The journey of learning should never end. That is what we sell to our students and expect them to push themselves to be better and grow. Mindlab afforded me the opportunity to learn and grow in my own practice and self. Initially I thought I would come away with ICT tools to better my delivery in class but found much more. Reflecting and leading have become major growth elements of my journey and I am thankful for the tools that Mindlab has provided. When buttoning down on a specific improvement for this final reflection there were many changes to my practice and pedagogy so this in itself was a challenge.
Activity 8: Key change in my professional practice
Step 1 (What): Identify one key change in your professional practice
- Learning-focused culture - Develop a culture that is focused on learning, and is characterised by respect, inclusion, empathy, collaboration and safety.
Collaboration - identified in the code of standards and the Hack Education Research Project (2016) as a tool that children will need in the future and, I have found, is transferable to all curriculum areas. This ability to work together was a challenge for the pupils in my class who are at a very egocentric stage of life. They have challenges arising form the Canterbury earthquakes that are varying in their extent.
With the collaborative process I have identified and used many tools that support implementation in the class. The act of collaboration has seen the rise of tuakana teina relationships between the students. Strengths possessed by individuals are shared and repaid in kind. Children were initially challenged identifying these skills but showed they found value in focusing on strengths and finding peers to support challenges.
Step 2 (Now what): Evaluate the identified change
Problem Identification
Children performing below national standards were targetted by the teacher. Time and perception of the pupils but dampers on their progress and they seemed to come up in every cycle with similar problems. This raises the question if doing what you've always done will give you what you've always got or what is the reality. Osterman and Kottkamp (2015) suggest reasons for a change in practice, and would a change work. I felt the need to change for the benefit of these pupils without hampering others who were succeeding by stealing time or resource.
Observation and analysis
Use of previous and current assessment supported my assumption of these children continuing to struggle, these included PAT testing, STAR tests, running records, GloSS and e-asTTle. Having previously taught these children also gave credence to my anecdotal notes and observations. This prior knowledge of the learners gave me good insights into the strengths that could be shared amongst the group.
Abstract re conceptualization
Set up in a number of ways in the class through curriculum I will focus specifically on changes made in math program. The outcomes I hoped for may not have measured across all students as successful. We need to consider interventions trailed previously and build on these or disregard depending on success.
The target children had taken part in a Maths intervention based around acceleration (ALiM). These pupils were able to express what they were learning and question when they didn't understand and became a good base for focus and model for feedback to the class. They were sought after buddies although they didn't always understand new concepts they displayed a positive attitude and 'had a go'.
Active experimentation
I chose to work with a neighbouring teacher. We grouped both classes, focusing on a multilevel approach. The children identified individual strengths in Math at the initial stage. The delivery was pitched at the higher end of strategy and knowledge. Time was set in the session for peer discussion and collaboration. Children were encouraged to support and look for support where needed.
A positive off side to this was freeing up of teacher to target those children who may be challenged by the freedom this agency provided. Supporting these children to stay on task and come up with educated theory relating to problems was pleasing.
The cycle with the neighbour teacher involved a 2 week rotation where each teacher had a mandate around specific focus and delivery. When based in one room the focus was on ubiquitous problem solving tasks, again focused at the more able students and games. The other room was set for more curriculum based strategies and use of technology to support learning in the form of basic fact drills and study ladder.
The children were more focused and engaged. The major assessments are yet to happen but reporting and anecdotally improvements have been shown. Interestingly in interviews the majority of children expressed a dislike for the system showing a ingrown need to be led and spoon-fed. Hopefully, with persistence they will see and respond to the benefits of using this approach.
Step 2 (Now what): Evaluate the identified change
Children performing below national standards were targetted by the teacher. Time and perception of the pupils but dampers on their progress and they seemed to come up in every cycle with similar problems. This raises the question if doing what you've always done will give you what you've always got or what is the reality. Osterman and Kottkamp (2015) suggest reasons for a change in practice, and would a change work. I felt the need to change for the benefit of these pupils without hampering others who were succeeding by stealing time or resource.
Observation and analysis
Use of previous and current assessment supported my assumption of these children continuing to struggle, these included PAT testing, STAR tests, running records, GloSS and e-asTTle. Having previously taught these children also gave credence to my anecdotal notes and observations. This prior knowledge of the learners gave me good insights into the strengths that could be shared amongst the group.
Abstract re conceptualization
Set up in a number of ways in the class through curriculum I will focus specifically on changes made in math program. The outcomes I hoped for may not have measured across all students as successful. We need to consider interventions trailed previously and build on these or disregard depending on success.
The target children had taken part in a Maths intervention based around acceleration (ALiM). These pupils were able to express what they were learning and question when they didn't understand and became a good base for focus and model for feedback to the class. They were sought after buddies although they didn't always understand new concepts they displayed a positive attitude and 'had a go'.
Active experimentation
I chose to work with a neighbouring teacher. We grouped both classes, focusing on a multilevel approach. The children identified individual strengths in Math at the initial stage. The delivery was pitched at the higher end of strategy and knowledge. Time was set in the session for peer discussion and collaboration. Children were encouraged to support and look for support where needed.
A positive off side to this was freeing up of teacher to target those children who may be challenged by the freedom this agency provided. Supporting these children to stay on task and come up with educated theory relating to problems was pleasing.
The cycle with the neighbour teacher involved a 2 week rotation where each teacher had a mandate around specific focus and delivery. When based in one room the focus was on ubiquitous problem solving tasks, again focused at the more able students and games. The other room was set for more curriculum based strategies and use of technology to support learning in the form of basic fact drills and study ladder.
The children were more focused and engaged. The major assessments are yet to happen but reporting and anecdotally improvements have been shown. Interestingly in interviews the majority of children expressed a dislike for the system showing a ingrown need to be led and spoon-fed. Hopefully, with persistence they will see and respond to the benefits of using this approach.
Bolstad, R. & MacDonald,J.(2016). An analysis of participant blogs supplemented by teacher interviews. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Osterman, K. & Kottkamp, R.(1993). Reflective Practice for Educators.California.Corwin Press, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.itslifejimbutn otasweknowit.org.uk/files
Osterman, K. F., & Kottkamp, R. B. (2015). Reflective practice for educators: professional development to improve student learning.(2nd ed.) New York: Skyhorse Publishing.
Ministry of Education. (2017). Our code, our standards. Retrieved from https://educationcouncil.org.nz/content/our-code-our-standards
No comments:
Post a Comment