Reflective Entry 8: Evaluate the outcomes of a digital and collaborative innovation in your practice from an educational research perspective.

Tiven, Fuchs, Bazari, and MacQuarrie (2018), state that there are three evaluation types important to understand what a program is accomplishing and how outcomes can be enhanced and strengthened: 

• needs assessments

• process evaluations

• outcome evaluations

I have considered this evaluation framework against the research I have undertaken and will make reference to the evaluation types throughout. 

Needs assessments

This 33-week journey has led me to the point of identifying and implementing a digital and collaborative innovation in my practice. This ultimately led me to explore the question:

If I use collaborative digital tools, how will it affect critical thinking (knowledge construction) and collaboration in my Year 1/2 priority learners? Key outcomes for me to evaluate from an educational research perspective concern whether there have been improvements in critical thinking (knowledge construction) and collaboration in my Year 1/2 priority learners as a result of them using collaborative digital tools.

Process evaluations

During the implementation of this innovation, there were a number of challenges that resulted in changes needed to be made to the implementation plan and for the innovation to pivot slightly, whilst still maintaining the integrity and working towards the intended outcomes. 

The student community within the classroom is made up of 14 students - 7 girls and 7 boys. I have identified 4 priority learners that I proposed to be the students that will most benefit from this innovation. I had planned for the implementation of my innovation to be staggered. This was based on my research into the Diffusion of Innovations Theory (Rodgers, 1962) and how innovations are communicated over time amongst participants in a social system. With knowledge of this I had identified 2 students within the classroom as early adopters to first trial the innovation with. It was then intended for these students to support other students by modelling their learning and collaboration on iPads and Explain Everything for the benefit of most of the remaining students - the early majority. Moore (1999), would define this stage of the innovation as “Crossing the Chasm” whereby the innovation could potentially fail due to its inability to reach the early majority. In reality, the innovation was unable to be implemented in a staggered way as a result of the classroom contact time that I had with the class, only working part-time. Instead, all students were exposed to the innovation at once and there was a surprisingly large number of students immediately feeling comfortable with this new way of learning. The students modelled a generally good level of the appropriate use of iPads and CyberSmart behaviours.

Outcome evaluations

The Collaboration and Knowledge Construction (Critical Thinking) 21st Century Learning Design Rubrics (ITL Research, 2012) were used three times throughout the implementation plan to measure changes in students against the rubric criteria. The data is set out on the two tables below:

Collaboration Rubric Score	Baseline	Midpoint	Summative
1
2	12
3	2	12	1
4		2	13
5

Knowledge Construction Rubric Score	Baseline	Midpoint	Summative
1
2	14
3		14	1
4			13
5

The first time the 21st Century Learning Design Rubrics (ITL Research, 2012) were implemented the findings were low scores for both collaboration and knowledge construction. The tasks the students were collaborating on required them to work together but the majority did not have shared responsibility. The students were also constructing knowledge, but that was not the main purpose of the tasks. 

The second time the 21st Century Learning Design Rubrics (ITL Research, 2012) were implemented the findings resulted in a shift for all students moving up a score in both collaboration and knowledge construction. Students had shared responsibility for the task but a majority were not required to make substantive decisions together during collaboration, however 2 students were. For knowledge construction all learners scored a 3 which meant the learning activity’s main requirement was knowledge construction but the learning activity did not require students to apply their knowledge in a new context. These findings informed changes to my implementation plan to see if I could elevate collaboration and knowledge construction further during the remainder of the innovation. 

The third and final time the 21st Century Learning Design Rubrics (ITL Research, 2012) were implemented, at the conclusion of the innovation, there had been significant shifts in the collaboration and knowledge construction rubric scores when compared against the start of the innovation. Most students, including all of my target students, were able to collaborate by having shared responsibility, and by making substantive decisions together about the content, process, or product of their work. In regards to knowledge construction, a majority of the students, including all of my identified target students reached a rubric score of 4. This means that the learning activity’s main requirement that they were engaged with was knowledge construction and it required students to apply their knowledge in a new context. Falloon (2015), suggests the mobility of an iPad supports effective collaboration by allowing students to work together in different spaces and places. However, simply having access to and using iPads didn't guarantee collaboration and critical thinking amongst students. The use of iPads and Explain Everything had to be embedded in learning that was purposely designed to develop collaboration and critical thinking skills (Falloon, 2015) and I believe the positive outcomes achieved in this innovation are as a result of that.

Student and Whānau Voice

A GoogleForm was administered to gather student and whānau voice in relation to collaboration and knowledge construction. It was clear from the initial form conducted part way through the innovation that students thought they were thinking critically and collaborating at a high level. This made me realise the need to further unpact these concepts with my learners and roleplay higher levels of collaboration and critical thinking. This change supported the findings of the final GoogleForm which indicated that as well as developing critical thinking and collaboration skills learners had further developed the Key Competencies (Ministry of Education, 2007) of ‘relating to others’ and ‘thinking’. 

As evidenced in the GoogleForm whānau have a much greater understanding of what critical thinking (knowledge construction) is and how they can support that both at home and school. This innovation changed the viewpoint of our whānau and further engaged them as an important learning stakeholder.

Future Focus 

Whilst there are many outcomes “specific changes in attitudes, behaviors, knowledge, skills, status” (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 1998, p.8.) which changed as a result of my innovation there is still room to further develop the collaborative and knowledge constructing skills and dispositions in my class, as evidenced by qualitative and quantitative data gathered. In 2021, the next steps will be to provide for collaborative tasks that ensure learning is interdependent and the learning activities have learning goals in more than one subject. 

Conclusion 

Ultimately, despite its changes and the peculiarities of 2020, the innovation was a success as evidenced by whānau and student feedback and data. Therefore, it can be stated that the use of collaborative digital tools has positively affected critical thinking (knowledge construction) and collaboration amongst my Year 1/2 priority learners.

References

ITL Research. (2012). 21CLD Learning Activity Rubrics. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/34212053/21CLD_Learning_Activity_Rubrics

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. 

Moore, G. (1999). Crossing the Chasm, Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers. New York: HarperCollins.

Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press of Glencoe.

Tiven, M. E., Fuchs, E., Bazari, A., & MacQuarrie, A. (2018). Evaluating global digital education: Student outcomes framework. New York, NY: Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/Evaluating-Global-Digital-Education-Student-Outcomes-Framework.pdf

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (1998). Logic Model Development Guide. Retrieved from https://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resources/2004/01/logic-model-development-guide

Reflective Entry 7: 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.

My digital and collaborative innovation to improve students collaboration and critical thinking skills (knowledge construction) was guided and enhanced by several national educational policies/guidelines and informed by contemporary educational theory during its application. 

Policies and Guidelines

The policies/frameworks that impacted on and informed my digital and collaborative innovation included the following:

• e-Learning Planning Framework (eLPF)

• Digital Technologies in The New Zealand Curriculum

• National Education Goals

• Ka Hikitia – Ka Hāpaitia | The Māori Education Strategy

I first explored the e-Learning Planning Framework (eLPF) (Ministry of Education, n.d.) during the initial phases of my digital and collaborative innovation. This was partly to familiarise me with the tool and to also consider where my school and my practice was in relation to the eLPF.

The framework is designed to help schools and teachers reflect on and evaluate their e-learning capability based on five phases - pre-emerging, emerging, engaging, extending and empowering. These phases have “been aligned with a number of international frameworks that describe how technology is adopted and integrated into teaching and learning” (Ministry of Education. n.d). After reviewing the eLPF, I considered that the school was generally well placed and most practice would be engaging or extending in terms of the phases. The school benefits from effectively aligned processes and practices across the school and community. Therefore my innovation was able to build off this sound platform. I considered that my innovation aligned with the engaging phase as I endeavoured to use digital technologies appropriately to support higher-order (deep/critical), collaborative teaching and learning. Students were required to work collaboratively on iPads using the app Explain Everything to construct knowledge around the theme of energy. Multimodal resources were able to be utilised to enhance and build learners’ conceptual knowledge and critical thinking. This would have only been possible by using digital tools. In order to meet the extending phase, I would need to have established authentic collaboration with students to develop co-constructed learning throughout the innovation. Further work on this in the future could see this become a reality.

The New Zealand Technology Curriculum with the addition of Digital Technologies and Hangarau Matihiko learning (Ministry of Education, 2018) sets out the expectation that learners will be scaffolded to become competent users of digital tools, enabling them to be active members of society. The National Education Goals (NEG) 3 and 5 also talk about the importance of students developing a high level of knowledge, understanding and skills so that they can be successful in the modern world (Ministry of Education, 2019). My innovation sought to develop collaboration and critical thinking (knowledge construction) while simultaneously developing learners’ exposure and knowledge of different digital technologies. This innovation allowed learners to be exposed to different digital tools, resources and applications and to create their own digital outcomes. Explain Everything was used on iPads as a tool for collaborating, accessing and creating learning and thinking critically. 

Ka Hikitia (Ministry of Education, 2017) is a cross-agency strategy for the education sector to achieve system shifts to ensure that Māori are enjoying and achieving education success as Māori. This strategy highlights the benefits of establishing and maintaining strong and reciprocal relationships with Māori learners and their whānau. This approach benefits not only Māori learners but all learners. There are five outcome domains to support excellent outcomes for Māori learners and whānau. They are;

• Te Whānau: Education provision responds to learners within the context of their whānau.

• Te Tangata: Māori are free from racism, discrimination and stigma in education.

• Te Kanorautanga: Māori are diverse and need to be understood in the context of their diverse aspirations and lived experiences.

• Te Tuakiritanga: Identity, language and culture matter for Māori learners.

• Te Rangatiratanga: Māori exercise their authority and agency in education.

I believe these 5 domains were well catered for within my innovation. Specifically, this innovation provided for enhanced relationships with my learners’ whānau to develop and encouraged whānau to engage and participate as an equal part in the education of their ākonga. Grappling with this issue of whānau participation throughout the innovation resulted in me significantly adapting the approach taken towards engaging whānau. My aspiration was for them to be active participants from the onset of the innovation. This morphed into active supporters as the innovation continued. Continuing to implement practices that provide for learners to learn within the context of whānau will be imperative moving forward.

The contemporary education theories that impacted on and informed my digital and collaborative innovation included the following:

• Connectivist Learning Theory

• Social Constructivist Theory

Connectivist Learning Theory or connectivism is underpinned by the notion that knowledge is created through connections and learning occurs through the networks to which learners belong (Starkey, 2012). The idea that the teacher is the font of all knowledge is challenged and instead collaboration and connections between learners, learners and community, and learners and experts beyond the classroom. Within my innovation, learners worked collaboratively to create new learning. They were involved in shared learning experiences regarding the topic of energy, recording and discussing their ideas in groups, allowing students to construct knowledge and think critically about the topic. This aligns with connectivism, where learners can access and gather information from and share information with the rest of the world (Siemens, 2005) & (Downes, 2010). 

Social Constructivist Theory of constructivism views learners as “‘constructors’ of meaning, actively seeking to discover and learn” (Krause et al, 2010, p.198). Within social development, it can be linked to Lev Vygotsky, who believed that knowledge is co-constructed and that individuals learn from one another (McLeod, 2014). Vygotsky identified the zone of proximal development, which is the difference between the learner’s current level of understanding or skill and the level they can achieve with support (Krause et al, 2010). My innovation actively embraced constructivism and explicitly encouraged students to construct knowledge and demonstrate that by utilising digital technologies. Learners were also supported with extension and guidance when needed by either their peers or the teacher, ensuring learners were operating in their zone of proximal development.

Throughout my innovation, there were a variety of delivery models. A combination of blended, online and self-directed learning was used within each lesson. Students were encouraged to use iPads and Explain Everything to capture their ideas so they could use video and audio recording, images, photos and voice to construct knowledge. This allowed for blended learning as some students were using a variety of other tools to support their learning, such as creating a model using paper and then photographing it on the iPad to share on Explain Everything. All explicit teaching and learning was made available through the learning site online and was fully rewindable, meaning students could rewatch the video of the lesson as many times as they would like, promoting self-directed learning. This was generally well-received considering the students were year 1/2 learners. They appreciated the variety while maintaining an element of structure throughout the innovation.  

References

Downes, S. (2010). New technology supporting informal learning. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence, 2(1), 27-33.

Krause, K., Bochner, S., Duchesne, S., & McMaugh, A. (2010). Educational Psychology for Learning and Teaching (3rd ed.). South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Cengage Learning Australia.

Ministry of Education. (n.d.). E-learning Planning Framework. Retrieved from

http://elearning.tki.org.nz/Professional-learning/e-Learning-Planning-Framework#framework

Ministry of Education. (2017). Ka Hikitia. Retrieved from: https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/overall-strategies-and-policies/ka-hikitia-accelerating-success-20132017/the-maori-education-strategy-ka-hikitia-accelerating-success-2013-2017/

Ministry of Education. (2018). Digital Technologies and Hangarau Matihiko learning. Retrieved from https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/changes-in-education/digital-technologies-and-hangara  u-matihiko-learning/

Ministry of Education. (2019). National Education Goals. Retrieved from https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/legislation/negs/

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), pp.3-10.

Starkey, L. (2012). Teaching and learning in the digital age. ProQuest Ebook Central. Retrieved from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com 

Reflective Entry 6: 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

Laws, regulations and policies have influenced, guided and regulated the systems and conditions surrounding my digital and collaborative learning innovation. Consciously and unconsciously, they have contributed to my innovation. 

Within our school there are a number of policies that have been relevant to this innovation. Namely our school’s copyright policy, use of images policy and ICT policy. The ICT Policy is also supported by a Kawa of Care document. The Kawa of Care is a document that all students and whānau sign to indicate they understand and accept the rights and responsibilities associated with using iPads and Chromebooks. The Kawa of Care also outlines the expectation of students to participate in and become CyberSmart Learners. CyberSmart focuses on empowering our young people to engage in online behaviour and thinking that elevates positive actions (Manaiakalani, n.d.). It is school policy that students and whānau sign the Kawa of Care document, which sets the platform for effective use of digital tools within our kura. This approach aligns with UNESCO (2013), who advocate for schools to promote the responsible and healthy use of mobile technologies. Throughout the innovation, the students' use of iPads was generally appropriate, with most students consistently demonstrating the Kawa of Care. I believe this to be a result of the explicit teaching relating to the appropriate use of devices and the Kawa of Care. By bringing school policy to life i.e. explicit and consistent teaching and learning related to the policy, it has become a relevant, living policy, rather than something that is used to hold students accountable when things go wrong. 

These policies were formed to give effect to the Education Act 1989, and have been refreshed and updated where necessary to give effect to the subsequent Education and Training Act 2020. Unlike policies, a law is a set of directives set by the Government to allow for the smooth functioning of the country. Laws constitute the minimum behavioural rules to be followed and apply to everyone that the legislative body has legislation over (UpJourney, 2019). The Education and Training Act 2020 contains provisions that are directly relevant to how schools should manage an incident involving digital technology when it is involved in an incident (Ministry of Education, n.d.). These acts and provisions guided the application of my innovation, albeit indirectly and less explicitly when compared against the policy framework which there was a direct and explicit connection with. 

The Technology Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) has recently been revised to incorporate Digital Technologies and Hangarau Matihiko learning (Ministry of Education, 2018). From the beginning of this year, the teaching of digital technologies through and within the curriculum is expected for all students from year 1. This change was designed to ensure students develop skills to be innovative creators of digital solutions, rather than just users and consumers of digital technologies (Ministry of Education, 2018). This curriculum area has two technological areas; computational thinking skills and developing and designing digital outcomes. Within my classroom, students are generally working to progress outcome indicator one. Whilst using iPads, students have been exposed to some applications and gained an understanding that digital devices store content, which can be retrieved later (Ministry of Education, 2018). The Technology Curriculum guided my planning, implementation and expected outcomes for students and supported me to make explicit connections between my innovation, its desired outcomes, and the New Zealand Curriculum. 

The e-Learning Planning Framework (eLPF) (Ministry of Education, n.d.) is a framework to help schools and teachers reflect on and evaluate their e-learning capability based on five phases - pre-emerging, emerging, engaging, extending and empowering. After reviewing the eLPF, I considered that my innovation aligned with the engaging phase as I endeavoured to use digital technologies appropriately to support higher-order (deep/critical), collaborative teaching and learning. In order to meet the extending phase, I would need to have established authentic collaboration with students to develop co-constructed learning throughout the innovation. 

By examining the laws, regulations and policies operating within my school and the wider education sphere, I have a newfound appreciation of the relevance of these. By considering these from a view of how they affect my innovation, I have been able to synthesise relevant laws, regulations and policy and now have a much clearer understanding of their impact on my professional practice and the learning culture within my classroom. 

References

Manaiakalani. (n.d.). Manaiakalani CyberSmart - Smart Learners. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/manaiakalani.org/manaiakalani-cybersmart/being-cybersmart/smart-learners

Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Digital Technology: Safe and responsible use in schools. Retrieved December 1, 2020, from https://education.govt.nz/school/digital-technology/digital-technology-guide-for-schools/digital-technology-safe-and-responsible-use-in-schools/new-cd-page-3/the-legislation-and-rules/

Ministry of Education. (n.d.). E-learning Planning Framework. Retrieved from

http://elearning.tki.org.nz/Professional-learning/e-Learning-Planning-Framework#framework

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Retrieved from https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum

Ministry of Education. (2018). Digital Technologies and Hangarau Matihiko learning. Retrieved from https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/changes-in-education/digital-technologies-and-hangarau-matihiko-learning/

UNESCO. (2013). Policy guidelines for mobile learning. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000219641_eng

UpJourney. (2019). What Is the Difference Between Law, Policy, and Regulation, According to 7 Experts. https://upjourney.com/what-is-the-difference-between-law-policy-and-regulation

Reflective Entry 5: 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

As I implemented my digital and collaborative learning innovation in my practice, I was confronted with a number of issues pertaining to ethics, society, and culture. To a varying degree, these issues were influenced by the different professional environments within the school.

According to Regan (2012), ethical conduct is fundamentally about respect, respecting others as well as ourselves. The Code of Professional Responsibility and Standards for the Teaching Profession (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, 2017) sets out the high standards for ethical behaviour that are expected of every teacher. Having an awareness and understanding of the ethical behaviours expected of teachers is the first step in understanding how to better address ethical issues that may arise. I have identified the use of digital tools (iPads and Explain Everything) within my innovation as an opportunity to question, challenge and address digital ethics issues.   

As technology continues to advance at an exponential rate, the opportunities and power associated with it appear endless; however, Leonhard (2018), reminds us that “with great power comes great responsibility”. Highlighting the requirement to use technology for good, or in other words, “do the right thing with technology because in theory, very soon, with technology we can do anything” (Leonhard, 2018). 

While the use of digital technology continues to increase, Mark & Nguyen (2017), argue that what remains unclear is if students actually know how to use these tools safely, responsibly and ethically, and students should be better prepared and protected when engaging online (UNICEF, 2017). Explicitly teaching cyber safety surrounding the growing existence of internet dangers is deemed important by Mark & Nguyen (2017), and throughout my innovation, the deliberate and explicit teaching of CyberSmart was critical. This focused on empowering our young people to engage in online behaviour and thinking that elevates positive actions (Manaiakalani, n.d.), compared to cyber safety, which often involves locking down networks/sites and restricting device use. It is school policy that students and whānau sign a Kawa of Care document, which sets the platform for effective use of digital tools within our kura. A strong focus on CyberSmart and the Kawa of Care throughout my innovation ensured the ethics surrounding safe digital technology use were appropriately dealt with. Through this process, important ethics discussions took place with ākonga, which Mark & Nguyen (2017) highlight as important.

The culture of collaboration and innovation is encouraged through the professional environments that exist at my school.  According to the Ministry of Education (2016), school culture consists of the "customs, rituals, and stories that are evident and valued throughout the whole school”. This culture of collaboration and innovation positively influenced my innovation throughout the trial and implementation. This culture also allowed for inclusive education practices, which the Ministry of Education (2016), define as ensuring students and their families do not feel alienated either from their own culture or from the culture of the school. The collaborative aspects of my innovation create opportunities for cultural issues to arise. This initiative made connections with the Rangahau, (n.d.) principles of Whānau (The Principle of Growing Respectful Relationships) and Ata (The Principle of Growing Respectful Relationships) by allowing students and whānau to collaborate with each other by using collaborative digital tools built on respectful relationships. Students were empowered to work collaboratively as a result of the strong cultural and social skillset and relationships that had been encouraged throughout the year. Vail (2018), has researched the importance of culturally inclusive pedagogical approaches and found that it is appropriate to consider and implement learning that is culturally diverse when delivering digital learning. I believe that this has been well catered for throughout my innovation. 

A socio-cultural issue that developed during the implementation of this innovation was the participation levels of whānau as active supporters and participants in the innovation process. Whilst the parental and whānau support is generally high at our kura, through this innovation it has become clear that the willingness of whānau to be involved in extra-curricular school commitments and short interactions with teachers and students regarding the curriculum, is preferred rather than daily or recurring involvement regarding learning. Grappling with this issue of whānau participation throughout the innovation resulting in me significantly adapting the approach taken towards engaging whānau. My aspiration was for them to be active participants from the onset of the innovation. This morphed into active supporters as the innovation continued. Ka Hikitia (2017), explains and highlights the importance of involving whānau in learning conversations. While this innovation did not result in the high levels of whānau participation that I desired, it needs to be looked at within a 2020 context, off the back of significant lockdowns and distribution and changes to daily life. Whilst this issue presented a challenge to my innovation, it did not prevent the innovation for achieving some of the desired outcomes. Moving forward, I will continue to reflect upon how best to engage whānau in learning focussed discussions and innovations. 

References

Leonhard, G. (2014) Digital ethics and the future of humans in a connected world. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/bZn0IfOb61U

Manaiakalani. (n.d.). Manaiakalani CyberSmart - Smart Learners. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/manaiakalani.org/manaiakalani-cybersmart/being-cybersmart/smart-learners

Mark, L. K., & Nguyen, T. T. T. (2017). An Invitation to Internet Safety and Ethics: School and Family Collaboration. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 23, 62-75. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1184559.pdf

Ministry of Education. (2016). Areas of Practice. Retrieved from http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Leadership-development/Key-leadership-documents/Kiwi-leadership-for-principals/Areas-of-practice#eztoc7808_0_1

Ministry of Education. (2017). Ka Hikitia. Retrieved from: https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/overall-strategies-and-policies/ka-hikitia-accelerating-success-20132017/the-maori-education-strategy-ka-hikitia-accelerating-success-2013-2017/

Rangahau (n.d). Principles of Kaupapa Māori. Retrieved from http://www.rangahau.co.nz/research-idea/27/

Regan, M. (2012). Modelling Ethical Conduct in the Classroom. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/ethical-conduct-classroom-margaret-regan

Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. (2017). The Code of Professional Responsibility and Standards for the Teaching Profession. Retrieved from https://teachingcouncilnz.cwp.govt.nz/assets/Files/Code-and-Standards/Our-Code-Our-Standards.pdf

UNICEF. (2017). Children in a digital world. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/publications/files/SOWC_2017_ENG_WEB.pdf

Vail, H. (2018). Examining the need for culturally responsive digital learning. Waikato Journal of Education (2382-0373), 23(2), 17–23. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331650100_Examining_the_need_for_culturally_responsive_digital_learning

Reflective entry 4: State the research question(s), and explain how the question(s) have been developed and how they relate to a Kaupapa Māori approach to knowledge gathering and community priorities

Throughout this reflective process, I have been able to clarify and refine my thinking regarding my research topic and explore areas within my practice that need to be refined in order to remove barriers for all learners. Having been through this process, I now feel it is appropriate to identify my research question. I knew from the research I had done on my community (stakeholders) that it needed to be focussed on developing critical thinking (knowledge construction) and collaboration. I knew my intended audience was my year 1/2 students and their whānau. My focus needed to be evidence-based and future skills focussed, hence my desire to use the ITL Research 21st Century Learning Design Rubrics (ITL Research, 2012). Further to this, I wanted it to be holistic across the curriculum and set within a learner inquiry focus on energy. Prior to settling on the words to use I wanted to ensure that my topic appropriately embodied a Kaupapa Māori approach to knowledge gathering and our community priorities.

Wehipeihana (2019, p. 21), defines Kaupapa Māori as being “concerned with both methodology (a process of enquiry that determines the methods used) and method (the tools that can be used to produce and analyse data)”. Moeke-Maxwell (2015), suggests the following should be at the heart of the research process; Māori participation within the research process; Māori partnership within the research process; Protection of Māori within the research process. It is therefore important that I ensure this kaupapa is embodied throughout my research question and subsequent research.

According to Rangahau (n.d). the potential of Kaupapa Māori is based upon a number of elements or principles:

Tino Rangatiratanga - The Principle of Self-determination
Taonga Tuku Iho - The Principle of Cultural Aspiration
Ako - The Principle of Culturally Preferred Pedagogy
Kia piki ake i ngā raruraru o te kāinga - The Principle of Socio-Economic Mediation
Whānau - The Principle of the Family Structure
Kaupapa - The Principle of Collective Philosophy
Te Tiriti o Waitangi - The Principle of the Treaty of Waitangi
Ata - The Principle of Growing Respectful Relationships

I used the following research question template accessed from The Mind Lab, which has been adapted from Riel (2018), to support the development of my research question and its connections with a Kaupapa Māori approach to knowledge gathering.


Adapted from Riel, M. (2018, Sept 10).T8-Analyzing Data. [video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkNQJUzmkrI​

By using this template I was able to make sense of the ideas swirling around in my mind and ideate a clear and measurable research question; If I use collaborative digital tools how will it affect critical thinking (knowledge construction) and collaboration in my Year 1/2 priority learners?

This research question and methodology embodies the following Kaupapa Māori principles from Rangahau (n.d);

Tino Rangatiratanga - The Principle of Self-determination (Rangahau, n.d).

The research question makes connections with Tino Rangatiratanga by allowing learners to have autonomy, control and independence to choose digital tools that work best for them from their perspective. Learners authentic voice is what will guide the selection and use of these tools. For the students to make substantive decisions about content, form or product, the technology needs to be quite flexible in the ways it could be used. From a knowledge gathering and research methodology viewpoint, Tino Rangatiratanga is enacted by allowing learner agency and control over participation and outcomes through the research topic.

Taonga Tuku Iho - The Principle of Cultural Aspiration (Rangahau, n.d).

The question makes connections with Taonga Tuku Iho by allowing learners to bring their own knowledge and understanding of the world to the concepts of critical thinking (knowledge construction) and collaboration and having their knowledge validated in its own right. From a knowledge gathering and research methodology viewpoint, Taonga Tuku Iho reminds me of the need to ensure that Māori learners are able to achieve educational success as Maori and as such the assessment indicators that are used should be reflective of Te Ao Māori worldview. I will need to be constantly vigilant to ensure that the ITL Research 21st Century Learning Design Rubrics (ITL Research, 2012), indeed achieve this outcome and adapt them as appropriate.

Whānau -  The Principle of Extended Family Structure
Ata - The Principle of Growing Respectful Relationships (Rangahau, n.d).

The research question makes connections with Whānau and Ata by allowing students to collaborate with each other by using collaborative digital tools built on respectful relationships. The ability to work collaboratively acknowledges the relationships that learners have to one another and to the world around them. Effective collaboration will be built off a foundation of strong relationships throughout the research topic, between learners, between myself and the learners, and between whānau. By modelling engagement with whānau by including them as equal partners in the research topic, it is hoped that my learners see whakawhanaungatanga in action.

I believe this research question embodies a Kaupapa Māori approach to knowledge gathering and community priorities. I now believe I am in a research-informed position to embark on the development of a plan that shows how I would lead this research question through its implementation.

References

ITL Research. (2012). 21CLD Learning Activity Rubrics. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/34212053/21CLD_Learning_Activity_Rubrics

Moeke-Maxwell, T. (2015. Sep 7). Dr Tess Moeke-Maxwell discusses Kaupapa Maori research. [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=yHfEXqBcBig&feature=emb_logo

Rangahau (n.d). Principles of Kaupapa Māori. Retrieved from http://www.rangahau.co.nz/research-idea/27/

Riel, M. (2018, Sept 10). T8-Analyzing Data. [video file]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkNQJUzmkrI

Wehipeihana, N. (2019). What’s working for Māori? A Kaupapa Māori perspective on the responsiveness of the Integrated Safety Response pilot to Māori - Synthesis Evaluation Report. https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/nOD858un-Kaupapa-Maori-Report.pdf