Learning experiences outside the
classroom (LEOTC) in a regionallyfocused environment
Summary of findings from 12 LEOTC research and
development projects
Report prepared for the Ministry of Education and LEOTC
providers
Rachel Bolstad and Sally Robertson
New Zealand Council for Educational Research
2011
© Ministry of Education (2011)
Table of Contents
Executive summary
iii
Expanded use of own resources (site, environment, equipment, expertise)
iii
Expanding LEOTC delivery through partnerships, networks and collaborations
iv
Curriculum support, collaborative planning with teachers, meeting school needs
iv
Support for the Government’s education goals
iv
Extending LEOTC through ICT
v
Non-use of LEOTC: Barriers to access and visibility
v
New knowledge development for a regionally-focused LEOTC model
vi
1. Introduction
1
Goals of the R&D projects
1
Providers
2
Research approaches
2
The purpose of this report
3
2. Expanded use of own resources (site, environment, equipment, expertise)
5
Strengths
5
Gaps and opportunities
5
Expanding use of the providers’ own site, resources, knowledge and expertise
5
3. Expanding LEOTC delivery through partnerships, networks and
collaborations
7
Strengths
7
Gaps and opportunities
8
Partnerships with local marae and iwi organisations
8
Partnerships with regional museums, heritage sites, natural environments, local collectors
and other relevant national or local organisations
9
Collaborations with other LEOTC providers
10
4. Curriculum support, collaborative planning with teachers, meeting school
needs
13
Strengths
13
Gaps and opportunities
13
Co-ordinating with schools’ curriculum planning cycles and offering broad thematic links
Broadening the curriculum linkages of programmes
Identifying and addressing unmet needs
Teacher professional development
i
13
15
15
15
5. Support for the Government’s education goals
18
All Māori achieving education success as Māori, and the goals of Ka Hikitia—Managing for
Success: The Māori Education Strategy
18
Every student achieving literacy and numeracy skills to enable their success
19
The goals of the Pasifika Education Plan
20
The goals of the New Zealand Disability Strategy
20
Every student achieving the skills and qualifications they need to make successful lives for
themselves, and New Zealand
20
6. Extending LEOTC through ICT
21
Providers’ websites
21
Enhancing content, functionality and usability
21
Supporting students and teachers to generate content, engage in collaborative learning,
discussion, debate and networking
22
Supporting better linkages between and across LEOTC providers
23
Virtual visits
23
Specialised ICT equipment and innovations
23
7. Non-use of LEOTC: Barriers to access and visibility
25
Which schools are not using LEOTC?
25
Barriers to access and possible solutions
25
Cost, distance and time
Knowledge of the programmes
26
26
LEOTC branding and promotion
27
8. Conclusion
28
New knowledge development for providers
28
New knowledge development for a regionally-focused LEOTC model
28
Tables
Table 1
Two ideas for collaborative programmes proposed in the WMT R&D final report
Table 2
Two approaches to supporting primary school “inquiry” topics at Nelson Provincial
Museum
11
14
Appendix
Appendix A: LEOTC R&D project final report template
ii
30
Executive summary
This report summarises findings that emerged across 12 Ministry of Education-funded research
and development (R&D) projects undertaken by LEOTC service providers between March and
June 2011. The goal of the research was to generate knowledge to support the transition towards a
regionally-focused funding and tendering process. Providers were asked to explore:

ways of extending and/or diversifying their programmes in partnership with schools

how they can diversify or extend the imaginative and flexible use of:
o
their own sites and settings, resources and expertise
o
other sites and settings, organisations, agencies, networks and expertise
o
collaborative working relationships and joint projects with partner organisations or
agencies at a local, regional or national level

how they can develop and support networks and service delivery methods that improve access
to their programmes by students from a significant number of schools in the region, especially
in areas where access may be a problem

how they incorporate key government education goals into the research process, and resulting
plan/s of action.
Providers undertook a self-review to identify strengths, gaps and opportunities for their service
provision. Common methods included analysis of school visitor data, consultation with high-user
and non-user schools, meetings with their own staff and staff from other organisations and
institutions and advice from expert advisory groups. Key findings are outlined below.
Expanded use of own resources (site, environment,
equipment, expertise)
A strength of current LEOTC provision is the access it gives to unique environments, collections,
equipment and hands-on/interactive/sensory experiences that students would be unlikely to
experience in the classroom. LEOTC can also offer schools access to specialist knowledge of
educators and other people such as gallery staff, scientists or researchers associated with the
LEOTC provider’s institution. Providers discussed a range of opportunities for further
developments including closer engagements between education and non-education staff,
developing innovative ideas for programmes using aspects of the site or collections that have not
been used before, and increasing the amount of “local” content to provide more tailored
programmes for schools.
iii
Expanding LEOTC delivery through partnerships, networks
and collaborations
Most LEOTC providers have various partnerships and collaborations which support and extend
their service provision, in some cases enabling providers to offer LEOTC programmes at more
than one site. This can expand the range of programme possibilities the provider can offer, extend
the reach and accessibility of LEOTC programmes for rural, isolated or low-decile schools and
enable schools to access education programmes built around unique resources and sites within
their community/region.
All 12 LEOTC providers investigated potential new partnerships or ways of expanding their
existing networks and relationships (for example, with local marae and iwi organisations,
provincial museums and heritage sites), other LEOTC providers and a range of other groups and
individuals linked with local resources or knowledge. These investigations led to a range of
potential development opportunities. For example, programmes that link across multiple
providers, regional programme packages that integrate the providers’ resources with local
resources (particularly for schools at a distance from the provider’s main site) and collaborating
with other LEOTC providers to develop pre- and post-visit resource materials that span multiple
providers and curriculum areas.
Curriculum support, collaborative planning with teachers,
meeting school needs
Many providers cited positive feedback from teachers about the range and flexibility of their
programmes, including their ability to offer “innovative ideas” or tailor programmes to meet
teachers’ requests. Providers find that schools come with different needs, expectations and
intentions regarding how LEOTC will connect with the school and classroom curriculum, and
teachers vary in whether they want tailor-made programmes versus being able to pick a set
programme “package”. Different strategies are needed to ensure that all schools’ needs can be
met. Providers identified opportunities including better co-ordination with schools’ curriculum
planning cycles, offering broad thematic links that schools can connect with, expanding or
developing programmes with curriculum linkages beyond the main learning areas that are
currently emphasised in the provider’s LEOTC contracts, and generating more opportunities for
teacher professional development at the LEOTC provider’s institution or organisation.
Support for the Government’s education goals
Many providers found it difficult to address some or all of the key government education goals
directly in their projects. However, all LEOTC providers are reporting against these goals in their
regular 6-monthly milestone reporting, and over time this will help to develop a richer picture of
LEOTC’s contributions to these goals.
The goal most commented on related to supporting success for Māori learners. Some providers
felt they had existing strengths in terms of opportunities for students to engage with Māori content
iv
and contexts, as well as to participate actively and work at their own level, follow their interests or
demonstrate leadership. Other providers identified a need to enhance their support for Māori
educational success through engagement with other people and groups in their communities,
including marae and iwi groups, and Māori education specialists. All providers indicated that
there was room to further develop their support for Māori education. A few providers commented
on support for Pasifika students’ learning, with similar strengths and opportunities identified as
for supporting Māori learners. However, LEOTC providers in a number of regions reported that
the schools they consulted had few Pasifika students, and hence these schools tended not to
provide comments or feedback in this area.
Some providers noted ways in which their programmes addressed and incorporated support for
students’ literacy and numeracy learning. However, schools consulted by some providers
indicated that LEOTC fulfilled a range of other needs and/or that their main value of LEOTC lay
in the breadth of experiences and connections that students could encounter outside the classroom
to support their learning.
Although many providers noted that it was their intention to support the needs of students with
disabilities or other kinds of special education needs, overall the R&D projects contributed little
information about gaps, opportunities, strategies or partnerships that were to be pursued to support
development in this area. However, examples of how LEOTC providers are addressing this and
other key government goals above have been reported and observed as part of the regular LEOTC
monitoring service provided by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER) to
the Ministry of Education.
Extending LEOTC through ICT
Most providers interpreted the ICT component of the R&D project in terms of the use and
functionality of their website. Ideas for website development spanned three main areas. First, how
might the content and usability of providers’ websites be enhanced? Second, what opportunities
are there for students to generate and share Web-based content as part of their LEOTC learning?
Third, how could provider websites support better linkages between and across LEOTC
providers? A few providers explored other possibilities for expanding the reach and quality of
students’ LEOTC experience through ICT (for example, through virtual field trips, live video
links and specialised equipment students can use during their LEOTC visits).
Non-use of LEOTC: Barriers to access and visibility
On average, providers most commonly found it harder to reach low-decile and rural schools,
although some had difficulty attracting secondary students/schools. The providers’ self-review of
their user and non-user data suggests that a national picture of use/non-use may be useful in the
future for identifying gaps in LEOTC provision and access across New Zealand, and strategies
providers could use for addressing these. The most common barriers providers identified for
schools accessing their LEOTC programmes were cost, distance and time; and the knowledge
about the programmes. Proposed solutions included partnerships to subsidise transport, more
v
delivery of offsite programmes, ICT-based solutions and different approaches to marketing,
improving communication with schools.
A strong message that came through from many providers was that the LEOTC brand is currently
not well recognised by some schools and that the benefits of choosing programmes from a
Ministry of Education-funded LEOTC provider needed to be clearer. Some providers suggested
creating a central database with information about LEOTC providers in different regions, and a
number of providers suggested ideas on the variation of the theme of a regional “one-stop
shop”—a regionally co-ordinated service for promotion, co-ordination, linking and booking of
LEOTC programmes.
New knowledge development for a regionally-focused LEOTC
model
Based on their R&D projects, providers offered the following ideas for consideration in the shift
to a regionally-focused LEOTC model:

Most providers commented positively on the benefits of collaborating with other groups and
organisations in order to link and extend the accessibility and relevance of LEOTC
programmes for schools in their regions (and, in some cases, for schools from outside their
regions).

The possibility of having greater regional collaboration and co-ordination in LEOTC service
provision raised questions for providers about how funding could be shared or used more
effectively to achieve this (for example, to allow time for developing shared promotional
strategies, linked programming, identifying further sites and resources in the region that could
be used for LEOTC and shared reflection/evaluation processes).

Collaborative programming was also seen to have implications for the way students and
school targets are counted and funded within LEOTC provider contracts. Some providers
noted that the expansion of LEOTC through collaborations, linked programmes, ICTenhanced delivery and other innovations had the potential to lead to learning opportunities of
varying durations and intensities, and that counts of students’ involvement in LEOTC ought
to reflect depth and duration as well as attendance.

Many providers identified the extension of offsite and outreach LEOTC programme delivery
(including through localised partnerships) as an effective strategy for increasing schools’
access to LEOTC, particularly for rural and lower-decile schools. However, these, and other
solutions such as subsidising transport costs to schools, also have funding implications, as
costs for time and travel could shift to providers rather than schools.

A few providers identified the potential of LEOTC services as sites for teacher professional
development. This raises questions about whether or how support for teacher professional
learning might be incorporated in the new LEOTC regionally-based model.

Some providers noted that partner organisations they collaborated with did not have a good
understanding of the New Zealand curriculum or how to work with schools, and that the
vi
LEOTC service provider could play a liaison role (particularly for supporting
local/community-based people and groups to have a role in students’ LEOTC experiences).

Some providers suggested the idea of a co-ordinated regional service for managing some of
the administrative aspects of LEOTC, such as programme promotion, marketing and
communications with schools, bookings, record management, relationship management
between collaborating organisations and ensuring that knowledge about the New Zealand
curriculum and its links to LEOTC are shared and made visible.

Providers supported the idea of a stronger LEOTC “brand” to promote to schools the benefits
of using a Ministry of Education-funded LEOTC service provider.

Some of the innovative ICT-based ideas for expanding LEOTC services require particular
kinds of hardware, software and ICT expertise which would also have budget implications for
LEOTC providers.
vii
1. Introduction
In 2011 the Ministry of Education issued a request for proposals from providers of learning
experiences outside the classroom (LEOTC) to undertake small research and development (R&D)
projects. The intention of funding these R&D projects was to generate knowledge to support the
transition towards a regionally-focused funding and tendering process.1
The factors influencing the changes to LEOTC funding and tendering are:

the need for more equity of access by schools/students to LEOTC services within and across
regions

to ensure LEOTC funding goes to quality providers that are nationally or regionally
significant

the need for LEOTC services to reflect the flexible, integrated nature of the National
Curriculum (The New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa).
The Ministry of Education funded 12 LEOTC providers to undertake small R&D projects from
mid-March to June 2011. This report summarises some of the common and unique findings and
directions that emerged across projects.
Goals of the R&D projects
The Ministry of Education wanted the projects to focus on how LEOTC providers can contribute
to extending the range, quality and accessibility of LEOTC services within or across regions,
operate as a community resource for learning in a more regionally-focused LEOTC environment
and take advantage of the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband in schools over the next 5 years.
Specifically, providers were asked to explore:

ways of extending and/or diversifying their programmes in partnership with schools

how they can diversify or extend the imaginative and flexible use of:
o their own sites and settings, resources and expertise
o other sites and settings, organisations, agencies, networks and expertise
o
collaborative working relationships and joint projects with partner organisations or
agencies at a local, regional or national level

how they can develop and support networks and service delivery methods that improve access
to their programmes by students from a significant number of schools in the region, especially
in areas where access may be a problem
1
This new tendering environment will be phased in from the 2012 tender round (for contracts starting in July
2013). Further information about the transition phase can be found on TKI: http://eotc.tki.org.nz/LEOTChome/For-providers/Transition-phase-2010–13
1

how they incorporate into the research process, and resulting plan/s of action, the key
government education goals of:
o
every student achieving the skills and qualifications they need to make successful lives
for themselves, and New Zealand
o
every student achieving literacy and numeracy skills to enable their success
o
all Māori achieving education success as Māori
o
the goals of Ministry of Education policy documents, Ka Hikitia—Managing for Success:
The Māori Education Strategy, the Pasifika Education Plan and the New Zealand
Disability Strategy.
Providers
The 12 providers that undertook an R&D project2 were:
1.
South Canterbury Museum (Timaru)
2.
New Zealand Marine Studies Centre (Dunedin)
3.
Govett-Brewster Art Gallery (New Plymouth)
4.
Wellington Museums Trust (City Gallery, Capital E, Museums Wellington, Carter
Observatory)
5.
Nelson Provincial Museum
6.
Marsden Valley Education Centre (Shantytown Heritage Park) (West Coast)
7.
Otago Settlers Museum (Dunedin)
8.
The Suter Art Gallery (Nelson)
9.
Te Kauri-Waikūkū Trust (Waikato)
10. Waitangi National Trust (Northland)
11. Island Bay Marine Education Centre (Wellington)
12. Heurisko (National provider of LEARNZ virtual field trips).
Research approaches
Providers undertook a self-review approach to identify strengths, gaps and opportunities for
further development in their service provision. Most providers used the following methods:

analysis of school visit records to identify schools that are/are not regular users of their
LEOTC services

surveys and/or interviews with samples of teachers/principals who are currently users or nonusers of the LEOTC service

consultation with staff in their own institutions and advisory groups

analysis of current approaches to use of ICT to support LEOTC provision and exploration of
new ideas and possibilities
2
The invitation to submit a proposal was offered to all LEOTC providers but some did not take up this
opportunity. Received proposals were reviewed and scored by a selection panel. The highest scoring proposals
received funding. The selection process did not take into account the providers’ locations, and funding allocation
was not intended to provide a representative regional spread.
2

brainstorming potential opportunities to form networks and partnerships within the region

meeting with potential partners to discuss development opportunities

in some cases, small-scale trialling of a new approach or programme.
Each provider submitted a final report using the template in Appendix A.
The purpose of this report
This report provides a general overview of approaches and findings from across the 12 provider
projects. The synthesis is organised thematically, highlighting strengths, gaps and opportunities
various providers identified as a result of their R&D projects. Looking across the R&D project
reports, it is clear that what is identified as a current strength for one provider can be a gap or
opportunity for another provider and vice versa. By pooling knowledge across projects it is hoped
that all LEOTC providers (including those that did not participate in this R&D project) can benefit
and identify how these themes may be relevant for future developments in their own context.
The themes are:

Expanded use of own resources (site, environment, equipment, expertise)

Expanding LEOTC delivery through partnerships, networks and collaborations

Curriculum support, collaborative planning with teachers, meeting school needs

Support for the Government’s education goals

Expanding LEOTC through ICT.
3
4
2. Expanded use of own resources (site,
environment, equipment, expertise)
Strengths
Not surprisingly, one of the most commonly identified strengths of current LEOTC provision was
the
access
it
gives
to
unique
environments,
collections,
equipment
and
hands-
on/interactive/sensory experiences that can be difficult to replicate in the classroom. Furthermore,
some teachers commented that students would be unlikely to encounter these environments and
resources in their lives outside school.
Many providers also cited comments and feedback from teachers identifying the LEOTC
educators’ knowledge and experience as a strength. Positive feedback included comments about
the educators’ teaching abilities (for example, enthusiasm, good presentation style, experience in
managing groups), and comments about the value of educators’ specialist knowledge (for
example, about art, science, technology, etc.). Some providers are also able to offer teachers and
students the opportunity to interact with other people with specialist knowledge (for example,
gallery staff, scientists or researchers associated with the LEOTC provider’s institution). This was
often identified as an area for further development (see section below).
Gaps and opportunities
Expanding use of the providers’ own site, resources, knowledge and
expertise
Many of the LEOTC providers consulted with their own staff as part of their R&D process to
identify ways that they could expand (or have already expanded) on opportunities to draw on their
own site, resources, knowledge and expertise. In some cases this highlighted a need for stronger
linkages and communication between education staff and other staff within the institution. For
example, Marsden Valley Education Centre (Shantytown Heritage Park) noted that when the
education centre first opened, the majority of the programmes were based on the Victorian
Schoolhouse and the centre was known as the Marsden Valley School. In recent years the
education centre’s use of the whole Shantytown site has expanded, and there are now programme
possibilities associated with many different parts of the site. However, the R&D project identified
that some non-education staff within Shantytown—those who primarily interacted with tourists—
still referred to it as the “School” and were not aware of the expanded range of programmes the
centre could deliver. These staff indicated they would like to be more informed about the
education centre’s activities. It was suggested that a welcome board be placed in the entrance
outlining visiting schools’ education programmes, so that other staff (and tourists) could see what
educational activities went on at Shantytown. It was also suggested that Shantytown staff spend
some time taking part in the education programmes.
5
Other providers identified opportunities to provide enriched LEOTC programmes using their own
resources. For example, for the past two years The Suter Art Gallery (Nelson) has mounted the
NZQA exhibition Top Art. In 2010 they experimented with displaying students’ folios with
pertinent artworks from The Suter’s collection (for consideration as “artist models”). Visiting
secondary school teachers and their students responded very favourably to this approach. This
year, The Suter educator developed a tailor-made collection-based education programme which
ran alongside Top Art, enabling students to gain added value from their visit to the gallery. Prior
to the display, all art teachers in the region were contacted and asked to suggest suitable artworks
to be hung for the benefit of their students over this period.
Te Kauri-Waikūkū Trust runs ecology-focused LEOTC programmes at Te Kauri Lodge. Their
R&D project raised the idea of diversifying the kinds of programmes and curriculum links for
which schools might be encouraged to use the lodge. Ideas included using the lodge and
surrounding environment as the contexts for 2–3 day “intensive” programmes for students
learning a language (including te reo Māori), or focusing on the arts or drama.
The Govett-Brewster Art Gallery’s R&D project identified schools’ interest in having a more
local focus in their LEOTC programmes. For example, “more art from Aotearoa/Māori art/local
artists”. The gallery’s education team “will continue to request that exhibition content reflect this
need and where possible plan programmes to meet this need”.
Many more opportunities for expanding and enriching LEOTC provision were identified through
explorations of potential partnerships and collaborations with people and groups in their region.
These are discussed in the next section. Providers also identified ways they could enhance their
support for school curriculum and teacher professional learning, as discussed in Section 4. Section
6 discusses how ICT could enhance and expand LEOTC provision.
6
3. Expanding LEOTC delivery through
partnerships, networks and collaborations
Strengths
Most LEOTC providers already have various partnerships and collaborations which support and
extend their LEOTC service provision. In some cases, partnerships and collaborations enable
providers to offer LEOTC programmes at more than one site. This was identified as a strength for
at least three reasons:

It expands the range of programme possibilities and options the provider can offer to schools.

It can extend the reach and accessibility of LEOTC programmes for rural, isolated or lowdecile schools that would have difficulty with transport to the LEOTC provider’s “home” site.

It allows schools to access education programmes built around unique resources and sites
within their community/region.
Current examples include:

The New Zealand Marine Studies Centre, which offers programmes in two parts of the
South Island: The Westpac Aquarium and nearby sites in Dunedin/Otago, and in the
Nelson/Marlborough/Tasman district using the local marine environment and the Touch the
Sea aquarium in Mapua.

Otago Settlers Museum, which offers programmes at nearby locations such as the Dunedin
Chinese Gardens, Botanic Gardens, Gasworks Museum and Port Chalmers Museum.3

Te Kauri-Waikūkū Trust, which runs onsite programmes at Te Kauri Lodge, and offsite
programmes in natural environments around the Waikato region.

The Heritage Education Service at South Canterbury Museum, which offers programmes
at a range of locations, such as small regional museums and heritage sites within the region.
The Heritage Education Service at South Canterbury Museum illustrates one model for
multiple-site LEOTC programme delivery, working with a variety of partner organisations
including several small museums that allow the Heritage Education Service to design and deliver
LEOTC programmes using their collections. In their R&D project they reviewed these
partnerships to identify what partner organisations and schools found beneficial about these
arrangements. Some of the partner organisations commented on positive spinoffs of the working
relationship with the Heritage Education Service, such as: building better relationships with their
local schools; increased awareness of (and return visits to) students and families of the resource
within their community.
3
These offsite programmes have come about partly because the Otago Settlers Museum is undergoing major
renovations and is temporarily closed to the public.
7
Otago Settlers Museum’s R&D project reported similar feedback from schools regarding the
delivery of programmes at a range of sites through partnerships with other organisations. For
example, “[teachers] acknowledged that some of the other organisations do not have a dedicated
LEOTC teacher to provide programmes, so they see real advantage in the museum’s educator
providing experiences. They also stated that until the museum educator had developed these
programmes and experiences, there was a low level of awareness and most had not considered
visiting these organisations.”
Gaps and opportunities
All 12 LEOTC providers used their R&D projects to investigate potential new partnerships or
ways of expanding their existing networks and relationships. Some examples are outlined below.
Partnerships with local marae and iwi organisations
Some LEOTC providers explored the possibility of links with local marae. For example, Nelson
Provincial Museum already has a relationship with one local marae, using it as a site for
delivering programmes based on Māori culture and heritage for “schools that want authentic
experience within their rohe”. The museum consulted with this marae and schools that had taken
part in its programmes to find out “why they take part and why this marae works for them”.
Through this consultation the museum learned that the marae management was willing to organise
visits for schools, including for smaller schools near the marae that have not yet used the
museum’s education services. The existing marae relationship model was used as the basis for
negotiation with a second marae in a more distant area where schools found it more difficult to
access the museum’s services. The museum learned that some schools in the area already visited
this marae with a local Resource Teacher Māori to experience programmes with an introduction to
marae kawa and tikanga. The Museum concluded that Resource Teacher Māori “should be
consulted with a view to a collaborative project in which some museum programmes could take
place at [the second marae]”. The marae was supportive of this idea, and “the programmes
conducted by the museum could be adjusted to include local stories and make use of the skills that
the personnel of the marae can contribute”. At least one school that has difficulty attending the
museum expressed interest and commitment to using the museum’s services at the second marae.
The Govett-Brewster Art Gallery’s R&D consultations found that most rural and many urban
schools in their region (other than kura kaupapa Māori) do not have strong links with local marae,
and there was “considerable enthusiasm from schools for marae-based programmes”. However,
they noted that “for successful partnerships to be established, especially for schools that do not
have a relationship with their local marae, the correct protocols need to be followed when making
contact. Marae have decision-making processes that also need time to happen, and for these
reasons the process involved in creating partnerships is longer.”
The Marsden Valley Education Centre (Shantytown Heritage Park) noted that both their
service and schools in their region see a need to build relationships with local iwi groups;
however, this has proved challenging, partly because the pool of people who can provide local
Māori education advice and expertise in the region is small and there are many requests for their
8
assistance. During their R&D project the Marsden Valley Education Centre (Shantytown Heritage
Park) initiated contact with two iwi groups, and plans were established to meet with both in midJuly.
Partnerships with regional museums, heritage sites, natural
environments, local collectors and other relevant national or local
organisations
As discussed in the previous section, the Heritage Education Service at South Canterbury
Museum already has partnerships with a range of other provincial museums and heritage sites to
deliver LEOTC programmes at these other regional locations. Their report commented that
established relationships sometimes led to the development of additional networks. For example, a
partnership with one regional museum led to a connection with a local wetland, enabling schools
to access the service’s wetlands education programme at a site that is within a reasonable travel
distance. The service also commented on the relationships they have developed with groups and
individuals in their region that have unique resources in their care, such as collections of vintage
cars or war relics. These individuals have enhanced the service’s programmes by bringing in
objects from their own collections, or sharing their personal experiences with students.
The Govett-Brewster Art Gallery’s R&D project led to the establishment of promising
relationships with an arts co-ordinator and several small museums and galleries in South Taranaki,
opening up the possibility of “off-site education in the regions that have high needs for LEOTC”.
Govett-Brewster’s R&D indicated that schools in these regions wanted “a whole package, three or
four location programmes that school classes could rotate in the same way as possible for New
Plymouth schools”. The approach they are developing in South Taranaki is to find local partners
and, through them, tap into a package of local sites and resources and add the gallery’s resources
and/or extend or localise successful programmes the gallery has already developed. They suggest
this approach can be repeated around other parts of Taranaki.
Waitangi National Trust’s R&D project involved consultation with “a range of other historic
sites in the region that are linked to the Waitangi story, especially those that also cater for school
visits and programmes”. This led to positive networking and “a realisation that there is a shared
vision among other organisations as to the importance of linking our stories together”. Waitangi
National Trust also consulted with organisations “that are not usually connected with the WNT
[Waitangi National Trust] from an education perspective but that WNT [Waitangi National Trust]
saw could be in the future”. This included a local marae society, the Department of Conservation
and local tourism information operators. Waitangi National Trust found that various organisations
they consulted with saw a lack of funding as the main hindrance to educational development at
their sites, and expressed enthusiasm for the concept of having a regional or district education
resource person who could be shared across several sites to fill varied roles as needed, including:
onsite education guide; mentoring or training education personnel; support in developing
curriculum-based education programmes or packages for individual or co-ordinated site school
visits; developing educational resources; or liaising with collaborative partners on educational
issues and events.
9
Both the New Zealand Marine Studies Centre and the Island Bay Marine Education Centre
explored opportunities for closer connections and relationships with local and national
organisations with a marine science/conservation/research focus. The New Zealand Marine
Studies Centre report notes that “in most cases we found that it is not that organisations don’t want
to work with you, they just haven’t thought about it [before]”. The New Zealand Marine Studies
Centre undertook an extensive series of meetings with a wider range of potential partners and
collaborators, including other sites on the Otago peninsula (the Royal Albatross Centre and a new
Blue Penguin venture), several aquariums and marine laboratories in other parts of New Zealand,
national organisations such as Te Papa and The Science Learning Hub. As a result of the R&D,
the New Zealand Marine Studies Centre has agreed to co-ordinate Seaweek on a regional basis.
Island Bay Marine Education Centre’s R&D project included networking with people from
NIWA, the Ministry of Fisheries, Victoria University’s Coastal Ecology Laboratory, the
Geological
and
Nuclear
Science
Institute
and
the
Ministry
of
Agriculture
and
Fisheries/Biosecurity New Zealand (amongst others). Programme possibilities raised in these
partnerships included:

arranging guided site visits for students (for example, to an active marine research centre, a
MAF facility, the South Coast seal colony and other locations)

using real marine science research data for students to use in learning activities

having guest speakers, including Ministry of Fisheries officers or marine scientists, contribute
to LEOTC programmes, or involving university marine science graduates in LEOTC
programmes.
An additional interesting possibility included a relationship with the Wellington Wharf Police,
who expressed interest in collaborating to develop school programmes on topics such as marine
laws and regulations, and the police’s role in law enforcement and as a seagoing emergency
response unit.
Collaborations with other LEOTC providers
Many providers liaised with other current LEOTC providers in their regions during their R&D
projects. Some chose to pool their R&D research efforts across LEOTC providers (for example,
collecting and sharing survey data from user and non-user schools in their region). Some examples
of LEOTC providers’ collaborations are discussed below.
The Govett-Brewster Art Gallery’s R&D project included collaboration with the education staff
at Puke Ariki. Both organisations examined their last 3 years’ visit statistics to see which schools
were and were not using their respective services, and staff from both organisations were involved
in subsequent consultation hui with schools and potential partner organisations. In addition, they
intend to look at co-planning and aligning of topics, timing of programmes and booking school
visits in tandem.
Wellington Museums Trust manages four LEOTC providers in Wellington—Capital E, City
Gallery Wellington, Carter Observatory and Museums Wellington—and these four providers
collaborated on their R&D project. Their process included:
10

comparing administrative procedures across the trust

analysing visitor data for one year across each institution to identify users and non-users,
decile ranges, year-level strengths and gaps, curriculum focuses, etc.

developing a shared online survey

identifying at least two schools for each institution to carry out in-depth user interviews

holding a joint LEOTC reference group meeting, bringing together the advisory groups from
each institution

running a joint professional development workshop for teachers as part of Primary Science
Week, identifying science learning opportunities across the trust, and consulting with
attending teachers about how to improve their Wellington Museums Trust LEOTC
experiences and access.
Wellington Museums Trust’s R&D project has led to a range of collaborative strategies and
plans. These include:

holding a combined teachers’ evening in term 4 to announce 2012 programmes across the
trust

Wellington Museums Trust team visits to “hub” schools across the region, to promote their
programmes and services

a shared standardised online LEOTC teacher evaluation form that is now emailed out to all
teachers after visiting a Wellington Museums Trust institution

plans to collaborate on improving pre- and post-visit information to schools.
Wellington Museums Trust has also developed two ideas for collaborative programmes that
would involve more than one Wellington Museums Trust institution (see Table 1 below).
Table 1 Two ideas for collaborative programmes proposed in the Wellington Museums
Trust R&D final report
Wellington Stories would begin at Capital E where students would learn film and video skills to document the
learning ahead. This would be followed by a visit to the City and Sea Bridge (by artist Para Matchitt) with City
Gallery educators. This bridge explores the history of Wellington and its harbour and students would spend time
investigating and discussing the artwork and then making art in the gallery classroom. Students would then visit
Wellington Museum where they can choose to explore one of the many pathways of the city’s history available
there. The day would conclude with a visit to the Carter Observatory where students can explore Wellington’s
sky. Students can then take the documentation they have made during the day and continue to work on this
material back at school with assistance from Capital E in developing the documentation they made over the visit.
The Capital City Visit programme offers students visiting Wellington a dynamic education experience that
encompasses each Trust institution. This programme will also begin at Capital E where students will learn
technological skills to document their learning, and then groups would visit City Gallery for an art experience
that draws upon the dynamic contemporary art programme. Students can then explore Wellington Museum,
choosing from a number of high interest exhibitions, followed by a visit to the Carter Observatory. This
programme is designed especially for out of town visitors and groups will also receive post-visit assistance from
Capital E visitors.
Both Wellington Museums Trust and the Island Bay Marine Education Centre mentioned
liaising with one another, as well as other LEOTC (and EOTC) providers in the Wellington
region, to explore possibilities for strengthening relationships, collaborations and linked
11
programmes. The Island Bay Marine Education Centre reported that discussions with
Wellington Zoo and Zealandia educators have resulted in an agreement “in principle, that a
combined approach to guiding teachers and students through the integration of cross-curricula[r]
links to the content they will experience at our organisations will greatly assist not only in the
quality of the experience the students get, but also the work done either before or after the visit”.
Similarly, Wellington Museums Trust suggested that “teachers are keen to visit multiple sites in
order for their students to explore the current topic from different angles and participate in a range
of connected experiences”. However, “teachers indicated that they are not always aware of the
possibilities available to them, and, when they are aware, find it difficult to co-ordinate visits. By
developing linked programmes we can offer the multiple visit option at the time of first contact
and handle the booking arrangements at our end”.
Dunedin-based LEOTC providers also reported on collaboration and communication with each
other. The New Zealand Marine Studies Centre met with other LEOTC providers in Dunedin
and Nelson to share data collected in their online survey to schools and discussed ways to work
more effectively together. Findings from school consultations suggested that joint promotion for
LEOTC providers could be useful. It was suggested that each LEOTC provider should put links on
their website to other providers in the region. Their survey suggested that “few schools using their
services visit multiple LEOTC sites as part of a single study topic, and those that do are often on a
school camp or visiting providers that are in close proximity”, and that “almost every principal in
Otago surveyed said that they organise one EOTC experience per term”. The New Zealand Marine
Studies Centre concluded that “any development of themed programmes across LEOTC providers
would have to link to broad themes that the schools are using for their full year plan that would
allow them to focus on different aspects and then visit different LEOTC providers each term”.
Like some of the Wellington LEOTC providers, the New Zealand Marine Studies Centre and
other Dunedin and Nelson providers discussed the possibilities of co-ordinating pre- and post-visit
resources, “for example, our science programmes might have pre- and post-trip resources that
include a related art activity from the Dunedin Public Art Gallery, a related social studies activity
from Early Settlers Museum, a related literacy activity from Kati Huirapa Runaka ki Puketeraki, a
related maths activity from Otago Museum, etc.”.
The examples above illustrate how LEOTC providers see collaboration and networking between
local LEOTC providers as a way of better meeting schools’ curriculum needs and providing
support for teachers. This theme is discussed further in the next section.
12
4. Curriculum support, collaborative planning
with teachers, meeting school needs
Strengths
The range and flexibility of programmes available was identified as a strength for most LEOTC
providers. Many providers cited positive feedback from teachers, including comments about
providers offering “innovative ideas” or tailoring programmes to meet teachers’ requests or link to
a school’s inquiry topic (for example). Several providers found that teachers varied in whether
they wanted tailor-made programmes versus being able to pick a set programme “package”. This
seems to depend on how teachers plan to relate their visit with the classroom curriculum, and how
much they know about what the provider can offer.
For example, South Canterbury Museum noted that teachers may use LEOTC programmes to
“ignite, conclude, or enhance” classroom learning. As a result of their R&D, South Canterbury
Museum determined that they needed to include more set programme options in their promotional
materials to schools, to make it easier for teachers who were unsure about what they wanted from
their LEOTC visit. Similarly, the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery found that “some schools were
adamant they would not visit the Gallery unless the topic on offer at the Gallery fitted into their
year plan, while other schools were more than happy to take advantage of the ‘teachable moments’
supplied by LEOTC, incorporating the skills and knowledge gained through them into their own
learning context at school”. Various other providers’ R&D reports reached similar conclusions:
schools come with different needs, expectations and intentions regarding how LEOTC will
connect with the school and classroom curriculum. Therefore, different strategies and approaches
are needed to ensure that all schools’ needs can be met.
Gaps and opportunities
Co-ordinating with schools’ curriculum planning cycles and offering
broad thematic links
The Govett-Brewster Art Gallery identified a number of challenges and opportunities associated
with schools’ curriculum planning cycles and needs. Currently the education team develops its
programme term by term, when information about coming shows is provided by the gallery
curators. Towards the end of each term, schools receive the programme for the upcoming 3-month
exhibition. A number of schools consulted in the R&D felt they needed information about the
gallery’s education programmes earlier, in order to plan ahead. Some schools suggested that a
database of upcoming programmes and exhibitions be developed and available so schools could
align their year’s plan with what is on offer. However, their R&D final report notes that “the
education team relies on information from the curators and institutional change would need to
occur to allow for longer term planning”. Meanwhile, the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery identified
13
another strategy to help meet the planning needs of schools: broadening the topics offered so that
it is easier for schools to build the LEOTC programmes into their school curriculum:
The Gallery’s LEOTC programmes have always worked best when designed to make the
most of the exhibition on display at the time but it is possible for us to adapt the programmes
toward schools’ needs. Some schools take a very broad approach when planning; examples
of this are a four year cycle covering ‘Moana’, ‘Whenua’, ‘Awa’, ‘Maunga’ with other
schools focused on ‘concepts’ such as creation. Other smaller schools have a tighter focused
curriculum. Developing programmes that are general in their themes, for example ‘Colour’,
‘Light’ or ‘Identity’ may make it easier for schools to justify a visit within their planning
models.
As identified in the previous section, the idea of connecting LEOTC programmes to broad themes
was also discussed as a strategy for supporting schools to utilise collaborative LEOTC
programmes and/or programmes across multiple LEOTC providers.
Some teachers consulted by Nelson Provincial Museum thought LEOTC programmes had a good
curriculum fit but could provide better support for their inquiry learning topics. In their R&D
project, Nelson Provincial Museum worked with two primary teachers who wanted the museum to
provide support for their science and technology-based inquiry teaching. The two approaches they
trialled are shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2 Two approaches to supporting primary school “inquiry” topics at Nelson
Provincial Museum
[At the first school] we [the Nelson Provincial Museum educators] helped to narrow down their wide topic
‘Sustainability’ to something that juniors could relate to. We chose packaging and three classes attended a
programme at the museum where they looked at the old industries of Nelson and the products and packages
that they produced, visited a model shop where they ‘bought’ old fashioned products in old fashioned wrapping.
We then compared with modern products of the same things with the overarching question ‘Does it have to be
that fancy?’
[At the second school] we assisted in preparing students for the science fair. We developed a programme of fair
testing based on the current craze for Bey Blades, comparing them with old spinning tops. We helped the
students develop wise statements or hypotheses ‘I think the Bey Blade will spin longer than the old top’. We
tested these, discussed fair testing and formulated new questions and hypotheses. (The old tops won!) This was
a model for science investigation and was a short programme for a school that can easily walk to the museum. It
provided expertise and materials not available in the classroom.
Nelson Provincial Museum concluded that “support for inquiry learning can be best achieved if
we obtain the topics early or, during the school’s planning process and have input to their
discussion to assist their decision making”. Some schools consulted during the R&D have invited
Nelson Provincial Museum staff to curriculum planning meetings later in the year.
The Wellington Museums Trust talked about the importance of establishing strong and ongoing
relationships with teachers and schools. A few providers talked about the importance of giving
schools time to plan their visits. For example, the Island Bay Marine Education Centre said, “It
is important to engage and consult with schools on a regular basis, especially for their term
planning.” Personal contact with schools was seen as important and some providers talked about
14
the importance of promoting their own centre. For example, the South Canterbury Museum
said:
The LEOTC service needs to identify and utilise effective communication strategies with
schools and with partner organisations and individuals. This can include printed material,
emailed material, website updates and social media. It also requires effort to maintain up-todate contacts.
Broadening the curriculum linkages of programmes
Many R&D providers identified opportunities for expanding or developing programmes with
curriculum linkages beyond the main learning areas that are currently emphasised in the
provider’s contracts (i.e., social studies/tikanga a iwi, science/pūtaiao, and the arts/ngā toi).
Identifying and addressing unmet needs
This report has already described a number of examples where providers’ R&D projects identified
areas where teachers’ or students’ needs could be better met; for example, by:

providing more obvious programme “packages” for teachers to select from

including more local content

increased focus on te reo and Māori knowledge and contexts.
The inclusion of Māori culture, knowledge, contexts and language in LEOTC is relevant for
supporting learning for all students in New Zealand schools. However, LEOTC R&D projects also
had a specific focus on addressing the Government’s education goals of supporting success for
Māori learners. This goal, along with the Government education goals of supporting the needs of
Pasifika learners and students with disabilities, is discussed further in Section 5.
A few providers had feedback that they could better meet the needs of secondary schools. For
example, the Govett Brewster Art Gallery responded to feedback that the experience for
secondary students could be more enriching with proposed ideas such as connecting secondary
students online with artists, providing vocational-focused content and providing more hands-on art
activities for students in their junior secondary school years. The Otago Settlers Museum also
received feedback that senior secondary students needed more challenging programmes. One
option they are looking at is giving these students access to the museum collection in order to
conduct their own research. Some secondary schools thought that the Island Bay Marine
Education Centre needed a staff member who was more familiar with the secondary curriculum
and wanted more information about how the programmes could fit with the curriculum for
different subjects and year levels.
Examples of other school/teacher/student needs that LEOTC providers could address through the
use of ICT are discussed in Section 6.
Teacher professional development
Some providers talked about LEOTC as providing professional development opportunities for
teachers. For example, teachers are able to learn alongside their students and are also able to see
15
how programmes can be facilitated and how team teaching can occur. Several providers identified
potential two-way benefits that could flow from focusing on teacher professional development.
First, teachers can become more aware of the LEOTC services and what they can offer (leading to
more use of the service). Second, teachers can gain new knowledge and insight into the particular
specialist areas linked with the LEOTC provider’s services. Third, building relationships with
teachers provides more opportunities for LEOTC providers to learn about schools’ curriculum
programmes and teachers’ and students’ specific learning needs and interests.
The Govett-Brewster Art Gallery stated:
This [teacher professional development] is not something the Gallery has undertaken
formally in the past. Instead, teachers pick up knowledge as a by-product of their visit. Upskilling teachers with professional development sessions was suggested as a way for teachers
to strengthen the art programme in their school and develop their own ways to embed a
Gallery visit into their class programme.
The gallery believes that professional development in the arts is a gap that they could fill in the
region, and as a result of this feedback, is considering running programmes that educate both
students and teachers together.
The Otago Settlers Museum also talked about needing to actively promote what they currently
do as professional development for teachers, saying:
LEOTC experiences enrich the teacher’s teaching, so we need to sell it as PD … Watching
someone else teach their class gives a teacher new insights and new knowledge. The parents
learn too, so LEOTC experiences also raise the knowledge level of parents, helpers.
Heurisko’s R&D project identified that some teachers saw the LEARNZ service as a programme
that did not require the input of classroom teachers. However, Heurisko sees its role as “providing
leadership and support”. From Heurisko’s point of view:
A key component of the LEARNZ experience is the relationship created between: student
and LEARNZ Teacher; student and expert; and LEARNZ Teacher and Classroom Teacher.
The strength of these relationships is recognised as one determinant of success in motivating
learners.
Heurisko commented that there is a “learning curve” associated with using the LEARNZ field
trips, “a hump to get over before LEARNZ becomes a satisfying and successful experience”. The
extent of this learning curve for teachers depends on a number of factors:
… including confidence and competence with ICT, prior experience with inquiry learning
and classroom routines that support student inquiry and comfort with allowing students to
engage with inquiry when the outcomes are not necessarily well defined or understood.
Heurisko’s current focus is not on the early adopters who are already using LEARNZ, but groups
of teachers who are likely to need “more ‘hand holding’, more intuitive website design and more
support in how to use LEARNZ”. Heurisko plans to look at new ways of providing professional
development (for example, using Skype). Additional ways providers discussed for using ICT to
expand LEOTC are discussed in Section 6.
16
17
5. Support for the Government’s education
goals
The Ministry requested that providers incorporated into their R&D projects the key government
education goals of:

every student achieving the skills and qualifications they need to make successful lives for
themselves, and New Zealand

every student achieving literacy and numeracy skills to enable their success

all Māori achieving education success as Māori

the goals of Ministry of Education policy documents, Ka Hikitia—Managing for Success: The
Māori Education Strategy, the Pasifika Education Plan and the New Zealand Disability
Strategy.
Many providers found it was difficult to address these goals directly through their projects. Some
canvassed teachers’ and principals’ views, with mixed success. For example, teachers surveyed
and interviewed by Marsden Valley Education Centre (Shantytown Heritage Park) reportedly
had “little knowledge” of these government priorities, and did not take these into account with
booking LEOTC programme. While the centre educators have attempted to address these through
their programmes, they too felt in need of “exemplars, guidance and training in some of the areas,
especially secondary/tertiary transition”. Similarly, the Wellington Museums Trust found that
teachers do not have an understanding of the Government’s priority areas. However, providers’
comments and findings in relation to the Government’s education goals are briefly outlined in this
section. It should also be noted that all LEOTC providers report against these goals in their regular
6-monthly milestones, and over time this will help to develop a richer picture of LEOTC’s
contributions to these goals.
All Māori achieving education success as Māori, and the
goals of Ka Hikitia—Managing for Success: The Māori
Education Strategy
Of the list of government goals, the one most commented on by providers and principals/teachers
related to supporting Māori students. For example, the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery reported
that:
Schools were almost unanimous in their agreement that LEOTC was an excellent context to
focus on the needs of Māori students and to capitalise on Māori content, with te reo and the
importance of Māori role models both being important. It was definitely a curriculum need
for many schools.
Some providers felt they had existing strengths in terms of opportunities for students to engage
with Māori content and contexts, citing feedback from teachers about particular aspects of their
18
programmes which were felt to be engaging and inspiring for Māori learners. As well as
opportunities to engage with Māori language, culture and knowledge, teachers provided feedback
about programmes that gave students opportunities to participate actively and work at their own
level, follow their interests or demonstrate leadership. Other providers identified that they needed
to enhance opportunities for their programmes to contribute to Māori educational success through
engagement with other people and groups in their communities, including marae and iwi groups
(see Section 3) and Māori education specialists. All providers indicated that there was room to
further develop their support for Māori education. The Wellington Museums Trust noted that:
City Gallery employs a Gallery Educator Māori who delivers programmes in Te Reo and
the team would like to see this resource extended more widely across the Trust in order to
provide a Te Reo experience for kura kaupapa Māori visitors across sites.
The Island Bay Marine Education Centre noted that they already offer a special programme for
kura kaupapa Māori groups that focuses on tikanga Māori and the relationship of Māori to the sea,
but that few groups had requested this programme. Island Bay Marine Education Centre suggested
that its developing relationships with the Wellington Museums Trust would enable them to expand
and enhance the delivery of tikanga Māori and Pasifika context in their programmes.
While most providers offered constructive critiques of their own support for Māori learners,
occasional comments suggested that some educators and teachers are not familiar with the
intentions of Ka Hikitia, or the reasons why actively engaging and supporting success for Māori
learners is a government goal. For example, the Marsden Valley Education Centre
(Shantytown Heritage Park) was disappointed that some teachers did not see it as relevant for
them to provide feedback about the service’s ability to meet Māori learners’ needs, because they
did not have Māori students in their classrooms.
Every student achieving literacy and numeracy skills to
enable their success
Some providers noted ways in which their programmes addressed and incorporated support for
students’ literacy and numeracy learning. For example, the Heritage Education Service at South
Canterbury Museum reported that:
… in most lessons students are shown different static images to be analysed, are required to
do note taking, use research skills, work with different dates and participate in small and
large group discussions. Field trips often require a range of practical activities such as
specimen measurement, population counting or transect use, all of which help build
numeracy use.
However, overall, few providers commented specifically on support for literacy and numeracy in
their R&D final reports, and the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery commented that:
Schools [we consulted] resoundingly said they had literacy and numeracy well under control
at school and it should not be a focus for LEOTC.
These schools indicated that LEOTC fulfilled a range of other needs and/or that their main value
lay in the breadth of experiences and connections that students could encounter outside the
classroom to support their learning. The New Zealand Marine Studies Centre noted that:
19
Marine Science is a topic that easily provides for [a] multidisciplinary and multidimensional
learning environment where process is as important as product. For instance, as science is
the application of literacy and numeracy skills there is opportunity to further develop these
linkages in practical hands-on programmes. Also science literacy is an essential skill needed
to understand and participate as a citizen of the 21st century world.
The goals of the Pasifika Education Plan
A few providers commented on support for Pasifika students’ learning. Most comments were
similar to those about supporting Māori students: providers and teachers identified the potential
for LEOTC to support these students through infusing content, contexts and learning experiences
that they or schools believed would be engaging for Pasifika learners. However, LEOTC providers
in a number of regions reported that the schools they consulted had few Pasifika students, and
hence these schools tended not to provide comments or feedback in this area.
A few providers indicated they were seeking to make links with Pasifika groups. For example, the
New Zealand Marine Science Centre held discussions with the Pacific Islands centre at the
University of Otago, leading to four areas that could be developed: programmes for their
homework club; programmes for their church group; developing a companion programme for their
science camp; and hosting the On-campus Experience students for a morning next year. The
Marine Science Centre felt this link with the Pacific Islands centre would “lead to better
understanding of their cultural needs for learning and an opportunity to engage with more Pasifika
students”.
The goals of the New Zealand Disability Strategy
Although many providers noted that it was their intention to support the needs of students with
disabilities or other kinds of special education needs, and cited feedback from schools about ways
in which these needs were being met, overall the R&D projects contributed little information
about gaps, opportunities, strategies or partnerships that were to be pursued to support
development in this area. However, as with the other key government education goals, some
LEOTC providers have been reporting in this area as part of their regular 6-monthly milestones.
Every student achieving the skills and qualifications they
need to make successful lives for themselves, and New
Zealand
This is the broadest of the goals. Where providers addressed this in their R&D reports, it was
usually to comment on the breadth of learning opportunities their services offered students.
Another way to interpret how LEOTC can contribute to this goal relates to questions of access:
which students are (or are not) accessing LEOTC and the contributions it can make to supporting
learning. Providers’ R&D findings in relation to this question are discussed in Section 7.
20
6. Extending LEOTC through ICT
This section discusses the different ways providers thought ICT currently supported LEOTC
provision, and how these could be further developed to extend new ideas and possibilities for
LEOTC. The term “ICT” can encompass a wide range of technologies. Most providers interpreted
the ICT component of the R&D project in terms of the use and functionality of their website.
However, a few providers explored other possibilities for expanding the reach and quality of
students’ LEOTC experience through a range of means facilitated by ICT.
Providers’ websites
Many providers evaluated their current websites and sought feedback from teachers (and in some
cases, students) about how these might be improved. Ideas for website developments that emerged
from the R&D spanned three main areas. First, how might the content and usability of providers’
websites be enhanced? Second, what opportunities are there for students to generate and share
Web-based content as part of their LEOTC learning? Third, how could providers’ websites
support better linkages between and across LEOTC providers? Examples of each are outlined
below.
Enhancing content, functionality and usability
Some providers planned on further developing their website to enhance content, functionality and
ease of use. For example:

The Nelson Provincial Museum is intending to make improvements to their website
including making it more child-friendly and attractive by reducing the amount of text and
having lots of engaging images.

The Otago Settlers Museum’s website is still currently being developed and they are
deciding what resources would be most helpful to students online.

The New Zealand Marine Studies Centre mentioned their need to increase the number of
online resources available for secondary schools and ensuring that the content is user friendly.

The Suter Art Gallery is in the process of improving their website. It was suggested that
they could put images of some artworks online as well as some background information about
the work. The gallery is also planning to include teaching resources and lesson plans on their
website.

The Island Bay Marine Education Centre is planning on making their website more
interactive, including developing interactive teaching sessions that can be viewed live in the
classroom.

After receiving feedback from schools that it would be helpful to have pre- and post-visit
learning provided via ICT, the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery decided to start sending classes
digital images of artworks to study prior to the visit.
21

The Waitangi National Trust offers a pōwhiri to visiting students, and it was suggested that
their website could support schools with limited experience or support personnel by including
appropriate waiata examples on the website. Another possibility is for the website to act as a
portal through which schools could teach one another.
A few providers talked about making bookings easy for teachers by providing online booking
systems (for example, Wellington Museums Trust, Marsden Valley Education Centre
(Shantytown Heritage Park) and completing evaluations online (Wellington Museums Trust).
Supporting students and teachers to generate content, engage in
collaborative learning, discussion, debate and networking
A number of providers are thinking about ways of using ICT to support students to generate and
share knowledge linked with their LEOTC visits. For example:

The Marsden Valley Education Centre: Shantytown Heritage Park is trialling a blog
which responds to the feedback schools have and questions students raise on their evaluation
forms. The blog also contains information about school trips. The viability of maintaining this
site is currently being looked into. They also discussed trialling using Skype with some
schools pre- and post-visits to have conversations with students.

The Govett-Brewster Art Gallery identified the possibility of enabling students to use IVT
to talk to the educators beyond the physical visit and being able to communicate with other
schools and learners.

The New Zealand Marine Studies Centre is planning on making use of an online forum for
science education called Knowledge Forum, and talked about the potential for students to
upload marine science data to be used in the classroom.

The Waitangi National Trust developed a prototype website to support student learning in
history and social studies. As well as providing historic and current resource information,
articles, videos, visuals and activities, the site can provide opportunities for teachers and
students to submit written work, photos, letters or other content related to their Waitangi visit.
Other schools would be able to view and comment on these or add their own contributions,
enabling the possibility for students to become “resources for the learning of other students”.

The Heritage Education Service at South Canterbury Museum is developing a new
website with Heurisko which will allow teachers and students to log on to their individual
part of the website, upload images from the work they have done on their LEOTC visit and
access this data back in the classroom or from home.

Organisations within the Wellington Museums Trust either currently provide places where
students can upload their work to the provider’s website (Capital E and City Gallery) or are
looking into this (Museums Wellington). Filmed artists’ talks also appear on the City
Gallery’s website. Teachers consulted by Wellington Museums Trust suggested the
relationship between the educators and schools could continue beyond the visit via Skype
calls, video conferences and question and answer services. The trust commented that:
By allowing students to communicate with LEOTC providers, their teachers, their families
and their peers through web based web 2.0 technologies a deeper engagement is occurring
with the visitation lasting well after their return home. Relationships are able to be
22
developed by sharing of ideas and further links can be made in an online discourse that
transcends location barriers.
Supporting better linkages between and across LEOTC providers
Several providers saw ICT as a means for strengthening linkages across and between LEOTC
providers, including by having their websites linked together. This idea was connected with the
discovery that some principals and teachers do not have a strong awareness of LEOTC as a
particular “brand”—that is, they do not differentiate between Ministry of Education-funded
LEOTC programmes and other providers of education outside the classroom (EOTC). This
finding is discussed further in Section 7.
Virtual visits
Only one provider, Heurisko, is currently offering virtual field trips. They state:
LEARNZ field trips provide contexts in real time, to support teaching in a range of areas ...
Within the field trip, teachers are able to select any of 18 components and to (re)assemble
them in any way they choose to create learning sequences. This freedom to choose and to
mix with teacher owned resources and planning provides freedom to create learning
experiences that match needs of students.
Heurisko is making a number of changes to their website to improve the usability for teachers. As
discussed in Section 4, they are finding that teachers who are not “early adopters” need more
support, and are planning a number of improvements to make the website more navigable and user
friendly and looking into simplifying the registration process.
A few other providers including the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery and the Nelson Provincial
Museum mentioned having requests for virtual visits, although due to the highly sensory nature of
a visit to the gallery, the education team is hesitant to explore a virtual visit as an alternative to an
actual gallery visit.
Specialised ICT equipment and innovations
Some providers are using or exploring the option of using specialised ICT equipment to enrich
students’ learning during programmes. For example:

The Heritage Education Service at South Canterbury Museum uses portable laptops and
microscopes during their programmes. The museum could also see the value of other ICT
equipment such as smart boards, iPad tablets to view archived documents and touch screen
technology which could be installed within the museum.

Te Kauri-Waikūkū Trust speculated on the possibility of establishing an onsite ICT lab that
students could use to support the collection and analysis of ecological monitoring data, or
installing cameras with a wireless feed to the lodge so that students could see images of
nesting birds, pest visits to tracking tunnels or bait stations, etc.

The New Zealand Marine Studies Centre is investigating the possibility of providing
schools with a live video link broadcasting from the seafloor or bottom of an aquarium
display tank.
23
24
7. Non-use of LEOTC: Barriers to access
and visibility
This section discusses providers’ findings about why some schools are not using their LEOTC
programmes. It identifies barriers to schools’ access and use, and the potential solutions to reduce
these. The visibility of the LEOTC “brand” is also discussed.
Which schools are not using LEOTC?
Some providers analysed their school visit records to identify which schools had or had not
attended their service within the past year or few years. However, other providers did not report
whether they had done this, and those that did varied in how much detail they provided about their
findings.
On average, the most common schools that providers found it harder to reach were low-decile and
rural schools. A few providers talked about the difficulties of attracting secondary
students/schools including the Marsden Valley Education Centre: Shantytown Heritage Park,
The Suter Art Gallery, and Wellington Museums Trust. Heurisko’s analysis of which teachers
are registered for the LEARNZ service identified full primary schools as one underrepresented
group, and decided to focus on increasing participation from these schools.
The providers varied in the proportions of schools they attracted from or outside their region. For
example, the Wellington Museums Trust described themselves as both a regional and national
provider, with a high proportion of students visiting from outside of the Wellington region (43
percent). The Marsden Valley Education Centre (Shantytown Heritage Park) had a fairly
small number of schools attend from outside of the region due to the isolation of the venue.
For Heurisko, a national provider, 63 percent of all New Zealand schools have at least one teacher
who is registered with LEARNZ. Their aim is that this will increase to 100 percent by the end of
2012.
The providers’ self-review of their user and non-user data suggests that a national picture of
use/non-use may be useful in the future for identifying gaps in LEOTC provision and access
across New Zealand, and strategies providers could use for addressing these. This would require a
more consistent data-gathering approach by all current LEOTC providers and a methodology for
analysing visit data against national data about schools, including information about their
locations, school type, deciles, etc.
Barriers to access and possible solutions
Providers identified a number of barriers that prevented schools accessing their LEOTC
programmes. The most common barriers were cost, distance and time, and knowledge/awareness
25
of the programmes. Some of the other barriers mentioned by just a few providers included the size
of the facilities and the lack of available whānau help.
A number of solutions to support greater use of LEOTC have already been discussed in Sections
2–6 of this report and are not repeated here.
Cost, distance and time
The most common barriers discussed were the cost (particularly transport costs), travel distances
and the time required for the visits. For example:

The Nelson Provincial Museum suggested providing programmes at a different venue to
reduce the transport costs and distances. They have approached a local bus company who
have agreed to schools being charged a reduced rate.

The Wellington Museums Trust plans to investigate different ways to reduce costs. They are
going to look into sponsorship options and explore ways to subsidise transport. Another idea
is to try to form relationships with local hostels in order to reduce the accommodation costs
for schools, in particular lower decile schools. The close proximity of the sites within the trust
is seen as an advantage.

Te Kauri-Waikūkū Trust also discussed subsidising buses for schools in order to make
access more affordable. Collaborating with other providers was also seen as a way to reduce
the costs to schools per outing.

The Govett-Brewster Art Gallery is seeking to improve access to more distant schools.
Suggestions for how these schools’ visits could be improved to make the travel times seem
more worthwhile included providing longer teaching sessions and connecting with other
LEOTC venues in the region.

The South Canterbury Museum talked about the advantage of being able to teach in a
variety of locations (see also Section 3).
Knowledge of the programmes
Another common barrier discussed was that principals or teachers did not know what the
providers offered or did not recognise the value or relevance of their programmes. Proposed
solutions included different approaches to marketing and improving communication with schools.
For example:

The Govett-Brewster Art Gallery found that in some schools parents and teachers were not
aware of the value of the programmes available. They decided to change their promotional
material and marketing strategy to have increased targeted promotions and more explanation
of the full range of services for first time users. Other strategies they are looking into to
communicate the value of the programme to schools are through hosting principal cluster
groups and attending more staff meetings.

Despite the Marsden Valley Education Centre (Shantytown Heritage Park) developing
new programmes regularly, they found that there was a low uptake of these by schools. This
was attributed to the way the programmes were being promoted and a lack of understanding
about what the centre could offer. Shantytown is now focusing on targeted and regular emails,
26
and suggested that, where possible, personal contact such as through attending staff meetings
or meeting individual teachers was helpful.

The Nelson Provincial Museum finds face-to-face communication between the museum and
schools to be effective but time consuming. They are looking into the use of RSS streams to
update schools and investigating other ways to communicate most effectively.

Some schools appear not to use Heurisko’s LEARNZ programmes because they do not know
enough about them, and/or find the online registration process offputting. Heurisko is
planning to provide more information to teachers about LEARNZ and simplifying the website
and registration process.

A number of providers talked about the need to engage and consult with schools on a more
regular basis as schools need to schedule visits into their term plans (for example, Heurisko,
the Island Bay Marine Education Centre, the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery).

The Otago Settlers Museum talked about the reluctance of teachers to take up offsite
opportunities, possibly due to health and safety concerns. They now provide more information
about this on their website for schools.
LEOTC branding and promotion
A strong message that came through from many providers was that the LEOTC brand is currently
not well recognised by some schools. They suggested the benefits of choosing programmes from a
Ministry of Education-funded LEOTC provider needed to be better promoted. For example, the
Govett-Brewster Art Gallery thought that schools currently did not distinguish between LEOTC
and other outside-the-classroom programmes. The Marsden Valley Education Centre
(Shantytown Heritage Park) commented that:
While the term [LEOTC] is in constant use, and there is a small section about it on TKI,
other references are limited and it is not mentioned at all in the guidelines for EOTC, which
concentrates on more hazardous activities. The map of LEOTC providers issued by the
Ministry simply gives web addresses for the various Centres and some of these links lead to
generalised sites with no mention of LEOTC.
The New Zealand Marine Studies Centre also supported improvements being made to LEOTC
on the TKI website and suggested “investigate ways to encourage schools to use that site [TKI]
when they are looking for EOTC experiences in their region”.
Some providers suggested creating a central database with information about LEOTC providers in
different regions (for example, Te Kauri-Waikūkū Trust, Govett-Brewster Art Gallery). This
could help schools to identify what LEOTC providers could best meet their needs. A number of
providers suggested ideas on a variation of the theme of a regional “one-stop shop”—a regionally
co-ordinated service for promotion, co-ordination, linking and booking of LEOTC programmes.
These included Otago Settlers Museum, Marsden Valley Education Centre (Shantytown
Heritage Park), New Zealand Marine Studies Centre, Te Kauri-Waikūkū Trust, Waitangi
National Trust and the Govett Brewster Art Gallery.
27
8. Conclusion
New knowledge development for providers
All providers commented on ways the R&D project had enabled them to develop new knowledge
that would support their LEOTC service provision. This included having more specific
information about which schools were not using their services and why, the challenges and
barriers for schools’ access to their programmes, what teachers and students liked about their
current programmes, gaps and opportunities for expanding the range, reach and local relevance of
LEOTC provision and the kinds of strategies, programmes and partnerships that might support
this. Each provider commented on the opportunities and activities they intended to follow up in
the short, medium and longer term.
New knowledge development for a regionally-focused LEOTC
model
Based on their R&D projects, providers offered the following ideas for consideration in the shift to
a regionally-focused LEOTC model:

Most providers commented positively on the benefits of collaborating with other groups and
organisations in order to link and extend the accessibility and relevance of LEOTC
programmes for schools in their regions (and in some cases, for schools from outside their
regions).

The possibility of having greater regional collaboration and co-ordination in LEOTC service
provision raised questions for providers about how funding could be shared or used more
effectively to achieve this (for example, to allow time for developing shared promotional
strategies, linked programming, identifying further sites and resources in the region that could
be used for LEOTC and shared reflection/evaluation processes).

Collaborative programming was also seen to have implications for the way students and
school targets are counted and funded within LEOTC provider contracts. Some providers
noted that the expansion of LEOTC through collaborations, linked programmes, ICTenhanced delivery and other innovations had the potential to lead to learning opportunities of
varying durations and intensities, and that counts of students’ involvement in LEOTC ought to
reflect depth and duration as well as attendance.

Many providers identified the extension of offsite and outreach LEOTC programme delivery
(including through localised partnerships) as an effective strategy for increasing schools’
access to LEOTC, particularly for rural and lower decile schools. However, these, and other
solutions such as subsidising transport costs to schools, also have funding implications, as
costs for time and travel could shift to providers rather than schools.
28

A few providers identified the potential of LEOTC services as sites for teacher professional
development. This raises questions about whether or how support for teacher professional
learning might be incorporated in the new LEOTC regionally-based model.

Some providers noted that partner organisations they collaborated with did not have a good
understanding of the New Zealand curriculum or how to work with schools, and that the
LEOTC service provider could play a liaison role (particularly for supporting
local/community-based people and groups to have a role in students’ LEOTC experiences).

Some providers suggested the idea of a co-ordinated regional service for managing some of
the administrative aspects of LEOTC, such as programme promotion, marketing and
communications with schools, bookings, record management, relationship management
between collaborating organisations and ensuring that knowledge about the New Zealand
curriculum and its links to LEOTC are shared and made visible.

Providers supported the idea of a stronger LEOTC “brand” to promote to schools the benefits
of using a Ministry of Education-funded LEOTC service provider.

Some of the innovative ICT-based ideas for expanding LEOTC services require particular
kinds of hardware, software and ICT expertise which would also have budget implications for
LEOTC providers.

It was suggested that, if online experiences and resources become a more commonplace
feature of LEOTC, particularly as a way of expanding access and reach, this could have
implications for the way schools and students are counted in LEOTC targets.
Some of the ideas and innovations explored by LEOTC providers in their R&D projects may
require different approaches to LEOTC funding/contracting and monitoring/evaluation in order to
be extended and expanded further to better meet the needs of all New Zealand students.
29
Appendix A: LEOTC R&D project final report
template
Introduction
What were the goals of your R&D project? How did these align with the Ministry’s intention to
explore how LEOTC providers might operate as community resources for learning in a more
regionally-focused LEOTC environment, and how their practice acknowledges key government
education goals?
Research results
Your reference group and staff, schools/kura
1. Describe your consultation process with schools/kura, your reference group, your own staff
and any other relevant people. Who did you consult, how were these people selected and
identified and how did you run your consultations?
Analysis of current strengths, gaps and weaknesses for your LEOTC programmes
2. Use the following table to summarise what your consultations with schools/kura, reference
group and your own analysis of your organisation’s LEOTC services revealed about strengths,
gaps and opportunities in your programming.
Summary of feedback from schools/kura,
reference group and your organisation’s own
analysis of its LEOTC services
Strengths
How your current LEOTC programming meets
needs in supporting/complementing teaching and
learning programmes and implementing the
school curriculum
Gaps
What gaps did schools/kura identify that could be
filled through LEOTC programming offered by
your organisation?
What kinds of programmes did they tell you
engage and inspire their students, especially
Māori students, Pasifika students, different year
levels, etc.?
Opportunities/ideas
What ideas for new programming emerged from
these explorations, in terms of utilisation of your
own setting/s, resources and expertise, and/or
other sites, settings or resources?
3. Please give a written account to expand on the table above, focusing on the processes and
outcomes of your consultations, and what realisations you have reached as a result. You may
30
wish to comment on what you see as the most important, surprising or promising ideas and
themes that have emerged.
Partnerships and relationships with other organisations
4.
Use the following table to indicate:
a. which organisations in your community/region/sector you identified as being worth
developing/extending a relationship with
b. your interactions with each organisation to date
c. outcomes of these interactions in terms of potential joint projects and plans for
partnerships/joint projects (short/medium/long term).
Organisation
Interactions to date
Outcomes to date in terms of actual or
potential joint projects/partnerships (please
indicate which are short/medium/long term)
5.
Please give a written account to expand on the table above, focusing on the strategies
for creating/developing relationships with the people/organisations you have
connected with, and what you see as the most important, surprising or promising
ideas and project possibilities that have emerged.
6.
What opportunities to develop ICT to enhance programme delivery and/or
relationships with other organisations were explored and plans developed?
ICT
Feedback and next steps
7.
What feedback have you had from schools/kura, your reference group or your own
organisation, with respect to the plans and projects that you have investigated in this
R&D project?
8.
Please write a summary overview of outcomes from the R&D undertaken and
indicate your planned next steps.
Knowledge development
9.
What does your R&D project contribute to understanding LEOTC in a more
regionally-focused LEOTC environment?
a. Think about what you and your collaborating partners have learned, as well as what other
LEOTC providers in other regions could learn from your project.
b. Think about advice you could give other LEOTC providers, the Ministry of Education
and/or potential collaborators in your region, based on your R&D project.
31