Week 32 - Reflective Practice

Week 32 - Reflective Practice

The last mission to wrap up my personal 32 week journey is to reflect and critically evaluate one key change in my own professional practice and share my plans and dreams for my future professional development or practice. I will use the reflective model from Rolfe et al. (2001). Sorry but I also found it hard to stick to the 400-600 word limit on this one.

Step 1 - What? One key change in my professional practice.

One key change in my practice has been the mission to more effectively implement personalised learning in the hope that this would encourage students to be more authentically engaged in deep learning.

Personalised learning is one of the 13 key future education concepts identified by the Hack Education project. This theme also fits well with the teaching code of standards value whanaungatanga. Which is defined as engaging in positive and collaborative relationships with our learners, their families and whanau, our colleagues and the wider community, Ministry of Education (2017).

Step 2 - Now what? Evaluate the identified change.

I will use Osterman and Kottkamp’s (2015, p.70) reflective model to evaluate the change to more effectively personalise learning.

Stage 1 - Identify the problem. In this case the problem I’ve found is that my students often seemed to be engaged with their learning at quite a surface level and are often not very able to articulate their learning and next steps. So I wonder how I could support them more effectively develop their learner agency and understanding of what and how they learn. I thought that exploring personalised learning might be a good strategy to help me achieve this goal.

Stage 2 - Observation and Analysis using data and insights to drive the change.
I conducted an investigation into personalised learning and have found that despite a lack of research done in this area personalised learning is an approach which through its implementation provides learners opportunities to develop their self-regulation, and maturity to drive their own learning thus teachers can empower learners to develop the skills required to develop their own learner agency and reach their potential and learning goals, Hargreaves, D. H. (2006).

From a Māori world view I found that the notion of Māori determining their own futures also fits well within the definition of personalised learning. Tino Rangatiratanga, the self-determination principle encompasses learner agency and engagement through meaningful control over one’s own life and cultural well-being which is also embedded in our Treaty of Waitangi, Katoa Ltd, (n.d.).

Stage 3 - Abstract re conceptualisation. What new learning, research or perspectives are relevant to consider for implementing change?

France, P. E. (2018) argues that sometimes our interpretation and and understanding of personalised learning falls short by putting student in front of devices to work at their own pace, but, this is actually depersonalising the learning. He also argues that gamification measures and encourages the results we want to see even if students are not really learning. One study was mentioned that found this kind of approach only had about 3% gains in math and none in reading. Hattie was also quoted with minimal gains from individualisation (0.23 effect size) and web based learning (0.18 effect size).

Stage 4 - Active Experimentation. We have to be careful that we are not using technology to isolate our children by over individualising their learning. We must make sure we are giving students time to collaborate and connect with one another. France presents 4 key questions we must ask ourselves as teachers when personalising learning through the use of technology:

1. Does the technology help to minimize complexity?
2. Does the technology help to maximize the individual power and potential of all learners in the room?
3. Will the technology help us to do something previously unimaginable?
4. Will the technology preserve or enhance human connection in the classroom?

I will continue to gain a deeper understanding of personalisation and use these questions to ensure I am using technology in the classroom more effectively.

Step 3 - What Next? My future plans for future professional development and practice.

I’ve learnt and gained so much from this Mindlab experience both professionally and personally. I have pushed myself outside my comfort zone on so many levels. I have reflected and taken action in many areas of my leadership and teaching roles, and enjoyed sharing this journey with colleagues. I have also truly valued the support and collaboration with other teachers on the course.

There are so many areas I could now dive into such as being more culturally responsive and looking further into how we can more effectively create and sustain learner centred pedagogy. I started a personal blog and I have also started to blog on behalf of my school to educate and connect with our community about digital citizenship. I hope to continue to build on this blogging and include our students and school practices more, in order to build and strengthen this partnership with our whanau and wider community.

Although it is the end of the Mindlab postgrad journey for me for now, it is just the beginning of many more opportunities for professional and personal development. I have found this process challenging and through this I have developed confidence and become more skilled and knowledgeable in making changes to enhance my teaching practice. I feel I am now much better equipped to undertake my current roles as a leader and teacher and have improved my practice considerably and am keen to continue. Thanks to the Mindlab team and my awesome colleagues -couldn't have done it without you all!

Mai i te Kōpae ki te Urupa, tātou ako tonu ai.
From the cradle to the grave we are forever learning.

References
France, P. E. (2018). Retrieved from Why Are We Still Personalizing Learning If It’s Not Personal? https://www.edsurge.com/news/2018-07-02-why-are-we-still-personalizing-learning-if-it-s-not-personal?utm_content=buffer55e24&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=EdSurgeBuffer

Hargreaves, D. H. (2006). A new shape for schooling. London: Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.

Ministry of Education (2017). Our code, our standards. Retrieved from https://educationcouncil.org.nz/content/our-code-our-standards

Osterman, K. & Kottkamp, R.(1993). Reflective Practice for Educators.California.Corwin Press, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.itslifejimbutn otasweknowit.org.uk/files

Rolfe et al. (2001). Reflective Model. Retrieved from https://my.cumbria.ac.uk/media/MyCumbria/Documents/ReflectiveModelRolfe.pdf

The Mind Lab by Unitec. Hack Education. Retrieved from https://hackeducation.co.nz/

Week 31 - Cultural Responsiveness.

Week 31 - Cultural Responsiveness.

This weeks mission is to demonstrate my critical understanding of indigenous knowledge and cultural responsiveness. Then, I will critically evaluate how my practice or school’s practice has been informed by indigenous knowledge and culturally responsive pedagogy in a couple of areas. I will be using a reflective model from Rolfe et al. (2001).

Step 1 - What? What is my understanding of indigenous knowledge and cultural responsiveness and the two areas that I want to focus on for discussion?

I found that Gay (2010) defines culturally responsive pedagogy as teaching to and through students’ personal and cultural strengths, their intellectual capabilities, and their prior accomplishments. This is achieved through close interactions among ethnic identity, cultural background, and student achievement.

I found that these ideas were similar to the teacher development initiative Te Kotahitanga that captured key Māori whanau narratives. These narratives identified classroom caring and learning relationships being at the centre of educational achievement for Māori. Therefore the success of this initiative success was based around teachers actively rejecting explicit deficit theorising to instead assume agency (Savage, et. al., 2011).

The two areas of practice that I would like to discuss in terms of being culturally responsive are planning and assessment and school-wide activities.

Step 2 - So What? What does culturally responsive practice look like?

Russell Bishop in his Tedtalk (2012) outlines 6 key principles for being a culturally responsive teacher:

• Caring for Maori students as Maori on a daily basis.
• Caring for their performance and having high expectations.
• Manage classrooms, and the pedagogy promotes the following element.
• Interactions with Maori that provide academic feedback and feedforward and negotiated co-construction of learning. Learners amongst learners is the prevailing phenomenon. 
• Effectively use a range of strategies. 
• Use evidence of student performance to guide teaching and students also know this and are involved.

It is all about being relationship centered (caring and learning relationships). A culturally responsive pedagogy is based on relations.

Dr Ann Milne, CORE Education (2017), provides a culturally sustaining pedagogy continuum that I will use to reflect on the two areas of planning and assessment and school-wide activities. The continuum starts with having no awareness or paying lip-service to cultural aspects, through to the middle where we might make token attempts or limited changes. At the optimal end of the scale we would be aiming for taking action to normalise ‘being authentically Maori’.



In terms of our school-wide activities I think our school has taken a very proactive approach as a relationship centered school, our school culture is very supportive and encouraging of teachers to be culturally responsive. Our timetable is essentially optional (apart from having to take an English and Math Module each semester), so there is a lot of agency for our learners and we have a strong Learning Advisory programme that helps to build supportive relationships between our teachers and students. We also integrate curriculum, are very aware of using Universal Design for Learning strategies and often co-construct learning. We also have a great relationship with our local IWI and this has influenced many school wide activities and decisions ranging from how our cobble stones have been laid to the naming of our learning communities and spaces.

In terms of how we as teachers at this school personally plan and assess learning I think I like many teachers have room for improvement and I would put myself more in the middle of the continuum, I think primarily due to my lack of a deep understanding of Māori culture as this has not really been part of my worldview growing up with parents who are from Switzerland. Despite being very openminded and growing up in NZ I still have much to learn due to having a very european upbringing.

Therefore, despite our school environment being setup to be culturally responsive I feel like I often personally drop the ball. My knowledge and confidence with Māori Language and Kaupapa is not great, we have these beautiful Māori names, however, I’m often not confident with using them and I lack a real authentic understanding of the terms and concepts. I know I have more to learn in this area. What am I really doing to improve in this aspect of my practice? This course is a good step in the right direction in developing my self-awareness of this issue.

Step 3 - Now What? What can we do to move up the continuum?

I think I do personally need to focus on this area more and I could do this by formally reflecting and setting myself some practical goals based on some of the key Effective Teacher Profile Elements identified in the Te Kotahitanga initiative. I could start by using more Te Reo Māori and exploring relevant Māori culture within my classes rather than shy away because I lack confidence. I realise I default to a very European worldview and to move up the continue I must take more explicit action to develop a deeper understanding of Kaupapa Māori. Being a student centered school maybe I could also ramp up and expand the ways in which I am trying to connect and learn with Māori students in my classes in order to gain a better understanding of being Māori. I could simply start by spending more quality time getting to know my Māori students to gain a better understanding of this world view, the strengths and treasure this uniqueness, therefore, actively working together to reject Māori deficit theorising.

References

CORE Education.(2017, 17 October). Dr Ann Milne, Colouring in the white spaces: Reclaiming cultural identity in whitestream schools.[video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cTvi5qxqp4&feature=em-subs_digest

Edtalks.(2012). A culturally responsive pedagogy of relations. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/49992994

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Rolfe et al. (2001). Reflective Model. Retrieved from https://my.cumbria.ac.uk/media/MyCumbria/Documents/ReflectiveModelRolfe.pdf

Savage,C, Hindleb, R., Meyerc,L., Hyndsa,A., Penetitob, W. & Sleeterd, C.(2011) Culturally responsive pedagogies in the classroom: indigenous student experiences across the curriculum .Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 183–198: (Available to download from Unitec Library)