Activity 3: Reflecting on reflective practice

Reflective practice a process of looking at an action in the past so as to make an improvement for the future. As teachers in New Zealand, we undertake reflective practice regularly to try and improve the outcomes for our students. Whether those practices be related to teaching as inquiry or reflecting on results last year for the purposes of writing departmental annual reports the practice of looking back with a view to improvements is inherent in what we do.

Finlay Reflecting on ‘Reflective practice’ has shone a light into a place that I didn’t even know was dark. In it’s simplest form reflective practice is just thinking back to some practice in the classroom or with colleagues and making improvements to improve the outcome for next time. However, Finlay has highlighted that there is more to the process of reflecting. She describes Schon’s seminal work (1983) where reflecting can be two forms ‘reflecting on practice’ (after the event thinking) and reflecting in practice (thinking while doing). Using the teaching as inquiry an example and evidence-based teaching Schon’s work can be thought of in the look-back and adapt approach. Putting it succinctly this is what we do at school. This is the comfortable model. Look back and adapt your teaching for future lessons or future cohorts by using data from generated evidence. Building in this in the field of education Grushka, Hinde-Mcleod and Reynolds (2005) further unpicked reflection to consider reflection on action, reflection in action and reflection on action. I can see a parallel of reflection for action as a planning tool for designing and considering learning activities, possibly this is what we do at the start if a unit of work. Critical reflection, however, is the next step in reflective practices. It’s reflection but with teeth. Reynolds (1998) helps with four characteristics of critical reflection:

(i) It's concerned with questioning assumptions

(ii) It’s social rather than having an individual focus

(iii) the particular attention it pays to the power of relations

(iv) its pursuit of emancipation

Since the goal of 2016 for this practitioner is to address the outcomes of the recent ERO report and address directly the issues around pedagogy, it appears critical reflection is the model to utilise. Current methods seek out reflections and use surveys and questionnaires to prompt thinking along 21st CLD rubrics or using the debatable SAMR model, but is this enough to bring about disruptive innovations in the classroom? Fullan (2013) explains that making use of the same system we have always used only serves to maintain the system, therefore, we will not see progress. Jay and Johnson (2002) pose some actively engaging questions for implementing as part of a more robust critical reflection with three intertwined dimensions:

• Descriptive
• Comparative and
• Critical reflection

In the provocations, they consider the place of research when comparing results with intentions of an activity and consider alternative solutions and their implications. Reflective practice such as Rolfe’s model allows us to reflect but it needs adapting and developing to enable critical reflection.

https://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/transfer/open/mentoring-and-coaching-core-skills/Media/832461/mcc_rolfe_reflective.png

Gibbs Model allows for more critical reflection which, for our school, needs to be designed into our appraisal system for staff to be able to engage critically.

http://distributedresearch.net/blog/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/gibbsmodelreflection.jpg

Our appraisal system has a column labeled reflection where staff can reflect on a goal but can we add more provocations to the format to tease out more ‘reflection in practice’ as opposed to 'reflection of practice'? Can we add some of Jay and Johnson’s dimensions to engage staff with contemporary research and therefore, consider alternative perspectives to the problem they are tackling? I’ll just reflect on that; because we do not pay for an appraisal system we can!

References

Finlay, L., (2008) Reflecting on reflective practice. PBPL paper 52

Fullan, M. (2013, March 20). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Pearson Canada.

Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and teacher education, 18(1), 73-85.

Activity 2: Reflection on learning and practice

Using Rolfe’s model:

What happened?

Unitec promoted the digital and collaborative learning course to schools, offering a free scholarship to study. My principal approached me in my capacity as the e-Learning facilitator to think about studying. I spoke with my wife and considered the home situation - we were hoping to buy our first home in NZ. Weighing up my situation and the developments at school I felt it was too good an opportunity to turn down.

24 weeks has flown by, from techno gadgets, apps, stop motion to discussions and provocations not forgetting singing the Welsh anthem in my head to blow up a barrel of dynamite. Digital and collaborative learning have opened my eyes to new experiences like you wouldn’t believe. The weeks of practical assignments and learning activities were, for the most part, enjoyable and they provided the foundation upon which discussion around each topic was built.
In week 3 I was asked to provide information about my own key competencies and what I wanted from the course:
Which of the following KCs are your personal strengths?

Response: Thinking, relating to others, participating and contributing

Which of the following KCs would you like to develop further during the next 32 weeks? Response: Using language, symbols, and texts, managing self

How does your own KCs have an impact on your leadership?

Response: I am able to think in relation to problems and analyse them to present others I find difficulty in relating my intentions to others.

So What?

However, upon reflection one area mentioned in passing is thinking and this is the area I feel I have developed most. In writing and engaging with different forms of media and academic papers for the assessments,  I have been made more aware of the need to back up assertions with current academic thinking, notwithstanding the need to communicate my own point of view on the topics.

I love to argue, and do so regularly on forums around the world, but not necessarily on professional topics. These weeks provided me with the opportunity to challenge and verbalise my thoughts and feelings about topics each week. Finding scholarly articles to back up or enable me to promulgate topics with some sort of authority I found quite enjoyable. However, I do feel that I scan read too much in the fear of missing the obvious, but I certainly know how to use the features of Google Docs to research topics easily.
For me the most enjoyable part of the 32 weeks were the first 16. In those weeks were actually learned the technology, we learned about new tools and tricks. It’s here I felt most at home. I need to understand the  tool or app or device to be able to apply it in my class. The scholarly work took me away from the tools and back to the mundanity of sharing learning for assessment purposes. I did learn to make a video for an assessment and this helped me share this style of sharing learning for assessment purposes with my year 11 class, but not all students engaged with video making, subsequently I have further explored YOUTUBE’s creator studio to make videos. This is an app and part of the GAFE suite which is free and completely underutilized at my school. However, students did enjoy the opportunity that creating videos gave them. A chance to collaborate on a making task. I wanted the students to make one of these, a sliding bevel and that was my main focus. Students were finding creative ways to waste materials and generally avoid completing the task.

Sliding bevel

Introducing the video element turned the sliding bevel project as secondary. They now wanted to complete the tool to be able to make a video which included music of course! Some persevered and completed the video. All students completed the making of the sliding bevel which was my main concern.

Now what?

Our ERO report asks us to:

• affirm New Zealand’s bi-cultural heritage and be responsive to students’ various cultures, languages and backgrounds
• promote high levels of interest and challenge, and encourage critical thinking and problem-solving
• support students to make decisions about what and how they learn, and make seamless transitions between schools and into the world of work and further learning.

This where GAFE can help.

The plans for this year reflect the key next steps of the ERO report. A lot of effort is going in to building a seamless curriculum. However, this can not be achieved without support from all the members of staff and by utilising the maximum benefit of the GAFE tools. Google forms can help connect with a number of members of staff and students so that we can build and ongoing understanding of the needs of teachers and students as we move towards a seamless curriculum and using research and best practices e.g.  ASCD. Furthermore, incorporating 21st CLD assessment grids for staff to be able to reflect on their progress towards developing critical thinking and problem-solving learning activities along with revisiting SOLO taxonomy as another means by which staff can construct their own So What’s to engagement with learning activities are our next steps.

Like me, many staff enjoy learning the new tools, but it is the pedagogical challenges we face to make the learning activities 'irresistibly engaging' Fullan 2013 as we build our future together.

Key changes to my practice:

• Teaching teachers tools to use by providing a drop in PL workshop. Teachers come and we talk about learning design and then try and find a tool to help. 
• Using the 21st CLD rubric to assess and measure learning activities in the department and use it as a discussion tool with staff.
• A more sensitive appreciation of cultural pedagogy and the application of Kota hi tanga within the classroom

References

Bishop, R., & Berryman, M. (2009, September). Maori Achievement: Te Kotahitanga Effective Teaching Profile. Retrieved January 27, 2016, from http://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/set2009_2_027.pdf


Dunne, K. (2016, January 12th). Retrieved from http://inservice.ascd.org/a-pd-plan-that-works-begin-by-asking-teachers-what-they-need/

Fullan, M. (2013, March 20). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Pearson Canada.

Microsoft Educator Network - Professional Development : 21st Century Learning Design. (n.d.). Retrieved January 27, 2016, from https://www.educatornetwork.com/pd/21CLD/Overview 

Rolfe (2001). Retrieved January 27, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_practice

SOLO taxonomy. (n.d.). Retrieved January 27, 2016, from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/solo.htm 

Activity 1: Introduction

This blog will form part of my Unitec Digital and Collaborative Learning course and as such will revolve around digital tools and pedagogy. I am Dorian Caudy, the HOD for Technology and eLearning facilitator at my school.

HOD of Technology, this is an interesting one. For me it encompasses all aspects of the Technology domain of learning including food technology, not that I am an expert and qualified to deliver all aspects of the technology curriculum. HOD of technology is a management role. Co-ordinating resources and day to day activities of the Technology department. Analysing staffing and deploying staff accordingly to support our tamariki in the best way possible to assist them along the pathway to success. The HOD role is also one of leadership. Curriculum decisions and staffing deployment will sometimes need to be led and staff may be asked to teach outside of their specialist subject area, especially in a small school such as ours. There is also the aspect of leading initiatives; elearning, standard alignment, culturally sensitive pedagogy, literacy, assessment for learning and more. Furthermore, the Technology department is a very expensive area of the school to operate if done well. There is a huge amount of capital invested in a Technology department and as such this capital equipment, machinery, must be kept up to safety standard to ensure safe operation during the school day. John Eggleston argues this point, “...managing the Design and Technology department is the most difficult management task in the school short of that of the head teacher”! (Eggleston 1996).

The curriculum in the department can also be quite fluid. As a HOD of a small department, the demands placed upon teachers to be more versatile in what they can deliver to the students and flexible about how tasks are resourced is tangible. As a Technology teacher I have taught in the following areas:

Generic Technology - essentially design thinking
Systems and Control - essentially design thinking from an electronic and engineering perspective up to level 3
Product Design - essentially taking inspiration from existing designers and redesigning products accordingly
Electro-technology - Unit standards
Automotive engineering - through MIT - unit standards
Mechanical engineering - through ITO - Competenz
Technology from the NZ curriculum especially standards that relate to implementing skills learned.
In 2016 I shall be delivering BCATs standards for a construction course.

However as a HOD I am also responsible for the performances of teachers within the department like Graphics, Home Economics and Hard Materials and the teachers delivering such subjects. It is a complex web of connections yet, myself and the members of the department form a community engaged around a common goal. The desire to lead students towards credit acquisition for the benefit of the academic progress and to follow a pathway to a career.

Here are some of the projects we have undertaken in the department thus far:-

The second aspect to the role I undertake is eLearing. We have embarked upon a process of improving the learning outcomes at our school and will be using SOME digital tools along the way. I teach Automotive Engineering and construction but have taught systems and control topics up to level 3. It is my aim to make more productive use of the Google Apps for Education suite to enhance the experiences of the students and empower them to keep exploring the digital age in new and innovative ways.

References:

Eggleston, J. (1996). Teaching design and technology. Buckingham [England]: Open University Press.