Science education research shows that a traditional, stand-and-deliver lecture format is less effective than teaching strategies that are learner-centred and that promote active engagement. The Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative (CWSEI) has used this research to develop resources to improve learning in university science courses. We report on a successful adaptation and implementation of CWSEI in the New Zealand university context. This two-year project at Massey University and the University of Canterbury began by using perception and concept surveys before and after undergraduate science courses to measure students’ attitudes towards science as well as their knowledge. Using these data, and classroom observations of student engagement and corroborating focus groups, the research team worked with lecturers to create interventions to enhance student engagement and learning in those courses. Results show several positive changes related to these interventions and they suggest several recommendations for lecturers and course coordinators. The recommendations include:1. Make learning outcomes clear, both for the lecturer and the students; this helps to cull extraneous material and scaffold student learning. 2. Use interactive activities to improve engagement, develop deeper levels of thinking, and improve learning. 3. Intentionally foster “expert-like thinking” amongst students in the first few semesters of the degree programme. 4. Be flexible because one size does not fit all and contextual events are beyond anyone’s control.In addition to these recommendations, data collected at the Canterbury site during the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes reinforced the understanding that the most carefully designed teaching innovations are subject to contextual conditions beyond the control of academics.
A video of a presentation by Associate Professor John Vargo during the fifth plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. Vargo is a senior researcher and co-leader of the Resilient Organisations Research Programme at the University of Canterbury. The presentation is titled, "Organisational Resilience is more than just Business Continuity".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: Business Continuity Management is well-established process in many larger organisations and a key element in their emergency planning. Research carried out by resilient organisations follow the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury Earthquakes show that most small organisations did not have a business continuity plan (BCP), yet many of these organisations did survive the massive disruptions following the earthquakes. They were resilient to these catastrophic events, but in the absence of a BCP. This research also found that many of the organisations with BCP's, struggled to use them effectively when facing real events that did not align with the BCP. Although the BCPs did a good job of preparing organisations to deal with technology and operational disruptions, there was virtually no coverage for the continuity of people. Issues surrounding staff welfare and engagement were amongst the most crucial issues faced by Canterbury organisations, yet impacts of societal and personal disruption did not feature in BCPs. Resilience is a systematic way of looking at how an organization can survive a crisis and thrive in an uncertain world. Business continuity is an important aspect for surviving the crisis, but it is only part of the bigger picture addressed by organisational resilience. This presentation will show how organizational experiences in the Canterbury earthquakes support the need to move to a 'Business Continuity' for the '21st Century', one that incorporates more aspects of resilience, especially the 'people' areas of leadership, culture, staff welfare, and engagement.
This study followed two similarly affected, but socio-economically disparate suburbs as residents responded to and attempted to recover from the devastating 6.3 magnitude earthquake that struck Christchurch, New Zealand, on February 22, 2011. More specifically, it focuses on the role of local churches, community-based organisations (CBOs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), here referred to broadly as civil society, in meeting the immediate needs of local residents and assisting with the longer-term recovery of each neighbourhood. Despite considerable socioeconomic differences between the two neighbourhoods, civil society in both suburbs has been vital in addressing the needs of locals in the short and long term following the earthquake. Institutions were able to utilise local knowledge of both residents and the extent of damage in the area to a) provide a swifter local response than government or civil defence and then help direct the relief these agencies provided locally; b) set up central points for distribution of supplies and information where locals would naturally gather; c) take action on what were perceived to be unmet needs; and d) act as a way of bridging locals to a variety of material, informational, and emotional resources. However the findings also support literature which indicates that other factors are also important in understanding neighbourhood recovery and the role of civil society, including: local leadership; a shared, place-based identity; the type and form of civil society organizations; social capital; and neighbourhood- and household-level indicators of relative vulnerability and inequality. The intertwining of these various factors seems to influence how these neighbourhoods have coped with and taken steps in recovering from this disaster. It is recommended that future research be directed at developing a better understanding of how this occurs. It is suggested that a model similar to Yasui’s (2007) Community Vulnerability and Capacity model be developed as a useful way to approach future research in this area.
This thesis examines the closing of Aranui High School in 2016, a low socio-economic secondary school in eastern Christchurch, New Zealand, and reflects on its history through the major themes of innovation and the impact of central government intervention. The history is explored through the leadership of the school principals, and the necessity for constant adaptation by staff to new ways of teaching and learning, driven by the need to accommodate a more varied student population – academically, behaviourally and culturally – than most other schools in wider Christchurch. Several extreme changes, following a neoliberal approach to education policies at a national government level, impacted severely on the school’s ability to thrive and even survive over the 57 years of its existence, with the final impact of the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes leading indirectly to Aranui High’s closure. The earthquakes provided the National government with the impetus to advocate for change to education in Christchurch; changes which impacted negatively on many schools in Christchurch, including Aranui High School. The announcement of the closure of Aranui High shocked many staff and students, who were devastated that the school would no longer exist. Aranui High School, Aranui Primary School, Wainoni Primary School and Avondale Primary School were all closed to make way for Haeata Community Campus, a year 1 to 13 school, which was built on the Aranui High site. Aranui High School served the communities of eastern Christchurch for 57 years from 1960 and deserves acknowledgment and remembrance, and my hope is that this thesis will provide a fair representation of the school’s story, including its successes and challenges, while also explaining the reasons behind the eventual closure. This thesis contributes to New Zealand public history and uses mixed research methods to examine Aranui High School’s role as a secondary school in eastern Christchurch. I argue that the closure of Aranui High School in 2016 was an unjustified act by the Ministry of Education.
On November 14 2016 a magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck the south island of New Zealand. The earthquake lasted for just two minutes with severe seismic shaking and damage in the Hurunui and Kaikōura districts. Although these are predominantly rural areas, with scattered small towns and mountainous topography, they also contain road and rail routes that are essential parts of the national transport infrastructure. This earthquake and the subsequent recovery are of particular significance as they represent a disaster following in close proximity to another similar disaster, with the Canterbury earthquakes occurring in a neighboring district five years earlier. The research used an inductive qualitative case study to explore the nature of the Kaikōura recovery. That recovery process involved a complex interplay between the three parties; (a) the existing local government in the district, (b) central government agencies funding the recovery of the local residents and the national transport infrastructure, and (c) recovery leaders arriving with recent expertise from the earlier Canterbury disaster. It was evident that three groups: locals, government, and experts represented a multi-party governance debate in which the control of the Kaikōura earthquake recovery was shared amongst them. Each party had their own expertise, adgenda and networks that they brought to the Kaikōura recovery, but this created tensions between external expertise and local, community leadership. Recent earthquake research suggests that New Zealand is currently in the midst of an earthquake cluster, with further seismic disasters likely to occur in relatively close succession. This is likely to be compounded by the increasing frequency of other natural disasters with the effects of climate change. The present study investigates a phenomenon that may become increasingly common, with the transfer of disaster expertise from one event to another, and the interface between those experts with local and national government in directing recoveries. The findings of this study have implications for practitioners and policy makers in NZ and other countries where disasters are experienced in close spatial and temporal proximity.
Following devastating earthquakes in 2010 and 2011 in Christchurch, there is an opportunity to use sustainable urban design variables to redevelop the central city in order to address climate change concerns and reduce CO₂ emissions from land transport. Literature from a variety of disciplines establishes that four sustainable urban design variables; increased density, mixed-use development, street layout and city design, and the provision of sustainable public transport, can reduce car dependency and vehicle kilometres travelled within urban populations- widely regarded as indicators of the negative environmental effects of transport. The key question for the research is; to what extent has this opportunity been seized by NZ’s Central Government who are overseeing the central city redevelopment? In order to explore this question the redevelopment plans for the central city of Christchurch are evaluated against an adapted urban design matrix to determine whether a reduction in CO₂ emissions from land transport is likely to be achieved through their implementation. Data obtained through interviews with experts is used to further explore the extent to which sustainable urban design variables can be employed to enhance sustainability and reduce CO₂ emissions. The analysis of this data shows that the four urban design variables will feature in the Central Government’s redevelopment plans although the extent to which they are employed and their likely success in reducing CO₂ emissions will vary. Ultimately, the opportunity to redevelop the central city of Christchurch to reduce CO₂ emissions from land transport will be undermined due to timeframe, co-ordination, and leadership barriers.
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “Nick Smith has dealt with some of the most complex problems of resource law and housing more successfully than any other politician here could have”; if so, in what ways, if any, does he think the housing situation for New Zealanders has improved under Hon Nick Smith? BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to improve productivity in the public service? MARAMA FOX to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with counsellor Andrew Hopgood, regarding P addicts, that “… a lack of detox and live-in rehabilitation centres limits options for addicts seeking help”; if so, what is he doing to address this shortage? JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister for Economic Development: What update can he give on ways the Government is supporting economic development in the Gisborne region? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Associate Minister of Education: How many schools across the country are currently using libraries, halls, and other areas not intended for regular teaching as temporary classrooms? ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made regarding phase two of the anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism regime? CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister for the Environment: Will he put a moratorium on bottled water exports, in response to a 15,000 strong petition and nationwide rallies on water issues taking place today? KELVIN DAVIS to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he have confidence that his leadership of Te Puni Kōkiri and its programmes are resulting in the best outcomes for Māori? MAUREEN PUGH to the Minister of Education: What announcements has she made about the Government’s education-related Better Public Services targets? Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister of Health: How much did the Canterbury District Health Board receive from the Government for mental health and addiction services support in response to the Kaikōura earthquake, after paying off the debt of Kaikōura’s health centre? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, why? Dr PARMJEET PARMAR to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has she made regarding a nationwide transformation of the disability support system?
PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he agree with Mainfreight founder and Chairman Bruce Plested that housing is a “social disgrace”, that the market cannot sort out this problem, and that real leadership and intestinal fortitude is needed now? JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on real after-tax wages rising in New Zealand? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Will she apologise on behalf of the Government for the flawed handling of the Canterbury school mergers and closures after the 2011 earthquakes; if not, why not? ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister for Building and Construction: What progress has the Government made in improving the tenancy laws and guidance for dealing with the problem of methamphetamine testing and contamination? CARMEL SEPULONI to the Associate Minister for Social Housing: What motels has the Government purchased in response to the increased emergency housing demand, and how much has this cost? RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the Clutha-Southland electorate office issue even if facts known to him make doing so extraordinarily difficult? MAUREEN PUGH to the Minister of Corrections: How is Budget 2017 investing in rehabilitation and reintegration outcomes for offenders? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Local Government: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s answer yesterday that drinking-water contamination in Havelock North was “about local government performance and overseeing ratepayer-funded assets whose purpose is to deliver clean and healthy water to its local people. The extensive inquiry into that incident was warranted by widespread illness in the area ... it is about local body performance in overseeing their clean water system”? BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has she made regarding Wellington’s resilience to natural hazards? JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: Will the Government start building rail to the airport sooner if Auckland hosts the next America’s Cup regatta or will Aucklanders still have to wait 30 years? STUART NASH to the Minister of Police: Does she have any concerns about any of the results of the New Zealand Police Workplace Survey 2017; if so, what in particular? ALASTAIR SCOTT to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has he made to improve school infrastructure in the Wairarapa?
This thesis examines the opportunities for young citizens in Christchurch to be engaged in city planning post-disaster. This qualitative study was conducted eight years after the 2010-2011 earthquakes and employed interviews with 18 young people aged between 12-24 years old, 14 of whom were already actively engaged in volunteering or participating in a youth council. It finds that despite having sought out opportunities for youth leadership and advocacy roles post-disaster, young people report frustration that they are excluded from decision-making and public life. These feelings of exclusion were described by young people as political, physical and social. Young people felt politically excluded from decision-making in the city, with some youth reporting that they did not feel listened to by decision-makers or able to make a difference. Physical exclusion was also experienced by the young people I interviewed, who reported that they felt excluded from their city and neighbourhood. This ranged from feeling unwelcome in certain parts of the city due to perceived social stratification, to actual exclusion from newly privatised areas in a post-quake recovery city. Social exclusion was reported by young people in the study in regard to their sense of marginalisation from the wider community, due to structural and social barriers. Among these, they observed a sense of prejudice towards them and other youth due to their age, class and/or ethnicity. The barriers to their participation and inclusion, and their aspirations for Christchurch post-disaster are discussed, as well as the implications of exclusion for young people’s wellbeing and sense of belonging. Results of this study contribute to the literature that challenges the sole focus on children and young peoples’ vulnerability post-disaster, reinforcing their capacity and desire to contribute to the recovery of their city and community (Peek, 2008). This research also challenges the narrative that young people are politically apathetic (Norris, 2004; Nissen, 2017), and adds to our understandings of the way that disasters can concentrate power amongst certain groups, in this case excluding young people generally from decision-making and public life. I conclude with some recommendations for a more robust post-disaster recovery in Christchurch, in ways that are more inclusive of young people and supportive of their wellbeing.
From 2010, Canterbury, a province of Aotearoa New Zealand, experienced three major disaster events. This study considers the socio-ecological impacts on cross-sectoral suicide prevention agencies and their service users of the 2010 – 2016 Canterbury earthquake sequence, the 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks and the COVID-19 pandemic in Canterbury. This study found the prolonged stress caused by these events contributed to a rise in suicide risk factors including anxiety, fear, trauma, distress, alcohol misuse, relationship breakdown, childhood adversity, economic loss and deprivation. The prolonged negative comment by the media on wellbeing in Canterbury was also unhelpful and affected morale. The legacy of these impacts was a rise in referrals to mental health services that has not diminished. This adversity in the socio-ecological system also produced post-traumatic growth, allowing Cantabrians to acquire resilience and help-seeking abilities to support them psychologically through the COVID-19 pandemic. Supporting parental and teacher responses, intergenerational support and targeted public health campaigns, as well as Māori family-centred programmes, strengthened wellbeing. The rise in suicide risk led to the question of what services were required and being delivered in Canterbury and how to enable effective cross-sectoral suicide prevention in Canterbury, deemed essential in all international and national suicide prevention strategies. Components from both the World Health Organisation Suicide Prevention Framework (WHO, 2012; WHO 2021) and the Collective Impact model (Hanleybrown et al., 2012) were considered by participants. The effectiveness of dynamic leadership and the essential conditions of resourcing a supporting agency were found as were the importance of processes that supported equity, lived experience and the partnership of Māori and non-Māori stakeholders. Cross-sectoral suicide prevention was found to enhance the wellbeing of participants, hastening learning, supporting innovation and raising awareness across sectors which might lower stigma. Effective communication was essential in all areas of cross-sectoral suicide prevention and clear action plans enabled measurement of progress. Identified components were combined to create a Collective Impact Suicide Prevention framework that strengthens suicide prevention implementation and can be applied at a local, regional and national level. This study contributes to cross-sectoral suicide prevention planning by considering the socio- ecological, policy and practice mitigations required to lower suicide risk and to increase wellbeing and post-traumatic growth, post-disaster. This study also adds to the growing awareness of the contribution that social work can provide to suicide prevention and conceptualises an alternative governance framework and practice and policy suggestions to support effective cross-sectoral suicide prevention.
Questions to Ministers 1. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy? 2. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Will he rule out making cuts to Working for Families payments this year; if not, why not? 3. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What changes is the Government making to Family Start to ensure a greater focus on protecting children from abuse and neglect? 4. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that "anyone on a benefit actually has a lifestyle choice…some make poor choices, and they do not have money left"? 5. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Civil Defence: Did he meet with business leaders in Christchurch yesterday to discuss the Civil Defence state of national emergency operations; if so, what was the outcome of that meeting? 6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Who was right, the Prime Minster who predicted that the New Zealand economy would grow "reasonably aggressively" in 2010-11, or the last four quarterly NZIER consensus forecast updates for GDP, which have progressively declined from 3.2 percent to just 0.8 percent for the year to March 2011? 7. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Which response to the Christchurch earthquake carries a greater risk of a credit downgrade: increased government borrowing or a temporary earthquake levy? 8. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Local Government: When he said "Auckland's fragmented governance has meant a lack [of] leadership and vision, but soon its leaders will be able to think regionally, plan strategically and act decisively", did he mean only if they agree with the Government's plan for Auckland? 9. JO GOODHEW to the Minister of Education: What were the results of the Accelerating Learning in Mathematics Pilot Study? 10. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR to the Minister for Biosecurity: Does he agree with the statements made by John Lancashire and Stew Wadey, President of Waikato Federated Farmers, in the Dominion Post yesterday that New Zealand is exposed to greater risk of incursions or exotic pests at our borders as a result of the "fast-tracking of tourists", the "attempts to abolish import restrictions", and his axing of 60 frontline border staff? 11. MICHAEL WOODHOUSE to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: What reports has she received on levels of renewable electricity generation? 12. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by his answer to question 4 on Thursday last week "that funding will be taken from either the earners account or the work account" and "that a higher proportion of claims than the overall average for ACC are actually in the work account"; if not, why not?