1

Advanced Learning and Leadership

Program – In-depth Information

It isn’t subject tutoring. Designed with only the most effective strategies, the ALL

program makes conventional tutoring obsolete and develops students’ learning

skills to years beyond their peers.

Most mentoring gives the student a spoon to feed them. Unfortunately, a spoon isn’t always the

best utensil. The Advanced Learning and Leadership (ALL) Program teaches students to design

and build their own learning utensils via evidence-based learning skills and perspectives. Students

are equipped with the most powerful weapon against adversity.

What’s So Special?

Relatable mentoring in a cutting-edge program.

Foster Our Future’s ALL program is New Zealand’s only evidence-based mentoring program that

pairs young, top-tier professionals or university students to high school students with the targeted

focus on learner development. Our program is specifically designed to empower students to teach

themselves and become the leaders they aspire to be.

Contents

2017 Program Structure ............................................................................................................................. 2

2017 Program Application Details ............................................................................................................ 3

2016 Program Structure and Overview .................................................................................................... 4

2016 Program Results ................................................................................................................................. 8

Testimonials from Mentees ..................................................................................................................... 11

Our System of Teaching ........................................................................................................................... 12

2016 Limitations ........................................................................................................................................ 13

Background ................................................................................................................................................ 14

Core Program Axioms ............................................................................................................................... 14

Rationale Behind Initial Program Design ............................................................................................... 24

References .................................................................................................................................................. 28

2

2017 Program Structure

The following section does not include definitions of terminology or rationales behind

design. This information is available in the below sections, with comprehensive rationales

for program design changes found in the 2016 Program Structure and Overview.

Refer to the “Changelog” document for a summary of changes from 2016’s program. For an

in-depth breakdown of the 2016 program and results, please see sections below.

The program is initiated with a casual social gathering, allowing mentors and mentees to meet and

greet. Key information and priming knowledge is provided at this gathering to kick-start

mentorship contracts. The program closes with a celebratory closing ceremony and scholarships

for demonstrated excellence.

Intake dates are scheduled for March and July of 2017, but are subject to change (please

enquire if unsure).

Duration: each “mentorship contract” is a minimum of five months in duration. This can

be renewed at the end of the period for a total maximum duration of 10 months 1.

Mentor matching: mentees are matched with a relatable mentor (top university students

and young professionals) based on compatibility of hobbies/interests, sex, ethnicity and

background, in accordance with best-practice literature. Mentors are trained in our

cutting-edge, learning focused mentoring system Mentor training is also increased from

2016 to empower a greater ability to tailor for individual mentee needs at the highest level.

Mentoring sessions: regular one-on-one sessions occur once per week (1 – 1.5 hours).

Sessions follow a pattern of two structured and one semi-structured 2. Structural elements

of each session are aligned with our central evidence-based approach.

Collaborative workshops: conventional workshops are replaced by collaborative, high-

intensity workshops using more effective Agile (Scrum) inspired approaches to problem-

solving (1) 3. These workshops are facilitated by senior mentoring staff.

Guest speaker events: these are organised for free from success stories in our community.

Next-generation tracking system: Mentors and mentees have access to a first-of-its-kind

progress tracking system developed by Foster Our Future, Ltd, custom-designed

1 This is a change from 2016’s full academic year program to increase engagement and allow desynchronised progression.

2 This is a change from 2016’s fully structured sessions to increase engagement and to tailor for individual needs and styles.

Totally unstructured sessions are not permitted due to inconsistency with identified best-practice. 3 This is a change from 2016’s workshops. While 2016 had pedagogically and andragogic sound teaching practice, Scrum

style workshops give more ownership to mentees and mentors and draw on collaborative peer work to identify solutions

effectively. This change is to increase facilitation of relevance and learner identity, as well as allow smoother

desynchronised mentorship contracts.

3

specifically for the ALL program. This platform provides an enjoyable, visual, and fully

integrated representation of the mentoring relationship and mentee’s progress 4.

Alumni network: program alumni gain access to our exclusive Alumni Network, offering

professional skills and leadership development opportunities, advisory capacity to the ALL

program, and chance to mentor for selected individuals.

2017 Program Application Details

ELIGIBILITY AND SELECTION CRITERIA

In order to be eligible for the ALL program, the student must:

Be attending an Auckland secondary school in year 12 or 13

Have achieved a minimum of Merit in their previous NCEA year OR B in Cambridge (IB

students are handled on a case-by-case basis depending on the school’s pre-IB curriculum)

Candidates are selected based on their desire and motivation to be a leader in their community.

Students do not need to have a set career goal in mind (e.g. being a doctor or lawyer). We prioritise

the drive to be a positive community role model, over the specific details of the goal.

COST AND SCHOLARSHIPS

Cost for non-partnered school student: $80/week

Cost for partnered school student: $49/week

Cost with Scholarship: FREE

Please enquire for available payment options.

Scholarship: our Future Leader Scholarship is a full program subsidy available for students

attending decile 1, 2 or 3 high schools. The scholarship allows entry into the program for free. All

successful applicants from decile 1, 2 or 3 high schools will receive this scholarship, however

not all applicants from these schools will be successfully accepted.

4 This is a change from 2016’s minimal system which decreased long-term enjoyment and functionality. Our new system

has been specifically custom designed to integrate beautifully with our ALL program.

4

2016 Program Structure and Overview

The following section does not include definitions of terminology or rationales. Please read the

“Additional Information” section below for this information.

OVERVIEW

The 2016 Advanced Learning and Leadership (ALL) program hypothesised graduate attributes and

threshold concepts focused education (GATE) to be a critical step in self-sustainable development.

Meta-cognition was identified as the most transferrable and impactful graduate attribute to

facilitate, with a secondary focus on creativity, independence, confidence, enthusiasm, time

management and organisational skills, and critical thinking.

The program incorporated three group workshops throughout the year, alongside weekly one-on-

one mentoring. These secondary attributes were addressed in individual mentoring sessions,

while primary attributes were covered extensively in the workshops and assignment structures.

Threshold concept-centred learning was simplified to conceptual learning in which a framework

was provided, similar to, but more in-depth than the Theory of Knowledge in IB curriculums.

DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORK

The Graduate Attribute and Threshold Education (GATE) framework was revised in April 2016 due

to the unexpectedly rapid consolidation of content by mentees. This revised framework remained

consistent to the literature but was better suited to the prospectively evaluated progress level and

rate of mentees. This divided the focus into:

1. Learner identity – development of the personal identity of a learner

2. Self-sustainable learning - conceptual learning styles and metacognitive learning

5

3. Strengths application – identification and targeted use of strengths to systematically

overcome challenges or obstacles

We also identified three phases of mentee development. These phases reflect the mentees’

response to the program and do not align exactly with the workshops throughout the year.

Figure 1. Phases of mentee development throughout the 2016 ALL program

The phases are represented in yellow (phase one), light green (phase two) and teal (phase three)

in the diagram above.

1. Phase One – Mentees are initiated and relevance is established. The learner identity begins

to be discovered and aspects of sustainable learning, metacognitive learning, and

reflective practice are introduced. Progress by design and designed thinking are

introduced which allows application of previously taught content. Structured mentor

follow-up is crucial weekly in this intensive early period.

2. Phase Two – While the learner identity grows and builds relevance, additional sustainable

learning approaches can be facilitated. Strengths identification and application can be

added to accelerate growth. Mentor sessions can be semi-structured, providing better

engagement with mentees than strictly structured sessions.

3. Phase Three – With a firm foundation, mentors can work with mentees to facilitate

application of knowledge and problem solve individual barriers. Mentoring at this stage

should focus on maximising enjoyment, and mental stimulation of the mentee to maintain

relevancy and engagement at a time where plateaus are expected.

APPLICATIONS AND MENTOR-MENTEE MATCHING

In 2016, we partnered with Manurewa High School for our pilot and accepted applications from

the year 12 science class. Eight students were interviewed after review of applications and five

students were accepted onto the program (three males and two females). Acceptance into the

program was based on the same criteria as the 2017 program (see 2017 Program Application

Details). One female mentee withdrew from the program due to personal reasons.

6

Figure 2. Graphic showing multi-factorial, prioritised mentee and mentor matching

Mentors were recruited from social media marketing and employed based on revision of their

academic transcript, CV, mentor application and phone interview. Mentors and mentees were

matched based on hobbies/interests, background, ethnicity and sex to optimise mentorship

outcomes.

MENTOR TRAINING

All matched mentors were trained in a two day, 10-hour workshop with the specific principles and

techniques of the ALL program. Mentors were also provided a small guidebook to complement

their training and provide additional information for further reference. A coffee meeting was

scheduled once every month or two to collaboratively reflect, catch up on progress, and address

concerns face to face. The training workshop’s aims and learning outcomes are outlined below.

Aim Learning Outcomes

Day 1

To engage mentors in the GATE

approach, and to become

progressively reflective in their

own teaching and learning.

1. Demonstrate the relevancy and use of GATE

approach to mentoring

2. Demonstrate metacognitive reflection in

learning and teaching strategies

Day 2

To build a foundation of effective

mentoring by reinforcing the

GATE approach and introducing

general mentoring principles, and

reflective teaching.

1. Demonstrate the relevancy and use of the

GATE approach to mentoring

2. Demonstrate metacognitive reflection in

learning and teaching strategies

3. Reflect on effective teaching and mentoring

practice

COMBINED MENTEE-MENTOR SESSIONS

Over the course of the year, there were three workshops (March, April and August). These

workshops were designed to engage and develop selected key attributes and skills that were

foundational to long-term development. Workshops acted as intensive spikes of knowledge, to be

slowly consolidated with supportive mentors in between each workshop. Assignments from

workshops were designed to complement school work rather than distract from it.

An outline of the workshops’ aims and learning outcomes is in the table below.

7

Aim Learning Outcomes

Workshop 1:

Initiation

To facilitate a positive

mentoring relationship

and to allow students to

pro-actively engage in the

concepts of metacognition

and the learner identity.

1. Reflect on importance of metacognition

2. Demonstrate ways of utilising metacognition

to enhance learning skills

3. Identify the learner identity

Workshop 2:

Integration

To introduce students to

conceptual learning

approaches and designed

thinking and problem

solving.

1. Demonstrate an active, ongoing engagement

with the GATE approach

2. Identify SMART goals and plans and

systematically design strengths-based

solutions to overcome obstacles

3. Demonstrate ability to use simplified

conceptual learning approaches

4. Construct plans integrating meta-cognitive

habits and conceptual learning styles to

achieve SMART goals

Workshop 3:

Progression

To re-engage students

with their conceptual

learning in preparation for

exams, end of the year,

and beyond.

1. Demonstrate active, ongoing and integrated

use of sustainable learning with timely

improvement

2. Demonstrate competent structuring of study

schedules based on SPQ3R method and

conceptual learning approaches

Mentors and mentees met for the first time at Workshop 1: Initiation. Each pair then planned to

meet for regular mentoring sessions for at least one hour per week in the early phases, with less

frequent contact over the remainder of the year.

Each mentoring session was targeted at the following agenda and reported on a Google

Spreadsheet template:

1. Build rapport and ensure a strong relationship with mentee

2. Set the expectation for mentees to take ownership of their progress

3. Recap and reflect on contents and assignments from workshops

4. Identify mentee reflections, concerns, and what they look forward to

5. Work collaboratively to resolve learning issues

6. Reflect on own practice for improvement of mentoring

7. Update on “Mentee-defined Metrics” (MDM), three characteristics that the mentee would

choose from a list of key graduate attributes that they would prioritise developing

Mentees were also provided an “Aha Log Book”, a log book for recording “aha” moments of

epiphany. The purpose of this log book was to encourage active, focused, and targeted reflection,

as well as train meta-cognitive thought habits.

8

2016 Program Results

We observed a spectrum of results. Even with a cohort of only four mentees, challenges with

avoiding generalization were visible; a testament to the difficulty of standardized educational

institutions in readily accommodating for individual differences.

Overall, we were sincerely touched by the effort from mentors and mentees and upon completion

of the program, we realistically expect a long-term change in mindset and perspective from both

parties. We were not “trying to win a match, but win the tournament”, and so despite various

limitations we have evaluated in 2016 (discussed below), we are reassured by the fact that we have

made a difference to every mentee by offering them something outside the norm and beyond the

classroom.

Metrics have considered both quantitative and qualitative measurements to provide

comprehensive and holistic evaluation.

QUANTITATIVE RESULTS

Mentee-defined metrics (MDM)

Tertiary educations including University of Auckland have a set of ‘graduate qualities’ they

endeavor to foster within attending students. From these traits, mentees were asked to pick three

traits that were important to them.

These mentee-defined metrics (MDM’s) were plotted on the graphs below, from which we

observed an overall trend for improvement, with minor weekly fluctuations. Beyond numerical

representation, the MDM’s acted as a focus for conscious engagement with important, but

abstract principles that can be concretely anchor to. The MDM’s further served as discussion and

reflection topics during mentoring sessions to ensure genuine and accurate self-scoring.

Figure 3: MDM progress over duration of mentorship (Mentee 1)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Confidence Enthusiasim Reflection

9

Figure 4: MDM progress over duration of mentorship (Mentee 2)

Figure 5: MDM progress over duration of mentorship (Mentee 3)

Figure 6: MDM progress over duration of mentorship (Mentee 4)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Confidence Enthusiasm Time management

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Critical thinking Reflection Confidence

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Confidence Organization Time management

10

Academic Results

To be advised upon final grades announcement.

This document will be updated by February 2017.

Meeting Regularity

Regularity of meetings may be an indirect way of measuring mentee engagement. Meetings were

scheduled to occur for at least one hour, once per week. We found adequate attendance of

meetings in the first half of the year; however, it became more infrequent as the year progressed.

The reported rationales for this are explained in the “2016 Limitations” section. Changes have been

made to the 2017 program in response to these limitations.

QUALITATIVE RESULTS

We observed that mentees became more motivated to seek opportunities to engage in extra-

curricular commitments throughout the year, such as leading Kapa haka groups at school for

Polyfest, being involved with committees, and starting cultural and mentoring groups within their

school. The application of MDM’s, strengths application, and self-sustainable learning extends

beyond academia and plays a role in promoting social integration which we view as a vital part of

education, facilitating the transition through graduation and into the workforce.

The dialect used by learners provides valuable information on the integration of concepts with

their schema of knowledge. The following are a collection of quotes from our mentors and

mentees, recording throughout the year as video interviews or written documents.

A small collection of quotes can be find on our website in the form of video interviews,

as well as written testimonials.

This is available at www.fosterourfuture.co.nz/become-a-sponsor/.

11

Testimonials from Mentees

“As one of the founding mentees, I have been given the opportunity to learn a wide

array of skills, which have changed my mind-set of school and future learning. The

skills and hands-on help with mentors shaped viewpoints and perspectives…”

Marlene (2016 Mentee)

This year really was a productive year and this program changed my perspective

on… many obstacles and how to overcome them. I use my skills… from this

program and solve problems that would have been a big barrier for me; now I can

use this, and many other valuable skills, to further myself and do better.

Cameron (2016 Mentee)

My journey throughout the year with the Foster Our Future program has allowed

me to discover various new things. Both learning and mind-set (sic)… skills gained

from the workshops and the weekly sessions with my mentor have been a great

experience. Proceeding into the new year, these… techniques and skills will

encourage me to take learning to a new level, diving below the surface of my own

personal learning.

Jazz (2016 Mentee)

12

Our System of Teaching

The following are a few remarks from our educator training workshop feedback forms, modelled

around the same theories and frameworks as our ALL program. These training workshops are

directed at empowering other educators to teach in our unique approach.

Really interesting... an amazing resource and so full of knowledge on education

and good at sharing this.

Incredibly informative session! Wish we had it earlier.

Learnt a lot more than I expected to… Was really interesting.

Furthermore, all 32 educators trained in our system identified several significant learning points

about sustainable learning and teaching, with an average workshop rating (on usefulness, ease of

understanding, structure, and overall experience) of 4.9/5.

13

2016 Limitations

Difficulty in having regular meetings in the later stages of the program

o Personal commitments

o Disengagement

This may be due to forced synchronization of progress with workshops, as

well as limitations of using strictly structured mentoring sessions in later

phases of mentee development.

o Timing

o Transport

o Finding an appropriate location

Finding relevance in the earlier stages

o This is possibly due to the high amount of content in workshops. Empowering

mentors to supply appropriate techniques and information at the rate more

appropriate for the mentee may be a solution.

14

Additional Information

Background

The 2012 New Zealand Council for Educational Research national survey identified key challenges

in secondary schools (2). Unsurprisingly, decile one and two schools suffered the biggest

challenges across the board. Views and opinions on NCEA were mixed, but a strong trend of

overloaded and assessment driven curriculum was apparent. Most low decile schools would have

liked more customised advice and support from outside the school, while only 37% could easily

access specialist advice when needed. Furthermore, between 50 and 60% of principals wanted to

develop a stronger professional learning and enquiry culture, more student leadership roles and

increased student choice and ability to feed into decisions. Finally, there was a strong expression

for building a strengths-based culture. In all these aspects and more, an efficient, non-conflated

graduate attributes and threshold education approach from a specialist third-party organisation

would offer immeasurable benefit.

Core Program Axioms

The diversity of skills and theory in education are extensive. While impossible to say which set or

combination is most effective, graduate attributes and threshold concepts are established notions.

The following sections outline the literature surrounding each, describe the need and demand for

strategies focused on them, and discuss principles of general mentoring practice. This serves as

the rationale for our innovative and integrative program design.

INTRODUCTION TO GOOD MENTORING PRACTICE

Not all mentoring is positive. Conscious efforts must be made in the right ways. A meta-analysis

of 55 youth mentoring programs found that one third yielded affects close to zero, while 10

percent showed an average negative impact. The typical youth that benefited positively received

only modest effect (3). While some programs are very beneficial, others succeed less so. Generally,

there seem to be three key features of youth development programs to promote a positive change.

They are known as the “Big 3” (4) and rely on the hypothesis that all young people possess

strengths, which when promoted become “developmental assets” (5), accelerating positive youth

development.

These three features are as follows (4):

1. Sustained, positive adult-use relations;

2. Youth life-skill building activities; and

3. Youth participation and leadership of valued community activities.

15

Unfortunately, many industries where mentoring is required make insufficient effort to align with

these features. Fields where evidence-based practice is embraced, such as medicine and public

health, have seen an improvement in the quality of services and programs. Similarly evidence-

based practice would enhance the program effectiveness and any other dimension of program

quality and a youth mentoring scenario, so long as the curriculum allows modification by its users

to experientially improve its research based approach (3).

Some specific actions that mentors may take to align their actions with these overarching goals

are described in a review by Richard Lerner, et al. (4) produced by MENTOR.

Competence:

Support your mentee’s passions without taking over.

Help your mentee see that skills are transferrable into areas they may feel less-skilled.

Turn mistakes – trivial or serious – into teaching moments.

Confidence:

Share your own lapses in confidence or woes. Ask your mentee for help when you can.

Be attentive to obstacles that may challenge your mentee’s confidence. Confidence for

girls is more likely to dip in adolescence than for boys.

Increase their social capital by encouraging them to connect to other people or institutions

they may not have access to otherwise.

Connection:

Respect their privacy, but be vigilant and attentive.

Create opportunities within your capability to let their voice be heard. All youth want to

feel that they matter.

Character:

If you don’t approve of a relationship, friend or activity, let them know! Explain your values

to them and guide them to question whether their behaviour is acceptable.

Align your actions with your words – be the role model.

Keep a sense of perspective or humour about minor infractions in character.

Provide the opportunity for your mentee to make their own decisions. Then live with the

decisions they make.

Caring:

When you are not treated well, this may be when you are needed most. Hang back and

wait for an opening to talk, and respond accordingly.

Caring is contagious – caring mentors develop caring teens.

Encourage mentees to join local community organisations, boards and institutions to

promote caring and social justice in their world.

16

Contribution:

Encourage your mentee to engage in causes that align with their interests.

Help them marshal the resources so their efforts have a good chance of succeeding.

Don’t overprotect your mentees from failure. Sometimes even the most worthwhile efforts

will lead in disappointment: an important lesson.

On the program side, David Dubois (3) outlines several practices predictive of stronger positive

effects on youth outcome:

1. Procedures for Systematic Monitoring of Program Implementation.

2. Use of community settings (as contrasted with only the school setting) for mentoring.

3. Utilisation of mentors with backgrounds in helping roles of professionals.

4. Clearly established expectations for frequency of mentor-youth contact.

5. Ongoing (post-match) training for mentors.

6. Structured activities for mentors and use, and support for parent involvement.

The magnitude of effects increases systematically as programs utilise a greater number of these

practices; indicating that each feature is the independent variable to contribution. Dubois also

outlines some action steps in evaluating program practices that involve a logical, critical and

systematic method of evaluating practice problems to strategize for effective solutions. His

methodology closely resembles the problem solving steps of scientific and medical practice.

In relation to the program design are the mentors who deliver the service. Mentoring programs

should select for staff with a strong commitment to the mission, strong interpersonal skills, ability

to role model behaviours, and previous experience in youth development or other mentoring

related fields. Once selected, they should receive adequate training, evaluation and orientation,

with appropriate compensation for high quality staff and genuine support. On a macro scale, the

overall organisational practices should ensure comprehensive policy and procedures that detail

operations and selection processes, adequate supervision and performance reviews, with

appropriate physical resources (such as an employee Handbook) to maximise development,

conduct and retention of staff. This will have direct impacts on the mentee outcomes (6).

Other emphasised considerations include expectations and matching. Both mentees and mentors

need to have realistic expectations. Mentees must understand that they are to take ownership of

the process, with mentors acting as facilitators. Mentors must take care to not overstep their

boundaries despite their good intentions. Further, there needs to be a matching system that

allows mentors and mentees to relate to and trust each other. While peer mentoring has its own

strengths and disadvantages (7), so too does using older mentors (8). The evidence on younger

versus older mentors is still mixed at this stage, with each conferring quite different benefits and

weaknesses. Similarly, while same race matches seem to have some potential impact, the overall

literature is relatively mixed. It seems that matching based on interests and attitudes may be a

better predictor of mentee satisfaction and overall outcomes than demographic similarity (9).

17

INTRODUCTION TO GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES

“Graduate outcomes” is a broad term covering the range of skills, knowledge, and values that are

gained through higher education. They are the foundation of curriculum design in universities

across the world – often grouped as a set of graduate attributes called the graduate profile. There

is overwhelming evidence to suggest that a graduate profile can be achieved much more readily

when assessments are explicitly aligned with them in mind. Even within the University scene, New

Zealand is often noted to be lagging behind in consistent course design (10).

The purpose of graduate outcomes is multifaceted. Broadly, they can be said to allow the student

to make the most of their potential and make sense of their world. More specifically, the attributes

involved in maximising potential may involve active learning, reflection, self-development and

integrity. Likewise, changes in perspective, breadth of knowledge and thinking, enquiry and

problem solving and independence of thought all allow a student to make sense of their world

(11). Overall, the University’s graduate profile aims to prepare graduates to be contributing

members of the workforce in wider society.

Some of these graduate attributes are generic. Generic graduate attributes are developed within

every discipline and domain of knowledge – in other words they “in some way transcend

disciplinary outcomes” (12). As such, these abilities can and should be present in a graduate of any

undergraduate degree. Interestingly though, this means that the skills and outcomes are a result

of the educational process rather than the content itself. They are a development “that can be

reasonably expected from the usual higher education experience” (12).

Some graduate attributes can be prioritised over others. For example, personal and intellectual

autonomy is a key translational graduate attribute cluster for an overarching graduate outcome

of lifelong learning. Similarly, research and enquiry is a skill set that is fundamental to the outcome

of scholarship (12). What this means is that the development of these foundation attributes is both

necessary and more proportionally beneficial than the development of other, possibly less

integrative, or more straightforward ones. Unfortunately, these key attributes are often more

difficult to facilitate also.

CHALLENGES WITH GRADUATE ATTRIBUTE DEVELOPMENT

The application of practice to theory leaves room for improvement. Many graduates do not attain

the graduate profile for a multitude of reasons. In one sense, it is to do with the system; the

University of Auckland – while having an extensive graduate profile web page – does not require

the main body of its teaching staff to have specific teaching experience or qualification. This is a

trend in many universities internationally. University academics’ understandings of graduate

attributes is in disparity to overly aspirational curriculum objectives (12). However, the variability

of teachers and courses is almost inevitable. In this regard, a simple deficiency in exposure time

for students may be a factor that exacerbates system flaws.

18

In this respect, and early initiation to graduate attribute education may be beneficial. Research

suggests that for a student to integrate graduate attributes within their personal skill set requires

a deep integration with the program. The suggestion is that they need to be “part of the students’

everyday thinking, help develop proficiency, facilitate transferability, and develop (sic) a habit of

lifelong learning” (13). Literature warns of the dangers inherent in simply bolting graduate

attributes on to existing systems (14). In addition, programs that use experiential, active, and

interactive learning techniques are emphasised to develop and enhance these skills and attributes

(15). Certainly, a long-term high school program which develops habits of lifelong learning would

align with these statements.

INTRODUCTION TO THRESHOLD CONCEPTS

The etymology of the word threshold is a good place to start. Back during tougher times, the poor

would have dirt for floors (hence the idiom “dirt poor”), but the wealthy had slate. Slate becomes

slippery when wet and so, in winter, one would throw a hay-like substance called thresh on the

ground. When the door to the house was opened, the thresh would fly outside and thus, a wooden

block at the door, the threshold, was born. The saying goes “have you ever walked into a dark

room and stumbled over the threshold?”

In education, a threshold concept is an idea or notion that manifests as a stumbling point. They

underpin the superficial content of a subject and other building blocks for conceptual

understanding. They are often described akin to a portal; once opened, allowing rapid and

integrative progression through a topic. Threshold concepts open up “new and previously

inaccessible ways (sic) of thinking about something. (They) represent a transformed way of

understanding, or interpreting, or viewing something without which the learner finds it difficult to

progress” (16). Studies demonstrate that a students’ understanding of threshold concepts are a

good predictor of their total year grades (17) and graduation rates (18). However, when we struggle

with the threshold concept, we are confused and uncertain, and while some of us abandon

understanding in favour of superficial memorisation, some of us instead are awarded with an “aha”

moment. Retrospectively, these epiphanies often punctuate an individual’s development with

transformation.

Indeed, to be transformative is one of the dimensions of threshold concepts. They are also

integrative, irreversible, bounded and troublesome (19). Unsurprisingly, the troublesome nature

of threshold concepts is what makes both teaching and learning so difficult. Also, while it is true

that threshold concepts often transform a learner’s perspective, integrating to bring separate

concepts into a unified whole, which once grasped cannot be un-grasped, recent commentary in

the literature suggests a may not necessarily be bounded. However, to appreciate this we must

first describe the learner’s journey.

The learner’s journey is dynamic and messy. Some areas are understood and grasped easier than

others, resulting in sporadic progress and recursive study. This difference in ability to comprehend

certain subject areas is fundamentally due to our set conceptual frameworks. If new information

fits into a framework we understand, we are able to progress forward. If it does not seem to fit, or

19

if it directly contradicts what we thought to be relevant, this can be a source of difficulty and even

cognitive dissonance (20). The latter frequently leads to anxiety and stress that we are all familiar

with (21).

Furthermore, a conceptual framework is essentially a set of connected and relevant beliefs,

perspectives and experiences. We call these “signs”. Therefore the new information is a “signifier”

– pointing to and associating with a sign (20). The signifier-sign relationship is dynamic. For

example, bell-bottomed jeans were previously a signifier for the sign “cool”, while it has now

become a signifier for “retro”. The signifier has stayed the same, but the sign and therefore the

meaning has changed. Educationally, these signifiers are what we deem as course terminology or

concepts, which as teachers, are signifiers we are familiar with. However, the learner may only

partially associate these new signifiers with the correct sign, or even find no connection at all. The

result is then an inability to comprehend these signifiers, manifesting as misunderstanding or

confusion. In addition, due to the immense number of sign-signifier combinations for each new

concept, the risk of misunderstanding is massive (20).

To add another layer of difficulty, re-associating a signifier with a different sign is challenging and

troublesome. As signs are a culmination of beliefs and experiences, changing an established

incorrect or partial relationship between sign and signifier involves weakening and loosening the

existing set of beliefs. This process can be scary and when the goal is to achieve understanding,

letting go of what you know can be counterintuitive. In many cases, the threshold concept relies

on a multitude of signifiers being appropriately associated with the correct sign. In this way,

perhaps the threshold concept is so troublesome “not because the concept is so difficult because

it challenges the learner’s understanding of its component concepts and this way it acts as a

checkpoint for the learner’s progress” (20).

In addition, signifiers and signs this fundamentally in a different space. While signs exist purely

within the mental landscape of conceptual space, our teaching pedagogies rely on a physical

domain bound by sound and vision. Teachers must present a range of signifiers that associate

with the same consistent sign in an attempt to guide the learner to infer a concept through physical

expression (20). A degree of confusion will be inevitable, and the challenge for course designers is

to minimise these periods and integrate threshold concepts at significant points in a timely

manner (20).

We call this journey of confusion, the liminal space (20). This is a conceptual and ontological space

that exists from the unexpected encounter with a troublesome threshold concept until its total

integration. It is characterised by a mental fluidity; beliefs and signs that were once firmly held are

now fluid and uncertain – connections can be made and broken very easily and the mind is in a

state of chaos. But, this is not necessarily negative.

20

Figure 7. The sign-signifier relationship depicting an existing sign transforming into a new sign through the

liminal space.

The fluidity of the liminal space can be a powerful tool. To draw an analogy using the London

underground subway map, “Charing Cross station differs from Edgware not because it is a more

capacious station, with better amenities and more platforms, but because it has greater

connectivity” (20). Likewise, the key difference between the liminal space and a normal state of

mind is in the number and ease of connections. Here we revisit the idea that liminality is not always

bounded within disciplines or sets of information, but are divisions we infer between states of

contrasting connectivity (20).

As signs are more fluid and uncertain, it is easier for new signifiers to associate or dissociate. Many

arts students are taught to stay within a perpetual liminal state to increase creativity (20).

Threshold learning and navigation in the liminal state is suggested to facilitate the understanding

of uncertainty in the context of teaching which “may act as a robust framework around which to

develop the pedagogy of uncertainty” (22). The creators of threshold concepts, Jan Meyer and Ray

Land (23) have frequently emphasised that a certain amount of anxiety and thus, emotional

investment is required for true intellectual or formational yield in learning (24).

Navigating and progressing through liminality can be characterised by a number of steps. It begins

with the integration of something new and a subsequent recognition that an existing view is

inadequate. The previously held view is weakened and a previously fixed objectivity becomes more

fluid and subjective. The new information becomes accepted and integrates into an alternative

version of self – “re-authoring of self” (20). This idea of self is commonly referred to as the

professional identity (25), whereupon its acquisition allows the acceptance of new forms of

discourse, dialect and conceptualisation.

A professional identity is established once the lower expected standards from a “consumer” are

exceeded by the “producer” (21). If you are an artist, your professional identity drives you to

21

practice, perfect and utilise techniques that will largely be unappreciated by the viewer; all in an

effort to achieve your professional standard as an artist. For a learner this means taking the

previously procedural activity of learning and asserting awareness and control to pursue a higher,

more personal learning objective. It is the professional identity of a learner that allows students

to persevere through the chaos of the liminal space and overcome thresholds that would

otherwise limit their capability. It is a foundation and a precedent for any meaningful development.

CHALLENGES WITH THRESHOLD CONCEPTS-CENTRED LEARNING

While the specific threshold concepts within disciplines may vary, this idea of professional identity

remains fundamental. “It is only when someone is willing to challenge themselves mentally,

physically or emotionally by doing something a new way or thinking a new way and altering their

mind-set about something – this schema with which they approach something and so alter how

they will approach similar matters in the future – that they cross the threshold… It requires an

emotional engagement” (25). However, some learners feel that a certain identity may betray their

social group.

This difficulty in assuming an identity is sometimes called a border crossing or the ability-action

gap (21). It is called a border crossing because students constantly move from one world to

another, each with their own subcultures and identities. Some students find this more difficult

than others and so in order to make this crossing smoother, teachers should make the borders

more explicit (21). This also aids and integrating the learning experience to the learner’s perception

of the real world – ultimately helping to build capacity for integrative learning (26).

Other factors such as background “noises off” may influence the border crossing. Noises off, or

just noise, is what we call the external events and factors that may be occurring in a student’s life

that distract and disengage them. The circumstances may be pervasively influential and may

entirely threaten the passage towards student-hood (27). In this respect there must be significant

psychological capital to enable optimal affective states within the student (20).

This idea that affective states impact in a student’s success within the liminal state is called

“dispositional learning” (20). For some dispositions, the liminal state is a sense of anxiety and

discomfort which students do not cope with, while some students are actually able to thrive. The

aspects of disposition are outlined under the term of psychological capital, which incorporates

self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resilience. Of these, self-efficacy – the confidence to take on and

put in the effort necessary to overcome challenges – is especially notable in that students must

have the “confidence and ability to make a leap of faith into a new zone of learning that needs to

be achieved” (28, 29) .

However, content is usually delivered sub-optimally. Threshold concepts are not apparent or

particularly emphasised in most courses. Therefore, it falls upon student to reconstruct

information in a way that is conceptually appropriate. Fortunately, research supports that the

element of discovering for themselves is what leads to the greatest learning breakthroughs. A

study recording personal breakthroughs revealed that 99 percent experienced these moments

22

while doing something for themselves; a stark difference to the majority that self-reported

learning best in teacher dependent environments (21).

Land and Meyer (16) recognise the importance of student engagement for genuine understanding

of difficult concept points; as opposed to a simple regurgitation or recall of the concept and the

form it was presented. As it is difficult for teachers to gaze retrospectively on thresholds, constant

opportunities for reflection are paramount. They also mention that learning of thresholds requires

a repositioning of self in relation to the subject – an often troublesome aspect – and they draw

attention to the intrinsically recursive nature of complex learning. With this in mind, we

incorporate deliberate recursive sessions with ample accommodation for troublesome areas. The

deliberately non-linear program design ensures that it is optimised for our uniquely threshold

approach. Finally, the environment we facilitate gives space for metacognitive self-regulation

within the liminal state – a key consideration to tolerate and teach on uncertainty: a dimension we

have established as being both necessary and inevitable. Coincidentally they also support our idea

by saying that there is the “possibility of using thresholds framework to design … professional

development” (16).

Furthermore, the educational system’s current standards do not fit the dynamic world. “Standards

didn’t drift; the world around us did… We are operating in radically transformed territory using a

guidebook from another era” (19). Literature consistently finds that while threshold concepts of

the discipline relates to the standards that assess it, “they prioritise content in a way that current

standards do not” (19). What this means is that the assessment standards focus on content in ways

that are not aligned with the threshold concepts. We see this manifesting as the ability for students

to pass the course without understanding the principle concepts. This in turn tolerates and even

encourages a superficial method of learning, without assumption of a learner identity or

engagement with the learning process.

There are a few problems with standards that can be described (19). The “overload problem” is

directly applicable to the NCEA system: standards list an overwhelming number of performance

indicators, learning outcomes and assessments for even relatively short course durations. The

“Goldilocks problem” is a problem in virtually every large-scale course design: as standards are

both aspirational and practical, some ideas or standards are too big or too small, with very few

being just right. The “nebulous problem” is arguably the most significant: some objectives and

statements are so vague and unclear that it is impossible to determine what the aligned threshold

concept or graduate attribute is. Concepts can become conflated with broad aspirational goals

attempting to cram as much development in each standard.

23

Figure 8. A map of threshold concepts for the topic of biology, with superficial content knowledge and pre-basic

concepts described on the left, and the progression of basic concepts to threshold concepts adjacent.

Even teachers are negatively affected. While threshold concept teaching is good in theory, when

combined with the variable experience of teachers and largely homogenised, generic course

curricula, it is often difficult to identify significant cognitive threshold concepts (25). Different

schools of thought and contradictory ideas are blended together in a superficially standardised

course model, albeit in the interest of making these general principles more accessible to the

uninitiated student. Apart from the obvious overwhelming nature of standards, the tamed

reconstruction of intrinsically complex and fascinating subjects results in a gradual disconnect that

both students and teachers experience (19). Instead of concepts becoming exciting and worth

learning about, they revert to meaningless procedural instruction. “We do our students know

favours by oversimplifying in an effort to make a material more palatable… Keeping the big ideas

unstated implies a conceptual understanding is not needed to achieve our learning outcomes ”(19).

24

Rationale Behind Initial Program Design

The following is the rationale behind the 2016 program design. Subsequent modifications to

the program are described in the specific program’s details.

Our program is basely structured around a combination of evidenced andragogic and pedagogical

theory. Figure 1, from Knowles, et al. (30), summarises this in part to show the core principles

around which programs should be designed. Similar notions are supported since much earlier

literature, such as Maslow (31) saw the goal of learning to be self-actualization: “the full use of

talents, capacities, potentialities, etc.” (p. 150). He conceived of growth towards this goal to being

determined by two sets of forces in an individual – a more basic form of our modern day theory

of psychological capital in andragogic practice – “one set clings to safety and defensiveness out of

fear, tending to regress backward, hanging on to the past… the other set of forces impels him

forward toward wholeness to Self and uniqueness of Self, toward full functioning of all his

capacities… We grow forward when the delights of growth and anxieties of safety are greater than

the anxieties of growth and the delights of safety” (32). This, alongside other literature of

psychological capital is the cause for our parallel focus on a sense of friendly, trustworthy and

encouraging community within the program; enforced by the mentors and included within our

training.

Another aspect of our program is in the flexibility of the content. We do not focus on specific topics,

rather teach the core principles behind learning itself and overcoming challenges, instead leaving

it to the regular mentors to provide a more specific catering to the topic specific needs with

learning the student may face. This is supported since early literature also. While it is now well

known, as early as 1972 there was a strong theory of learning domain differences, wherein

educational psychologists questioned the proposition that learning is a single process. Gagné (33)

identified motor skills, verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies and attitudes as

five separate domains of learning, each with its own approach. By allowing flexibility and non-

specific education, we are able to account for this normal variation and increase the applicability

and relevance of our program content.

An area of possible discrepancy is the use of largely adult learning strategies with a non-adult

population. In reality, adult learning and teaching is very applicable to youths and often superior

to outdated pedagogical approaches. Experience tells us this much and it is reinforced by the

literature so strongly that while such misconceptions are sadly prevalent in mainstream practice,

the educational research community is in almost unanimous agreement. The first of these

supporting sentiments are offered by a highly distinguished figure in educational development,

Eduard C. Lindeman. Lindeman did not dichotomise adult versus youth education, but rather adult

versus “conventional” education. He challenged the concept of an adult and laid the implication

that youths learn better when their needs and interests, life situations, experiences, self-concepts

and individual differences are accounted for (34) . His work represented a pivoting point in early

adult educational research.

25

Finally, our macro-level structure is designed to maximise control and ownership over learning,

while framed with appropriate supplementation via pedagogy. Figure 2 (35) shows the cyclical

nature of adult learning which has resonated within teaching practice since the famous Kolb’s

experiential learning cycle. This cycle can be used in complement with the kinds of learning a

learner needs to be effective at in order to learn how to learn: natural learning which occurs in the

environment spontaneously, formal learning which is content chosen and presented to be learnt,

and personal learning which is intentional and self-directed (36). Our intermittent, scrum inspired

workshop timing which further increases efficiency and ownership of problem solving and

development of collaborative team work (1) , assignments, content design and mentor imperatives

ensure that this cycle is optimised for facilitation and development of self-directed learning.

Within any taught content themselves, lessons are planned in alignment with the Whole-Part-

Whole (WPW) learning model.

The WPW learning model purports a natural whole-part-whole rhythm to learning. This means

that each learning segment should focus on teaching the whole of the concept, then a number of

its component parts, followed by reiteration of the whole. The first whole introduces the new

content to learners and forms their minds into the organisational framework they will soon require

– known as an advance organiser - while the parts will support the cognitive capabilities and

component behaviours required to achieve understanding, with integration of knowledge and

reflection found in the final whole (37) (38). The whole-part-whole learning model is widely

accepted in the literature and regarded as being effective on a systematic as well as case by case

basis.

26

Figure 9. Androgogy in Practice (Knowles, Holton et al. 1998)

27

Figure 10. Adult learners controlling their own learning process (Swanson and Holton 1996)

28

References

1. Moe NB, Dingsøyr T. Scrum and Team Effectiveness: Theory and Practice. In: Abrahamsson P, Baskerville R, Conboy K, Fitzgerald B, Morgan L, Wang X, editors. Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming: 9th International Conference, XP 2008, Limerick, Ireland, June 10-14, 2008 Proceedings. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2008. p. 11-20. 2. Wylie C. Secondary schools in 2012: main findings fom the NZCER national survey2013. 3. Dubois DL. Mentoring: effectiveness of mentoring program practices. Research in action [Internet]. 2007 4th December 2015; (2). 4. Lerner RM, Brittian AS, Fay KE. Mentoring: a key resource for promoting positive youth development. Research in action [Internet]. 2007 4th December 2015; (1). 5. Benson PL, Scales PC, Hamilton SF, Semsa AJ. Positive youth development: theory research, and applications. 6 ed. Lerner RM, Damon W, Hoboken N, editors: Wiley; 2006. 6. Keller TE. Program staff and youth mentoring programs: qualifications, training, and retention. Research in action [Internet]. 2007 4th December 2015; (3). 7. Karcher M. Cross-age peer mentoring. Research in action [Internet]. 2007 4th December 2015; (7). 8. Taylor A. Mentoring across generations: engaging age 50+ adult as mentors. Research in action [Internet]. 2007 4th December 2015; (8). 9. Liang B, West J. Youth mentoring: do race and ethnicity really matter? Research in action [Internet]. 2007 4th December 2015; (9). 10. Spronken-Smith R, Bond C, McLean A, Frielick S, Smith N, Jenkins M, et al. How to engage with the graduate outcomes' agenda: a guide for tertiary education institutions. 2013. 11. Bostock S. Developing graduate attributes and skills across the institution. Future directions conference; April 2014; Aberystwyth2014. 12. Barrie SC. A research based approach to generic graduate attributes policy. Higher education research and development. 2004;23(Three):261 – 75. 13. Manathunga C, editor Quality and postgraduate research: re-imaging research education. International quality and postgraduate research conference; 2004 April 22 – 23; Adelaide. 14. Pearson M, Brew A. Research training and supervision development. Studies and higher education. 2002;27(2):135 – 50. 15. Biggs J. Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press; 1999. 16. Land R, Cousin G, Meyer J, Davies P. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (3): implications for course design and evaluation. In: Rust C, editor. Improving student learning: diversity and inclusivity. Oxford: OCSLD; 2005. p. 53 – 64. 17. Harlow A, Peter M, Scott J, Cowie B. Students' perceptions of travel through the liminal space: lessons for teaching. National academy's sixth annual conference and the fourth biennial threshold concepts conference; January 20142014. 18. Cook JM. A library credit course and student success rates: a longitudinal study. College & research libraries. 2014;75(3):272 – 83. 19. Hofer AR, Brunetti K, Townsend L. A thresholds concepts approach to the standards revision. National academy's sixth annual conference and the fourth biennial threshold concepts conference2014. p. 108-13. 20. Land R, Rattray J, editors. A closer look at liminality: incorrigibles and threshold capital. National academy's sixth annual conference and the fourth biennial threshold concepts conference; 2014 January 2014. 21. Higgs B, editor Threshold concepts: navigating the route. National academy's sixth annual conference and the fourth biennial threshold concepts conference; 2014 January 2014.

29

22. Hall B. "How do you know?" The threshold concept, multi-disciplinary approaches and the age of uncertainty. National academy's sixth annual conference and the fourth biennial threshold concepts conference; January 20142014. 23. Meyer J, Land R. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge – linkages to ways of thinking and practising. In: Rust C, editor. Improving student learning – ten years on. Oxford: OCSLD; 2003. 24. Meyer J, Land R. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher education research and development. 2005. 25. Atherton J, Hadfield P, Meyers R. Threshold concepts in the wild. Threshold concepts: from theory to practice conference; 18 – 20 June 2008; Queen's University, Kingston Ontario2008. 26. Huber M, Hutchings P. Integrative learning mapping the terrain2004. 27. Cousin G. Threshold concepts as an analytical tool for researching higher education pedagogy. National academy's sixth annual conference and the fourth biennial threshold concepts conference; January 20142014. 28. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman; 1997. 29. Allen B. Creativity as threshold – learning and teaching in liminal space. National academy's sixth annual conference and the fourth biennial threshold concepts conference; January 20142014. 30. Knowles MS, Holton EF, Swanson RA. The Adult Learner. 5th ed. Houston, TX: Gulf; 1998. 31. Maslow AH. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row; 1970. 32. Maslow AH. Defense and Growth. In: M L Silberman ea, editor. The psychology of open teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Little, Brown; 1972. p. 43-51. 33. Gagné RM. Domains of Learning. Interchange. 1. 8 ed1972. 34. Lindeman EC. The meaning of adult education. Journal of adult education. 1926. 35. Swanson RA, Holton EF. The purpose of human resource development is to improve organizational performance. In: Rowden RW, editor. Debating the future of educating adults in the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1996. p. 13-9. 36. Gibbons M. A working model of the learning how to learn process. In: R Smith aa, editor. Learning how to learn across the life span. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1990. 37. Swanson RA. Read-aim-frame. Human resource development quarterly. 1991;2(3):203-5. 38. Luiten J, Ames W, Ackerman GA. Meta-analysis of the effects of advance organizers on learning and retention. American educational research journal. 1980;17.