1. PERSONALISING
LEARNING IN VCAL
Carlie Case

2. IF A CHILD CANNOT LEARN THE WAY WE
TEACH – MAYBE WE SHOULD TEACH
THE WAY THEY LEARN…
Ignacio Estrada

3. I would like to thank the staff, students and teaching team for their
continued support and active participation in the project.
Especially 9/10C!
The school has asked not be named.

4. Research Question
How does personalising learning in VCAL affect the following:
 Student attendance
 Student behavior
 Student results

5. Context of the Study – School Setting
 A small Community House, in Outer Eastern Melbourne (Victoria)
 Offers VCE, VCAL & VET programs
 Youth education program is attended by students who have disengaged with main
stream education

6. Student Participants
 Student participants are aged from 15 years to 16 years
 They have all disengaged from main stream education
 Many have large gaps in their educational histories

7. BASELINE DATA

8. Pre Testing
Pretesting - Literacy & Numeracy
(Max 60 marks)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Pretest score
H
Pretest score
I
J
K
L
M
N

9. Classes missed by students in the 3 weeks prior to trial
Total 32 Classes
N
M
L
K
J
I
H
G
F
E
D
C
B
A
0
5
10
15
20
25
30

10. Behaviour in the three weeks prior to trial
Times each student is removed from classes
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
Coordinator
visits during
class times

11. Interviews
Key points raised by Parents/Guardians:
 How will personalising learning improve my child‟s abilities?
 Will the new style allow my child to build their skills in all areas of learning – or will they
be able to pick what is easy and leave the rest out?
 How are you going to ensure my child is still meeting the required levels of English and
Math to be able to function in the workplace?
 Why is personalising learning needed?

12. Interviews with staff
Staff concerns for the project:
 Behavior management
 Literacy and numeracy levels of the students undertaking the trial
 Attitudes of students undertaking the trial
 Engagement of students
 Staff knowledge and experience of personalisation of learning

13. THE PROJECT
Community Garden & Pizza Oven

14. Some of the work carried out by the trial group

15. POST TRIAL DATA

16. Literacy & Numeracy Post Test
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Posttest score
H
Posttest score
I
J
K
L
M
N

17. Attendance incidents
 Attendance within the participants improved, throughout the trial.
 Data was taken in regards to the attendance of the students in the three weeks prior to
the trial, which showed significant absences for a number of students, and was then
compared to the attendance data of students throughout the trial.
 There is a clear difference in attendance between the two time periods which again
raises the issue of needing to tailor curriculum to the needs of students in order to
engage them with what they are learning.

18. Behaviour
 Similarly to attendance, the use of personalizing learning within the groups show a
distinct change in behavior.
 Once again, data was provided for the three weeks prior to the trial, which counted the
times removed from class by individual students.
 There was a distinct reduction in class removals in 9/10C

19. Achievements
 Prior to the undertaking of the trial, the sample of students undertaking VCAL all
displayed disappointing Literacy and Numeracy results in the standardized testing.
 However, once the three week trial had been undertaken, and students undertook post
testing (that was testing the same knowledge as the pre-test, however was delivered in
a personalized manner), the results began to show distinct changes.
 Many students had significant increases in their literacy skills, with more than half
increasing their scores dramatically. A few students scored worse on the post testing
model than the pre-test model, however there are a number of variables that must be
investigated when interpreting the data, which may have impacted on the negative
results for some students.

20. POST TRIAL INTERVIEWS

21. Student interviews
The insight given from students throughout the trial period, in the opinion of the author, the most
important data that was collected. Albeit difficult data to analyze, the students prior to the trial
expressed the following themes in their responses:
 Dissatisfaction in their classes
 Frustration with the lack of flexibility
 Frustration in the similarity to main stream education
 Disappointment in their results and abilities in classes
After the trial, student responses changed, moving from dissatisfaction and frustration, to a reenergized
and interest towards school, with the following key points raised by students:
 Increased interest in topics covered
 More willingness to attend and participate in classes
 Empathy to teachers in regards to poor behavior and effort in developing resources for classes.

22. Staff interviews
Similarly to student reviews, staff attitudes towards the teaching of 9/10C changed, with
an increase in the willingness to teach and develop resources for the group.
The drop in removals from classes for the students, allowed for less „down time‟ and
distractions within the classes, and therefore teachers were able to deliver more content
and achieve successful outcomes more efficiently.

23. ANALYSING THE STUDY

24. Strengths
 This research project has highlighted the need for the adaption of current teaching
practices within the organization and its teaching team.
 By providing a supportive environment, that had open communication between the
teaching team, researcher and students, all parties were able to understand (or
attempt to) the views of other stakeholders.
 The study also allowed for the students of 9/10C to prove themselves, to be confident
and capable young people, instead of the poor reputation that precede the group.

25. Problems with the project
The project highlighted a number of problems including:
 Research question was too big
 Trial period too short
 Sample size was too small to find conclusive results
 The research project was able to identify (or further cement) the need to research and
innovate curriculum within the centre. However the trial also highlighted the need for
substantial professional development for the teaching team as well as the need for
updated resources and sufficient planning and development time allocations for teaching
staff.
 Further to this, the study highlighted the substantial gaps in education of the students
attending the centre, which could have impacted the data. As work as modified to be „at
the level‟ of students undertaking the trial, and results may be substantially different in
another setting, or with another sample group.

26. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
STUDY

27.  Professional Development for the teaching team
 Continuing the trial on a larger sample group and over a longer period
 Implementing applied/personalized tasks wherever possible for the students
 Involve students in curriculum planning/development

28. FEEDBACK FROM ORGANISATION

29. “The study has opened my eyes to endless possibilities with the young people”
Teacher
“I enjoy coming to school now – The
teachers are really trying to make school ok”
Student
“I was sceptical to begin with. But my son is learning things he
needs to know – and he is going to (and staying in) class”.
Parent