The Head, Heart and Hands model of Transformative Learning could be an organizing principle to integrate and transform pedagogical perspectives for sustainability education (Sipos, et al., 2008). This holistic synthesis could serve as a framework for evaluation of innovative environmental education programs, evaluation of program influence on students’ green behaviors and changes in environmental worldviews and values. The essential elements of transformation– deep engagement, relational knowing and reflection can have a greater impact within an authentic context for meaning-making. Pugh’s (2002) construct offers an analytic tool for measuring transformational experiences through expanded perception, expanded value and proactive use of environmental concepts. Being able, to some extent, to quantify a qualitative experience is invaluable to researchers. Puge’s (2002) construct synthesizes nicely with head, heart and hands concept that Sipos et al. (2008) associates with sustainability education. Sipos, Y., Battisti, B., & Grimm, K. (2008). Achieving transformative sustainability learning: Engaging head, hands and heart. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9, 68-86. It seems there’s been an ever-increasing comfort developing with the idea that we can give pupils a grade or a level and also deliver a meaningful curriculum. That we can use descriptors and/or levels to show the pupils that they are moving forward. If we forget the needs of the Senior Leadership Team, we do need something tangible to help pupils and teachers see that pupils are learning and progressing. So, what do you use?

Ross, A., & Olsen K. (1993). The way we were…the way we can be: A vision for the middle school through integrated thematic instruction. Village of Oak Creek, AR: Susan Kovalik & Associates. The good news is, Ofsted won’t be looking for or at your data – only school outcomes. But we do know that they’ll be looking for an engaging curriculum, where pupils thrive and learn. Therefore, delivery and assessment go hand in hand – and how do we know pupils are learning and progressing if we aren’t assessing? Kahn, P. H. (1999). The human relationship with nature: Development and culture. Cambridge,MA: The MIT Press. In addition to serving as an authentic context for transformative experiences that offers personally meaningful learning, there are many benefits to spending time in nature (Louv, 2005; Sobel, 1996). There is a large amount of evidence from studies in the area of biophilia supporting the notion that humans have a natural affinity to engage with nature and living organisms (Kahn, 1999; Kellert, 1997; 2002; Shepard, 1998). Literally, the term biophilia means love of life or living process. Nature experiences have been associated with cognitive, emotional, social and psycho-motor development as well as mental and physical health (Burdette & Whitaker, 2005; Frumkin, 2001; Kellert, 2002; Louv, 2005). Natural environments are an authentic context that many people find engaging and aesthetically inspiring (Braund & Reiss, 2006; Kellert, 1997; 2002). Learning in authentic or natural settings is a multi-sensory immersion, an immediate experience, that is compelling and often a novel experience. Natural environments not only draw students into deep and sustained engagement, nature also offers an enriching complex experience that benefits the well-being of people and even the well-being of the environment. Project Management, Risk Assessments and Process Maps can all be used to providing insights, data and additional support when using the Head, Heart and Hands Model. Praxie’s online Head Heart Hands collaboration model and tools allow any team or organization to instantly begin working with our web templates and input forms. Get started with our Head, Heart and Hands Model template.There has been an evolution of hybrid curriculum models, which assess ability as well as soft skills. The assessment is broader in this model, assessing pupils with covering statements that can be applied to multiple sports or activities. Examples include the Head, Heart, Hands curriculum and the work from Mr Thomas Brush with the ‘Me in PE’ curriculum model. Me in PE At BISP we recognise that PE is a crucial vehicle for developing the three main domains of learning, (physical, cognitive, and affective). In a world where lifestyles are increasingly becoming sedentary, with a higher value on automation, the teaching of Physical Education has an opportunity to re-energise (literally) tomorrow’s workforce through play, movement and physical exercise. At BISP we have a constant drive to review, reflect, and redesign the Physical Literacy curriculum to meet the needs of our students and motivate them to live a fuller and more active life. RFP & Vendor Evaluation Manager – Streamline the process of soliciting and evaluating vendor proposals for optimal supplier selection. FMEA – Anticipate and mitigate potential failure points with this Failure Modes and Effects Analysis tool for robust risk management. This model is more like the structure of ‘ME in PE’, but uses the Head Heart Hands method. In the end, the final level descriptor can be reported, also as a number if needed.

AI-Powered Competitive Analysis – Create an instant competitive analysis using artificial intelligence Quality Manager – Lead quality initiatives and drive continuous improvement efforts across your organization’s processes.

Heart

DMAIC Roadmap – Follow a structured path to process improvement success with this DMAIC roadmap guiding you through every step. These level descriptors also provide a set of criteria specific to each year group. Each year group’s criteria covers different content from the previous one, providing plenty of stretch and challenge for students, and the ability for lessons to be truly differentiated.

KPI/Objectives Manager (Obeya) – Visualize key performance indicators and objectives for strategic alignment and informed decision-making. Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education for a post modern world. Albany, NY: State University of New York. There are five level descriptors within this model. What’s especially useful here, as with all of these models, is that it can be adapted for schools that only use four level descriptors, or use different names for the final outcomes. When you have all these descriptors and models, they can be used however you need.

Big changes in schools

Head: The rational basis for the change. This element focuses on the broad reason that the change must occur. The reason should help employees understand what the company’s vision for the future is, how they plan to accomplish it, what the individual and team goals are, and why this change is necessary to remain competitive. Pugh, K. J., & Bergin, D. A. (2005). The effect of schooling on students’ out-of-school experience. Educational Researcher,34(9), 15-23. The first stage of the decision-making process is for your team to sit down and decide what it means for their pupils to be “engaged with PE”. For our context and demographic, we believed our pupils needed the focus on a single skill in each lesson, each with three key teaching points, allowing for focused exercises, activities, and drills that had structure and purpose. Using GCSE assessment criteria to assign levels, seeing their ability in each skill gave pupils a clear understanding of where they were working, how they could move forward, and how the focus of the lesson fed into their overall success or progress. But again, I must stress that this suited our pupils and their context. Our teachers were also passionate about using this method to deliver lessons, this passion fed through to the pupils, and that’s why it was ultimately a success. The same can be said for Trinity, Bridgemary, and Nishkam (where Tom is PE Lead). These schools are using different models, all are working well in their own context, the teachers have passion for the models, and they have buy-in from the team. That’s what makes them a success. Try the KS3 PE hybrid curriculum models in action Ecology is a multi-disciplinary study that includes all branches of science: biology, geology, chemistry, meteorology, hydrology, forestry, agriculture, soil science, etc. The interaction of people with ecology adds subjects such as psychology, anthropology, philosophy, economics, politics, etc. Blending it all together is a daunting task especially in the environment of specialization that permeates academia. A holistic framework from the personal perspective of head, heart and hands is a starting point to model changes in the approach to ecological sustainability and educational reform that offers meaning and purpose to the learner. Sustainability requires localizing by learning about the places in which we live. Because we are so far removed from life-sustaining systems, we give them little thought. If people were, not just aware, but experienced in their local bioregion, they could directly learn how ecosystems support life (Pyle, 2008). Caring attitudes expand values and the willingness to make lifestyle changes that contribute to sustainable communities. Love of place underlies the motivation to change behaviors. Local environments can serve as a resource or laboratory to investigate water issues, food production, energy, nutrient cycles, and waste flows, which will lead to eco-literate citizens who reflect upon their impact on their environment and value the reduction of their ecological footprint (Orr, 1992; Theobald, 2000). Unlike most traditional Head Heart Hands change management techniques, Praxie’s online Head Heart Hands collaboration model and tools allow any team or organization to instantly begin working with our web templates and input forms.