Assessment: Mindlab

• 
  

Week 25 During Week 1, I shared the action plan with leaders at my school and my students. Week 2 I collected baseline data from my class in terms of giving and receiving feedback, as well as qualitative information on their writing skills. Since Week 1 the classroom culture has been built around supporting learning, as well as the vocab that is necessary for feedback facilitation (what is SC etc).  Week 3 saw the collaborative teacher construction of the format for feedback and the introduction of this format to two groups of students separately. I have not shared my intentions yet with whanau as planned, it is within my job description already that I track data and record lessons for my practice. The only reason I saw to share with these people to have more critical eyes on my teaching and learning.  I do believe in building a supportive learning environment and including parents. Consequently, as Ann Milne suggests, to gain the trust and respect of my community I wanted to gain their knowledge and thoughts of what was important to teach their children before I make my final decisions. Building the classroom culture of giving feedback through sport at first wasn’t working. Our students are competitive in sport, so I thought this would be a less threatening way to start, it didn’t work. The students said that they didn’t see how it was important to make sure other people were doing it, they wanted to concentrate on themselves. So I introduced a whakatauki; My success should not be bestowed onto me alone, it was not individual success but the success of a collective, This, along with the explicit acknowledgement of our strong whanau bonds within our class, gave my students more buy in. In hindsight, I should have linked to their prior knowledge initially, linked to the thing they identify most with, whanau. In the future I will think more about what they identify with, not what I notice from a few of the loudest students. Using the platform of ‘which one doesn’t belong’ to affirm the value of their opinions has been incredibly effective. It is working well because the students know the structure to talk, although scary, even the quiet students are able to share if nudged, because they know how to state their opinion. Introducing the feedback structure to the two groups separately so that I could give the less able students more scaffolding wasn’t effective. By splitting the groups I struggled to elicit conversation around the ideas with one group, even after the vocabulary had been introduced repeatedly. And as we all know, those that do the talking do the learning. After the sessions were complete, I then asked the 2 groups to discuss what they thought we’d found out. The more able group were able to help the other students understand by discussing it with each other.  I also needed to plan more questions to ask (TKI, 2006). Instead of giving information, I need to spend more time planning questions for students to answer. This will help the students give what they know and think, I will also be using more mixed ability grouping in this area from now on.. References: Ann milne: whitewashing etc etc. Dr Ann Milne; Colouring in the White Spaces: Reclaiming Cultural Identity in Whitestream Deliberate acts of teaching: Questioning Retrieved from: http://literacyonline.tki.org.nz/Literacy-Online/Planning-for-my-students-needs/Effective-Literacy-Practice-Years-5-8/ Deliberate-acts-of-teaching David Guerrin, 2016, Retrieved from  http://www.davidgeurin.com/2016/01/whoever-is-doing-talking-is-doing.html?m=1

• 
  

Week 26 What is happening? During the feedback sessions the students were in mixed ability groups and the more able students had changed their writing to meet the SC. Which in terms of message for the reader, made it less effective. The once, well crafted, creative paragraphs were being transformed into clunky, prescriptive sentences, that accurately fit into the mould of the model. Then they said they were ‘finished’ because they had done the last step. The less able students got their feedback and then that was it. Why is it happening like this? (theory, philosophy, beliefs) We have been so focused on making sure the students are using the SC and feeding back to each other about whether they used these ideas, that fitting it into their writing as an edit was difficult to do (Hattie, J., & Timperley, H., 2007).  I have neglected to place importance on the big picture of writing- the message. My focus has been on the format. I haven’t thought about how the format would have an unconscious bias (Sandretto, 2011). The implicit message is that audience and purpose are thought about in the beginning of the planning and then not again. But the literary devices are continually developed across lessons.   So what? I need to review editing once finished as they only know how to include from the crafting session, but if  they are to be able to use the feedback properly, I need them to learn how to deal with it. It has been said that by giving them a ‘not yet’ or a ‘don’t see it, yet’ instead of an achieved or not achieved will help students to feel the motivation to achieve the goal (Dweck, 2015). I had used the format of smiley, flat or frowny face to take the focus away from writing during feedback. This made it an end point. They were given feedback but not feed forward. The speaking frame they used was ‘I can see….here’ or ‘I can’t see ….’ to take away from the ‘you did or didn’t’. We need to incorporate the power of yet into the feedforward. Also I have been using it at the end of a lesson, but I need to use the feedback sessions at the start of a lesson, to emphasis that it is the beginning of the next step. I also need a structure/format to ensure that the importance of message in a piece of writing is not lost. James Durran describes the use of a ‘recipe for writing’ to ensure the parts are given appropriate importance, easily for the children (Durran, 2019). References: Sandretto, 2011, Planting Seeds, Embedding critical literacy into your program, NZCER Press, New Zealand. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 Dweck, C., Revisiting the Growth Mindset Retrieved from: https://www.stem.org.uk/system/files/community-resources/2016/06/DweckEducationWeek.pdf Durran, J., 2019 https://jamesdurran.blog/2019/01/24/re-thinking-success-criteria-a-simple-device-to-support-pupils-writing/?blogsub= confirming#subscribe-blog

Week 27 What is happening and why? My original idea of introducing the feedback structure in sport as less threatening worked with stereotypes. I didn’t think about how one size, does not fit all. My cultural responsiveness must first begin with the culture of the individual. That my students are a person, before they are a people. Some liked the sport idea, (the most vocal) others needed to see the importance of what we were doing before they bought in. How the tuakana teina relationship was beneficial to us all, not just the teina. Building a class culture of students having valuable knowledge on which we can draw has come from my commitment to tangata whenua, the Kaupapa principle of Ako,  and te tiriti o te waitangi (Kahikitia, 2013, Our Codes, Our Standards 2017). The commitment of my students to give feedback because they value their own opinions, as well as the motivation to act on feedback because they believe the opinions of other Maori in the class has already increased exponentially. Ako is becoming a lived practice because it is woven into our class kaupapa, as it should be.   As a large population of my class are Pasifika also, it was important to ensure that all students were given a chance to speak. Many students were uncomfortable disagreeing with my opinion, or telling me what they think and not the other way around. The use of Whakatauki to help me underpin the ideas of our class being our waka has meant that we are part of our community to the students, Incorporating the importance of Whanau, even when they cannot be present was an integral part of making sure they were grabbing a hold of this process. So what? By looking at the action continuum, I can see myself  between the 4th and 5th step. My practice is still governed by the success and achievement meeting whitestream views.  Some structures and practices are embedded, but it is not indigenous and culturally centred. I think the best way for me to move to the next level is to consult my community, not just with a ‘what is important to teach’. But how to teach it. How did they best learn?  What is important to them in terms of connections, and ways of doing things. If I can gather this information it won't just be the what, but the how of learning. I also need to start using my literacy program to connect authorship and power with my students. How has their history been shaped by a colonial past? References: Our Codes, Our Standards, 2017   https://educationcouncil.org.nz/sites/default/files/Our%20Code%20Our%20Standards%20web%20booklet%20FINAL.pdf Ann milne: whitewashing etc etc. Dr Ann Milne; Colouring in the White Spaces: Reclaiming Cultural Identity in Whitestream  Retireived from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cTvi5qxqp4 Kahikitia, Acclerating Success https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/overall-strategies-and-policies/ka-hikitia-accelerating- success-20132017/ Veisinia Ha’unga. B.Ed. in Anne Milne’s Colouring in the White Spaces Retireived from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= 5cTvi5qxqp4

Week 28 I ask myself so many questions in order to meet my commitments to my students: Should I have included all students in my study? I mixed the ethnicities and focused on my students that need help the most and also those students that will understand easily. As well as articulate how I could improve. Should I have included all of my students in the study and then only focused on the students that needed it to be equitable? (Ehrich, L. C. , Kimber M., Millwater, J. & Cranston, N. (2011). The teaching code “requires the injustices caused by colonisation to be addressed and all New Zealanders” which includes meeting the needs of my Māori students that historically under perform in the system that exists (Education Council, 2017). This brings two issues to the forefront; should I be focusing more on something that incorporates a more traditional learning focus in terms of Kaupapa and should I ensure my extreme underperforming students are my target students instead of those that are just below? The “organisational culture”  at my school supports the heavy targeting of students that are just below the line of where they need to be (Education Council, 2017a). This means that they will hopefully move up quickly and then we can move onto the next needy students. The idea being that this will lead to the most students achieving accelerated progress. The issue here is the students that are on the bottom of the list will stay there. Other students cycling in and out and they not moving up. Am I perpetuating the injustices for those that colonial schooling has not been successful? Possible outcomes include; Focusing closely on those students that are just below and once they have proven to benefit from the research, moving onto those that are far below, starting with a mixture mid to low needs students instead of high and mid students, start working with the students that are the most in need and then moving up the ladder. Lastly, working with the whole class instead of just small group. If I begin by working with the most needy students, honing my explanation skills and refining the process with a ‘live audience’ will I hinder them in the long run as it may be more confusing to start with. Is it fair to ‘use’ and group of students to try out something that may not be beneficial, as a trial. Am I upholding my commitment to  ‘develop and implement teaching and learning strategies to address the needs of students identified’ as described in the Park Estate School Curriculum and Student Achievement Policy. I finally decided on introducing this with the more able group, to help me refine the framework for my students and the way I would explain it. I gained some student voice from this lesson also, in the way they talked to each other about the ideas and what questions they asked. Which I then transferred into lesson for the slightly underachieving group. Now that I have a group of students that understand the process and can model it for my less able students I am able to ensure my commitment to my learners, to differentiate my learning to meet their needs as a facilitator is adequately met (Education Council, 2017). References: Education Council. (2017a). Our Code Our Standards.Retrieved from: https://educationcouncil.org.nz/sites/default/files/Our%20Code%20Our%20Standards%20web%20booklet%20FINAL.pdf Education Council. (2017c). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from: https://educationcouncil.org.nz/sites/default/files/FAQ%20FINAL.pdf Ehrich, L. C. , Kimber M., Millwater, J. & Cranston, N. (2011). Ethical dilemmas: a model to understand teacher practice, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 17:2, 173-185, DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2011.539794 School Docs, Curriculum and Student Achievement Policy, Park Estate School, 2018. http://parkestate.schooldocs.co.nz/