Bursts and Bubbles 2025...

My concern that the rigor Structured Literacy brings would unintentionally lead us back to the uninspired consolidation tasks of the "duplicated worksheet" era was my why behind this inquiry. This was a time that stifled creative expression and deep, transformational demonstrations of learning, so my goal was to ensure creativity thrived alongside the new structured literacy framework.

To explore this I compared the planned Create opportunities across our kura between Terms 2 and 4 by analysing teacher planning, staff feedback, class sites and student blogs. I wanted to see not just what was planned, but what was actually happening in classrooms. 

Early observations showed very quickly that our junior team already excels in hands-on, collaborative creativity. This insight prompted me to shift my focus to the senior team. However, it soon became clear to me that no one needed added pressure from me when they were implementing new learning for the first time. So I decided to refine my focus to my own Year 7 and 8 classroom, where I could explore creative practice with our most confident readers.

In my classroom, the introduction of AI tools such as Gemini Gems, alongside our established follow-up challenges, enabled students to build on prior knowledge and engage in richer, more independent learning conversations.

By narrowing my focus or, as I like to call it, “taking a selfie”, I was able to demonstrate that maintaining a creative emphasis within a structured curriculum is not only possible, but highly effective.

The findings were encouraging and I was able to see that Create oportunites are firmly embedded at PBS without explicit intervention from me. They just needed to be viewed in an alternative way.

The greatest challenge throughout this process has been adapting to the various course changes my inquiry has taken. My journey has reminded me that Create must be purposeful and engaging. It is not an optional add-on; it is a vital vehicle through which students construct, represent, and deepen their understanding.

I will move into 2026 recognising that: 

Create extends beyond digital tools; hands-on, collaborative approaches are equally powerful.

And finally, student agency drives academic rigour; when learners have creative choice -  engagement and independence increase, because this is when learning becomes truly transformative.

Unpacking Qualitative Data - My Journey to Balancing Rigor and Transformation...

My central motivation for this inquiry stems from a concern that the necessary rigor of the Structured Literacy framework could unintentionally stifle creative expression and deep demonstration of learning. 

My perspective is rooted in my own educational experiences from a time dominated by repetitive, uninspired reading consolidation (the classic ‘duplicated worksheet’ era) where genuine engagement was rare. The moments that truly stood out were interactive like using the listening post or, more enjoyably, performing plays, especially when we could create our own costumes or masks.

This pattern continued early in my teaching career. I often defaulted to guided reading worksheets that, despite having diverse texts, asked the same predictable questions, which stifled independent thought. While I attempted to introduce new ideas, limited classroom technology and a lack of accessible Professional Learning and Development (PLD) hindered my sustained pedagogical growth.

When I joined the Manaiakalani cluster I was introduced to a culture of continuous learning and innovation that prioritises student engagement. This culture intensified my fear that the required intensity of Structured Literacy might accidentally regress our practice back to those days of ‘boring repetition.’

This concern drove my inquiry into effectively utilising the 'Create' component within our kura. A core goal of our previous PLD was moving teaching and learning 'above the line' of Dr. Ruben Puentedura's SAMR model—a framework that pushes technology use from simple enhancement (Substitution and Augmentation) toward transformation (Modification and Redefinition). My primary focus for this year was to ensure our literacy instruction maintained its rigor without sacrificing this transformational practice.
Initially, I looked at creative opportunities school-wide, quickly realizing the junior team excels in this area. For early readers, creativity is best fostered by hands-on, collaborative fun, rather than only with digital tools. This realisation saw me pivot for the first time as I couldn't limit my study to only digital affordances if I wanted to fully understand and strengthen 'Create' within Structured Literacy.
My next step was to narrow the focus to the senior team. However, I soon realised that a team embracing new PLD needs time to build confidence and implement change. Feedback from team meetings told me they certainly didn't need me critically observing the create opportunities in their reading lessons. This led to my final pivot of focussing exclusively on my own practice in my Year 7/8 classroom.

Focusing on my own Year 7/8 students (our most capable readers), provided an advantage. Given my existing literacy PLD, I wasn't entering the Structured Literacy framework completely cold. I challenged myself to incorporate the affordances of AI, alongside my well established kete of follow-up challenges, to encourage students to build on prior knowledge when showing their understanding of the new texts we unpacked.

A clear example is the inclusion of Gemini Gems in our guided reading follow-up (unpacked in an earlier post). The resulting change has been significant as student responses now feature more extended, student-initiated, and student-led discussion.

Ultimately, when 'Create' is properly embedded, it becomes a purposeful and engaging opportunity for tauira to demonstrate understanding. As educational theorist Elwyn Richardson observed, research shows students learn by actively constructing knowledge—a process that involves breaking down, rearranging, selecting, and demonstrating their understanding so that visualised thoughts were given an opportunity to be created.

Exploring Quantitative Data...

The purpose of this inquiry was to evaluate the integration and frequency of 'Create' opportunities, a key component of the Manaiakalani ‘Learn-Create-Share’ pedagogy, within Reading instruction across our kura.

To measure the shift in practice, analysis was conducted comparing:

1. Opportunities explicitly planned for by teaching staff.

2. Opportunities shared via class Digital Learning Objects (DLOs).

3. Qualitative feedback sourced from Teacher Planning in Term 2 and Term 4 

Confidentiality: Due to the identifiable nature of the small learning environment, all data is presented in aggregated and generalised form. Individual teacher or classroom data will not be shared to preserve the privacy and confidentiality of staff, ensuring the focus of this inquiry remains on collective pedagogical practices rather than individual appraisal.

Quanititative analysis of the data indicates a noticeable increase in the provision of opportunities for our tauira to consolidate their reading comprehension and literacy learning through the 'Create' component of the Manaiakalani framework.

The presentation below unpacks the increase in planned opportunities for our tauira to creatively explore their new learning. The detail in the analysis in reflected in the breakdown of the graphs on slides 4, 6, 8 and 10. It is important here to recognise the fact that our staff have a wide range of teaching experience ranging from less than one year to thirty plus years. It is also important to note that everyone has put a lot of effort into embracing a new curriculum and integrating new PLD, whilst trying hard not to throw the baby of 'create' out with the bath water.

The following factors are hypothesised to have contributed to the observed increase in 'Create' opportunities:

• Recognition that 'Create' extends beyond digital products to encompass various non-digital outputs.
• Completion of Structured Literacy Professional Learning and Development (PLD).
• Targeted staff meeting on the Manaiakalani ‘Create’ principle.
• In-class support provided by Manaiakalani facilitators.
• Active sharing of 'Create' outcomes in team meetings.
• Increased utilisation of blogging as an immediate output and sharing platform.
• Elevated kaiako confidence in teaching Structured Literacy.
• Improved kaiako confidence in utilising digital capabilities for task design.
• Increased staff ownership of accountability for pedagogical integration.
• Active planning for 'Create' opportunities.
• Effective establishment of connections between new and prior learning.
• Development of greater tauira (student) independence, enabling more complex, self-directed creation tasks.

The following factors are hypothesised to account for areas where the integration of 'Create' has seen minimal change:

• 'Create' opportunities were not explicitly integrated into planning cycles.
• Lower kaiako confidence in implementing Structured Literacy instructional practices.
• Lower kaiako confidence in leveraging digital capabilities for task design.
• Perceived pressure resulting from connecting existing practice to new PLD requirements.
• Initial resistance to pedagogical change within some practices
• Disconnects between teacher expectation and tauira capability, particularly concerning the complexity of independent creation tasks.

In summary, this inquiry confidently confirms that 'Create' opportunities are thriving in our kura. We acknowledge the wide spectrum of teaching experience within our staff, recognising that new pedagogical learning often generates self-doubt, leading some to initially favour highly structured, familiar methods. While there is a necessary place for less creative consolidation tasks, the key to effective literacy mastery is 'repetition without boring'. This critical element is demonstrably afforded when students are given agency, choice, and creative opportunity within their follow-up learning.

What the Research says...

With technology at my fingertips and time not on my side, I prompted Gemini to undertake a deep research to find out more about why teacher confidence levels drop when faced with implementing new learning. 

Click on image to hear the audio overview of full research findings

This is my summary of the findings...

The decline in teacher confidence during the implementation of new learning initiatives is a predictable reaction caused by challenges to personal competence and structural deficiencies like planning time pressures and knowledge gaps. Teachers initially find themselves juggling  anxieties where they worry about the changes needed to be made to routines, alongside professional fears associated with the uncertainty that comes with stepping into the unknown. 

As implementation begins, the concern shifts to logistical and structural constraints where concern connects to the amount of time needed to be prepared to teach the new approach. This efficacy dip is often worsened by perceived external and internal pressures to find the success quickly. PLD must be ongoing, curriculum-specific, and designed to close identified content and pedagogical knowledge gaps, moving away from generic, one-size-fits-all training. Time for reflection, implementation, peer and self observation, and skill practice should be allowed. Everyone learns at their own pace and recognising this is important. What has made the implementation of sound practice in structured literacy more fragmented for my team is the fact the Year 4-6 kaiako have had separate sessions from the year 7/8 kaiako. Different online delivery options has meant a similar message has been shared but as I attend one and most of my team the other, there are bound to be gaps in our shared learning which in turn has lead to levels of uncertainty being higher as I have always been two days behind in my own learning and unable to effectively support my team as they begin each new learning journey.

As a leader fostering a buffer against the cognitive and emotional load is vital is success is to be found and a genuine buy-in to be established. Allowing my team complete agency and control over their implementation decisions within their classrooms has meant we have come back together again with a stronger connection to our new learning. Confidence is emerging and as a result mentor observations to gather a baseline picture have begun. It is only now that I can begin to look for the opportunities being provided for their learners to be creative when undertaking structured literacy learning. I look forward to see where this takes us as the term progresses.

Describe and Explain the changes/tweaks you have made in your practice along the way...

I began with a focus of how we (PBS) are harnessing the digital to explore the create aspect of structured literacy. Students learn by actively constructing knowledge, not just absorbing it. This involves breaking down, rearranging, selecting, and demonstrating their understanding, so that  as Elwyn Richardson stated, “...whatever was in their mind, whatever they could visualise, whatever they could see, they created...” It is because of the very reason just mentioned, that I felt this is the the most important and catalytic issue of learning for our learners this year. I didn't want to introduce and unpack a text verbally through preset comprehension strategies. I didn't want to be the teacher who asked my students to summarise a text on a graphic organiser then leave it there. I am the teacher who asks a provocation and encourages talk and creativity. I want my learners to show me their connections to the aspects of the text we are unpacking using the plethora of digital tools available to us. Defaulting to substitution in response to a structured learning process does not, in my opinion, open the opportunities to 'empower my students with creative learning opportunities to help accelerate achievement'.

At the start of my inquiry I thought I would look at our school as a whole. This was when I realised I was comparing apples with pears. Many of our junior team facilitate amazing opportunities for their students to create to show their understanding of a text. Their learners are fully engaged and excited to share what they have been doing any time I walk into one of their rooms. The difference between what they do, and what the senior team do is that many of their create challenges are not limited to capitalising on the affordances digital tools provide. Changing my focus to just the senior team was my first tweak. 

When we began our structured learning PLD in Term 2 with our introduction to the program. We then moved forward into Term 3 for our Community of Practice (COP) sessions and began implementing our structured literacy programs. I made the decision from the outset to lead from the front. By that I mean I made a point of finding ways to include opportunities for my learners to show their understanding of the texts read by being creative. What I noticed other members of my team doing was simply trying to get it right with our new learning. I do have the advantage here of having taught structured literacy for a number of years in the UK. I was definitely 'rusty' but felt confident to add in the new elements to my program. Term 3 was not the time to push the 'create' as I needed a team who were strengthening their own connections and that was more important. This was my second tweak as I took the focus of others and focused purely on myself.

When we met to plan for term 4 I jumped on my 'create' bandwagon. With a number of examples under my belt and on my blog I was able to lead by example. Being able to visualise the outcome has seen a huge change in planning content in my team in literacy this term. I am now looking forward to seeing how these initial ideas look when they are finished. The change here is in my thinking. I now realise that adding create opportunities that capitalise on the digital tools we have at our fingertips comes when teachers feel confident of the challenge ahead. 

Teaching as Inquiry 2025...

Click here to see how I align my inquiry with the Manaiakalani framework.

“Recognising and spreading sophisticated pedagogical practice across our community so that students learn in better and more powerful ways...”

The Manaiakalani Community of Learning is working together on this task using the expertise existing in of our community of learning. 

Labels:

LEvidence, LScan, LTrend, LHypothesise, LResearch, LReflect,

CPlan, CTry, CInnovate, CImplement, CReflect,

SPublish, SCoteach, SModel, SGuide, SFback, SReflect

Bursts and Bubbles 2024...

My inquiry this year has had many twists and turns. Achieving accelerated shift in Literacy was identified as being one of the most important issues facing our Y4 - 8 team, this year, when the time point one data was analysed. What began as an inquiry into how learning gained from professional development was helping to strengthen teacher practice and student achievement in literacy, completely morphed into the one you can see on the screen behind me. Why? Because it simply wasn't working.

The effect of staff changes on PLD is something I hadn't initially taken into consideration and I found myself going round in circles. I began my journey by trying to ensure we were all on the same page. I knew consistency and a shared language of instruction would help our students to make the connections they need to be able to access their learning with confidence and understanding.

This wasn’t about disregarding what my team brought to the table, but rather about aligning our thinking. However, as we were all coming from such different places, both literally and in knowledge gained from recent PLD, I hit a wall I couldn’t get over.

Midway through the year I spoke to Naomi Rosedale to get her advice on why this wasn’t coming together for me. To be honest, by this time I had pretty much lost interest as I was going round in circles. It’s amazing the power one conversation can have. I left totally reinspired with a completely new inquiry focus and my new best friend, the Manaiakalani Reading Pillars of Practice sitting comfortably in my Google drive. Aligning what I was looking for with the Pillars of Practice was the lightbulb moment I needed. In Term 3 I used the pillars to look closely at what and how we, that is my team and I, were actually teaching the tamariki in front of us, in our reading lessons. Time point one data analysis helped me gauge whether or not the learning planned met the learning needs. To allow for consistency, I took the stance that if it wasn't in the planning it wasn't happening. The follow up discussions were both rich and gave all of us the clarity we needed to help us move forward in our quests to meet the learning needs of our individual classes. This process was repeated in Term 4 and Time point 2 data analysed alongside it. What I noticed was with a shared understanding and stronger knowledge of why we need to make changes, changes had been made. These findings and the student shift we are celebrating are all explained in detail on my blog. Changing my inquiry focus has allowed me to introduce change in a manageable and achievable way. Mindsets where planning is concerned, have moved from compliance to purpose, something I struggled to initially get buy in from. I feel that looking closely at my own planning put us all on an even playing field. Having a framework allowed us to all learn together but at our own pace. The big message I want to share here is that change is good, it should be embraced and we should not be afraid to walk in a different direction if what we have tried is not working.

Exploring Quantitative Data...

To measure the difference our syndicate focus on effective reading planning has made, I have analysed the achievement shifts of our students who achieved 'below' in the PAT Panui / Reading comprehension assessments at Time Point 1 (TP1), and were present for the Time Point 2 (TP2) assessments. The graphs show a decrease in 'below' levels across the syndicate. These shifts across the year groups are illustrated in the graphs in the DLO above. To unpack this further I have analysed the GAP analysis completed by each class teacher. Due to the need to maintain privacy I will not be sharing these docs as students and teachers are easily identifiable. 

Possible reasons for students with no shift or a shift backwards:

• IEP
• Erratic attendance
• Behaviour
• Limited connections to the learning
• ESOL funded
• Disconnect with language of questioning
• Low level text comprehension
• Low self efficacy
• Overthinking the challenge

Continued absence from school prevents strong connections to the learning being made. These students are still learning to read and a lack of continuity means their cognitive load has increased as the gaps in their learning have widened and they have not been able to capitalise on the supports put in place for them. 

A lack of focus during learning time often results in learning has been impacted. Students who are off-task are not engaged in their learning tend to fall even further behind as the gap widens, causing already low levels of self efficacy to become an even bigger hurdle to get over. Low self efficacy also brings about the fear of failure, something often masked with a reluctance to participate and engage in the learning. 

Students with an IEP, or who are ESOL funded, often have disconnects with the language of questioning and low level text comprehension due to their limitations in gaining meaning from text at a higher than normal level. Removal of additional learning support or the opportunity to collaborate in testing situations, are also factors to be considered here as the reality of having to rely on the underdeveloped independent working skills leads to self doubt. In turn this leads to overthinking and/or not knowing how to access and apply the strategies needed to gain meaning. 

Possible reasons for no shift or a shift backwards linked to teacher practice:

• Students not being taught at the right level
• Teacher content knowledge not a strength
• Limited opportunities for differentiation
• Links to writing not planned for
• Learning Intentions and Success Criteria not being unpacked or linked directly to the learning
• Text choice
• Limited opportunities for discussion
• Create opportunities too limited
• Reading To missing
• Shared Reading missing
• Reliance on 'safe' and 'known' comprehension strategies
• No opportunities to reflect on own fluency
• Multimodal opportunities present in only some classes
• Syndicate created comprehension scaffolds used and displayed in some classes

 

Year Group	Shift backwards	No shift	Shift
4	13.3%	26.6%	0
5	6.5%	13%	6.5%
6	0	6.3%	9.4%
7	0	7%	14%
8	0	7%	14%

Time Point 1 achievement data was the catalyst behind the introduction of the Manaiakalani Reading Pillars of Practice (MRPP) as a framework to align our reading planning with. Through observations, appraisal discussions and planning feedback I noticed areas in our practice that were strong and the areas that needed strengthening. These are illustrated below in the TP1/TP2 reading planning analysis. After the TP1 planning analysis had been discussed both with the team and individually we set ourselves both syndicate and individual focuses. As with the data above, anonymity has been respected so classes and teachers have not been identified.

Shift in effective teacher practice between TP1 and TP2:

• Data analysed effectively to support group learning needs
• Teacher content knowledge strengthening
• Text choice strengthened
• Text structure and vocabulary focus introduced in all classes
• LI/SC align with syndicate co-created LI/SC to promote shared language of instruction
• A wider variety of reading comprehension strategies being explicitly planned for
• Multimodal opportunities present in 4/5 classes
• Explicit links between student achievement data, long term plans and guided reading plans
• Wide variety of questioning being used
• Questioning linked to comprehension strategies
• Syndicate created comprehension scaffolds used and displayed in all classes
• Planning is moving from being done for compliance to be done for a purpose.

                                      

Adopting the Manaiakalani Reading Pillars of Practice as a guiding framework has directly benefited our students by empowering our team of teachers with the knowledge and tools to improve instruction. This shared understanding has facilitated our collaborative learning journey, and highlighted the importance of using data to inform our planning to help us meet the learning needs of the students in our classes.

Exploring Qualitative Data...

This qualitative evaluation explores the impact of the Manaiakalani Reading Pillars of Practice (MRPP) on reading planning, teacher practice and capability, and student achievement within our school context. Capability, defined as the ability to effectively apply knowledge and skills to achieve desired outcomes. By aligning our planning to the MRPP has helped strengthen teacher capability and enhance reading instruction for our Year 4-8 teachers. In turn this has helped accelerate shift in student achievement in Reading.

To do this I analysed both long term planning and guided reading lesson plans with the time point 1 student achievement data in mind. Learning conversations with teachers allowed us both to explore their perceptions of what was needed to help all our students find success in reading. This process fostered a shared understanding of effective reading instruction within our team and promoted a cohesive approach where our thinking is more aligned. It allowed us to introduce mini PLD sessions that explored and unpacked comprehension strategies and the need for an aligned shared language of instruction in our team meetings. We co-constructed learning intentions, scaffolds and group norms. Using these resources helped us strengthen the questions we asked to ensure we were introducing our students to a wider variety of comprehension skills and providing them with increased opportunities to apply these skills in context both independently and collaboratively through discussion.

The MRPP has provided a clear framework for aligning long-term and short-term planning with evidence-based practices. The use of student achievement data alongside this has facilitated a shift from compliance-based planning to purposeful instruction. This shift has resulted in teachers moving away from simply falling back on the known to actively considering the specific needs of their students and tailoring instruction accordingly. 

                                                               

This process has introduced opportunities for rich professional conversations to take place. Additionally it had provided opportunities for best practices to be shared and both syndicate wide and individual areas that need strengthening to be identified. Using the Manaiakalani Reading Pillars of Practice has provided us with a clear framework for planning and instruction. This has as previously mentioned, reduced ambiguity, strengthening teacher confidence and has helped to put us all on the same page. From a leadership perspective this process has been the stepping stone we needed to engage in rich professional conversations where both successes can be identified, hard messages given and clarity of where to next co-constructed.

Use of a gap analysis has helped us to tailor instruction to meet individual learning needs of the tamariki in our own classes. Embracing change by beginning to multimodal text sets has provided our students with more opportunities to engage with and unpack the texts in front of them. We still are still on a journey but with a stable staff going forward we have the advantage of having already taken the first steps towards change.

The implementation of aligning our planning with the Manaiakalani Reading Pillars of Practice has had a positive impact on teacher capability and student achievement. It has provided us with the common ground needed for professional collaboration, and has highlighted the importance of implementing the data-driven planning decisions around our syndicate wide focus on the comprehension strategies. 

Describe and Explain the changes/tweaks you have made in your practice along the way...

My inquiry this year has had many twists and turns. Achieving accelerated shift in Literacy was identified as being one of the most important and catalytic issues of learning facing our students in Y4 - 8, this year, when the time point one data was analysed. Exploring how learning gained from professional development is helping to strengthen teacher practice and achievement in literacy is something I haven't looked at before so I began with one idea which over the course of the year has completely morphed into another. Not because as I mentioned in an earlier post, because it was unachievable, but because my initial idea simply wasn't working. The effect of staff changes on PLD is something I hadn't initially taken into consideration. What began as an inquiry into how we (PBS) are using PLD to accelerate shift across our school' and over the course of the year required a change of tact to inquiring into how are we building and strengthening our capability in raising student achievement outcomes in Reading for years 4-8 at PBS.

I began my journey by trying to ensure we were all on the same page. Consistency and a shared language of instruction help our students to make the connections they need to be able to access their learning with confidence and understanding. At the start this wasn't about paying no regard to the skills and knowledge my team brought to the table but rather to align our thinking. This is explained in detail with examples in an earlier blog post. This wasn't as successful as I hoped as we were all coming from such different places both literally and in knowledge gained from recent PLD, so it was back to the drawing board.

After speaking with Naomi Rosedale, I realised I needed a new pathway forward, a pathway that included a framework that would bring everything together and provide clarity. Aligning what I was looking for with the Manaiakalani Reading Pillars of Practice (MRPP) was the lightbulb moment I needed. In Term 3 I used the MRPP to look closely at what and how we, my team and I, were actually teaching the tauira in front of us in our reading lessons. I looked at the data and used the initial gap analysis to help me gauge whether or not the learning planned matched the student needs. To allow for consistency I stood by my decision that if it wasn't in the planning it wasn't there. The follow up discussions were both rich and gave all of us the clarity we needed to help us meet the learning needs of our individual classes.

This process was repeated in Term 4. I am yet to complete all my follow up discussions but have them timetabled for later in the week. What I noticed was with a shared understanding and stronger knowledge of why we need to make the changes. All my team have now included multimodal text sets, are looking at the structure and language in the different text types and have put a lot of thought into the questions they are asking. There is definitely a growth in the use of our shared language of instruction, a wider variety of comprehension skills being accessed. 

Changing my inquiry focus has allowed me to introduce change in a manageable and achievable way. Mindsets where planning is concerned has moved from compliance to purpose, something I struggled to initially get buy in from. I feel that looking closely at my own planning has added the 'teacher model' element to the learning. By using the MRPP it has allowed us to all learn together but at our own pace. Sharing people's successes and valuing their ideas has afforded us opportunities to learn with and from each other. 

The big message I want to share here is that change is good, it should be embraced and we should not be afraid to walk in a different direction if what we have tried is not working.