know individual students and their families, changing learning assignments whenstudents appear to be failing, capitalising on the learning community that has beenbuilt in the classroom and using the resources of other students as peer tutors andmentors.

Students’ perception of the school as an emotionally literate place

This variable is the key variable in the Emotional literacy audit designed by Antidote.It aims to assess people’s emotional experiences in school as they were affected by therelationships they were having with each other, how people were communicating witheach other and to what extent the organisation is supporting them in its structures andsystems. These data were elicited through a paper-based questionnaire:

Emotional safety within school structures and processes

• This variable can be characterised by the following question: ‘Do I feel that I am avaluable member of my class and school and is this communicated to me?’ Forstudents emotional safety is strongly dependent upon the qualities of the relationshipsthat they have with their teachers and the head teacher and how these qualities arecommunicated. These are the people who, by representing boundaries and authority,create a sense of safety. These relationships need to be characterised by respect, trust,empathy, value and openness. Core emotional safety is also located in how studentsfeel in the classroom, whether they are given the time and support they need, whetherthey feel they are doing well and more widely in how supportive, collaborative andreflective they think their experience in the school as a whole is.

Student and teacher motivational variables

The ALCP student surveys contained additional items to assess student motiva-tion. These variables were student perceptions of their motivation in seven areas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


(self-efficacy, active learning strategies, effort avoidance strategies, knowledge-seek-ing curiosity, task mastery goals, performance-oriented goals and work avoidancegoals). Teacher ALCP surveys at the Years 5–9 level assessed a number of impor-tant teacher characteristics: teacher self-efficacy; teacher beliefs about middleadolescence; teacher tendencies to engage in reflective self-awareness behaviours;and four teacher autonomy support styles via vignettes (moderately controlling,highly controlling, moderately autonomy supportive, highly autonomy supportive).

Attainment variables

Data were collected from the schools on teacher assessment of student NationalCurriculum levels in Science, Maths and English.

Findings: relationships between key study variables

We present the findings of the quantitative data gathered in the project and down-loaded from the ELLI and ALCP online server. The raw data were downloaded intoan SPSS database, which was used to explore the relationships between the variables.In particular, the focus of analysis was on the relationship between ALCP, ELLI andELA variables and attainment variables as they contribute to the ‘ecology of learning’in the classroom. Thus correlation and regression statistics, together with compari-sons of means, were used as the main vehicle for analysis. Clearly a multi-level model-ling analysis is desirable for this sort of data, where the student and teacher intra- andinter-personal perceptions constitute the key variables. This form of analysis will bethe focus of a separate paper.

Correlations between ELLI and ALCP variables

A primary focus of this study was to determine whether hypothesised relationshipsbetween ALCP and ELLI variables existed, along with other expected relationshipsamong variables and with student attainment. The correlations between these vari-ables are shown in Table 3.

As expected, all domains of learner-centred practice are positively correlated withall the positive ELLI variables and negatively correlated with the Fragility and Depen-dence variable. The ALCP student motivation variables are correlated in expectedways with the ELLI variables, thereby demonstrating additional construct validity forthe ELLI variables.

The correlations of the ALCP variables with each other led to the followingexpected findings for students at the Years 5–9 levels:

● The four domains of learner-centred practice were highly correlated with eachother (rs ranged from 0.71 to 0.81).

● The four domains of learner-centred practice were significantly and positivelycorrelated with student self-efficacy (rs ranged from 0.47 to 0.52), epistemic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Tab

le 3

.Y

ears

5–9

: cor

rela

tion

s be

twee

n A

LC

P a

nd E

LL

I st

uden

t va

riab

les

EL

LI

vari

able

sC

hang

ing

&

lear

ning

Cri

tica

l cu

rios

ity

Mea

ning

m

akin

gC

reat

ivit

y &

im

agin

atio

nF

ragi

lity

&

depe

nden

ceS

trat

egic

aw

aren

ess

Lea

rnin

g re

lati

onsh

ips

AL

CP

var

iabl

esE

stab

lishe

s po

siti

ve r

elat

ions

hips

0.33

**0.

32**

0.23

**0.

32**

−0.1

6**

0.29

**0.

13*

Hon

ours

stu

dent

voi

ce0.

33**

0.32

**0.

26**

0.34

**−0

.14*

0.31

**0.

07S

uppo

rts

high

er-o

rder

thi

nkin

g0.

34**

0.33

**0.

27**

0.34

**−0

.10

0.31

**0.

12*

Ada

pts

to in

divi

dual

dif

fere

nces

0.36

**0.

35**

0.22

**0.

33**

−0.1

7**

0.30

**0.

09S

elf-

effi

cacy

0.45

**0.

37**

0.21

**0.

23**

−0.3

3**

0.34

**0.

01E

pist

emic

cur

iosi

ty0.

39**

0.38

**0.

25**

0.28

**−0

.38*

*0.

25**

0.06

Act

ive

lear

ning

str

ateg

ies

0.43

**0.

51**

0.39

**0.

45**

−0.1

9**

0.40

**0.

09E

ffor

t av

oida

nce

stra

tegi

es−0

.15*

−0.1

3*−0

.02

0.04

0.41

**0.

02−0

.07

Tas

k m

aste

ry g

oals

0.45

**0.

43**

0.31

**0.

37**

−0.1

9**

0.32

**0.

07P

erfo

rman

ce-o

rien

ted

goal

s0.

15*

0.25

**0.

16**

0.26

**0.

17**

0.22

**0.

04W

ork

avoi

danc

e go

als

−0.1

5*−0

.15*

−0.0

8−0

.04

0.32

**0.

01−0

.04

*P <

0.0

5; *

*P <

0.0

1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


curiosity (rs ranged from 0.51 to 0.62), active learning strategies (rs ranged from0.57 to 0.61), task mastery goals (rs ranged from 0.55 to 0.63) and performance-oriented goals (rs ranged from 0.22 to 0.32).

● The four domains of learner-centred practice were significantly and negativelycorrelated with student effort avoidance strategies (rs ranged from −0.01 to −o.14)and work avoidance goals (rs ranged from −0.03 to −0.09).

Correlations with attainment variables

Student attainment measures were in the form of separate standardised scores forEnglish, maths and science. These were derived from teacher assessment data ofstudent National Curriculum level point scores. In the main data set these scores werestandardised and the correlations use a list-wise option. These results are shown forYears 5–9 levels in Tables 4 and 5.

The results at Years 5–9 levels were in keeping with expectations from the USsamples. The only significant correlation between the four domains of learner-centred practices and standardised attainment scores was a negative correlationbetween student perceptions of positive relationships and maths scores. Thesevariables relate to students’ perceptions of their teachers, rather than themselves aslearners, which may explain this. However, there was a positive relationship betweenstudent self-efficacy and all standardised attainment scores and a negative correlationbetween effort avoidance strategies, performance-oriented goals, work avoidancegoals and all standardised attainment scores.

To help explain these findings, correlations between ELLI variables and attain-ment were also examined. The results with ELLI variables indicate more systematic

Table 4. Years 5–9: correlations between ALCP variables and attainment (n = 522)

ALCP variables English scores Maths scores Science scores

Student perceptions of positive relationships −0.05 −0.12** −0.08Student perceptions of honouring student voice

0.042 000 0.01

Student perceptions of encouraging critical thinking

−0.025 −0.4 −0.04

Student perceptions of adapting to individual differences

0.01 −0.4 −0.01

Self-efficacy 0.13** −0.14** 0.15**Epistemic curiosity 0.05 0.05 0.08Active learning strategies −0.01 −0.02 0.01Effort avoidance strategies −0.28** −0.28** −0.29**Task mastery goals −0.03 −0.06 −0.05Performance-oriented goals −0.18** −0.14** −0.18**Work avoidance goals −0.17** −0.3** −0.14**

*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


and significant relationships with attainment. At Years 5–9 levels there is a positiverelationship between Changing and learning, Meaning making, Critical curiosity andall standardised attainment scores. There is a negative relationship between Fragilityand dependence and all standardised attainment scores and a positive relationshipbetween Strategic awareness and science scores.

While these correlations are generally low, varying between 0.1 and 0.34, thefindings do indicate a relationship between students’ perceived learning power andattainment.

Predictive relationships

To further understand predictive relationships between ALCP and ELLI variablesand desired student motivational outcomes, a number of multiple stepwise regressionanalyses were calculated. The utilisation of more sophisticated statistical modellingmethodologies (e.g. hierarchical linear modelling) in future research studies withlarger teacher and student samples would also be helpful in better isolating the partic-ular contributions of teacher, student and school variables. The future use of theteacher and student ELLI and ALCP measures in scientifically rigorous designs (e.g.experimental and control groups that used the ELLI and ALCPs with and withoutteacher feedback) would also provide a way to explore the value of these tools asmeans of self-assessment and reflection that can be used to generate changes inteaching practices.

Predictive relationships in Years 5–9

The objective of these regression analyses was to determine the relative amounts ofvariance accounted for by various ALCP and ELLI variables. Although it was ofinterest to test the relative contribution of student and teacher learner-centred vari-ables and their relationships with key student outcomes (motivation, achievement), itwas recognised that hierarchical linear modelling procedures were more appropriate.To give some indication of these results, however, the student database with teacher

Table 5. Years 5–9: correlations between ELLI variables and attainment (n = 288)

ELI variables English scores Maths scores Science scores

Changing and learning 0.19** 0.2** 0.23**Critical curiosity 0.1* 0.1* 0.16**Meaning making 0.15** 0.13** 0.2**Creativity and imagination 0.00 −0.05 0.04Fragility and dependence −0.31** −0.09** −0.31**Strategic awareness 0.09 0.07 0.134**Learning relationships 0.05 −0.01 0.02

*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


means was used in the stepwise regression analyses. The first used student self-efficacy as the dependent variable and all of the student and teacher variables asindependent variables.

Predicting self-efficacy

These results (Table 6) show that student self-efficacy is primarily predicted bystudent learner-centred variables and three learning power variables. No teacherlearner-centred variables met the p < 0.05 level and thus were excluded. With studentlearner-centred variables alone, 51% of the variance was accounted for; with ELLIvariables only, 33% of the variance was accounted for, while the complete modelaccounted for 54% of the variance in student self-efficacy.

Predicting learning power

In order to identify which, if any, variables predict learning power, the ELLI variableLearner commitment and engagement, which combines Changing and learning,Critical curiosity and Meaning making, was used in a further multiple stepwiseregression computation as the dependent variable.

The results (Table 7) show that strategic awareness is the key variable that predictsLearning power, and accounts for 63% of the variance in this model. Creativity andactive learning strategies loaded positively, effort avoidance strategies and teachers’beliefs about ‘difficult stage’ loaded negatively. Altogether, 71% of the variance isaccounted for in this model.

Predicting student core emotional safety in school

For this computation the main emotional literacy variable, Student core safety, wasused as the dependent variable in a multiple stepwise regression computation(Table 8). From this analysis it can be seen that a range of teacher and studentvariables explain 45% of the variance of student sense of core emotional safety in

Table 6. Years 5-9: student and teacher variables predicting student perceived competence (n = 306)

R R2 B Std. error Beta

Task mastery goals 0.74 0.54 0.11 0.06 0.12Epistemic curiosity 0.18 0.06 0.18Performance-oriented goals 0.26 0.04 0.28Changing and learning 0.01 0.00 0.27Fragility and dependence −0.01 0.00 −0.13Higher-order thinking and learning 0.18 0.05 0.18Effort avoidance strategies −0.17 0.05 −0.15Meaning making −0.01 0.00 −0.15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


school. The most significant variable was the Student’s perception of the teacher’s abilityto stimulate higher-order thinking skills, which accounted for 38% of the variance. Thisis followed by Students’ orientation to task mastery goals. Third was a teacher variable,Teacher’s beliefs about how he or she honours student voice. The full model includesTeacher moderately controlling, in a negative relationship, and Students’ perception oftheir teacher’s ability to adapt to individual difference. Finally, a learning power variablecontributed 1%.

Predicting student attainment through all learner-centred variables

An additional multiple stepwise regression analysis was computed to predict averageattainment (mean across English, maths and science) using all learner-centred andELLI student and teacher variables. While a multi-level modelling analysis would bea more suitable vehicle for this, these results are interesting (Table 9).

In the prediction of average attainment at the Years 5–9 levels, a total of 37% ofthe variance was accounted for by a mix of teacher and student learner-centred vari-ables and one ELLI variable (Changing and learning). The teacher learner-centredvariables accounted for 20% of the variance, student learner-centred variablesaccounted for 14% of the variance and the ELLI variable accounted for 3% of thevariance. Both positive and negative relationships were found with these variablesand average attainment, some of which were in expected directions (Teacher highlycontrolling; Effort avoidance strategies; Changing and learning; Student perceptions ofhonouring student voice; Student self-efficacy) and others in opposite directions(Student perceptions of creating positive relationships; Task mastery goals). Thus, as with

Table 7. Student and teacher variables predicting learning power


Strategic awareness 0.84 0.71 0.50 0.05 0.49Creativity 0.33 0.05 0.34Effort avoidance strategies −2.96 0.88 −0.11Active learning strategies 2.78 0.91 0.11Teacher difficult stage −3.70 1.38 −0.08

Table 8. Prediction student core emotional safety in school


Higher-order thinking and learning 0.67 0.45 0.37 0.10 0.23Task mastery goals 0.32 0.09 0.21Teacher honours student voice 0.18 0.08 0.12Teacher moderately controlling −0.44 0.14 −0.15Adapts to individual differences 0.27 0.11 0.16Critical curiosity 0.01 0.00 0.10

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


the correlation analyses, some aspects of how the standardised attainment scores arecalculated may be problematic relative to understanding their relationships withlearner-centred variables.

Predicting attainment through student motivation and learning power

Another multiple stepwise regression analysis was computed to predict averageattainment using only student motivation variables and learning power variables. Atotal of 19% of the variance was accounted for by a mixture of student motivationvariables and learning power dimensions. Effort avoidance strategies and Fragility anddependence accounted for 15% of this, loading negatively, with Self-efficacy andStrategic awareness loading positively and performance-oriented goals and epistemiccuriosity loading negatively (Table 10).

Predicting student attainment through learning power

Finally, a multiple stepwise regression analysis was computed to predict averageattainment using only learning power variables. This showed that 18% of the varianceis accounted for by learning power dimensions. Fragility and dependence accounts

Table 9. Years 5–9: student and teacher variables predicting average student attainment (n = 352)

Model R R2 B SE B Beta

Teacher highly controlling 0.606 0.367 −0.91 0.096 −0.44Effort avoidance strategies −0.36 0.072 −0.23Teacher moderately controlling 0.37 0.116 0.14Changing and learning 0.01 0.002 0.17Student perceptions of creating positive relationships

−0.37 0.087 −0.34

Student perceptions of honouring student voice

0.33 0.108 0.24

Student self-efficacy 0.27 0.081 0.20Task mastery goals −0.24 0.079 −0.19

Table 10. Predicting attainment through student motivation and learning power variables


Effort avoidance strategies 0.45 0.20 −0.39 0.09 −0.25Fragility and dependence −0.02 0.00 −0.12Strategic awareness 0.01 0.00 0.13Performance-oriented goals −0.24 0.07 −0.18Self-efficacy 0.28 0.09 0.21Epistemic curiosity −0.22 0.09 −0.15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


for 11% of the variance, loading negatively. Meaning making and Changing andlearning load positively, but Creativity loads negatively. It is possible that the formsof assessment used in this study are those that do not value creativity, or rather requiremore passive learners. This would be consistent with the finding that epistemic curiosityloads negatively in the regression statistic above (Table 11).

Relationship of low, medium and high learner-centred groups and ELLI variables for Years 5–9

In order to determine if various levels of learner-centred practice were related todifferent levels of ELLI scores, a number of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs)were calculated. Two sets of low, medium and high groups were defined for the firsttwo domains of learner-centred practices and the two best motivation variables.These are presented below, starting with ANOVAs for low, medium and high groupsin the four domains of student perception of teachers’ classroom practices(Establishing positive relationships; Honouring student voice; Stimulating higher-orderthinking; Adapting to individual differences) (Table 12).

The results show that the expected relationship between students’ learningpower and their perceptions of their teacher’s learner-centred practices is sustainedin Years 5–9.

A cluster analyses was calculated using the four ALCP student learner-centredvariables, Self-efficacy; Epistemic curiosity; Active learning strategies; Task mastery goals.The cluster means indicated groups with low, medium and high scores on these vari-ables. These learner-centred groups were then used in the following ANOVA thatexamined differences for all ELLI and attainment variables, as shown in Table 13.

The ANOVA shows even stronger relationships between student ALCP and ELLIvariables. It also indicates that high learner-centred groups do demonstrate higherattainment. Thus, if learner-centred is defined as a complex combination of studentperceptions of learner-centred practices and high self-efficacy, the expected relation-ships with attainment are found.

Relationship between learning power groups and attainment

A cluster analysis was computed using the seven ELLI variables. This produced threegroups, with low, medium and high learning power profiles. These groups were then

Table 11. Predicting attainment through learning power


Fragility and dependence 0.42 0.18 −0.02 0.00 −0.31Meaning making 0.01 0.00 0.22Creativity −0.01 0.00 −0.19Changing and learning 0.01 0.00 0.16

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


used in an ANOVA calculation to explore the relationship between these groups andstudents’ attainment. It demonstrates that students with higher learning powerprofiles are also likely to demonstrate higher attainment scores, and students withlower learning power profiles are likely to demonstrate lower attainment scores(Table 14).

Relationships between ALCP, emotional literacy (ELA) and learning power and attainment

It was also of interest to explore potential relationships between positive school andclassroom contexts and positive student motivation, learning power and attainment.Two different sets of analyses, correlations and analyses of variance (ANOVAs) werecomputed. Results of the correlation analyses are shown in Tables 15 and 16.

As shown, ELA and ALCP correlations were strong and in expected directions.This provides further demonstration of the interrelationships between studentperceptions of learner-centred practices, their perceptions of school safety and theirlifelong learning skills. Again, the findings are mixed, with most of the teacherlearner-centred variables showing expected positive relationships with attainment.On the other hand, with student ELA variables, there were unexpected negative and/

Table 12. Years 5–9: ANOVA results with ALCP groups and learning power

Student variablesN Low,

Med, HighMean Low, Med, High

SD Low, Med, High Df F Sig.

Changing and learning 116 53.38 2.00 21.86 0.000157 63.59 21.04143 70.80 20.46 415.00

Critical curiosity 118 31.38 11.46 2.00 28.72 0.000156 38.70 12.88138 42.93 12.16 411.00

Meaning making 118 51.45 18.64 2.00 12.02 0.000156 57.51 16.99138 62.35 17.78 411.00

Creativity 116 42.62 14.32 2.00 26.42 0.000156 52.39 15.45139 56.18 15.53 410.00

Strategic awareness 118 42.09 13.77 2.00 29.79 0.000157 51.24 13.97138 55.93 15.53 412.00

Learning relationships 116 56.53 14.39 2.00 7.62 0.001157 59.99 14.60140 63.45 13.42 412.00

Fragility and dependence 118 42.15 13.49 2.00 2.52 0.082156 40.12 14.21141 37.89 17.64 414.00

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


or no relationships between ELA variables and the three standardised attainmentscores (English, maths, science). The second ELA variable (Safe relationships withother adults) relates to students’ sense of connection to other adults in the wider schoolcommunity, rather than teachers. This may be explained by the possibility thatstudents who do not achieve well and who do not get the best out of school are moreaware of the significance of other adults in the community, such as learning supportassistants or dinner ladies. Finally, correlations between school emotional literacyvariables and the learning power variables were computed (Table 17). In the table, itcan be seen that there are significant correlations between all learning power variablesand all emotional literacy variables.

Table 13. Years 5–9: ANOVA results with learner-centred groups and learning power

ELLI and attainment variables

N Low, Med, High

Mean Low, Med, High


Changing and learning 98 50.43 22.04 2 41.32 0.00163 61.50 18.84 386128 74.74 20.20 388

Critical curiosity 98 29.11 10.81 2 65.72 0.00163 37.35 10.18 386128 46.27 12.71 388

Meaning making 98 51.17 20.09 2 16.11 0.00163 55.65 16.20 386128 63.95 16.74 388

Creativity 98 43.65 15.55 2 24.27 0.00163 49.69 13.95 386128 57.68 16.51 388

Strategic awareness 98 40.11 13.66 2 47.00 0.00163 49.88 11.88 386128 58.18 16.24 388

Learning relationships 98 58.48 14.63 2 1.42 0.24163 59.49 13.66 386128 61.59 15.12 388

Fragility and dependence 98 44.18 14.35 2 18.19 0.00163 41.89 13.21 386128 33.41 16.54 388

English scores 98 0.05 0.90 2 2.45 0.09163 0.03 1.06 386128 0.28 0.99 388

Maths scores 98 0.13 0.88 2 1.39 0.25163 0.08 0.99 386128 0.27 1.00 388

Science scores 98 0.17 0.92 2 3.42 0.03163 0.09 0.96 386128 0.38 0.95 388

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


To clarify some of these relationships, the following breaks ELA core school safetyscores into low, medium and high groups to explore relationships between ALCP,ELLI and ELA student variables.

Analyses of variance with low, medium and high ELA groups

A K-means cluster analysis was computed for all cases using the most significant ELAvariable, namely student core safety in school. This created three groups, which hadlow, medium and high scores. ANOVAs were then computed to test student differ-ences on ALCP, ELLI and attainment scores between these three groups. Results areshown in Table 18.

Again, division of students into low, medium and high ELA groups demonstratedsignificant relationships in expected directions for learner-centred and learning powervariables. For attainment scores, however, results were not significant.

School differences: findings with the most learner-centred schools

The final set of analyses was computed in order to confirm that those schools withthe highest levels of learner-centred practice would also be those with the highestELLI and ELA scores. Mean differences between schools were computed on allstudent learner-centred variables and the two schools that consistently had thehighest scores on all four domains of practice were Waterford Primary andSandown Junior Schools (the schools’ names are pseudonyms). To test thehypothesis that low, medium and high learner-centred cluster groups at theseschools would demonstrate the most consistent relationships between high learner-centred and high ELLI and ELA scores, the ANOVA results were found as shownin Tables 19 and 20.

In summary, these school-level results confirm the added benefits of schools thatare high learner-centred in terms of also being high in emotional literacy andcontributing to high levels of student lifelong learning skills.

Table 14. Relationship between learning power and attainment

Attainment scoresN Low,



English scores 119 −0.17 1.00 2.00 7.39 0.00219 0.15 0.95 470.00135 0.28 0.97 472.00

Maths scores 119 −0.13 1.00 2.00 6.49 0.00219 0.20 0.96 470.00135 0.28 0.92 472.00

Science scores 119 −0.17 0.97 2.00 11.53 0.00219 0.19 0.92 469.00134 0.40 0.95 471.00

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Tab

le 1

5.Y

ears

5–9

: cor

rela

tion

s be

twee

n A

LC

P s

tude

nt a

nd E

LA

var

iabl

es (

n =

334

)

EL

A v

aria

bles

AL

CP

var

iabl

esC

ore

safe

tyS

afe

rela

tion

ship

sC

ore

frie

ndsh

ips

Con

nect

ions

w

ith

peer

sS

pace

and

pl

ace

Com

mun

icat

ion

wit

h fr

iend

s

Stu

dent

per

cept

ions

of

posi

tive

rel

atio

nshi

ps0.

59**

0.52

**0.

12*

0.27

**0.

38**

0.18

**S

tude

nt p

erce

ptio

ns o

f ho

nour

ing

stud

ent

voic

e0.

59**

0.51

**0.

17**

0.28

**0.

36**

0.17

**S

tude

nt p

erce

ptio

ns o

f en

cour

agin

g cr

itic

al

thin

king

0.58

**0.

49**

0.16

**0.

27**

0.38

**0.

22**

Stu

dent

per

cept

ions

of

adap

ting

to

indi

vidu

al

diff

eren

ces

0.54

**0.

42**

0.14

**0.

27**

0.37

**0.

21**

Sel

f-ef

fica

cy0.

40**

0.31

**0.

21**

0.22

**0.

28**

0.21

**E

pist

emic

cur

iosi

ty0.

52**

0.40

**0.

090.

21**

0.35

**0.

17**

Act

ive

lear

ning

str

ateg

ies

0.49

**0.

40**

0.09

0.26

**0.

33**

0.17

**E

ffor

t av

oida

nce

stra

tegi

es−0

.15*

*−0

.01

−0.0

20.

04−0

.10

−0.0

6T

ask

mas

tery

goa

ls0.

57**

0.44

**0.

14*

0.25

**0.

36**

0.16

**P

erfo

rman

ce-o

rien

ted

goal

s0.

24**

0.25

**0.

070.

18**

0.15

**0.

06W

ork

avoi

danc

e go

als

−0.1

6**

−0.0

6−0

.00

0.01

−0.0

8−0

.10

EL

A v

aria

bles

Cor

e sa

fety

–S

afe

rela

tion

ship

s0.

75**

–C

ore

frie

ndsh

ips

0.28

**0.

23**

–C

onne

ctio

ns t

o pe

ers

0.44

**0.

52**

0.55

**–

Spa

ce a

nd p

lace

0.78

**0.

60**

0.34

**0.

43**

–C

omm

unic

atio

n w

ith

frie

nds

0.40

**0.

29**

0.61

**0.

45**

0.42

**–

*P <

0.0

5; *

*P <

0.0

1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Primary school and secondary school differences

In order to confirm findings from an earlier study that learning power seems tobecome weaker as students move through their school career, an independentsamples t-test was computed for students in key stages 2 and 3. The results confirmedthe findings of the previous studies. Of the 40 variables in the study, all but ninereached levels of significance. The 31 variables all changed in negative directions inkey stage 3. That is, as students and teachers perceived themselves to be less learner-centred, students’ learning power diminished, as did their scores on student motiva-tional variables; teachers became more controlling and students perceived theirschools to be less emotionally safe places to be (Table 21).

Table 16. Years 5–9: correlations between ALCP teacher and ELA student variables and attainment (n = 413)

Attainment variables ALCP variables English scores Maths scores Science scores

Teacher learner-centred beliefs 0.14** 0.06 0.16**Teacher non-learner-centred beliefs about students

−0.12* −0.06 −0.17**

Teacher non-learner-centred beliefs about teaching

0.06 0.04 0.05

Teacher perceptions of positive relationships

0.09 0.01 0.13**

Teacher perceptions of honouring student voice

0.18** 0.11* 0.19**

Teacher perceptions of encouraging critical thinking

0.17* 0.14** 0.22**

Teacher perceptions of adapting to individual differences

0.15** 0.06 0.17**

Teacher self-efficacy 0.15** 0.06 0.18**Teacher beliefs influence learning 0.07 0.04 0.16**Teacher beliefs of difficult stage −0.25** −0.30** −0.28**Teacher reflective self-awareness 0.25** 0.20** 0.26**Teacher moderately controlling 0.06 0.02 0.03Teacher highly controlling −0.36** −0.33** −0.35**Teacher moderately autonomy supportive

0.04 −0.06 0.04

Teacher highly autonomy supportive 0.04 0.09 0.13**ELA variablesCore safety −0.01 −0.05 −0.03Safe relationships −0.16** −0.18** −0.18**Core friendships 0.04 0.10* 0.09Connections to peers −0.07 −0.05 −0.03Space and place 0.02 −0.01 0.01Communication with friends 0.06 0.09 0.10*

*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Tab

le 1

7.C

orre

lati

ons

betw

een

emot

iona

l lit

erac

y an

d le

arni

ng p

ower

var

iabl

es

Cha

ngin

g &

le

arni

ngC

riti

cal

curi

osit

yM

eani

ng

mak

ing

Cre

ativ

ity

Str

ateg

ic

awar

enes

sL

earn

ing

rela

tion

ship

sF

ragi

lity

&

depe

nden

ce

Cor

e sa

fety

0.33

**0.

37**

0.28

**0.

34**

0.35

**0.

24**

−0.0

6S

afe

rela

tion

ship

s0.

22**

0.31

**0.

21**

0.28

**0.

27**

0.18

**0.

00C

ore

frie

ndsh

ips

0.20

**0.

15**

0.14

**0.

20**

0.19

**0.

20**

−0.0

2C

onne

ctio

n to

pee

rs0.

18**

0.20

**0.

18**

0.20

**0.

21**

0.17

**0.

00S

pace

and

pla

ce0.

25**

0.29

**0.

24**

0.28

**0.

27**

0.14

**−0

.03

Com

mun

icat

ion

wit

h fr

iend

s0.

25**

0.21

**0.

23**

0.22

**0.

20**

0.23

**−0

.02

*P <

0.0

5; *

*P <

0.0

1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Table 18. Years 5–9: ANOVA results with ELA core school safety groups

N Low, Med, High

Mean Low, Med, High


Positive relationships 108 1.93 0.68 2.00 107.57 0.00171 2.52 0.66 452.00176 3.11 0.66 454.00

Student voice 108 2.19 0.57 2.00 98.32 0.00171 2.66 0.53 452.00176 3.09 0.51 454.00

Higher-order thinking and learning

107 2.23 0.66 2.00 83.54 0.00

171 2.74 0.58 451.00176 3.13 0.48 453.00

Adapts to individual differences

108 1.99 0.52 2.00 78.31 0.00

171 2.44 0.55 452.00176 2.82 0.56 454.00

Self-efficacy 107 2.47 0.67 2.00 41.05 0.00171 2.86 0.60 450.00175 3.12 0.52 452.00

Epistemic curiosity 107 2.18 0.58 2.00 70.08 0.00171 2.57 0.54 451.00176 2.96 0.53 453.00

Active learning strategies 107 2.12 0.60 2.00 61.10 0.00171 2.57 0.58 450.00175 2.88 0.54 452.00

Effort avoidance strategies

107 2.00 0.55 2.00 4.93 0.01

171 1.91 0.54 451.00176 1.79 0.58 453.00

Task mastery goals 107 2.19 0.73 2.00 93.23 0.00171 2.75 0.64 450.00175 3.23 0.52 452.00

Performance oriented goals

107 2.12 0.62 2.00 12.97 0.00

171 2.38 0.63 450.00175 2.53 0.68 452.00

Work avoidance goals 107 2.26 0.72 2.00 3.10 0.05171 2.13 0.59 451.00176 2.06 0.65 453.00

Changing and learning 95 58.86 21.77 2.00 28.27 0.00169 59.17 21.91 431.00170 74.46 19.13 433.00

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


The variables which did not show any significant differences were: Work avoidancegoals; Teacher beliefs about influencing learning; Teacher beliefs about studentsbeing in too difficult a stage to learn; Teacher being highly autonomy supportive;Student safety with core friendships; Changing and learning; Meaning making;Learning relationships.

Discussion of findings

The statistical data produced for this project indicate that learner-centredness inschools is a complex and multi-levelled set of interconnected relationships andprocesses. While a hierarchical, linear modelling, statistical analysis will help toexplain the differing levels of data, the findings in this study suggest some interest-ing preliminary conclusions. These will be summarised and discussed in this

Table 18. Continued

N Low, Med, High

Mean Low, Med, High


Critical curiosity 95 33.79 11.92 2.00 32.02 0.00168 36.32 11.72 429.00169 44.79 12.68 431.00

Meaning making 96 53.67 18.69 2.00 20.88 0.00165 53.80 16.96 424.00166 64.89 16.97 426.00

Creativity 95 45.85 16.53 2.00 30.05 0.00164 48.26 14.93 421.00165 59.07 15.04 423.00

Strategic awareness 96 44.68 14.41 2.00 32.37 0.00166 48.74 14.35 425.00166 58.47 14.96 427.00

Learning relationships 95 56.54 15.99 2.00 8.25 0.00163 60.33 13.83 423.00168 63.89 13.63 425.00

Fragility and dependence 96 41.72 14.87 2.00 1.94 0.15165 40.36 14.44 423.00165 38.06 16.34 425.00

English scores 126 0.07 0.85 2.00 0.11 0.89201 0.09 0.92 544.00220 0.04 0.98 546.00

Maths scores 126 0.13 0.86 2.00 0.54 0.58201 0.11 0.98 544.00220 0.03 0.99 546.00

Science scores 126 0.15 0.89 2.00 0.47 0.62201 0.06 0.95 544.00220 0.06 0.99 546.00

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Table 19. Years 5–9: ANOVA results for Waterford School with learner-centred groups

Student variables ELLI variables

N Low, Med, High

Mean Low, Med, High

Std dev Low, Med, High Df F Sig.

Changing and learning 5 40.00 28.50 2 7.40 0.00129 65.52 19.38 6938 75.66 20.36

Critical curiosity 6 29.58 10.77 2 5.16 0.00828 41.34 13.04 6837 46.08 11.48

Meaning making 5 44.76 26.64 2 3.03 0.05528 55.61 13.09 6636 62.57 18.40

Creativity and imagination 5 30.00 17.50 2 7.25 0.00128 50.20 13.46 6636 55.56 14.46

Fragility and dependence 5 42.22 14.01 2 2.10 0.13028 37.90 16.24 6737 31.08 15.70

Strategic awareness 5 27.56 13.57 2 9.89 0.00129 50.27 14.86 6837 57.00 13.76

Learning relationships 5 54.29 20.16 2 0.557 0.57629 62.48 16.64 6837 60.17 16.19

ELA variablesCore safety 7 3.20 0.84 2 11.12 0.001

27 4.18 0.83 7736 4.69 0.77

Safe relationships 7 2.22 0.94 2 2.62 0.08027 2.90 1.36 7736 3.27 1.05

Core friendships 7 3.40 1.74 2 7.51 0.00127 4.98 1.04 7736 5.11 0.94

Connections to peers 7 2.36 1.13 2 3.60 0.03327 3.48 1.26 7736 3.57 0.98

Space and place 7 3.30 1.17 2 4.11 0.02127 3.91 1.08 7736 4.46 1.10

Communication with friends 7 3.43 1.46 2 4.15 0.020127 4.33 0.86 7736 4.51 0.82

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Table 20. Years 5–9: ANOVA results for Sandown Junior School with learner-centred groups

Student variables ELLI variablesN Low,


Std dev. Low, Med, High Df F Sig.

Changing and learning 3 30.56 12.73 2 5.59 0.00623 60.87 21.68 6542 69.84 20.98

Critical curiosity 3 32.50 06.61 2 1.17 0.31823 39.46 14.92 6340 42.75 12.01

Meaning making 3 34.92 07.27 2 3.60 0.03323 54.66 18.44 6340 62.02 19.12

Creativity and imagination 3 35.19 05.78 2 2.56 0.08623 55.07 18.01 6441 56.37 14.58

Fragility and dependence 3 38.27 07.71 2 1.49 0.13323 40.74 13.22 6441 34.19 15.66

Strategic awareness 3 33.33 05.88 2 3.01 0.05623 52.08 14.66 6138 55.97 16.73

Learning relationships 3 56.35 11.25 2 1.43 0.23423 59.42 13.32 6441 64.11 11.66

ELA variablesCore safety 6 3.77 00.64 2 7.88 0.001

41 4.21 00.86 10965 4.70 00.71

Safe relationships 6 2.48 01.01 2 6.33 0.00341 3.90 01.26 10965 4.33 01.31

Core friendships 6 4.42 01.80 2 3.07 0.05041 4.89 01.03 10965 5.28 0.97

Connections to peers 6 2.92 1.22 2 4.15 0.01841 3.82 1.30 10965 4.31 1.32

Space and place 6 3.31 1.30 2 5.56 0.00541 3.59 1.19 10965 4.30 1.17

Communication with friends 6 3.61 1.52 2 4.67 0.01141 4.11 0.85 10965 4.51 0.81

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Table 21. Comparison between key stage on all variables

All variables Key stage N Mean SD t Df Sig. (2-tailed)

Positive relationships 2 318 2.96 0.69 13.68 555.00 0.003 239 2.14 0.71 13.63 505.44 0.00

Student voice 2 318 2.96 0.55 11.38 555.00 0.003 239 2.39 0.62 11.20 480.53 0.00

Higher-order thinking and learning

2 317 2.96 0.58 8.15 554.00 0.00

3 239 2.52 0.71 7.93 455.18 0.00Adapts to individual differences

2 318 2.68 0.58 9.41 555.00 0.00

3 239 2.20 0.61 9.35 499.86 0.00Self-efficacy 2 316 3.00 0.60 6.04 552.00 0.00

3 238 2.67 0.65 5.97 487.11 0.00Epistemic curiosity 2 317 2.85 0.54 9.94 553.00 0.00

3 238 2.37 0.60 9.79 480.21 0.00Active learning strategies 2 316 2.78 0.58 8.50 552.00 0.00

3 238 2.33 0.65 8.35 475.55 0.00Effort avoidance strategies 2 317 1.82 0.55 −1.93 553.00 0.05

3 238 1.91 0.55 −1.92 507.86 0.05Task mastery goals 2 316 3.04 0.61 9.30 552.00 0.00

3 238 2.49 0.79 8.97 430.10 0.00Performance-oriented goals 2 316 2.48 0.68 4.78 552.00 0.00

3 238 2.21 0.60 4.87 537.96 0.00Work avoidance goals 2 317 2.08 0.64 −1.34 553.00 0.18

3 238 2.16 0.64 −1.34 511.56 0.18Teacher LC beliefs 2 364 3.51 0.34 13.94 560.00 0.00

3 198 3.08 0.37 13.66 381.16 0.00Teacher non-LC beliefs about students

2 364 1.94 0.40 −9.79 560.00 0.00

3 198 2.25 0.24 −11.25 554.24 0.00Teacher non-LC beliefs about teaching and learning

2 364 2.41 0.41 −6.71 560.00 0.00

3 198 2.62 0.26 −7.65 549.79 0.00Teacher creates positive relationships

2 364 3.55 0.39 19.80 560.00 0.00

3 198 2.86 0.41 19.45 384.09 0.00Teacher honours student voice

2 364 3.52 0.33 43.08 560.00 0.00

3 198 2.38 0.22 48.60 542.61 0.00Teacher encourages higher order thinking and learning skills

2 364 3.40 0.41 32.02 560.00 0.00

3 198 2.40 0.21 38.26 557.24 0.00

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Table 21. Continued.


Teacher adapts to individual differences

2 364 2.90 0.42 28.98 560.00 0.00

3 198 1.99 0.19 35.21 547.63 0.00Teacher self-efficacy 2 364 3.15 0.40 13.98 560.00 0.00

3 198 2.66 0.37 14.38 438.41 0.00Teacher can influence learning

2 364 3.44 0.39 0.06 560.00 0.95

3 198 3.44 0.38 0.06 419.91 0.95Teacher difficult stage 2 364 2.59 0.30 0.98 560.00 0.33

3 198 2.56 0.45 0.87 295.33 0.38Teacher reflective self awareness

2 364 3.05 0.27 16.80 560.00 0.00

3 198 2.63 0.29 16.52 385.40 0.00Teacher moderately controlling

2 364 2.72 0.25 −3.72 560.00 0.00

3 198 2.82 0.39 −3.26 282.15 0.00Teacher highly controlling 2 364 2.22 0.28 −17.45 560.00 0.00

3 198 2.71 0.39 −15.84 308.19 0.00Teacher moderately autonomy supportive

2 364 3.52 0.22 11.22 560.00 0.00

3 198 3.25 0.36 9.79 278.66 0.00Teacher highly autonomy supportive

2 364 3.11 0.34 0.10 560.00 0.92

3 198 3.10 0.31 0.11 428.70 0.92Student core safety 2 347 4.41 0.89 11.24 576.00 0.00

3 231 3.50 1.03 10.91 441.88 0.00Student safe relationships 2 347 3.60 1.32 12.52 572.00 0.00

3 227 2.27 1.11 12.99 537.98 0.00Student core friendships 2 345 5.06 1.06 −0.40 573.00 0.69

3 230 5.10 1.09 −0.40 483.75 0.69Student connection to peers 2 347 3.76 1.26 4.66 575.00 0.00

3 230 3.27 1.20 4.71 508.19 0.00Student space and place 2 347 4.07 1.17 5.01 575.00 0.00

3 230 3.58 1.17 5.01 492.28 0.00Student communication with friends

2 347 4.32 0.95 0.23 576.00 0.81

3 231 4.30 0.95 0.23 494.74 0.81Changing and Learning 2 294 64.88 22.22 1.20 507.00 0.23

3 215 62.48 22.32 1.20 460.07 0.23Critical Curiosity 2 292 40.77 12.51 3.94 504.00 0.00

3 214 36.24 13.13 3.91 446.35 0.00Meaning Making 2 286 57.46 17.76 0.00 499.00 1.00

3 215 57.45 18.69 0.00 448.06 1.00

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


section, followed by the implications of the findings for policy, practice andresearch.

Validity and reliability of the assessment interventions

First, the three assessment tools used in the study showed internal coherence, validityand reliability. The scales for all three instruments demonstrated satisfactory reliabil-ities, with the exception of some ALCP scales relating to teachers’ beliefs aboutlearning and about how much control or autonomy support to provide. There wasconstruct validity demonstrated by the fact that there were significant correlationsbetween scales which assessed similar constructs from the different interventions andthose correlations were in the expected directions.

Domains of learner-centred practice, student motivational variables, learning power and emotionally literate schools

The students who perceived their teachers as being able to create positive interper-sonal relationships, to honour student voice, to encourage higher-order thinking andto cater for individual differences were also students who had high levels of self-efficacy, epistemic curiosity, active learning strategies, task mastery goals and whoperceived their school as an emotionally safe place to be, particularly in the classroom.They were also students who demonstrated high levels of learning power on all thepositive dimensions and lower levels of Fragility and dependence.

Teachers who had high levels of learner-centred beliefs were associated withstudents who had high levels of learning power and a positive sense of their school asan emotionally literate place. Conversely and more strongly, teachers with low levelsof learner-centred beliefs were associated with students with low levels of learningpower and a negative sense of their school as an emotionally safe place to be.

Table 21. Continued.


Learner commitment and engagement

2 282 57.17 15.74 2.14 494.00 0.03

3 214 54.07 16.25 2.13 450.97 0.03Creativity 2 285 53.81 15.65 3.82 497.00 0.00

3 214 48.30 16.30 3.80 448.58 0.00Strategic awareness 2 285 52.68 15.17 2.99 499.00 0.00

3 216 48.52 15.71 2.98 454.47 0.00Learning relationships 2 287 60.57 14.87 0.65 499.00 0.51

3 214 59.70 14.39 0.66 466.68 0.51Fragility and dependence 2 284 38.80 15.70 −2.02 498.00 0.04

3 216 41.60 14.84 −2.03 475.32 0.04

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Dimensions of learning power

The study indicated that the learning power dimensions proved stable with a newsample and that correlations between the dimensions occurred as expected. Changingand learning; Critical curiosity; Meaning making and Creativity were highly corre-lated, with Learning relationships correlating significantly between P = 0.23–0.38.Fragility and dependence correlated significantly negatively with Changing andlearning, Critical curiosity and Creativity and positively with Learning relationships.

Changing and learning, Critical curiosity and Meaning making function togetheras a scale, or separately, and constitute the strongest dimension. This combination,described as Learner commitment and engagement, is predicted significantly by thelevel of Strategic awareness, while Strategic awareness is predicted significantly bythe level of Creativity, a learner reports. This relationship between the variables isinteresting, given that Strategic awareness seems to be a ‘second-order’ learnedcapacity, while Creativity has a negative relationship with attainment. The nature ofLearning relationships also requires further exploration since Learning relationshipsappear to be associated with both learner commitment and engagement and Fragilityand dependence.

The Emotional literacy audit

The Emotional literacy audit was in an earlier stage of development than the other twointerventions. However, the scales developed proved to be reliable and consistent. Ofparticular note is the first student dimension, which statistically was the strongest.This scale, derived from grounded theory, suggests that students’ sense of their schoolas an emotionally literate place is dependent upon the quality of relationships theyhave with their teacher and their head teacher, and that these operate within thepedagogical structures and processes of the classroom and school. Consistent withthe emerging data in this study, the quality of time, support, respect, trust andopenness that students are given by teachers within the learning process appear to becritical factors in the creation of an emotionally literate school. This could be put theother way, that is organisational emotional literacy may be an important factor in thecreation of a learner-centred school.

Associations between learning power, student motivational variables and attainment

There was little evidence of a positive association between students’ perceptions oftheir teacher’s learner-centred practices and student attainment. Indeed these weresometimes negatively associated with attainment. This may be a feature of the factthat these are two different types of variables, more suited to hierarchical modellingtechniques, or it may reflect the type of attainment criteria—i.e. National Curriculumassessments for English, Maths and Science—which may foster a more didactic ratherthan learner-centred pedagogy. However, there was an association between learning

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


power variables and attainment and between learner-centred student motivationalvariables and attainment. In particular, students who used effort avoidance strategiestended to have performance-oriented and work avoidance goals, to be fragile anddependent learners and were likely to be lower-attaining students. Conversely,students who reported themselves as self-efficacious and who had higher levels of thefirst three learning power dimensions were likely to be higher-attaining students.

Attainment

All of the variables were used in a regression model to seek to predict attainment. Inthe Year 4 sample the Learning power dimensions of Fragility and dependence andStrategic awareness accounted for 22% of the variance of attainment in English,while teachers who reported being moderately controlling in their pedagogy contrib-uted next. Overall, it seems that for English attainment by National Curriculumassessment resilient and strategically aware students, who have teachers who aremoderately controlling in their style, are likely to do better. For Maths attainment,however, the same students are likely to do better with a highly controlling teacherwhom they do not perceive as someone who creates positive interpersonal relation-ships for them.

For students in Years 5–9, the predictors of average attainment in National Curric-ulum scores in English, Maths and Science, were a mixture of negative and positiveones. Where teachers are highly controlling in their style, where students engage ineffort avoidance strategies and perceive their teachers to create positive interpersonalrelationships, then lower attainment is likely; conversely, where teachers aremoderately controlling, students see themselves as changing and learning, and theirteachers as ‘honouring their voice’, and they are likely to be higher attainers.

When teacher variables were removed from the calculation, then 20% of the vari-ance for attainment is predicted by six learning dispositions and student motivationvariables. Students who are disposed to avoid effort, to be fragile and dependent, tohave performance-oriented goals and to demonstrate knowledge-seeking curiosity arelikely to be lower attainers, while students who are strategically aware, resilient andself-confident as learners are more likely to be higher attainers. When learning powervariables alone are entered into the calculation, then 18% of the variance is accountedfor by four of the dimensions. Students who are active Meaning makers, are resilientrather than Fragile and dependent and see themselves as Changing and Learning arelikely to be higher attainers, whereas those who are Creative are less likely to be higherattainers.

These findings are complex and indicate that attainment may be influenced by amixed ecology of factors relating to students’ sense of themselves as learners, theirlearning dispositions, their perceptions of their teachers as helping them to learn andrespecting them and the degree to which their teachers create a controlling or anautonomy supportive environment. They also suggest that the forms of assessmentused in schools to measure attainment may not foster active and engaged learners, butrather passive learners.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


The student variable of perceptions of their teachers as creating positive interper-sonal relationships is the most problematic, in these data, since it seems to point awayfrom contributing to attainment. However, it correlates positively with other learner-centred variables, including learning power variables and students’ sense of their coreemotional safety in school. It may be a reflection of a complex ecology of learningwhich a multi-level analysis would explain, or it may be a cultural reflection of thedifferentiation policies in English classrooms, with more personal attention beinggiven to lower attaining groups.

When the students in the data set were divided into three learning power groups,that is those with low, medium and high scoring profiles on all seven learning powerdimensions, there was a significant relationship between these groups and attainment,with low groups having the lowest mean attainment in English, Maths and Scienceand high groups having the highest mean attainment (Figure 3).Figure 3. Learning power and attainment

Learning power

These data suggest that learner Commitment and engagement is the strongest dimen-sion of Learning power combining Changing and learning, Critical curiosity andMeaning making. Students who are Strategically aware, who are Creative and aredisposed to Active learning strategies, while not avoiding effort, are most likely tohave high levels of learner commitment and engagement. If their teachers believe thatsome children cannot learn because they are at a ‘difficult stage’ then they are lesslikely to have high levels of learner commitment and engagement.

Meanwhile, groups of students with low mean scores for their perceptions of theirteachers as creating positive interpersonal relationships and providing support forlearning have lower scores on all positive learning power dimensions. Groups ofstudents with high mean scores on perceptions of their teachers’ learner-centred prac-tices and on all students’ learner-centred variables will have high mean learningpower profiles on all positive learning power dimensions and lower mean profiles onFragility and dependence.

Self-efficacy

Students who were disposed to Task mastery and Performance goals, who demon-strated Knowledge-seeking curiosity, who had a sense of themselves as Changing andlearning and who perceived their teachers to stimulate them in higher-order thinking,while not avoiding effort, were most likely to have a strong sense of self-efficacy.

The emotionally literate school

There is a positive association between a classroom where the students perceive theirteachers to be learner-centred in all domains—i.e. Creating positive relationships,Honouring student voice, Stimulating higher-order thinking and Catering for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


elli clusters low med high 123

highmedlow

Mea

n of

Zsc

ore:

ta

nc e

nglis

h

.4

.3

.2

.1

0.0

-.1

-.2


highmedlow

Mea

n of

Zsc

ore:

ta

nc m

aths

.4

.3

.2

.1

0.0

-.1

-.2


highmedlow

Mea

n of

Zsc

ore:

ta

nc s

cien

ce

.5

.4

.3

.2

.1

0.0

-.1

-.2

Figure 3. Learning power and attainment

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


difference—and a school where those students perceive it to be an emotionally safeplace to be. There is also a positive association between teachers’ perceptions of theirown learner-centred practices, their level of learner-centred beliefs and their students’attainment. Students’ sense of their school as an emotionally literate place is notassociated with attainment, but it is associated significantly with higher levels oflearning power on all dimensions.

When students are grouped according to their perception of their school as anemotionally literate place, then those with higher scores also score more highly on allperceptions of learner-centred practices, all student motivation variables and alllearning power dimensions.

School, class and year group differences

There were significant differences on all learner-centred variables, including percep-tions of domains of practice, all learning power variables and all emotional literacy vari-ables across schools. In addition to this the most learner-centred schools demonstrateda relationship between high learner-centred groups and higher attainment on learningpower and students’ perception of their school as an emotionally literate place.

Of note was the difference between scores on all variables between key stage 2(Years 4 and 5) and key stage 3 (Years 7–9). In keeping with previous studies, thedata suggest that schools become significantly less learner-centred at secondary leveland students demonstrate less learning power, while perceiving their schools to beless emotionally safe places to be.

Conclusion

These data suggest that there is a complex ecology of learning in schools and class-rooms that may promote or inhibit higher attainment. Learning power is itself a qual-ity or a ‘way of being’ that is inherent in individuals and also appears to be powerfullyinfluenced by the relationships within which individuals find themselves learning,particularly with their teacher and with key people in their school community.Qualities such as trust and challenge become important in this ecology and they arenotoriously difficult to measure. Bond (2004) describes trust as existing when ‘bothparties have the confidence that their relationship can withstand the challenge of risk,uncertainty and inequality’. In a learning-centred ecology these three challenges arepresent.

What has been learned in this study of the three-component model is that schooland classroom ethos and practices are significant in the development of student life-long learning skills and learning power. As with prior research in a living systemsframework (Wheatley, 1999), attention to the personal domain of educationalsystems fosters healthy human functioning and development. These systems mustnot only be grounded in principles of healthy human functioning, but they also needstructures and processes that best support the natural processes of learning andpositive growth. Organisations must value the contributions of all members, youth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


and adults alike. Wheatley’s work stresses the importance of ways of thinking abouthuman needs and basic functions that are restorative and strength-based, focusing onpositive growth and development. Complex living systems such as education thatfunction to serve particular human needs are by their nature unpredictable; they can,however, be understood in terms of principles that define human needs, cognitive andmotivational processes and variabilities of behaviour. Unlike non-living systems,there is a need to focus on concepts of self-renewal, interconnectedness and interde-pendence because, when one component of the system is ‘tinkered’ with, it will havean impact on all others as a result. Thus, this approach centres on understanding thatlife can be characterised as interconnected and interdependent webs of relationships.Building community through respectful and inclusive dialogue is a major tool oflearning, development and growth.

This project allowed a look at complex educational systems through the lens ofELLI, ALCP and ELA survey tools. It makes a contribution to the debate about thecreation of positive educational systems and/or redesign of current systems. Theproject is based on the assumption that effective education can be understood as atransforming process that is central to both attainment and learning to learn. Itrequires a whole-school approach to vision, ethos, values and community relation-ships. Clarifying school and community values is a vital part of the process thatengages school and community members in defining the central purposes of educa-tion in order to understand how to personalise learning content to make it meaningfuland relevant to all learners. Integral to school transformation is the development oflearner-centred strategies in the classroom and beyond. This development work inBristol schools has helped us to understand the characteristics of the effective learnerand how these can be facilitated, nurtured and assessed by learners and their teachers.The lifelong learning and learner-centred survey tools allow teachers and students toidentify areas where learning experiences can become more learner-centred and thusfacilitate lifelong learning, achievement, citizenship and values development. Theemotional literacy survey tools allow students and others to assess the functioning ofthe school as a support system for basic human needs which, when met, support thedevelopment of learner-centred learning communities and the development oflifelong learning skills.

We have a world that is increasingly ready for this three-component model that hasbeen explored in the current research. The model includes a compelling vision andwell-articulated student outcomes; it is a model that provides for character, spiritualand citizenship development along with lifelong learning skills.

Summary of key findings

● All key variables from the ELLI learning power profile, ALCP teacher and studentsurveys and the Emotional literacy audit demonstrated high reliability for bothstudent and teacher samples.

● There were significant correlations between high levels of teacher and studentlearner-centred variables and positive learning power dimensions. Conversely, low

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


levels of learner-centred practices were associated with Fragility and dependence,the negative pole of learning power.

● Student learning power profiles were highest with teachers who were high in termsof their students’ perceptions of their levels of learner-centred practices.

● There were significant correlations between ELLI, ALCP and ELA variables,indicating that learner-centred practices are associated with the development oflearning power, and that learning power was highest in schools where people wereable to understand their own and others’ emotions and use this understanding toshape their actions.

● Students with the most learner-centred teachers had the highest levels of motiva-tion, learning power and feelings of emotional safety in school.

● Students in groups that were highest in learner-centredness and emotional literacytended to have the highest levels of attainment as well as higher levels of learningpower.

● There is evidence of a positive relationship between students’ learning power andtheir attainment, although some conflict between the more active aspects oflearning power and conventional assessment practices.

● Students who have higher levels of Strategic awareness and Creativity are likely tohave higher all-round learning power profiles.

The ELLI instrument is a powerful and teacher friendly formative assessment toolthat enables teachers to:

● facilitate student ownership and self-management of learning;● facilitate group participation in and management of learning;● diagnose areas for improvement for individuals and groups;● focus on the process rather than only the outcomes of learning;● learn for themselves and make their own professional judgements;● track learners’ development across domains, classes and years.

The ALCP instrument is an effective tool for supporting teachers in professionallearning about the ways in which their practice enhances or inhibits students inbecoming effective learners.

The ELA audit provides a tangible way for school leaders to understand, evaluateand develop a positive emotional climate in the school to support learning. It has facevalidity with teachers and provides an important forum for dialogue and change.

The strongest message from the findings of this project concerns the interconnec-tion and interaction of all these variables in the ecology of learning. The intrapersonalelements, including a learner’s understanding of the values, attitudes, dispositionsand qualities that affect learning power, have the most direct impact on that learner’smotivation and capacity for self-improvement. However, these include the learner’sperceptions of powerful interpersonal factors, including the quality of key learningrelationships and the extent to which his or her individual learning dispositions andneeds are recognised and met. The capacity of adults to meet this challenge depends,in turn, on the organisational climate, which itself is affected by the congruence and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


coherence with which all these interconnected factors are acknowledged andexpressed through the activity and discourse of a learning community.

Together the three instruments, combined with values-driven school leadership,can contribute to the creation of dynamic and sustainable communities of learners.They provide for diagnostic and formative assessment of how well the students,teachers and the organisation are doing, in creating and developing a learner-centredcommunity, characterised by:

● an emotional climate conducive to learning;● relationships that support motivation and raise attainment;● responsibility in learners for self-management;● coherence and consistency in working to a common purpose;● professional learning and trusted professional judgement;● effective lifelong learning power.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Lifelong Learning Foundation. Other members ofthe project team included: Helen Jelfs, Emma Randall, Susannah Temple, GaryProsser, Harriet Goodman and James Park.

References

APA Task Force on Psychology in Education (1993) Learner-centred psychological principles:guidelines for school redesign and reform (Washington, DC, American Psychological Associationand Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory), January.

APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs (1997) Learner-centred psychologicalprinciples: a framework for school reform and redesign (rev. edn) (Washington, DC, AmericanPsychological Association), November.

Bond, T. (2004) Ethical guidelines for researching counselling and psychotherapy (Rugby, BritishAssociation for Counselling and Psychotherapy).

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996) The quiet revolution: rethinking teacher development, EducationalLeadership, 53(6), 4–10.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997) The right to learn: a blueprint for creating schools that work (SanFrancisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).

Deakin Crick, R. & McCombs, B. (forthcoming) Educational research and evaluation—theassessment of learner-centred practices surveys: an English case study.

Deakin Crick, R., Broadfoot, P. & Claxton, G. (2004) Assessment in education, Developing aneffective lifelong learning inventory: ELLI Project, 11(3), 248–272.

Feistritzer, C. E. (1999) The making of a teacher: a report on teacher preparation in the US. Availableonline at: http://www.ncei.com/MakingTeacher-blts.htm (accessed 22 June 2003).

Hadden, A., Park, J., Goodman, H. & Deakin Crick, R. (forthcoming) Pastoral care in education,evaluating emotional literacy in schools: the development of the schools emotional environ-ment for learning survey.

Larson, R. W. (2000) Toward a psychology of positive youth development, American Psychologist,55(1), 170–183.

McCombs, B. L. (1997) Self-assessment and reflection: tools for promoting teacher changestoward learner-centred practices, NASSP Bulletin, 81(587), 1–14.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


McCombs, B. L. (1999) The Assessment of learner-centred practices (ALCP): tools for teacher reflection,learning and change (Denver, CO, University of Denver Research Institute).

McCombs, B. L. (2001) What do we know about learners and learning? The learner-centred frame-work: bringing the educational system into balance, Educational Horizons, 79(4), 182–193.

McCombs, B. L. (2003) Providing a framework for the redesign of K–12 education in the contextof current educational reform issues, Theory into Practice, 42(2), 93–101; Special Issue onLearner-centred principles (guest editor, B. L. McCombs).

McCombs, B. L. & Lauer, P. A. (1997) Development and validation of the Learner-centred battery:self-assessment tools for teacher reflection and professional development, ProfessionalEducator, 20(1), 1–21.

McCombs, B. L. & Lauer, P. A. (1998) The learner-centred model of seamless professionaldevelopment: implications for practice and policy changes in higher education. Paperpresented at the 23rd International Conference on Improving University Teaching, Dublin, July.

McCombs, B. L. & Miller, L. (2007) Learner-centered classroom practices and assessments: maximiz-ing student motivation, learning and achievement (Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin Press).

McCombs, B. L. & Whisler, J. S. (1997) The learner-centred classroom and school: strategies forincreasing student motivation and achievement (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).

McCombs, B. L., Perry, K. E. & Daniels, D. H. (in press) Understanding children’s and teachers’perceptions of learner centered practices: implications for early schooling, Elementary SchoolJournal.

Putnam, R. T. & Borko, H. (2000) What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to sayabout research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.

Seligman, M. E. P. & Csikszentmihalyi. M. (2000) Positive psychology: an introduction, AmericanPsychologist, 55(1), 5–14.

Senge, P. M. (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation (New York,Doubleday).

Sparks, D. & Hirsh, S. (1997) A new vision for staff development (Alexandria, VA, Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development).

Wheatley, M. J. (1999) Leadership and the new science: discovering order in a chaotic world (2nd edn)(San Francisco, CA, Berrett-Koehler).

Wheatley, M. J. & Kellner-Rogers, M. (1998) Bringing life to organisational change, Journal ofStrategic Performance Measurement, April–May, 5.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

50 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

The ecology of learning: factors contributing to learner‐centred classroom cultures