How can I apply a model of reflective practice to my teaching inquiry?

For this blog post, I will use Rolfe’s Model of Reflection to reflect on an event in my teaching inquiry.
You can see a diagram of this model from the below image (Otago Polytechnic, n.d.). 

What?

My teacher inquiry seeks to use a blended learning programme to teach four year 4 students to
develop their digital technology skills with netbooks. This is to better prepare them for the year 5 and 6
classes where a lot of their work is completed on digital devices as we noticed new year 5 students did
not have a lot of skills with netbooks, compared to the i-pads they had more exposure to at school in
the lower primary levels. We only have 5 netbooks in the year 3 and 4 hub, so I chose 4 students as
early adopters to initially teach the skills to, with the idea they would become peer teachers to support
the other students with the netbooks. 

In my initial action plan, I taught the 4 students the skills I wanted them to learn in my planning and
asked them to assist others when they needed help. However, I was finding the children weren’t
teaching other students the skills, they were dominating use of the netbooks which was hindering the
peer teaching process and the diffusion of skills. Some of the younger children, the year 3’s in
particular, were also getting frustrated with their lack of success with the netbook when they did get to
use the new technological tool. 

So what?

I think I had picked the early adopters well, perhaps too well, as they were enjoying the new tools they
had been introduced to so much they weren’t sharing them with the other children. The description
Robinson (2009) gave the early adopters “They love getting an advantage over their peers…” (p.4) was
ringing true in this situation. As I mentioned, the early adopters were not willing to share their skills,
probably because they were enjoying the use of the netbooks too much. This was having knock-on
effects on the rest of the children who I hoped will be the early majority. Robinson (2009) describes,
among other things, the early majority “are looking for simple… better ways of doing what they already
do” (p.5). I suspected that if the early majority were not having positive first experiences of using the
netbooks, they may be put off using the new technology.

Now what?

What I needed was a more formal approach to ensure the peer teaching process was happening to
support the other students with uptake of this new technology. I needed to more clearly communicate to
and support my early adopters about how I wanted them to go about peer teaching. Therefore, in a
subsequent activity where we are using netbooks I will team up my early adopters with small groups of
other students where they support these students. I also will talk to them about how they should go
about the teaching- they can demonstrate the skills, but then they pass the netbook over and get the
other students to show them they can achieve it. 

References:

Otago Polytechnic. (n.d.). Reflective Writing. Retrieved from
https://www.op.ac.nz/assets/LearningAdvice/Reflective-writing.pdf

Robinson, L. (2009). A summary of Diffusion of Innovations. Changeology. Retrieved from
http://www.enablingchange.com.au/Summary_Diffusion_Theory.pdf

How are indigenous knowledge and cultural responsiveness informing the way I am taking action?

Bishop in Edutalks (2012) states that teachers who show cultural responsiveness for young Māori are
those who challenge deficit models of thinking about Māori by being agentic teachers can manage a
learning environment to support Māori to learn and thrive as Māori. I think that this definition
emphasises Pākeha teachers need to put the responsibility for the education of Māori (and other
cultures of children they teach) back on themselves; it is us that are required to examine what
assumptions and prejudices we hold, to reflect on our practice, to continually learn more and
change/refine our teaching practice as a result of this reflection and learning to better meet the
educational needs and aspirations of all children. 

This blog entry will consider how I have been informed by indigenous knowledge and cultural
responsiveness of my learning activities by using Milne’s action continuum from CORE Education
(2017). 

When looking at the continuum, thinking about my learning activities and data collection, I believe it
probably sits in the middle section: Some language and cultural content. Might consult with community
groups, very few critical aspects e.g. success & achievement all determined by Whitestream thinking
and expectations.

In the action plan surrounding this assignment I stated I had considered Kaupapa Māori by
encouraging the children to show whakawhanaungatanga- defined by Mac Farlane, Glynn, Grace,
Penetito, & Bateman, 2008, p. 116) as “building and maintaining relationships”.I made clear to the
children I wanted them to share knowledge with each other to help them each become experts at using
the digital technology tools I had given them, and then in turn wanting them to share this with the rest of
the hub so all could develop their skills. As part of this, I was also wanting to promote a ‘tuakana-teina’
type relationship where the older year 4 children in the class I chose to be the experts were encouraged
to assist the younger year 3 students. However, looking back at Milne’s continuum for CORE Education
(2017) when looking at how I am defining success of the research project in my data collection, I do not
have any measure of how the children shared their knowledge and skills with others; it is based on the
digital technology skills they individually possess. Milne’s for CORE Education (2017) example within the
place in the continuum I identified of  “...success & achievement all determined by Whitestream thinking
and expectations” therefore rang true; how easy it is to fall back to what I know as a Pākeha!

Therefore, a next step for me to work towards more sophisticated cultural responsiveness is to include
a learning outcome around how a child can help and support another in digital technology learning.
This goes some way to signal how I see success in this research project. Furthermore, although I had
considered Kaupapa Māori within these learning activities, how we show culturally responsive
pedagogy is not a regular discussion I have with my colleagues, nor are there really effective
mechanisms to promote this reflection at my school. Beginning these conversations would be a next
step towards moving to the next level on Milne’s continuum. 

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, September 23). A culturally responsive pedagogy of relations. [video file]. Retrieved
from https://vimeo.com/49992994

MacFarlane, H., Glynn, T., Grace, W., Penetito, W. & Bateman, S. (2008). Indigenous epistemology in
a national curriculum framework? Ethnicities, 8, 102.

How do aspects of law, regulations and/or policy impact on teacher inquiry?

This blog entry will reflect on how regulations and policies have impacted on my teacher inquiry
throughout my current teaching inquiry through Mindlab and wider teacher inquiry across New Zealand. 

The New Zealand teaching standards, published by the Education Council (2017) identify professional
learning as one teaching standard. The Education Council (2017) have included a number of
elaborations on this standard, which have or should impact my ongoing teaching inquiry. The
elaboration of “Inquire into and reflect on the effectiveness of practice in an ongoing way, using
evidence from a range of sources” (Education Council, 2017, p.18) describes how I need to continually
reflect on the effectiveness of the changes I make in my teaching practice as I go through the inquiry
process, and also to evaluate the effectiveness of my project based on the data. 

Another way in which these standards are impacting my teacher inquiry is described in this elaboration:
“Critically examine my own beliefs and assumptions, including cultural beliefs, impact on practice and
the achievement of learners with different abilities and needs, backgrounds, genders, identities,
languages and cultures” (Education Council, 2017, p.18). This has probably been the most significant
change I’ve had in my thinking throughout this Mindlab course as a result of the readings and
discussions I’ve been exposed to. The reading of Mac Farlane et al. (2008) has had a huge impact on
how I think about the cultural assumptions and worldview I bring to my teaching as a Pākeha, and then
had impacted how I design subsequent teaching inquiries. 

In my school, this year a significant part of our appraisal is based on our teaching inquiry. Teachers
developed an inquiry question based around a school-wide focus on visible learning. We meet regularly
with our “critical friend”, another teacher with whom we discuss our teacher inquiry, problem solve any
road-blocks and generally get another perspective from. We have a peer observation by this teacher
looking for evidence in the classroom of our teacher inquiry. This inquiry forms a significant part of the
discussion we have with our appraiser, whom we meet with twice yearly. In our school policy document
on teacher appraisal, this emphasis on teacher inquiry is not explicitly stated, as teacher inquiry is
identified as one of a number of possible basis for measure of teacher performance (Pauatahanui
School, 2017). However, the other measures such as self appraisal, observations, informal and formal
assessment data could also feed into a teacher inquiry. A clearer emphasis on the link between teacher
inquiry and teacher appraisal would align our school policy with what is happening in practice at our
school. 

The way our school is approaching teaching-as-inquiry and teacher appraisals appears to be in line with
the wider New Zealand context. Wood (2015) found that the two schools he studied used the teacher
inquiry process as part of the appraisal process by allowing teachers to use evidence from the inquiry as
evidence of meeting appraisal goals. The Educational Review Office audited 10% of schools across New
Zealand to ensure that appraisal processes were consistent and fair (Education Council, n.d.). One of the
measures of a consistent and fair appraisal system was that appraisal was aligned with teaching as
inquiry, and in 2016 and 2017 72% of the appraisals audited by the Educational Review Office met these
standards (Education Council, n.d.). Therefore, it could be suggested that more schools in New
Zealand are linking teaching-as-inquiry and the appraisal process.

How is your school approaching the appraisal process- is it in line with my school and what appears to
be the trend in New Zealand? It would be great to hear your thoughts. 

References:

Education Council (2017). Our Code, Our Standards. Retrieved from
https://teachingcouncil.nz/sites/default/files/Our%20Code%20Our%20Standards%20web%20booklet%20FINAL.pdf

Education Council (n.d.). Appraisal as a catalyst for improved learner outcomes. Retrieved from
https://teachingcouncil.nz/sites/default/files/ERO_Appraisal.pdf

MacFarlane, H., Glynn, T., Grace, W., Penetito, W. & Bateman, S. (2008). Indigenous epistemology in
a national curriculum framework? Ethnicities, 8, 102.

Pauatahanui School (2017). Appraisal of Teaching Staff. Retrieved from
https://pauatahanui.schooldocs.co.nz 

Wood, C.(2015).Teaching as Inquiry: form, purpose and application in New Zealand secondary
schools. (Published Master's’ thesis). Unitec, Auckland, New Zealand.

Who are my audiences?

Who are my audiences?

The key aim of this inquiry is to see how a blended learning programme can impact on student
capability in digital technologies. Here I discuss how this project addresses the perspectives of
international and national audiences. 

The International Centre for Leadership in Education analyses schools in the United States that have
improved student performance in a rapidly changing educational landscape (Daggett, 2014).
Daggett (2014) discusses the principles he has identified in how these schools have innovated- one of
which, is that leaders have met the common challenges faced by schools today by embracing
emerging educational trends, such as the impact of digital learning. Daggett (2014) states “As
educators, we need to embrace the power of technology to make learning relevant for all students and
adults. Using technology effectively in everyday learning can help students to strengthen their learning
experiences and build on their intuitive technology skills.” (p. 4). This is precisely what my research
project seeks to achieve- build on the skills that the digital natives we teach already possess so they
can most effectively participate in learning programmes that as we know, increasingly use digital tools.
Daggett (2014) calls on schools to embrace “a new hybrid” (p.5), one where the best of face-to-face
and digital learning are utilised for the best education outcomes for students. The blended learning
programme I have developed aims to begin work towards the optimal integration of face-to-face and
digital learning. 

I read the report written for the Ministry of Education titled Supporting future-oriented teaching and
learning- a New Zealand perspective. The authors Bolstad, Gilbert, McDowall, Bull, Boyd & Hipkins
(2012) identify key themes in emerging principles towards a 21st century education system. This
inquiry project most closely addresses a sub-theme identified by these authors “the role of current and
emerging technologies” (p. 6) where they identify developing capability as being a strategy identified
as supporting informational technologies in New Zealand schools (Bolstad, Gilbert, McDowall, Bull,
Boyd & Hipkins, 2012) . Therefore, this project is directly addressing a national perspective on
future-orientated teaching and learning by seeking to build student capacity in digital technologies.

When I looked at how my project reflected the perspectives of wider audiences, a key theme was that
this project was part of the wider educational discussion about how to better prepare learners for the
future, and the changing role of education. This should be no surprise. Educators globally are
redesigning learning so ākonga can be successful in the 21st century (ITL Research, 2012). What was
interesting to me is that the outcomes of my project are perhaps precursor, of this wider work. Which
skills and knowledge do learners need to be confident in first to be able to participate successfully in a
future focused learning programme? Which skills and knowledge do educators of the younger children
need to ensure are there so children can begin to use and apply their knowledge in transformative ways?
If you have any thoughts about this, it would be fantastic to hear them.

References:

Bolstad, R., Gilbert, J., McDowall, S., Bull, A., Boyd, S., & Hipkins, R. (2012). Supporting
future-oriented learning and teaching — a New Zealand perspective. Report prepared for the
Ministry of Education. Retrieved from
https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/109306

Daggett, B. (2014). Addressing current and future challenges in education. Retrieved from
http://www.leadered.com/pdf/2014MSC_AddressingCurrentandFutureChallenges.pdf

ITL Research, (2012). 21CLD Learning Activity Rubrics. Retrieved from
https://education.microsoft.com/GetTrained/ITL-Research