MindLab Last Assessment
My wider audience consists of teachers, students, policy makers and researchers. My local
audience includes future students to attend my school, teachers from the local intermediate
(whom will receive my students in the next few years), and the Kootuitui cluster of schools
(our local CoL), who will hopefully read and think about my research, especially if presented
in a Toolkit.
National audiences will include Manaaiakalani group. They employ teachers, principals,
researchers at the University of Auckland and trust and accounts partners. Everyone from the
Manaaiakalani group are involved in policy development
The audience that will benefit on possibly all local, national and international levels will be the
future workforce I am sending my students into.
Perspectives from these audiences include many cohesive opinions. Teachers, students, local
researchers and global policy makers have identified and discussed at length the need to give
students authentic agency in their learning. This is often seen as student choice of context,
where they learn and how they present their learning.This often excludes a choice of learning
intention (Heather Wolpert-Gawron, 2018). By giving students the ability to identify their own
next steps I have taken the student agency idea one step further. They are now able to move
their own learning forward, critiquing and developing their skills as they go. As Daggett, B.
(2014) says “It takes a system—not just a teacher— to improve student Performance”. So I
have introduced a system, I can help facilitate.
The Ministry of Education (2018) wants students to be lifelong learners. They describe the
ideal as a student who is interested and keen to learn about things. But, I believe, they are
missing the edge that is needed in the new and ever changing workforce. The ability to
critically reflective and take action to improve autonomously. Let’s give them the HOW to
define their learning, then they really will be lifelong learners. This will impact the global
workforce, as well as trends in education globally.
Again, it seems agreed upon that feedback is key to students to be able to improve, but is
often focused on coming from the teacher. The importance of the teacher to focus the
feedback on the SC is also agreed upon across all levels. I am also building on this by giving
he students the ability to give their own feedback. Still based on the SC but giving them the
same tools I would be using the judge their formative assessment.
The OECD (2018) suggest that socio-emotional skills are paramount as well as the “nature of
real-life problem-solving and enhance students’ motivation” (2018). By giving these students
the ability to discuss the SC and their own learning, as well as explicitly learn to give
constructive criticism, we are letting students deal with real-world problems of how to identify
next steps and navigate the explanations. They are also encouraged to apply the skills and
knowledge they have acquired. In other areas to ensure they are able to carry this out in many
areas (Dagget, 2014).
They are beginning to work out how to express their opinions through safe discussion space.
According to Bolstad, R., Gilbert, J., McDowall, S., Bull, A., Boyd, S., & Hipkins, R. (2012)
‘organising groups of students to express their opinions could help solve problems in schools”.
Which will directly impact both the future students at the school and future schools of those
students.
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
Daggett, B. (2014). Addressing current and future challenges in education. Retrieved from http://www.leadered.com/pdf/2014MSC_AddressingCurrentandFutureChallenges.pdf
Heather Wolpert-Gawron (2018) Just Ask Us Kids Speak Out on Student Engagement,Retrieved from: https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/52424/why-choice-matters-to-student-learning
OECD. (2018).Trends shaping education 2018 spotlight. Retrieved from
The New Zealand Curriculum / Kia ora - NZ Curriculum Online. (2018). Nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz. Retrieved 18 August 2018, from http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum
|
During the ‘Learning’ phase of the Spiral of Inquiry I decided to quickly take some baseline
data. It was important for me to make sure I was making the correct assumptions. Although
suggested to take the baseline data in the taking action stage, I wanted to ensure the
assumptions I had made were backed up by data. Taking action could be a waste of time
if you haven’t been accurate with your information.
After this I took qualitative and quantitative data from a target group of students. The sample
group consisted of 4 underachieving students (US), 3 highly achieving students (HS) and 3
of average ability for my class (AS). All data was collected via watching back video of the
lessons so as to be able to see all the things that happened while I was teaching. This did
however, as Gray (2012) explains, limit monitored interactions to those that were done within
the view of the camera. If I had another person collected data they could move around with
the students as well. Having another person to collect and analyse the data with me would
also eliminate what Babione (2015) called “data overload’.
For my quantitative data, I checked to see if these students could: feedback to their peers
based on success criteria (SC), improve their writing based on peer feedback, collaborate
on a piece of work with the aim to improve it, whether students sought out each others ideas
on their work, check their work independently to see if they met the SC, discuss their opinions
more openly as well as the participation of the US in group writing activities. Due to time
restraints my information has not yet been triangulated, in terms of different people collating
the data, or the data being examined in different ways (Babione, 2015).
After taking action and implementing the structures in class, I then took data from the same
group of students on 2 separate occasions and for 2 different writing samples. One was a
teacher led session and once in an independent writing activity. I chose these 2 times because
they were they days all the sample group were present for the whole writing process so far and
so it would give me the most accurate data. The qualitative data was in the form of student
voice, my marking of writing samples based on the SC and annotative notes about the lessons
happened. I used activity, event, strategy and relationship codes to record what was happening
in the videos as well as student voice from interview conducted before, during and after the
series of actions were taken.
I would also like to mark later writing samples to see if this is having an impact on overall
achievement. This will be my next step to ensure I can answer my Inquiry question fully.
To analyses the data, I collated it into tables which included all the data, as well as transferring
that into graphs that separates out the different sets of students. So that I could see separate
the impacts on different groups of students over time, as suggested by Efron and Ravid (2003).
    
References:
Babione, C. (2015). Practitioner Teacher Inquiry and Research. USA: John Wiley & Sons.
(e-copy available in Unitec library).
Efron, S. E., & Ravid, R. (2013). Action research in education: A Practical guide. New York,
NY: The Guilford Press. (e-copy available in Unitec library).
Gray, J. (2012).What data can and cannot do. Retrieved from
|
As a result of this action, several positive, yet unexpected things have taken place.
Collaboration has become more in depth, students are talking more (including the reluctant
students who historically have no been sharing ideas at all). The teacher’s role has changed
considerably, from the holder of knowledge to the guide and the students have begun to quite
literally, take over the teaching.
Students are now collaborating on their own work instead of co-operating on a shared piece of
work. The baseline data showed that the students were working together, but mostly it was
doing a different part each, like a jigsaw. Now, the students are coming together with their first
drafts and giving each other tips on how to better their work. Each adjusting their own pieces,
based on the ideas and explanations of other. This is the joint knowledge construction that
Bruner so heavily promotes with “activities [that] require constant negotiations and recreations
of meaning” (K. Reusser, 2001).
Discussion amongst students increased throughout the curriculum. The direct impact on class
culture was unexpectedly affirming. Students have begun controlling the classroom discussion,
undoubtedly assiting the understanding of subject matter (Auckland University, n.d.). I , the
teacher, sometimes finding it hard to jump in because the students have so many relevant, on
topic ideas. This has established the idea that the teacher is not the holder of all the
knowledge. Unfortunately, this also leaves room for the conversation to take a turn towards
misconceptions and have them sometimes. On the contrary, it enables me to clearly identify
the misconceptions when I am a part of the conversation.
Another difference amongst the AS is that they are now more able to understand what to do.
Always looking for the SC to help them meet their goals. And when they can’t find them,
being able to ask what someone else thinks.
Impacts of the actions that are not supported by the evidence include the feeling in the
classroom. The students are generally happier, things run more smoothly, there is a real team
feel to our class now because we value each other’s opinions. My class is easier to manage,
because I don’t need to control them. They take the onus more to implement action because
they know their ideas are valid and valued by other members.
It has been established by Reinholz, 2018, Riley, Riddell, Kidd, & Gavin, 2018, and Kitchakarn,
2013 that building the classroom culture around feedback would create a more supportive,
positive and respectful learning environment. By beginning at the start of the year and
ensuring many things were set up to facilitate this, the effects have been unprecedented.
In terms of future practice I will be using these tools as building blocks for all of my subjects
and all of my classrooms. The deliberate manner I have taken to implement these also have
meant that am slowing down to ensure the understanding of classroom and website logistics
is ingrained before we move on. This has contributed to the self efficacy of the students to
manage themselves and find what they need.
To ensure the students are contributing valid ideas and not misconceptions, in the future I will
be putting more emphasis on the reasoning of their ideas, and the corroboration. They can
agree and disagree, as well as cite reasoning, unfortunately that reasoning is not always
substantial. The next steps here is helping them to decide that validity of their reasons.
For all future inquiries, I will be slowing down and thinking about how to do each step more
carefully. In the past, my inquiries have been faster and I have been more confirming bias,
then I have been inquiring. The outcome of this inquiry has not just given me insight into
how to meet the students needs, but that an Inquiry may completely change shape as it
moves ahead. Not ending up at the destination that you thought it would, and this is not a bad
thing.
References:
Auckland University, Education and Social Work, Wolf Fisher Centre (n.d.). Developing in
K., Reusser, (2001), Co-constructivism in Educational Theory and Practice: Retrieved from:
https://www.ife.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:00000000-3212-6146-0000-00004ae1a3f6/Co_Constructivism.
pdf
Riley, N., Riddell, S., Kidd, E., & Gavin, R., (2018). Feedback in a future focused classroom:
Literacy Learning: The Middle Years 26 (1) Retrieved from: https://search.informit.com.au/
documentSummary;dn=321765538693318;res=IELHSS;type=
pdf
|
As a result of the MindLab course, many parts of my practice have permanently changed.
My inquiry practice is more defined. I am not just trying new ideas that I like, that have been
proven to work for other people. I am delving into the learning phase with an open mind.
Previously my research was heavily geared towards findings that backed up my preferred
action. Now I am focusing more on my intended learning outcome of the students. As a
member of my cohort I am also now more willing to share unfinished ideas. I now will bring
ideas to the table and let people help me think about it - so i get more input and buy in for
change. This helps me to discover things that disrupt my thinking and opens the floor for new
ideas from the rest of the team.
I chose to begin the MindIab course, as I am constantly trying new. Previous to this though, I
was trying improve ALL the time, my students often got lost with so many changes. Now that
I am slowing down, as suggested by Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, (2006), and implementing
changes in a more purposeful and systematic way, they can follow more easily and can see
which ones are working, or why someone is lost and guide them slowly.
My planned learning sequences in the classroom are also far more focused on how I can help
the students access the resources during the lessons. I am actually co-constructing SC and
the learning/ knowledge. This links closely with my research on blended learning. I was giving
the students flipped lessons before the course but I wasn’t using any of my time to assist them
with accessing the information correctly. So instead I was supplying them with content. As
Bergmann and Sams (2014) suggest, it’s important to make sure students can interact with
the information and videos. Beyond giving them selected video content I have begun to also
supply the tools necessary to watch and learn from the videos.
During in class teaching and learning I have become focused on giving feedback that is geared
toward the expectations as well students input. I know how to recognise, and foster
collaboration instead of ao-operation. It was made easier because I was forced to think from a
learners point of view. It helped me pinpoint the difficulties my students were having; how long
we can actually pay attention for before we get bored, that sharing ideas really helped me
change my perspective as well as how frustrating it is when you have to wait for others to do
the work you have already completed. I am now concentrating on extending some students
while also thinking about the scaffolding that the lower achieving students need. As proposed
by Muller, (2008) I have begun to use technology to facilitate seeing ideas from different angles, because I can’t understand ideas without seeing them from different angles. Being a learner while teaching, has made me a better teacher.
Refernces:
Bergmann, J., & Sams., A. (2014)The Flipped Class: Overcoming Common Hurdles Retrieved
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction
Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based,
Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Muller, D., (2008). Designing Effective Multimedia for Physics Education A thesis submitted in
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. School of Physics
University of Sydney: Australia
|
Comments
Post a Comment