Powered By Blogger

Thursday, May 28, 2020

MindLab- Evaluation of the introduction of Digital and Collaborative Innovation



Title: Implement, document and critique a digital and collaborative learning innovation applied to a specific area of your practice. Within your reflective portfolio, continue to add reflective entries that critically evaluate your practice.

Reflective entry 5 (50% of PRACTICE) Critically analyse issues of ethics, society, culture and/or professional environments that have been relevant to the digital and collaborative learning innovation you applied in your practice.

I introduced the use of ‘Hapara- Dashboard’ to a group of colleagues in my school, to find out how much my training sessions would affect their confidence in using this tool. 
Isman (2009)’s study and the NZARE- Ethical Guidelines raised ethical issues such as anonymity, consent, confidentiality, integrity in data analysis and veracity which I will analyse later in this entry.

Stutchbury and Fox (2009) explains David Seedhouse’s ethical framework Seedhouse (1998), as a bird’s eye view of a pyramid that presents four layers, and explains two theories of western moral philosophy used in his framework: 
·       Deontology- described as ‘doing what is right’ regardless of the consequences.
·       Consequentialism- states that an action is ‘good’ if the consequences produce more benefits than disadvantages to the greater number of people.

Seedhouse’s framework was initially designed for application in the health area, but it is applicable to education as well. For the purpose of this entry I will use Seedhouse’s framework:
a.             The External Layer- looks at issues at an organisational level and at external issues. 
At this level I considered ethical guidelines for my research, which my school does not have, so I ended consulting those of NZARE. 
One aspect, that these guidelines mention, is the need for participants’ consent to be part of my study. Thinking critically about it, the Hapara sessions started as part of teacher in-house training for my colleagues, who had already accepted to participate. Later I decided to make this my research, so I had to ask for their consent to participate in my study, which happened when the research was well under way. All participants emailed me their consent, except one teacher. Next time, I would request their consent by sending them an explanatory letter and a form to sign, but timing of research and lockdown circumstances were not ideal.

Another issue, to critically analyse here, is the resources available to me and the participants. Because of Covid 19 the training sessions were held via Zoom, which was available to all. It was the first time for me to be in charge of a Zoom session and I found it uncomfortable to ask my colleagues to remain quiet during the presentations. They asked questions as soon as they had a query instead of waiting for the Q & A segment. I found the participants excitable and talkative. I started questioning the quality of the sessions and the resulting consequences. If I had to do it again, I would have emailed the participants guidelines for the sessions and gone over them the Zoom session.
  
  1. Consequential Layer- looks at the consequences of certain actions for society, groups of people or individuals. 
The consequences, that my training sessions had on most of the participants, was mainly positive: out of 15 participants, 9 took part in the training sessions and from those 9, 6 reported to be confident or very confident users of Hapara after the sessions. Prior to the sessions, 3 participants were already confident, from those 3, 2 did not participate in the sessions and 1 was made my co-presenter. Confident teachers will use the tool properly and hopefully children’s learning will be positively impacted. As for myself and my co-presenter, we investigated the topic in depth in order to deliver the sessions, I even gained a Certificate as a Hapara Champion Educator. The professional environment of the Years 4 to 6 teachers has been enhanced through the acquisition of new skills and learning in general i.e. including using Zoom.
  
  1. Deontological Considerations-  looks to do the right thing, to be honest and to minimise harm. 
It is at this stage that recommendations of a code of ethics, and morals weigh in. During this study process, participants have been respected and given anonymity, except when I refer to my co-presenter, the other participants can workout who this person is. I singled this person out in a later paragraph, but I also assumed responsibility for certain actions in order to minimize harm. My colleagues’ consent to participate was obtained and any information gained has been kept private. Participants have not been put under any pressure to participate and the results have been recorded as they are. My aim has been to reach the validity, reliability and usefulness of this study.

  1. The Inner Layer (Uppermost Layer)- deals with the ‘core rationale’ and issues of respect for the individual and autonomy. 
After the training sessions, 66% of the participants expressed to be confident or very confident using Hapara, which indicates that they have become more autonomous in the use of this tool in their classrooms. In ‘normal’ circumstances, having the sessions live could have given a higher percentage, on the other hand, the participation could have been lower due to before or after school commitments. 
The colleague, I made my co-presenter, and I became even more autonomous through our personal preparation to deliver the training session. It sounded ideal in theory to mentor a first follower, but in the sessions my co presenter was answering questions while I was presenting which again made me doubt the smoothness of the presentation. Again, due to social isolation we did not communicate well with my co-presenter. Next time, I would set up ground rules for participants and presenters and repeat them often.

In conclusion, the issues of consent, availability of resources, professional outcomes, minimising harm and autonomy of participants and presenters contributed to the outcomes of the study which agrees with consequentialism: betterment for the majority.  

Reference
  • İşman, A., Altinay Aksal, F., & Altinay Gazı, Z. (2009). Teacher Researchers: Technology and Ethical Considerations While Conducting an Action Research. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 37, 84–95.

  • Stutchbury, K., & Fox, A. (2009). Ethics in educational research: introducing a methodological tool for effective ethical analysis. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(4), 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640903354396


Reflective entry 6 (50% of PRACTICE) Critique and address issues of law, regulations and/or policy that have been relevant to the digital and collaborative learning innovation you applied in your practice.

I intended to critique my school policy on teachers’ professional development, but my principal said the school has only guidelines and due to COVID-19 changes of level, he is extremely busy. I decided to work with National Education Goals and the COVID -19 Alert System as I find them relevant to the practice of my innovation.
Ten National Education Goals (Education.org.nz, last reviewed 2019) were set up by the New Zealand government in recognition for the fundamental importance of education. I find four goals relevant to my research:
NEG 1- The highest standards of achievement, through programmes which enable all students to realise their full potential as individuals, and to develop the values needed to become full members of New Zealand's society. 
This is relevant to my innovation because in the process, I delivered a programme of sound quality to the participants. Most participants are now ready to use Hapara with their students which will create new habits and opportunities for the children to become agentic and self-directed learners. By doing so, children will grow to become more autonomous in their participation in society.
NEG 2- Equality of educational opportunity for all New Zealanders, by identifying and removing barriers to achievement.
This goal is relevant, because through my innovation, teachers will reach all students in their classrooms. I removed certain barriers by identifying what aspects of Hapara the participants needed help with and addressing them in the training sessions. The participants receive ongoing support, which will remove further barriers to teachers and children’s achievement.  
NEG 3- Development of the knowledge, understanding and skills needed by New Zealanders to compete successfully in the modern, ever-changing world.
The third goal is relevant to my innovation, which is training sessions to use Hapara. Hapara is a digital tool utilised by teachers to facilitate the optimal use of Google Apps by the students. These apps enable students to collaborate, connect (locally, nationally or globally), receive feedback and act on it while drafting a piece of work, and many more 21st Century ways of operating that are relevant to the ever-changing world. 
NEG 6- Excellence achieved through the establishment of clear learning objectives, monitoring student performance against those objectives, and programmes to meet individual needs.
Hapara is being used at my school for the children to set goals together with their teacher for the three core subjects and for Learning to Learn and Inquiry. My innovation has prepared the participants to use Hapara to monitor the children’s progress in their learning goals and to design plans based on the children’s needs.
The rest of the NEG touched on themes like children with special needs, early years, curriculum balance, access to qualifications, the Treaty of Waitangi, cultural diversity. These aspects were not directly addressed in my innovation, but some of them were raised during the session i.e. children with special needs and curriculum balance. The Treaty of Waitangi was acknowledged in some sessions and cultural diversity was represented by the diverse background of the teachers and children at school. 

COVID-19 reached New Zealand with the first case reported on February 26th this year, later the country went under a four-level alert system on March 25th putting everyone into a nationwide lockdown. 
The government Alert System (2020) listed measures for the population to follow. Among those were:
  • “People instructed to stay at home in their bubble other than for essential personal movement”; and
  • “Educational facilities closed”.
These measures affected the delivery of my Hapara training sessions which initially were going to be live in short sittings before and/or after school. The sessions then needed to be delivered online. 
The fact that participants were to stay at home, meant that they were highly likely to attend the training, but my lack of experience being a host using Zoom and, in addition to that, having a co-host, meant that the sessions were not as of good quality as live ones.
During the training I had to have Hapara on my screen and ‘share’ it with the participants. This ‘sharing’ feature was crucial to my presentation, but it prevented me from giving access to the session to late comers, so that meant they missed a session and therefore their confidence using Hapara was affected. The mentioned feature also prevented me from seeing all the participants at the same time and as a result I could not use their facial expressions as feedback to adjust my delivery or identify people who were not participating actively, so I could draw them back into the presentation.
Next time, under the same circumstances, I would stop after presenting a point, stop the function of ‘sharing’ screen and check with the participants and co-presenter how the session is going for everyone. I would also let the late comers in to the session, so they can be updated and participate in the remainder of the session. 
As a conclusion, the regulations that had a more stressful impact on the delivery of my innovation was the COVID - 19 Regulations because I had to modify my mindset and use Zoom without having experience as a host. But having had analysed the National Education Goals, I can see that my innovation has the potential to produce great outcomes for the students of my school.  

Reference



  • New Zealand Government (2020). COVID-19 Alert System. 
https://covid19.govt.nz/alert-system/covid-19-alert-system/#alert-level-4%C2%A0%E2%80%94-lockdown

Reflective entry 7 (50% of DIGITAL) Explain how your application of a digital and collaborative innovation relates to national educational policies/guidelines and contemporary educational theory and compare it to existing delivery models and needs.

The New Technology Curriculum has two new areas: 
  • Computational Thinking for Digital Technologies and
  • Designing and Developing Digital Outcomes.
For the purpose of this entry, I will focus on the second area. The Progression Outcomes in this area go from 1 to 3, from which 1 and 2 is of my interest because they cover Year 3 to 6- levels that my innovation targeted.

Progress Outcome 1 indicates that students can participate in a teacher-led development to create, manipulate, store, retrieve and share content. This includes among others:
• An awareness of some applications and their purpose. 
• An understanding that computers store content and we can retrieve it later.

Progress Outcome 2 indicates that given some parameters/criteria and tools and/or techniques they are able to make decisions (largely independently) about creating, manipulating, storing, retrieving, sharing and or testing content (developed for a specific purpose) within a fundamental system. This includes among others:
• Understanding that digital devices develop/change over time & the influence/impact they have on humans/society.
• Purposefully use an increasing range of applications (software and file type).

The Progress Outcomes mentioned before are related to my innovation because the children, as well teachers, have been introduced to a new digital tool that helps them manage Google Apps. Hapara allows them to store and retrieve their work from a dashboard. By introducing them to Hapara, they are developing an understanding that technology develops over time and influences their performance and way to operate in the classroom.  

Tātaiako: Cultural Competencies for Teachers of Māori Learners is about the relationships and interactions the teachers have with the Maori learner, their whanau and the iwi at ECE, primary, and secondary levels.
Among the five competences described in this document, I find Ako: taking responsibility for their own learning and that of Māori learners, that most relates to my digital and collaborative initiative. Participants of my investigation took responsibility for their own learning and by becoming more confident in the use of Hapara, they can cater for the needs of their Maori students and students in general in a more prepared way. Participant teachers can also display the other competencies through the use of Hapara i.e. planning activities targeted to individuals or groups according to their specific needs.
The teachers’ behaviour indicators relevant to my role for this entry is: Provides and supports ongoing professional learning and development for staff that strengthens the school/ECE service’s ability to raise Māori learner achievement.

A learning theory that is relevant to my innovation is Constructivism which is defined as an active process to create new knowledge building up from existing knowledge (Koohang, et al 2009). McLeod (2019) says that Dewey (1938) and Vygosky (1978) estates that all learning is socially constructed and impacted by the social environment respectively. 
The Hapara training sessions with the participants were based on their expressed needs according to what they already knew and the subsequent sessions took into account the knowledge they constructed in the previous sessions. The sessions were done in groups where participants were asking questions and my co-presenter and other participants were answering them. It was a social event.
The sessions were organised from easiest to more complex topics and during the sessions the participants were scaffolded through demonstrations and dialogue. 

There was an element of Connectivism in the development of my innovation. Goldie, J. (2016) says that Connectivism is a learning theory which states that learning is a network process influenced by technology and socialization (Siemens 2006). 
When I was preparing for the Hapara training sessions, I visited the blog of a very talented and well connected teacher in a local school, who I met when I was part of ACCoS. In her blog she described her journey about introducing Hapara to her colleagues and there I found out that Hapara offers online training to interested people. So I completed their online training, and I received a Hapara Champion Educator certificate, which prepared me to deliver the training sessions, to answer questions and to access resources for my colleagues.   
By being part of this MindLab course I became familiar with the use of Zoom which is much smoother than Skype and Google Meet and it has the functions to share my screen and to record the sessions for the participants' reference.
The delivery model that I used for my Hapara training sessions was Online Model, due to Covid 19. Ganza (2012), in his dissertation for his degree of Doctor in Education in Educational Leadership, mentions that Smith (2005) suggested an online model that included 51 competencies for the instructor. These competencies covered three different areas:
  1. Competencies before the course- which involves syllabus construction, instructor’s knowledge of technology and course organisation. In the delivery of my course the competencies mentioned here were present in the design of my sessions.
  2. Competencies needed during the course- which include efficient course management, knowledge about facilitation and interaction, active learning, effective and practices to promote participation, and the learner-centered approach. At this stage of my innovation, my familiarity with Malcolm Knowles and his theory of Andragogy supported my style of facilitation and the collaboration among the participants who themselves were providers of knowledge.
  3. Competencies needed after the course-  involved use of technology to report and calculate grades, course evaluations conducted by both students and the instructor teaching the course. At this stage, I did not have to calculate and report grades, but I used technology to find out the effect of my innovation on the participants’ confidence to use Hapara.

Reference

  • Ministry of Education, New Zealand. Digital Technologies / Hangarau Matihiko: Draft for Revision. www.education.govt.nz


  • Koohang, A., Riley, L., Smith, T., & Schreurs, J. (2009). E-Learning and Constructivism: From Theory to Application. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning & Learning Objects, 5, 91–109.



  • Ganza, William John (2012) The Impact of Online Professional Development on Online Teaching in Higher Education. UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 345. https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd/345

Reflective entry 8 (50% of DIGITAL) Evaluate the outcomes of a digital and collaborative innovation in your practice from an educational research perspective.

The purpose of my innovation was to find out if the Hapara training sessions I provided the participants with, would affect their confidence using Hapara with their students in class. 
A factor to consider was that before the delivery of the training sessions started, Covid -19 Alert System reached Level 4, so the only way to carry out my innovation was online. I used Zoom and I had a few issues mentioned in the prior entries, but I received verbal and written feedback stating the good quality of the session. Thanks to this experience I became more comfortable using Zoom with my own students while involved in e-Home Learning. 
Regarding the innovation itself, participants were asked to complete a survey before the training sessions. There they had the opportunity to select workshops they wanted to join in:
  • Basic Functions: This workshop was about the main functions to navigate the dashboard allowing the teacher to see what the child is engaged in while using a Chrome-book.  
  • How to create groups: Creation of groups when planning lessons to personalise learning.
  • How to use Workspace: Create lesson plans for children to have access independently and at their own time.
  • Student Dashboard: What it looks like, help children to create a shortcut to access it and how to navigate it. This gives students access to personalised messages from the teacher, tasks assigned to them, e-mails in one place.

From the 15 teachers approached, 2 teachers indicated to be confident users of Hapara and therefore they did not participate in the sessions and from the 13 participants, 8 completed the second survey after the training sessions.
According to the second survey:
  • Confidence using Hapara- 1 participant was very confident using Hapara after the sessions, 5 were confident and 2 needed more support.
This indicates to me that my training sessions affected their confidence (or perception of confidence) in a positive manner. However, at this moment we are into our second week of Covid -19 Alert System Level 2 and participants are using Hapara at different stages. A number of teachers are talking about using Hapara combined with the e-Home Learning format to let the children take more control of their own learning, which is one of the reasons for using Hapara. Children becoming agentic will take some time and it would be the result of different factors not just Hapara.
Other aspects influencing the participants’ confidence using Hapara is:
1. Constructivism, which according to McLeod, Saul (2019) “... prior knowledge influences what new or modified knowledge an individual will construct from new learning experiences (Phillips, 1995)”. 
2. Social interaction, as McLeod, Saul (2019)  put it “Learning is a social activity - it is something we do together, in interaction with each other, rather than an abstract concept (Dewey, 1938)”.
3. Andragogy (Adult Learning Theory), which estates that among other things that adults display readiness to learn and are driven by an internal motivation to learn. It lists as principles that adults are self-directed, they already have a wealth of knowledge and experiences, the knowledge and skills they gain can be applied immediately and can be used to solve problems (Esther Smith, 2017). 

  • Usefulness of Sessions- 2 participants found the sessions very helpful, 5 found them helpful, and 1 not helpful (later she emailed me saying that the fact the children were not at school, prevented her from practising the content of the session. 
Again, in this case the majority found the usefulness of the sessions, positive. This means that in spite of my inexperience being a Zoom host, I was able to present useful training sessions together with a co-host. Next time, I could record brief sessions about tips or create a Google Doc for questions and then record the answers providing a demo.
The sessions included lots of interaction from the participants, in the form of questions and clarifying answers by my co-presenter, myself and other participants. The sessions active social processes in which the participants were making sense of their learning by voicing their concerns, doubts or misunderstandings and in return they got scaffolded, as Vygotsky says (McLeod, Saul,  2019), by peer participants who knew the answers to the different questions.
    
  • Access to extra resources- 5 participants wanted extra resources, 3 did not.
This part of the survey gives me an idea of who is motivated to learn more and that they want to consolidate what they learnt during the sessions. I created a pool of resources such as quick guides and videos in a Hapara workspace and shared it with them. The next step would be to transfer those resources to Google Docs for the less confident users.

  • Resources and Topics- ‘Workspace’ was mentioned 3 times, ‘Highlights’ was mentioned 2 times, ‘Children Dashboard’ was mentioned once and ‘Not Applicable’ was mentioned 4 times.
This segment tells me what topics need to be explained in more depth and also tells me which topics they understood clearly because they were not mentioned. This information guides the kind of resources that are desirable when I transfer the resources to Google Docs.

Reference


Esther Smith  (2017). Andragogy – Adult Learning Theory (Knowles). Learning Theories, September 30, 2017, https://www.learning-theories.com/andragogy-adult-learning-theory-knowles.html.

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, October 6, 2019

MindLab- Introducing the new Digital Technologies -Hangarau Matihiko areas of the Technology Curriculum to my Team


Reflective Entry 1- Introducing the new Digital Technologies -Hangarau Matihiko areas of the Technology Curriculum to my Team 
According to the Curriculum Online website by the Ministry of Education, teachers need to start integrating the Digital Technologies areas of the Technology curriculum into their practice this year. As a team leader, I would like to see my team become familiar with it and implement it, so that our students can start or continue forging their digital path.
After revising the New Zealand Curriculum, the Ministry of Education modified the Technology curriculum by adding two technological areas: 1. Computational Thinking for Digital Technologies and 2. Designing and Developing Digital Outcomes. For both English and Maori mediums. “The goal of this change is to ensure that all learners have the opportunity to become digitally capable individuals. This change signals the need for greater focus on our students building their skills so they can be innovative creators of digital solutions, moving beyond solely being users and consumers of digital technologies.” (The New Zealand Curriculum Online).
The Ministry of Education- Connected Learning Advisory in their publication titled  ‘Preparing for Digital Technologies & Hangarau Matihiko in the Technologies learning area’ makes an important distinction between Digital Fluency and Digital Technologies. According to this publication, Digital Fluency is the ability to learn with devices, to work with devices and the ability to select the appropriate device for a given task. In contrast, Digital technologies is learning about how computers work. Understanding this difference is what separates passive users of digital technologies and creators of new software and even hardware.
This distinction can be directly linked to the two new areas of the curriculum and highlights the importance of their balanced coverage with an emphasis on computational thinking. The two new technological areas of the Technology curriculum: Computational Thinking for Digital Technologies and Designing and Developing Digital Outcomes have Progress Outcomes, in contrast,  the rest of the areas in this curriculum have Learning Outcomes. This indicates that the knowledge and skills to develop expertise in computational thinking and digital technologies, that children need to gain throughout Years 0 to 13, is incrementally linear. 
With the inclusion of these two technological areas, students will be able to define problems, use computational thinking to find solutions and translate these into digital algorithms for computers to help solving such problems in a more efficient and more accurate manner. This way students will have the opportunity to become digital creators rather than just passive consumers. They will also gain skills to locate, analyse, evaluate and present their own digital creations  in an ethical manner.

With the widespread use of digital devices and the internet, as teachers we will need to provide students with the skills and knowledge to keep themselves safe and to behave appropriately when they are online. Netsafe has made a submission to the Ministry of Education to strengthen Digital Technologies -Hangarau Matihiko in the curriculum by enabling New Zealand internet users have a positive experience and free of online harm. Netsafe had received grants from the Ministry of Education to ensure the Maori medium had a safe digital experience. 
Netsafe supports the two new areas and the technology curriculum. It agrees that students need to become digitally fluent and more importantly become digital creators.
   
The Ministry of Education has put in place a Nationwide Digital Readiness Programme that teachers and school leaders can use to guide their introduction of the digital area of the curriculum. This programme uses the legend of ‘Mahuika the Maker of Fire’ as background context. It has online courses for leaders which are already running, and resources for teachers to use according to the level they are teaching.
All this information and resources will support me in the introduction and the implementation of Digital Technology - Hangarao Matihiko together with my team.
Reference

  • Neil Melhuish -Director of Policy, Pauline Spence -Education Adviser, Angela Webster -Education Adviser NETSAFE. September 2017. Strengthening Digital Technologies Hangarau Matihiko in the curriculum: SUBMISSION TO THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION.

  • Ministry of Education (2017). Digital Technologies Hangarau Matihiko: Draft for Consultation.



Reflective Entry 2- The Digital Technologies -Hangarau Matihiko Supporting the Workforce of the Future
The introduction of the new Digital Technologies -Hangarau Matihiko to New Zealand schools and Kura this year is meant to happen at a national level and students  from Year 1 to Year 13 will be targeted. Different schools are at different stages of the introduction of this initiative. It will be introduced by all school classroom teachers or specialists in the English and Maori medium. The English and Maori digital curriculum versions  are not translations from each other (Kellow, 2018).
The targeted audience for this initiative is New Zealand schools, more specifically school management, classroom teachers and/or specialists and students who will eventually enter the local or global workforce.

I am a classroom teacher and a team leader. This year a digital initiative that I will introduce to the Year 5 team and my students is the new Digital Technologies -Hangarau Matihiko. My targeted audience will be the Year 5 team teachers and my students. The stake-holders will be the school management team, the parents, the Year 5 team and the students.
The following is relevant to parents and students: According to ‘Digital Technologies and the New Zealand Curriculum- Your guide to finding support and getting ready’ this process started in 2017 with public consultation and the release of the new content of the digital curriculum. In 2018, implementation started, made it officially at NCEA Levels 1 and 2. Later in 2019, NCEA Level 2 and 3 were the focus where students can have access to more specialised content, and now in 2020 all schools and kura are expected to teach the content of the new digital technologies.
This is relevant to the children and the parents because it means that our students can start building up the steps towards high school and then tertiary studies.
The Digital Curriculum strands have progress outcomes instead of learning outcomes, which will enable our students and students around New Zealand to build knowledge and skills in a step-like system and continue to progress through the NCEA Levels 1 to 3. This way students can gain skills and capabilities to further study Digital Technology related courses at tertiary level and satisfy the national and global demand for skilled workers in this area (Ministry of Education- education.govt.nz  2018).
The learning progressions are not fixed to the year level, so students can advance according to their capabilities which can be positive and negative at the same time. Besides, since Digital Technology will be integrated with other subjects, these may be affected by the students’ digital skills and confidence in different ways.
According to Kellow (2018) the use of digital devices and digital knowledge and skills will enhance learning by using them in authentic tasks and when they support other learning areas of the curriculum.

For us teachers, it is important that we are aware of the transformation that the Technology curriculum has gone through, that the public was invited to a process of consultation for this modification and that later the Kia Takatū ā-Matihiko, the National Digital Readiness Programme was made available for teachers which can be still accessible. This programme is an online portal with information, resources and meet ups for the digital leaders of the school and teachers.
The Ministry of Education has, admittedly, put out a range of resources for teachers in the shape of guides, reports, exemplars and websites such as ‘Nationwide Digital Readiness Programme – Kia Takatū ā-Matahiko’ to help teachers become ready for the launching of this new initiative. In my team’s case, the teachers are aware that 2020 is the deadline for the introduction of the Digital Technologies curriculum and they may have superficially explored and investigated the Digital Technology strands. 
Schools are renowned for adding initiatives without necessarily weeding out unnecessary content or practices, and that is when initiatives become tokens that are scheduled once or twice a week instead of being integrated into the other curriculum learning areas.
A good starting point for a teacher who wants to become familiar with the Digital Curriculum, have access to information for teachers and most important of all: resources, is http://technology.tki.org.nz/Technology-in-the-NZC . This web page has to a great amount of lessons for the different levels and areas of the curriculum. Another source of tips on how to go about implementing the Digital Curriculum and a blog entry by Davis Parsons https://themindlab.com/2019/03/10/digital-technologies-in-the-nz-curriculum-top-10-tips/ .
David Parsons’ blog suggests a very valid point in Digital Technologies which is: “You don’t have to know everything!”. Sometimes providing children with the opportunity with software and gadgets would be enough because most of the time they will take the teacher to unexplored grounds.

Reference





Reflective Entry 3-  Demonstrate a critical understanding of how indigenous knowledge (IK) and cultural responsiveness (CR) inform practice
As a teacher and a team leader I cannot ignore the fact that my teaching does not happen in a vacuum. It happens in New Zealand and this country happens to be bicultural. Maori people are the people of the land and are indigenous to Aotearoa. They happened to be colonised by Great Britain in the 1700’s and later in 1840 Maori and representatives of the Crown signed a controversial treaty: The Treaty of Waitangi.
With the arrival of the Pakeha people, the colonisation process started. Maori people were forced to give up their land, sovereignty of natural resources and the right to speak their language. For decades the indigenous people of New Zealand have been expected to function in a society shaped by the colonisers. Perform in schools where the curriculum, policies, initiatives, research were predominantly Pakeha. Resulting this in Maori students failing schooling in large numbers.
In the 90’s Kaupapa Maori research was born. It is research by Maori, for Maori and with Maori (Tihuwai Smith 1996). It was in response to what Tihuwai Smith describes as oppressive relationship with Pakeha and she mentions Paulo Freire whose approach to education was emancipatory through the process of ‘humanising the oppressor’. A term Freire made popular was ‘conscientizacao’ and that I think it is more appropriate because it is the process through which the oppressed becomes aware ‘of her own social context, political context, economic context, gender, social class, sexuality, and race and how these play an important role in the shaping of her reality.’ (EIP). Such knowledge empowers the learner to question the status quo and for Maori students, it makes them realise that they are not failing the system, but the system is failing them.
John Dewey was an influence on Paulo Freire and they both believe that the classroom needs to an environment of democracy, ‘both Dewey and Freire were critical of teachers whose dispositions were undemocratic, who transmitted information from the expert to the student, and who lacked curiosity and confidence to continue learning from their students.’ (EIP). This last quote tells me as a teacher that every student is not an empty vessel and that my role is not to be the fountain of all knowledge which agrees with the 21st Century pedagogy and students being more involved in inquiry learning. Freire also held the belief that human beings’ future should not be predetermined by their past history. This tells me that every student has the right to a clean slate, particularly when moving to another class and that siblings are different from each other. As a teacher I have to be careful of my assumptions and preconceived ideas I have, based on the background knowledge I have about indigenous students in my class.
According to Keane et al, (2016) indigenous knowledge and research happens to have a part imprinted by the researcher. The narratives, the stories, the behaviours, the understandings are all ‘contaminated’ by the researchers own narratives, stories behaviours and undertandings. Freire’s reaction to this was: ‘the more you put gloves on our hands in order to avoid contamination with reality, the better a scientist you are’ (Shor & Freire 1987, 13). Here in  New Zealand, Kaupapa addresses that problem: the research is done by Maori, for Maori, with Maori.
Tuhiwai Smith, Linda (1996) agrees with the fact the contamination happens in research, and she goes as far as to say that for example Kura Kaupapa Maori has been defined as ‘bilingual education’ or ‘second language education’ which does not invoke a whole range of meanings that simply don’t apply to advocated to Kaupapa Maori. I think translations from one language to another will never be exactly the same as what the initial language meant. This is particularly relevant to Maori language which has words that have many different meanings and some of these meanings are brimming with  cultural and spiritual meanings.  
As a teacher, again, I need to stand back and be mindful of my cultural biases and my expectations of what Maori students should be like and utilise the Kaupapa Maori principles to inform my practice. In addition to that keep an eye out for more Maori research done by Maori, for Maori and by Maori.

References


  • Keane, Moyra; Khupe, Constance and Muza, Blessings (2016).  IT MATTERS WHO YOU ARE: INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE RESEARCH AND RESEARCHERS. Education as Change Volume 20 | Number 2 | 2016 | pp. 163–183 http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/eac/v20n2/02.pdf

Reflective Entry 4- State the research question and explain how the question has been developed and how they relate to a Kaupapa Maori approach to knowledge gathering and community priorities.
To develop my research question I used five steps described in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oJNO6PYZe4 which also included a worksheet with the five steps in the format of questions to follow the process. The steps are the following:
1.    Pick a topic.- What broad topic are you interested in?
2.    Narrow the topic.- What specific part of the topic are you interested in?
3.    Ask some questions.- List a few possible questions about your specific area of interest.
4.    Pick a question.- Choose one of your main research questions (How/Why).
5.    Focus the question.- Make your question as clear and specific as you can (Who? What? Where? When?).
We know a question is a good question when:
  • It focuses on one issue only.
  • It requires analysis (How and Why).
  • It is specific and focused.
  • It does not use vague words.
So when I applied this process to come up with a research question I had:
1.    The introduction of the new Digital Curriculum to my school.
2.    Our existing IT plan and the new Digital Curriculum.
3.    How does our school IT plan reflect the use of the new Digital Curriculum? Is our IT plan a balanced of the two strands of the Digital curriculum?
4.    How does the use of the new Digital Curriculum contribute to a balanced school IT plan?
5.     How does my use of the new Digital Curriculum to analyse my school IT plan will ensure such a plan displays a balance of the two new strands?
I know it is a good question because it meets the requirements given above.
The video I used to guide me in this process, also said that research papers do not show the question, but that the question is used to guide the research. The question also helps develop the thesis which is the summary of the answer to my question. Like: The use of the new Digital Curriculum assists teachers in creating more balanced IT plans.

Kaupapa Maori Research is described as research by Maori, for Maori and with Maori. ‘The Maori way’. In Katoa Ltd. it is mentioned that Graham Smith describes Kaupapa Maori research as: 
  • Connected to Maori philosophy and principles,
  • Taking for granted the validity and legitimacy of Maori,
  • Taking for granted the importance of Maori language and culture, and
  • Concerned with the ‘struggle for autonomy over our own cultural well-being’.
Kaupapa Maori research is based on six principles:
1.    Tino Rangatiratanga- the self determination principle. This principle is embedded in the Treaty of Waitangi and it is about sovereignty and the personal right to manage one’s own future. My research question includes the new Digital Curriculum which has progression outcomes which enables students to control the progress of their digital learning all the way into NCEA Level 3. My research includes an analysis of how balanced the school IT plan is.
2.    Taonga tuku iho - the cultural aspirations principle. This principle is that to be Māori is normal and taken for granted. Te reo Māori (the Māori language), matauranga Māori (Maori knowledge), tikanga Māori (Māori custom) and ahuatanga Māori (Māori characteristics) are acknowledged and valued. ‘This principle acknowledges the strong emotional and spiritual factor in Kaupapa Māori’ (Katoa Ltd). I don’t think my research focuses on the elements mentioned in this paragraph. But the content of the lessons in the school IT plan can integrate Maori with Digital Technology. For example, the use of #1Miriona app for students to find out and develop a pepeha.
3.    Ako  - the culturally preferred pedagogy principle.  This principle is about pedagogy practices that are unique to tikanga Māori (custom) and suggests that Māori should be able to choose their own preferred pedagogies. In my research in the analysis of my school IT programme, a child centered approach can be included. Inquiry is a strong contender, because the teacher is a coach on the side and not a fountain of all knowledge at the front. That way the knowledge can be decolonised.
4.    Kia piki ake i nga raruraru o te kāinga - the socio-economic mediation principle. This is about the socio-economic disadvantages that Maori face and their well-being. IT usually faces the problem of access to devices and WIFI. My research happens in a school that has Chromebooks to share between two classes and WIFI is accessible to others. The problem arises when disadvantaged children go home and the access is not there.
5.    Whānau - the extended family structure principle. This is about whanau and whanaungatanga (family connectedness) which underpins the success of health, education, justice and prosperity. This principle can be fulfilled through the content of the IT plan that I would be analysing.
6.    Kaupapa - the collective philosophy principle. This principle links Māori aspirations to political, social, economic and cultural well-being. This means Māori health, a healthy Māori would have been healthy politically, culturally, socially and economically. I don’t think my research is addressing this principle.
I found this exercise very useful because it made me aware that my research and my school planning need to be more inclusive of pedagogy and methodology that is  conducive to the success of Maori children in my school.
 Reference
Katua Ltd. Kaupapa Maori Research. http://www.katoa.net.nz/kaupapa-maori

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)