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

Reflective entry 3: Demonstrate a critical understanding of how indigenous knowledge (IK) and cultural responsiveness (CR) inform your practice and research topic.

The opportunity to consider how indigenous knowledge and cultural responsiveness informs my practice and research topic presents a real opportunity for me to critique and change my practice. Wilson, (2008, p. 135) suggests that “If research doesn’t change you as a person, then you haven’t done it right.” Without an increased awareness and understanding of indigenous knowledge and cultural responsiveness, I run the risk of limiting the success of my research topic, my professional practice and ultimately the success of my ākonga.

My classroom is made up of primarily pakeha learners, with 2 of the 12 identifying as Māori. I do know that not all learners of Māori whakapapa record this accurately on the schools learning management system, and as such, I anticipate that this number could be higher. Irrespective of the percentage of Māori students in my class, research has shown that “What works for Māori works for everyone. But what works for everyone does not necessarily work best for Māori” (Ministry of Education, 2013). This highlights the need to ensure my research topic and practice is centered within a te ao Māori worldview in order to reach all learners.

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological System Theory (Härkönen, 2001), which I used in my second reflective post, also provides a framework to consider cultural responsiveness. The macrosystem ecosystem relates to the attitudes and ideologies of culture that are surrounding and influencing students at the broadest level. The important realisation here is that societal and cultural values do impact on individuals and their wellbeing.

Although the macrosystem in which the students operate may reflect their culture and values, this has a lesser ability to influence them significantly, when compared to the things within their microsystem, such as their classroom and school. This highlights to me the importance of ensuring indigenous knowledge and cultural responsiveness is embedded within my classroom practice and that students see their knowledge and culture reflected also. The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) has at its core eight principles, one of which is cultural diversity, which calls on schools and teachers to deliver a curriculum that is culturally diverse and values the histories and traditions of all people within Aotearoa/New Zealand.

I am strongly moved by the following from the Ministry of Education, (2012) “The culture of the student can only enter the classroom once it has entered the mind of the teacher.” As I continue to consider my classroom practice in general I turned to Ann Milne’s Action Continuum - eliminating White spaces (Core Education, 2017).


CORE Education. (2017). Dr Ann Milne, Colouring in the white spaces:
Reclaiming cultural identity in whitestream schools.[video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cTvi5qxqp4&feature=em-subs_digest

This continuum demonstrates the six differing degrees of culturally responsive approaches for Māori learners. Having analysed this continuum, I believe that my school and classroom practice best fits within the purple aspect on the continuum. Whilst cultural diversity is embraced, students are not provided with authentic opportunities to experience success as Māori and achievement is categorised by white stream thinking. This has the potential to exclude some students from attaining high levels of success as defined by them and their culture. The opportunity here is to challenge this and begin to normalise indigenous and culturally-centred structures and practices within my classroom, including expectations and definitions of success.

My research topic of critical thinking (knowledge construction) and collaboration through digital tools needs to reflect equally the views and beliefs of all learners. It will be important for me to choose digital tools that are not exclusive of culture where students can see their culture represented. The knowledge construction aspect of my topic needs to give effect to the knowledge inherently held by learners and their whānau, as a starting point for the development of critical thinking which will make the cultural capital of ākonga integral to the learning process. This is supported by Gay, (2002) who states that culturally responsive pedagogy is defined by using cultural characteristics, experiences and perspectives as conduits for effective teaching.

I am proposing to conduct my research topic within an Enviroschools Inquiry around energy. As a result of the research I have undertaken, I will now start the knowledge construction for the inquiry by allowing learners to identify the knowledge that they hold relating to a specific topic, and developing their understanding of a te ao Maori worldview of Energy. This is supported by Milne (Core Education, 2017) who argues that “schools have a role in sustaining culture instead of negating it”. I had intended using the ITL Research 21st Century Learning Design Rubrics (ITL Research, 2012) as an assessment tool throughout my research topic. It will be important that I ensure these accurately allow for the knowledge and skills of all learners, framed within an inclusive view of indigenous knowledge and cultural responsiveness, rather than perpetuating Western views of success and achievement.

References

CORE Education. (2017). Dr Ann Milne, Colouring in the white spaces:
Reclaiming cultural identity in whitestream schools.[video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cTvi5qxqp4&feature=em-subs_digest

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for Culturally Responsive Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003

Härkönen, U. (2001). The Bronfenbrenner ecological systems theory of human development. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3d4f/99b537bdd5b18745fdef084dc34b71978ffd.pdf

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

Ministry of Education. (2012). Funds of Knowledge. Received from:
https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-resources/NZC-Online-blog/Funds-of-knowledge

Ministry of Education. (2013). He Kakano. How does it work? Retrieved from: https://hekakano.tki.org.nz/The-programme/How-does-it-work

Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony. Indigenous research methods. Winnipeg: Fernwood.

Reflective entry 2: Discuss how the research topic addresses the context of different audiences and their perspectives.

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological System Theory (Härkönen, 2001) is a framework that connects a child to five levels of external influence or ecosystems. Bronfenbrenner advocated that each of these ecological systems inevitably interact with and influence each other in all aspects of a child’s life. This is similar to Brookfield’s (2017) belief that classrooms are influenced by the structures and forces present in the wider society.



Wikimedia Commons. (2020). Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Theory of Development.jpg. Retrieved from: 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bronfenbrenner%27s_Ecological_Theory_of_Development_(English).jpg

I will focus on the microsystem (direct environment), mesosystem (connections) and the exosystem (indirect environment) operating around my learners as a group, rather than as individual students. This will mean looking at the perspectives of the learners, their whānau, the school, and the connections my research topic may have to theory at a national and global level.

Local audience - Students - microsystem (direct environment)

The students are year 1/2 and have previously had me as their full-time teacher in 2019. This year I am teaching the class one day a week. The class is small and made up of 12 students, 6 boys and 6 girls. The students are mostly pakeha, with 2 identifying as Māori. The students have high levels of digital fluency, having used iPads as a learning tool for the past 1.5 years. Some of the students struggle with working in collaborative settings and end up dominating group learning opportunities, whilst others remain passive followers. When surveyed, the students did not have a clear understanding of what critical thinking and collaboration were and have seldom heard those words spoken nor explained to them. This presents an exciting opportunity to support learners from the beginning of their critical thinking (knowledge construction) and collaboration journeys.

Local audience - Whānau - microsystem (direct environment), mesosystem (connections)

Whānau currently have no knowledge of this proposed research topic, however, they could be able to provide unique experiences and support towards its development. Until now, I had overlooked whānau as a key stakeholder in this research topic and as such would like to explore how to engage whānau with the learning opportunities surrounding critical thinking (knowledge construction) and collaboration. This could include making the research topic focus and new learning visible, or by providing learning activities to be undertaken in the home. Google (2019) has identified that guardians want to be more involved in their child's education, which is mirrored by our whānau, and that technology can be used as a tool to achieve this.


















Google. (2019). Future of the classroom: emerging trends in K-12 education: global edition. http://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/future_of_the_classroom_emerging_trends_in_k12_education.pdf

The realisation that whānau are an important stakeholder and audience within this research has highlighted the need for me to adapt my research focus to include whānau as an audience to collaborate with, rather than just communicate with. This desire will be further explored through the development of my research questions.

Local and national audience - Colleagues and personal experience - mesosystem (connections) and exosystem (indirect environment).

Our cluster of schools is currently working through and unpacking the concept of T-Shaped literacy, and the development of critical thinking. Teachers are being supported to trial initiatives in their classrooms that connect to this kaupapa. My team leader and senior leadership team are interested in the findings of this research topic as it aligns with the school and cluster priorities. Personally, I am excited by this research topic, having little experience explicitly teaching critical thinking (knowledge construction) and collaboration.

National audience - Theory - mesosystem (connections) and exosystem (indirect environment).

The task of building students' critical thinking through knowledge construction relates specifically to the New Zealand Curriculum Key Competency of Thinking which is defined as “Thinking as using creative, critical, and metacognitive processes to make sense of information, experiences, and ideas.” (Ministry of Education, 2007). Collaboration is intrinsically linked with Participating and Contributing, a “capacity to contribute appropriately as a group member, to make connections with others, and to create opportunities for others in the group.” (Ministry of Education, 2007).

Global audience - Theory - mesosystem (connections) and exosystem (indirect environment).

I considered the ITL Research 21st Century Learning Design Rubrics (ITL Research, 2012) as a perspective to consider framing my research topic. Through this, I discovered that in order to make my learning activities more collaborative, I need to ensure learners are able to work interdependently, with shared responsibility for the outcome of the task and are able to make substantive decisions together about the content, process or product. To ensure my learning activities provide for knowledge construction, I need to: ensure that the main effort of specific learning tasks is knowledge construction; ensure that the learners are given the opportunity to apply a concept to new material and then check whether there has been conceptual understanding; and provide opportunities for learners to apply their knowledge or make connections across the curriculum (ITL Research, 2012).

By undertaking this scanning exercise and considering the perspectives of different audiences, I believe that there is an authentic and genuine need for this research topic to be undertaken.

References

Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. John Wiley & Sons. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/themindlab/detail.action?docID=4790372

Google. (2019). Future of the classroom: emerging trends in K-12 education: global edition. http://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/future_of_the_classroom_emerging_trends_in_k12_education.pdf

Härkönen, U. (2001). The Bronfenbrenner ecological systems theory of human development. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3d4f/99b537bdd5b18745fdef084dc34b71978ffd.pdf

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. Retrieved from: http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum

Reflective entry 1: Identify a research topic that is relevant to your area of practice and relates to Digital and Collaborative Learning

In the search for an authentic and meaningful topic, I turned to data. I inquired into what areas of practice needed attention to enhance learners’ success and achievement outcomes. Our data collection is extremely robust and collected and analysed by Woolf Fisher Research twice a year. As a school and community of schools, we have data and findings that have been analysed externally for over 5 years, creating a longitudinal view on what levels of success our ākonga are achieving and experiencing. These findings are also able to be benchmarked and considered within a New Zealand-wide context.

On the surface that data showed significant achievement acceleration in writing, with less significant achievement acceleration across reading and maths. This was true not only within our school but across the cluster of schools. As a result of the learning I have undertaken this year with The Mind Lab, I wondered whether it could be useful to consider the dispositions or soft skills that would enhance the learning experiences of ākonga generally, without limiting the focus of this research to simply one or more curriculum areas. With this in mind, I turned my attention to an issue that has been puzzling our cluster of schools; The development of critical thinking amongst our students.

On reflection of my classroom programme, it became clear that I was not providing sufficient purposeful opportunities for students to think critically. The Ministry of Education has also found that the use of digital technologies can help students to develop critical thinking skills (Ministry of Education, (n.d.). The World Economic Forum, (2016) states that Critical Thinking/Problem solving is one of 16 skills students require for the 21st century. This highlights the relevance of explicitly developing critical thinking (knowledge construction) within my students.

World Economic Forum. (2016). New vision for education: Fostering social and emotional learning through technology. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Retrieved from: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_New_Vision_for_Education.pdf

During lockdown, the ability for students to work collaboratively was highlighted as something that they would like to do more often. Further to this, as I reflect on the recent experience of teaching online, I realised that students were generally expected to complete learning tasks or activities independently. The move back to our site provides the opportunity to embed collaboration within the classroom.

My digital and collaborative research topic seeks to develop students' critical thinking (knowledge construction) and collaboration by using digital tools in a variety of ways. van Laar, van Deursen, van Dijk & de Haan (2017) suggest that critical thinking and collaboration are amongst the seven core 21st century digital skills. Furthermore, the World Economic Forum (2016, p.4) recognises that “social and emotional proficiency will equip students to succeed in the swiftly evolving digital economy.” My research topic makes connections to the aspirations of the New Zealand Curriculum through the key competencies of participating and contributing, relating to others and managing self.

The 12 students in my year 1/2 class have 1:1 iPads with access to G-Suite, including Google Docs, Sheets, Slides, Hapara Teacher Dashboard and Explain Everything, however, I believe that these have only previously been used at the enhancement level of the SAMR Model. I am seeking to redefine the use of this technology within the classroom programme and use digital tools to allow learners to amplify their thinking and collaboration, which could not be possible without the affordances of this technology.

Wikimedia Commons. (2020). The SAMR Model.jpg. Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_SAMR_Model.jpg#filelinks

I have used the T-PACK Model to analyse how my research topic aligns with the technology I have available, the pedagogy I am proposing to implement and the content knowledge I am wanting to explore with my learners. The technology I have available is 1:1 iPads, G-Suite apps and the full version of Explain Everything. I am keen to frame this research topic within a social constructivist pedagogical approach, as this aligns with Vygotsky’s belief that knowledge is co-constructed and that individuals learn from one another (McLeod, 2014). An upcoming Enviroschools inquiry on Energy could be the perfect vehicle to focus on for the delivery of content knowledge, as inquiry naturally aligns with the development of critical thinking and collaboration. I believe my digital and collaborative learning research topic effectively addresses the three areas of the T-PACK Model.

Image source: https://www.schoology.com/blog/tpack-framework-explained

Key indicators of success could be that students are able to think more critically, have opportunities for knowledge construction and work more collaboratively as assessed by the 21st Century Learning Design Rubrics (ITL Research, 2012).

As I distilled the essence of my digital and collaborative research topic, I came to the following question: Can I develop students' critical thinking (knowledge construction) and collaboration by using digital tools in a variety of ways?

I have chosen to keep the digital tools as loosely defined as possible at this stage, with the ability to further define/refine them as I progress with this research topic. This will allow me to pivot the topic if required and adapt, whilst maintaining a focus on critical thinking (knowledge construction) and collaboration.

References

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

McLeod, S. A. (2014). Lev Vygotsky. Retrieved from: https://sites.google.com/site/pltlearningcontent/overview-theorists/lev-semyonovich-vygotsky

Ministry of Education. (n.d.) Digital Technologies: What does the research tell us about  Innovative Classroom Practice and Student Outcomes? Retrieved from:
https://elearning.tki.org.nz/Media/Files/Digital-Technologies-What-does-the-research-tell-us-about-Innovative-Classroom-Practice-and-Student-Outcomes

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

van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in human behavior, 72, 577-588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010

World Economic Forum. (2016). New vision for education: Fostering social and emotional learning through technology. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Retrieved from: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_New_Vision_for_Education.pdf