The Professional Learning plan for implementing T-shaped Literacy in Visual Arts

I have spent some time thinking about how we are going to do this and I havent shared it with my department at all before this. There is a concept called re-profesionalisation and transformational professionalism (Poskitt, 2005). 

“... characterised by ‘inclusive membership, public ethical code of practice, collaborative and collegial, activist orientation, flexible and progressive, responsive to change, self-regulating, policy-active, enquiry-oriented and knowledge building’...” (p. 16). Sachs, 2003.

It is a good fit for a future-thinking direction in education, given the fast pace of change in society, for example apps and social media. The introduction of T-shaped Literacy and developing it as established practice in Visual Arts through the LCS Inquiry framework is a re-professionalising action. It is hoped that what the Visual Arts department does is alway based upon this definition.

The following three points are appropriate tools and reflections that will positively affect progress with the department for the betterment of the learners:

 

1 - Video recording of a teachers teaching

 

Filming oneself in the act of teaching is to "confront one's image of teaching with ones' actual teaching" (Tripp & Rich, 2012, p 729). There exists a precedent for filming oneself teaching over the past four decades, with Schon in 1983 setting in motion the concept of a 'reflective practitioner'. The ongoing improvements to capturing moving images until the present is not only astounding, but sharable at the click of a button, and available immediately for reflection. It is only natural then that the capability of filming oneself for reflective practice becomes a norm within a school setting.

 

Rich and Tripp cite the following points as advantages to the process in their 2012 study:

●  Enabling the identification of patterns in practice

●  Identifying gaps about teacher's perception and the reality of practice

●  Helping to identify what a teacher believes they are implying in their actions towards learners and whether this is visible, therefore useful

●  Allowing teachers to notice aspects they were unaware of and analyse these

●  Assessing strengths and weaknesses, in a rewindable fashion, without needing an expert observer to retell, reframe and possibly inaccurately reconstruct events

The filming of teaching sequences can be made visible and therefore, transparent for outside analysis. The usefulness here is that these points fit the pedagogy of the Manaiakalani Education Trust - Learn, Create, Share; making visible a ubiquitous, rewindable, empowering learning process.

 

2 - Inquiry based model of applying T-shaped literacy as a visible and understood practice architecture (Edwards-Groves & Kemmis, 2018)

 

According to the theory of practice architectures, all knowledge is learnt by ‘doings’ ‘sayings’ and relatings’. These three components are not sitting within a vacuum, they are influenced, interfered with and interacted with outside world knowledge and values. They are also inseparable from each other for true learning to occur. By establishing our own current practice architecture on teaching literacy before, during and after the process, (see previous post on T-shaped Literacy) one is hoping to see growth and have another tool to be able to reflect upon for the betterment of the learners. It sits neatly within the Inquiry cycle (inside the ‘create’ section of the LCS model) as well as beyond Inquiry. Hardy (2014) aligns the doings, sayings and relatings with the overall inquiry process, however, the writer feels that is too simplistic.

 

“...The research reveals the Inquiry Cycle approach as characterised by specific actions, dialogue, and relationships – “doings,” “sayings,” and “relatings” – productive of the development of a learning culture focused on significant curriculum reform; overt support for whole-school “explicit” approaches to teachers’ pedagogies; and active/robust critique of data-focused assessment processes…”

 

Regardless of whether a practice architecture can fully encompass all of the nuances and directions of a full and rigorous TAI, the end point of attaining a tele affective formation is still the ultimate purpose. In this instance, somewhat discretely as T-shaped literacy.

 

“... the most fundamental task of a teacher is, and always should be, to change lives, through initiating people into practices…” Edwards-Groves & Kemmis, 2018 - pp115.

 

The theory of ‘practice architecture’ as explained by Edwards-Grove and Kemmis in “Understanding Education” pp 115 - 158, as a way of making visible the interactive process that occurs and is required to make connections and new meanings in learning - through “doings, sayings and relatings”. By making this visible throughout the duration of the Professional Learning programme, one hopes that a greater clarity of one's own process of teaching successfully is developed. The intention is strengthening the Inquiry cycle with a process that the 'Learning', 'Taking Action' and 'Checking' aspects of Timperley’s revised model are directed for the teacher with rigour. By seeing the overall impact of the Inquiry model as a practice architecture, one can see how this should become embedded across education as established practice, where it is not already. The doing, saying and relating concept works well in modelling and generating base, progress and end data from a qualitative point of view.

3 - Moving from the work to implement to a product for innovation

 

Timperley, H., Kaser, L., & Halbert, J. (2014), speak extensively about innovation coming from rigorous Inquiry processes. An inquiry should not ‘finish’, it should by its nature lead to where-to-next type questions. There is a risk in placing a defined outcome at the end of this process as limiting the creative opportunities for where-to-next, but there is also something that can be aspired to also, as an MIT participant.

We have been observed by Woolf Fisher research independently, twice a year since beginning with the outreach. This year, their contract comes to an end and Manaiakalni Education Trust takes up this wero. The whole department is adept at screen-recording themselves for aspects of their teaching sites to assist with the learning process. Generally, as a planned activity, recording instructions to employ in future teaching sequences, rather than a record of what has happened. This Kura’s open setting, where the practice is exposed to anyone passing by, and the numerous high-coverage security cameras that are reviewed for disciplinary reasons frequently means the fear of seeing oneself reflected as a recording is lowered. The whole Kura and cluster have engaged in a Teaching as Inquiry model as an expectation of appraisal for the past two years, including across cluster Professional Learning Groups with a thematic focus, with mixed results, so the language of inquiry already exists and is not new. As a school with an emphasis on creativity - A "Centre of Creative Excellence", the concept of a product developed from an inquiry is not left field but does represent the innovation expected at Hornby High School currently. We have the option of submitting the plan and intention for the development of a product to the Manaiakalani Innovative Teacher (MIT) programme (Manaiakalani Innovative Teachers, N.D). The full direction of such an application will come to light towards the end of term three, 2021, in time for application closing dates for the 2022 cohort (traditionally week one of term four - TBC for 2022 cohort).

 

Professional learning plan:

Colour Key for the checklist:

Learn:
Create:
Share:

 

 

	Staff involved:
Check in with staff re hours to commit	KE - Abi Keene, Full-time assistant Art, CO - Michael Collins, Part-time assistant Art, CE - Rowena Clemence, Head of Department Art, SN - Robin Sutton, Principal.	Week six term four 2020
Request to be sent to relief coordinator and principal to clear these staff from a week of relief duty	❏ CE - HoD – relief-hold request to SN ❏ SN - Principal to OK the plan - meet with him to explain and present this concept ❏ Updating Google calendar for the department to see where Staff are on non-contacts simultaneously. ❏ Book meeting room for times agreed upon. ❏ Dissemination of Learn, Create, Share, inquiry process, aligned with Timperley inquiry process.	Week six term four 2020
Timeframes for evidence and structures	❏ Gathering of PAT data 2020. ❏ Set up of teacher site. ❏ What is T-shaped Literacy? ❏ What is synthesis and critical literacy? ❏ Establish 'Label' for T-shape literacy within google group. ❏ Current screenshots of teaching sites recorded and placed in proximae to PAT results and NCEA data 2020 on teacher site. ❏ Dissemination of “Saying, Doing and Relating” introduced and discussed. ❏ Practice architecture artifact completed ❏ Create a shared understanding of why we will be using filming of teaching as a tool, through the evidence from research. ❏ Unpack ‘heavy coaching style’ (Killion, 2008) with staff at hand, so that clarity around involvement and expectations is set. ❏ HoD to complete ‘how to be a heavy coach’ template, reflect on it and share it with staff. ❏ Construct an agreed-upon template for explicitly using T-shaped Literacy in Visual Arts. ❏ Get feedback from selected students on its clarity. ❏ Get feedback from Kelsey Morgan - Uru Mānuka cluster coordinator on clarity. ❏ Choose three modules/classes each to develop one T-shaped literacy approach using the suggested format. Add to teaching sites. ❏ One public blog post which includes practice architecture artifact completed - 200 - 500 words	Week eight Term four 2020
	❏ Establish a relationship with two other Manaiakalani Secondary Art Departments. ❏ Link February 2021 PAT data with students who have come through from 2020. ❏ Revise when “Learn, Create and Share” happen chronologically in the process of the year.	Term one 2021
	❏ Start each term one unit/module/class explicitly teaching through agreed-upon T-shaped literacy lens. ❏ Collect data from all classes. Include a reference to your perception of their attitude to reading in Art, about Art and to gain understanding with their work - see level five of evaluation plan in part two for why we want this information. ❏ Film class for each teacher, screenshot teaching site, add to teacher google site for T-shaped literacy in Visual Arts - together as a department ❏ Practice architecture artifact completed ❏ Connect with Woolf Fisher Research Centre (or 2021 equivalent) directly for discussion for clarity - record the meet. ❏ One public blog post which includes practice architecture artifact completed - 200 - 500 words ❏ HoD to complete ‘how to be a heavy coach’ template, reflect on it and share it with staff.
	❏ Request three hours in week two of term two for release as a department. ❏ Unpack feedback from students and other departments. ❏ Share results with partner departments in those two schools, gain feedback, evaluate .	Week one - two, Term two 2021
	❏ Reform T-shaped literacy if required. Add to term two t-shapes to google sites. ❏ Screenshot teacher sites beginning and end of term ❏ Update PAT results if there are any new results available.	Weeks three - 8 term two, 2021
	❏ Film class for each teacher, screenshot teaching site, add to teacher google site for t shaped literacy in Visual Arts ❏ ‘Practice architecture artifact’ completed ❏ Update data from students about your and their perception around reading in Art. ❏ One public blog post which includes practice architecture artifact completed - 200 - 500 words	Weeks eight - ten, term two, 2021
	❏ Repeat term two for term three.	Term three 2021
	❏ Begin the application process for the Manaiakalani Innovative Teachers programme (Manaiakalani Innovative Teachers, N.D ) 2022 cohort.
	❏ Repeat term two for term four.   ❏ Apply for Manaiakalani Innovative Teachers programme 2022 - week ONE term four. ❏ Gather the end of year data for PAT, with NCEA internal results, external results if available. Complete analysis. ❏ Practice architecture artifact completed ❏ One public blog post which includes practice architecture artifact completed - 200 - 500 words ❏ HoD to complete ‘how to be a heavy coach’ template, reflect on it and share it with staff. ❏ Share results with Staff and clusters on google meet, evaluate.	Term four 2021
	❏ Investigate app development to select texts based on concept/technique/element/principle/device for Visual Arts. ❏ Summative data on your and their perception of reading in and for Art . ❏ Complete evaluation as a project.	Beyond 2021

So, there you have it. A plan for us implementing T-shaped Literacy over the next 13 months.

There will be gaps and we will right things as we find them slightly wrong.

References:

Edwards-Groves C., & Kemmis S.(2018) Education, Practice, and Practice Architectures. In:

Understanding Education. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Singapore.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6433-3_4 pp 115-158

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating Professional Development.

Educational Leadership: Journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development,

N.E.A, 1, 45–51.

Ian Hardy (2016) In support of teachers’ learning: specifying and contextualising teacher inquiry as professional practice, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44:1, 4-19, DOI:10.1080/1359866X.2014.987107

Killion, J. (2008). Are you coaching heavy or light? t3; Teachers TeachingTeachers, 3(8), 1–11.

National staff development council. www.ndc.org

Poskitt, J. (2005). Towards a Model of New Zealand School-Based Teacher Professional Development. New Zealand Journal of Teacher’s Work, 2(2), 136–151.

Sachs, J. (2003) The activist teaching profession. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Timperley, H., Kaser, L., & Halbert, J. (2014). A framework for transforming learning in schools: Innovation and the spiral of inquiry. Centre for Strategic Education; Seminar Series Paper 234, 1–27.

Tripp, T. R., & Rich, P. J. (2012). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 728–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.011

TOD NCEA 19th November

 Five aspects of change: system changes

NCEA is changing radically and we were introduced to those changes during teacher only day en-masse... a lot to digest.

1) Well being - less assessments more big picture thinking.

2) Equity and inclusiveness - how do we build school courses that represent and honour the diversity in our society? 

3) Coherence - links from the NZC through to the outcomes will be clearer. At the moment, I don't feel like the NZC integrates with NCEA and that they can be taught quite independently from each other, so addressing this is a good thing.

4) Pathways - suitability - vocational type courses are unit standards based and that says they are worth less to the learner and at times community. If we continue to undervalue these areas we will continue 

5) Credibility - is this about the rigour of which we assess NCEA or the creditability of courses? One of the things our group noted was that our inherent course elitism at school possibly denies our students opportunities to just learn process, with this focus on content. If you want to go to Art school and didn't do Art at school you do a catch up course at uni if you have your UE and apply and most likely get in, likewise for all aspects of health sciences. Why are we so caught up with exactly what content kids are learning, when process is actually more important? 

Change one - removing fees, and making it easier to apply for SAC

Change two - opening te ao Māori pathways. Māori performing arts is not UE, yet dance and drama are. That is being addressed. Integrate mātauranaga Māori. This will be integrated into our outcome statements for NCEA. Unsure what that looks like. 

Change three - strengthen literacy and numeracy requirements - are they going to make this harder to attain? It sounds like they will streamline what and where literacy and numeracy will come from. There will only be lit and num from one 20 credit package to gain these standards and they can attain them from year 9 onwards.

Change four - less credits for each subject. Less fragmentation of learning. Every subject will have 4 AS and it will be a 50:50 split; externals will not necessarily be 'exams'. 

Change five - hard to understand? Simplify. Removing the 20 credit carry over, limiting resubs. Maximum enrolment of credits - 120 L1, 120 for L2 and 3.

Change six - show clearer pathways - vocational entrance award introduced, just like UE. graduate profile for each level of NCEA will be introduced and record of achievement will be simplified so it makes sense to employers.

Change seven - keep level one as optional. Level one kept broad, level two and three will be where specialisation occurs. 

Reflect on the following for the day as we go over the modules:

1 - Know and think - skills knowledge capabilities needed?

2 - Feel and believe - what are the attributes and capabilities required?

3 - Build and create - structures to  support change and implementation

4 - Actions to take away - need to do and think of now? 

1) We need to be willing to be process teachers rather than content teachers.  Let go of the elitism of particular subjects and particular pathways. There is a move to a vocational entry qualification like University Entrance. I note they seem to discuss how Māori Performing arts are not recognised as Achievement standards, yet when they moved to discussing other pathways other than traditional University ones, this was not a 'thing' that was acknowledged. 

Big picture planning rather than a pick and choose model of achievement standards will need to be thought through in order to be able to effectively tie the big ideas to the standards. It does concern me that student choice could be lost here in Visual Arts. Setting up a good selection of student choice that interrelates to the planning matrix is going to be necessary and is not a small task. 

We could/can look at adjusting our level one matrix in Art to be inclusive of the big ideas as a starting point that could lighten the change process load. Along with how we integrate T-shaped literacy within that matrix, it feels like a do-able and workable task. 

2) Feel and believe - acknowledgement of unintentional streaming of Māori/Pasifika learners. Is it happening at Hornby? If it is, it is an aspect of institutionalised racism that needs addressing.  

3) Build and create - it appears that we are being directed towards cross curricular structures, which given Hornby's start in this area with Hurumanu, could be an easier transition. I see that Rolleston College and Haeata are already well-entrenched in this direction. Looking at their course outlines along with thinking about the needs and wants of our students currently situated in Hurumanu would be useful. I am unsure what our leaders in this area are doing in regards to collecting data from the students experiencing Hurumanu currently, but one would presume they are and that this would help us plan further into NCEA levels. 

4) Actions to take away - how the big ideas direct the learning from above. I would like to break down my understanding of these in relation to art making outcomes more. I can see how they can be used to reconfigure our existing research and practical applications Artist models matrix for level one. I can also see how T-shaped Literacy would slot into that as well. We will make that our reality for 2021 in preparation to understanding how they work for the roll-out of the new standards in 2022. 

Implementing T-shaped Literacy in Visual Arts - starting with practice archietectures

“...When we learn things, then, we do not just learn words or language or ideas or concepts, and we do not just learn them as ‘internal’ representations that correspond to, or attach to, ‘external’ things or states of affairs in the world. We learn to use them in relation to, as part of, some kind of practice. Again: what we learn arises from, represents, recalls and returns to its use in practice…” Edwards-Groves and Kemmis 2018.


By tying the learning of implementing T-shaped literacy (Jesson and Wilson) directly to embedding the LCS Inquiry model to Hornby High School Tīkanga, one is effectively establishing a ‘practice architecture’ (Edwards-Groves & Kemmis, 2018).

Practice architecture as a noun was to begin with, a really confusing idea for me. It is essentially this concept of each practice having a construct or a ladder in behind it, supporting it. The supports come in the form of what we do, what we say and what we relate back again, in the process. Rather than these things that interrelate together existing in a vacuum, they are also influenced again by cultural, social and physical values that impinge upon them.

So the idea is that if we establish all new learning on the practice architecture model, it will be lasting learning.

The idea of practice architectures isn't new. However for me, it is new as I have never thought of the philosophy of how we learn like this; doing, saying and relating all being fundamental to the process, with full acknowledgement of the outside influences that come back in from the rest of the world the learner interacts with. I think this might be because previously, throughout my training and the latter part of my own schooling, we were 'schooled' in this idea that certain people are certain learner types; kinaesthetic, aural, reading-based (there was a fancy name for that one) and that 'learning' coloured my view without me noticing. The science of being a learner-type has since been debunked. But many don't know or want to know that because it does suit some personalities to ascribe people to 'type'. For instance, if you read through articles such as this, you would be hard-pressed to argue against their point of view. However, there is a catch. There is a testimonial page, so they are 'selling' something. And it's not even a sophisticated marketing approach. But a parent of a difficult child would go looking for answers in these kinds of places and take heart that maybe their teacher didn't understand their child's learning style, rather than the need for a multi-modal approach and a bit more of a relational conversation. 

"...No less than 71 different models of learning styles have been proposed over the years. Most have no doubt been created with students’ best interests in mind, and to create more suitable environments for learning. But psychological research has not found that people learn differently, at least not in the ways learning-styles proponents claim. Given the lack of scientific evidence, the authors argue that the currently widespread use of learning-style tests and teaching tools is a wasteful use of limited educational resources..." Association of psychological science

If there were truly 71 learning styles, we would be completely stuffed as educators. The whole sector would be futile.

However, this learning style concept is not to be confused with solid multi-modal teaching and learning. That is NOT about learning styles, its about capture. Learning styles has nothing to do with a child who missed out on being read to as a toddler, nor a child with a hearing deficiency that wasn't discovered until they were 9 years old. That is the gap that multi modal teaching covers. making sure what is on your google site is able to be accessed in written, aural, and visual form helps the learner who has missed a milestone, or has a disadvantage the kaiako may not necessarily know about, keep up. It isn't pandering, it is an ethically right thing to do.

Unfortunately we haven't been able to complete inquiry this year, as it has been just one of those things covid-19 has disrupted. In saying that, it will be my department goal to understand, express and explicitly apply practice architectures in the establishment of damned good literacy teaching in Visual Arts, starting Wednesday. T-shaped literacy will make a difference to how our learners cope and begin to succeed, before they thrive and it is a challenge we will be taking on starting very soon and hopefully with an inquiry style model, as Timperley, Kaser, et al (2014) makes very clear, is where the best professional development occurs.


Please bring on 2021...


References:

Learning Styles Debunked: There is No Evidence Supporting Auditory and Visual Learning, Psychologists Say. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2020, from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/learning-styles-debunked-there-is-no-evidence-supporting-auditory-and-visual-learning-psychologists-say.html

Jesson, R., & Wilson, A. (2019). T-shaped literacy skills; An emerging research-practice hypothesis for literacy instruction. SET, 1, 15–22. https://doi.org/10.18296/set.0131

Edwards-Groves C., & Kemmis S.(2018) Education, Practice, and Practice Architectures. In: Understanding Education. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6433-3_4 pp 115-158

Timperley, H., Kaser, L., & Halbert, J. (2014). A framework for transforming learning in schools: Innovation and the spiral of inquiry. Centre for Strategic Education; Seminar Series Paper 234, 1–27.

DFI 9 Ubiquitous as pedagogy/kaupapa

Ubiquitous means 'able to learn anywhere, any time at any pace'. We place the learner at the centre of the learning when we not just allow, but plan for and act upon ubiquitous learning; learning doesn't belong to the school nor to the teacher, it is a viral context we are positioned in. What is not looking like ubiquitous learning in our kura currently? And why?

Lock down provided us a learning curve for how ubiquitous we really are. We had no lead in educationally, to covid-19 level four - the 72 hours we did get from level two to four would not be providing an opportunity to force one to happen with our rangatahi. We sat very nervously as a staff when the announcement was made, in our learning commons as it enabled us to spread out, listening to directives made by our senior leadership team, knowing full well they were having to invent the process as we went. Google Meet had already been allowed onto our systems by Harry our fusion technician that day in a pre-emptive move for us, as was google chat. Google chat was then discussed and disabled temporarily while we decided what our next practical step would be. All staff were initially instructed to have NO google meets with classes until we had ascertained a process to support our rangatahi and kaiako well-being. 'Unsure' doesn't really cover how we all felt going forwards. 

What am I proud of?

Having worked hard on my google site not only for my rangatahi learners but also for other kaiako to have as an example meant that I knew I had a structured and manageable way of delivering content. I was also in a fortunate position of knowing that my department staff were in fact using it as a model prior to this, so we had an aligned approach. 

What do I regret?

Before we went into lockdown, our rangatahi using their email with purpose and process was not there. We made these presumptions that our young people knew how to manage email and possibly even Google calendar, when in actual fact, some had never even opened them. Our/my first regret is right here. Students just didn't use email, yet a lot of teaching went there instead of on teacher sites with a directive to use these alone to access work. Students were up to 25+ unopened emails in some cases during this time from staff.

My second regret lies in what I could have done to affect how Google Meets played out; A plan at our kura was established for the first week of term two - following two strange weeks of learning from home with countless emails and shifted school holidays) to reconnect with rangatahi from a pastoral level first. All learning advisors and form teachers would contact each whānau one by one and check-in using google meet, getting us all used to this new technology. No formal teaching was meant to occur while this happened. Except it did, and it undermined that effort we were making to put well-being and front end curriculum first. Form teachers and learning advisors were not yet through google meeting with whānau, but class meets were being scheduled for curriculum - through emails generated by google calendar that many of our students did not regard as the norm. I did not make the decision to go with well-being first (though I adamantly agree it should have been top priority) and I didn't hold a position of authority over anyone who pursued this goal. It is a thing that happened that I couldn't control, but yet it impacted my charges - year 12 as a pastoral dean and later on, my curriculum area, as one that did not push the learning out in the first week, instead leaving the time until pastoral and well-being was sorted, as I saw it. Students were up to 40+ emails unopened in some cases by now. Keeping in mind MOE delivered chrome-books had not arrived in most cases. Those waiting on modems got them but often didn't have them connected up. My regret and frustration and brewing resentment was with the growth in inequity the scenario generated and the failure of others to see this occurring, rather there was that blindspot in empathy:

It appeared that telling staff NOT to do this was not effective, as it became a strange little competition to have the most engagement, without acknowledging the growing divide it was creating - it was like this fear of not being a good enough online teacher took over and one was not able to stand up on the balcony and observe the ball because one was too busy dancing in the competition. Once Google Meets for curriculum were all 'good to go', the ideal set out was for no more than one per week per class. Unfortunately, this also generated the competition again and no amount of persistence inhibited the several times a week in some areas that these were held.  It became overwhelming as a Dean trying to hold things together for the sake of whānau who wanted their child learning from home, teachers who wanted the engagement and young people who were just overwhelmed and over it all. I finished lockdown never ever wanting to go back into level three again. The empathy blindspot was perpetuated by the lack of physical nearnesss, as even though you can see someone in a google meet, you aren't truly connecting to their wairua through google meet. I defy anyone to prove me wrong on this; when you are physically present with another human, you are reacting to their wairua, you are adjusting your 'stance' somewhat to theirs and the relationship develops one way or another based upon this. That is not a possibility in a Zoom or Google Meet. You will see a controlled view of the other and a lot can be disguised or misinterpreted through the technology. Physical proximity is always going to be required, no matter how online we are. How often is a text or email or post on social media misinterpreted because of how each of us reads tone in written communication, rather than hears it from its author? 

What have I taken forward into the new era of schooling?

Pastorally, my communication to whānau is much more online following this. I was creating a video each week of lock down and sending it to my year 12's as a way of reassuring them that this would all end...soon... and ways to get through stuff. I wanted to carry the videos into level two and have one arrive in their inbox each Monday, but it has not been a thing I have managed just yet. I have however, made a weekly slide show with a small focus each week, which leading into our leadership-based next steps camp meant that we had rewindable content that matched up with the themes being imparted at this camp for year 12's. It was like a beautiful collision of pedagogy. 

I am not sure us Cantabrians take the threat of level three as seriously as we should; the idea that we would practice Google Meets just in case had not occurred to me and I doubt it had to many of my colleagues, unless of course they are holding back from bringing it up with the elearning leaders? On reflection it is not a silly idea to be investigating. Particularly in light of establishing and practising a tīkanga effectively before we need to rely on it. By having norms, rather than urgent need, we could stabilise the sense of competition that took over in a few areas if this were to happen again. A norm is something we have done before and are happy to practise, rather than a new directive that had to be made to get us going and feels foreign, because as Aunty Cindy says "you can say something 100 times, there will still be one person who never heard it". If it's the norm, that issue is removed. 

Questions this raises further for me:

What is good practice around ubiquitous learning in our kura currently? 

What is an interesting aspect of all of this so far?

What are our next steps around this?

At this point, I could provide answers to these questions but I think what I want to pursue is a solid framework around framing the elements of the kaupapa and pedagogy that exist already, with ways of stepping this forward further in the future. 

One of my biggest learnings through the DFI was about presumptions; just as we presumed our rangatahi understood email (when they didn't always and were just stabbing in the dark, or plain ignoring it), we presume the professionals we see interacting with a device are 'all over it' but there will be plenty of little things they don't know because they don't use. Is it because we are teachers that we presume we know everything? How cool was it for me to sit through a session about google docs, thinking, 'yeah I got this, what can I actually learn from this' and then a whole bunch of little things come up that improve how I function with it and what I do with a google doc?! Just because you know how to eat, doesn't mean you know how to cook. As those young people say 'mic drop' moment (the cringe this statement will illicit is absolutely intended). The DFI continued week after week in this manner - a lot of things came up that made me rethink ideas and challenged my stance and ultimately have effected not just workflow but pedagogy going forwards. A fully rewarding, worthwhile  experience. 

DFI Eight empowerment, computational thinking, coding and DDDO

From last week:

What has worked: I use Google Keep like, ALL the time now instead of a paper diary (RIP, I do not think I'm going to use you again dear old paper diary). I'm fully seeing why we should jump on the workspace bandwagon for the purposes of differentiation. I would like to see us use a call back day at the end of the year to re-introduce the amazing affordances of this product, but as Terry tells me, the whole staff would likely hate me for that gem of an idea (it was his idea anyway). I'm also extremely proud of how I can see the advantages and affordances of Toby Mini and am applying them in my daily teaching life. Super cool. 

What I need help with: Just that I can see that Explain Everything would be cool, but I cannot work it out to fit what we do just yet. Possibly this is indicative of too many things in my head. I may just need time. Also, I'm finding more and more that kura should pay for a teacher's cell phone. It is a bit mental how often we rely on these for just about everything, yet there is no compensatory mechanism. Quite possibly a tablet device as well should be paid for. It would certainly make doing our jobs as digitally fluent teachers much easier.

Opportunities I can see for myself and/or kura: differentiation meaningfully and a way of directing how our HoD's establish that as our normal; it is all very possible.

Dorothy's session today focussed on "empowered" as a part of the kaupapa of Manaiakalani. 

I remember Pat Sneddon coming to Hornby, presenting to us at Templeton Primary in either 2014 or 2015 and pretty much this exact quote coming out of his mouth. It may have been the first time someone presented me with te Tiriti in such a way as I saw that we could use it, almost weaponise it for a cause within education. 

Empowerment as a kaupapa is for both teachers and learners. A lot of educators prefer to use the word agency over empowered - sounds fancy, but is it actually what we want? Agency is a bit hopeless due to how lower decile communities - the association to the concept of social agencies who don't always help these communities has a negative connotation. Rather than continuously explaining the word, the choice was made to change it to empowered as that was the main concept that was used to explain it beyond the leaders informing and developing the pedagogy. 

This is not "just a tool"; it is transformative and therefore empowering. This concept is referred to in our curriculum, which was written prior to digital affordances being common to our classrooms. "Just a tool" detracts from empowerment. 

Matt Goodwin's blog link - which he wrote in reflection from lockdown was referenced in the speaker notes of Dorothy's presentation; http://pesgoodwingold.blogspot.com/2020/05/distance-learning-engagement.html

    "...Without having the students seated in front of me, how could I entice them to 'come to school'? 
    > Certainly a percentage of my learners had whanau who engaged with the online learning, and    'assisted the engagement' (in fact this was really cool to see our whanau making these connections to   school, and is a great conversation starter for what we could do to keep this going).
    > But there was a whole other percentage who managed themselves. They got themselves up in     the morning, got out their chromebooks and engaged with the learning and online meets that I provided.... "

During lockdown Matt felt that empowerment moved to a new level with their education. If they weren't into it, they didn't do it. They used their voice, choice and ownership of their learning. Are we un-institutionalising them? Yes, but probably to the detriment of their NCEA results, which is their formal measure, which maybe needs to be changed to reflect all of this. Our community standards still must be challenged to reflect that NCEA is NOT a measure of a safe, healthy, contributing and functioning member of society. Any 'schooling' should be about raising these, not moulding a child to be just like their teacher (great man theories) nor about creating specialist 'understanders' of a few skills in a range of areas, rather they need to be independent self motivated life long learners. NCEA is not fit for this purpose any longer as I see it and I find my frustration levels are rising in this area professionally.  

Some whānau in Tāmaki are earning $19.000 a year and still functioning with very good budgeting. When you are earning $19,000 per year and raising a family, yes you might be happy, but the lack of money does disempower you - no internet and no device to access it fluently would be indicative of this. Online shopping, bill paying, access to credit (laybuy, afterpay, etc), communication with those scared to be around agencies, let a long the information that one could use in managing the relationships with these agencies effectively and positively, all comes from that one aspect itself. Yet, there is the 'skin in the game' the parents are ensuring their is device ownership with. Not everyone is on that $19,000 bracket; we often refer to as the 'working poor', where there just isn't quite enough to go around, work is there but is not stable and the inequities that exist in every tier of our social constructs affect how these whānau can function and provide for their children. The 'skin' is still in the game at Tāmaki. It begs the question about our rangatahi and whānau. Are they putting their skin in the game? Our recent PB4L data suggests that whānau engagement is still our weakest area. It's the egg we struggle to crack. Everything else in PB4L's latest Tiered Fidelity something or rather, rated our practice as quite well embedded except for that. 

When our children are entering school with the mean performance of a three year old, they are consistently going to be playing catch-up. Starship hospital provide Auckland with a research measure to know this information. It is not just academic it is physical, emotional and spiritual - I think it is much like the B4 school check our little ones go through in Canterbury which I remember as a mum with a visit to the local nurses clinic - checking what skills our child had and how many letters they knew, as well as if they recognised emotional cues, amongst other things.

An average decile 10 child has heard 32 million more words than your average decile one child; not dependent on the language spoken. The questioning conversations to and forth with child to adult are potentially missing. AND there is a one third turnover of children in a decile one community at primary school. Over two years the class is 2/3rds different. However, if you intentionally teach young people how to have conversations, you can extend and begin to over come this. Hence why T shaped literacy is so important. This directly links with the four themes that are prevalent in our TAI sessions across cluster as well as the High Leverage Practices we have been presented with from the Wolf Fisher research.

Kerry Boyde-Preece's presentation worked the new digital technologies curriculum - This presentation builds on from empowering. The ideal that we produce creative directors rather than passive consumers of technology. 

Kerry pointed out that fluencies and technologies are different; one is making use of the tech, one of them is leading and evolving with tech. I think that is something we all know when we examine it but it's not up on the surface of our understanding.

The curriculum itself is divided into three strands; practice, knowledge, nature of.

Practice - user, knowledge - products, nature of - the why. In fact this works nicely with Simon Sinecks golden circles, which regular reader(s) of my blog would know that I'm all about that shizz (possibly one and a half of you).

Two distinct areas of the new curriculum - computational thinking (CT) and DDDO -  the three strands interweave to create; computer science and then design and develop digital outcomes. The aesthetics over the programming. DDDO is like our new area, CT is like a modernised version of ICT to reflect real computer science like we would see at university level and with programmers. There are 8 progress outcomes for each of these two areas. CT progress outcomes are very black and white and based on understanding how things work and what is right and wrong with them. can be taught in a completely unplugged manner.

You could look at a unit of work and consider how to include CT and DDDO into what you already do, rather than this being a stand alone subject. I think this is and interesting way to look at, as this stuff is actually pervasive in our social construct, so why would we teach it to be very separate when the very nature of it is what is going to help empower our learners in the bigger world. 

Marks session -- future of technology

So we always thought that humanity's greatest strength moving forward with AI is creativity. However, what if AI can learn creativity? I'm not going to lie, there is an element of fear here for me with this topic, as well as a moral challenge. Every time I am presented with what we have achieved with stuff like robots that look, sound and act real, my mind it taken to "How many starving children could you have chosen to feed instead? Why do you not have an ounce of ethical responsibility that you would spend billions on that instead?".  However, that is something I am unable to affect directly, though if enough smaller voices were heard, maybe that could be another story. I watched the star train of satellites overhead on Monday night with my own child and we marvelled at them all the same. "Sophia", skin vision, cora; these are all examples of the tech learning and creating its own solutions, which is effectively where the aforementioned creativity sits. We are looking for new solutions to problems, challenges and contexts.

Mark points out that ethics and morals are not well covered with this, including with the new digital technologies. why on earth do we not have an equivalent ethics and morals curriculum? we do somewhat with Health. but he very act of branding it as "health" and pigeon holing it, means its spread and capture is not wide enough. Health is essentially an ethics and philosophy course. It frustrates me that it is branded as something so superficial when it covers so many more depths and layers. 

When it came to coding, it left me cold. I see it as sequencing, on a crazy pedantic level. I also wonder if we cannot just teach sequencing or identify where pure sequencing occurs in our already existing work and note the skills we already teach as coding unplugged. 

Mahi for next week:

- Making sure I know what to do for the certification exam.

- Spending more time reworking how we post blogs with reference to the work Naomi Rosedale has done with MAPIC

- Hapara workspace - more of this. 

MAPIC Naomi Rosedale

Blogs and commenting are accelerating at HHS, teachers are making the effort and its nice to see - some of our part-time staff getting into it and being those quiet achievers. Even so there is still debate and room to extend what our understanding of and uses of a DLO within this. MAPIC is a systematic approach developed by Naomi Rosedale around how we can do this, based upon research, including the Wolf Fisher observations across 30 schools within 5 Manaiakalani outreach clusters. This has led Naomi to question why and how we design learning, and in  conjunction with the High Leverage Practices, whether we should not be working through a different lens - 

Naomi Rosedale spoke today about student created DLO's. Old words on new practices has us thinking about the new practices in old ways and not neceessarily making that pedagogical shift we would want to see as the why of those new practices. Howe we use DLO's needs to be carefully seen within this light. 
Naomi asked us to consider how we would define a DLO to a newbie to the school. Do we have a shared understanding of what this is? What is our Learning Theory about DLO's. a product at the end of learning which goes further in terms of impact on learning.

We were asked to define it in 20 words or less in pairs and Naomi came up with some common themes around this; sharing, showing learning progress. We did have a discussion that was not reflected in the Jam board around the difference between a DLO and a DLA.

DLO = a finished cycle of learning represeented in a way that is published and shared online

DLA = a progression point of a learning journey shared online. 

DLA = blog post itself under this definition? So, most of what we do in Art is DLA based, which is how I like it to be honest, as it doesn't interfere in the art making process (which can in fact be very digital, so it is not a case of ignoring one for the other). The DLO is a finish point and is the starting point for others to begin their own learning if they wish to. I do wonder if arguing the toss over the difference between the two is even useful, when a journey based blog post can do that as well. Some of this is pedantic. 

Something we didn't capture was affordance and digital modality; different modes. Different ways of communicating meaning. Writing often dominates this. What can our students do that is "...designed to afford educational reuse..."? Writing is one semiotic system of information sharing, but it is not the most common, easily accessed form in the 21st century particularly when one considers how the internet and social media completely dominate a developed world lifestyle. 

Historically DLO's are not there to capture learning only to instruct others. There are libraries of DLO's created for teachers. Manaiakalani practices move  it from that to the learner being the designer of the DLO which changes the process of learning as well as the outcome.

Naomi would like us to consider what we would do to use something other than Slides as they represent 85% of the DLO's created across the five clusters. There are transactional affordances, efficiencies to using slides. You can do MORE with slides than just a plain slide, and these were accounted for in her stats, which still left plain uninteractive slides winning 85%.

When we Verbalise/teach what the point of a DLO is rather than just requesting them to do it we may have more buy in to how we do DLO's more creatively and our 'what' ends up being of a higher quality. Blogs are a forum to spark up conversation in their original form. the DLO should assist in that. The idea that the slideshow is the blog post possibly needs to be addressed too - the child who writes here is my link to my slides, from which they have just copied a teacher template and inserted their own 'fill the gaps' scenario is not in fact helpful, it may be a hinderance to authentic texts being developed. Wolf fisher is aware that there is a cut and paste proforma approach to blogging going on too. Does this just reduce our learners to receivers of information?


Wolf fisher wants us to nudge the DLO aspect over DLA a nudge in their use and application in our classrooms.

STUDENT DESIGN FOR LEARNING
social semiotics - sign systems. Making meaning on line using different modalitites.

FEATURES THAT HAVE MORE POTENTIAL TO INSTRUCT OTHERS.

Building our students awareness of mode choices could assist in this. None of us teach in just one way in a monotoned voice. We use tone, gesture, space, pause, visual, etc. We never do things in just one way. its choices we make based upon what we think is needed and at times what we know we can do successfully.

M = mapping ideas to modes. If someone was going to gain learning from this, what mode is best? value judgements that the students need to make are really important to their learning growth too. if you are restricted to one channel of communication then is your learning limited? say a text book that becomes a class bible... they have no opportunity to authentically create their own text. they are recalling and reading back to you.

How could some DLO work improve literacy? it is not the only way but it is an opportunity.

Learning then becomes a process of designing learning for others - what the child does in the classroom becomes a reusable resource for other learners. so we teach our children to teach. we do it online and using all the affordances that we can that map out well for it. We must be mindful about the constraints on DLO's for what students produce.

Another question posed is how we could nudge using screencastify in our classrooms? 
There is nothing wrong with a template to start with so long as we allow things to move beyond it. A checklist is recommended over a template.

High expectations scaffold - a NUDGE.
Don't shy away from the big words and concepts with the students. Give procedural content. A checklist of what you want here should actually be enough.

Naomi has asked us to define what student design for learning means. student multimodal even, https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1WPrtS_o1Xk2LHTJPrFt1vYHIKUAtsMhlLuXexf3insM/edit

Voice has a much more political cultural connection to it, using voice recording is a really seriously good way of amplifying our students understanding a self-design for learning. Voice can be more powerful than written words and could be something simply added into over a slide show to amplify our learners understanding and ability to teach from their own work. 

Overall, we only covered M and A with a little bit of a reference to P today, as time ran out. However, this is a session that needs to continue so that we get that clarified understanding of the why behind MAPIC. It also gives me a grounding for how to move forward with it, for staff.  

DFI seven

Devices. Fiona Grant.
Cybersmart learning and being cybersmart - focussed on empowering everyone.

Kua tangata whenua ki te ao matihiko- at home in a digital world. 

Cybersmart was a term used as a proactive term instead of cyber'safe' which is a reactive term. It needs to be consistently and persistently modelling how we use language, and position ourselves positively on line. smart and secure. One doesn't exist without the other. Today we are working on how we show that sharing online is not just a negative experience; less about scaremongering more about positive use.

10 cybersmart categories exist in the curriculum presented by Manaiakalani.

Implementation is a whole school focus, not part of school. A common language and the same process for introducing LCS to school - term one learn smart learners, create term two smart footprint, share term three smart relationships.

By the time our young people get to high school we should be able to continue on with the learning.

Kawa of care is considered a really important document as it is an agreement between whānau and kura about how we are all going to behave online and physically manage personal devices as learner devices. Ours is a part of our enrolment form rather than being a separate component. 

"Positive, thoughtful, helpful"  has  been our way of doing things with commenting on student blogs and is something I believe the teachers at HHS who regularly comment are very good at. It again aligns with LCS - Positive - runs parallel to Learn/Ako - stating what you already know and determining something of a direction forwards. Thoughtful - Create/Waihanga - creating connections of learning. Helpful - Share/Tohatoha - sharing your ideas on what has been presented as a way of helping the writer initiate another cycle of inquiry. 

The blog again is the training wheels. As their time at school increases, they can reflect back on their digital footprint. just like anything in life, elevate the positive and not the negative.

Hapara session with Lenva Shearing

Hapara was built for the Manaiakalanai trust to provide visibility, not technological affordance. Never ask students to create folders, as they do not own them. They just work within them.

Hapara work spaces: hapara's answer to classroom, workspace is visible. The benefit is that you can personalise it over a site. Lenva does workshops online and is bookable on her calendar. There are public workspaces are available to have a look at and you can take up the opportunity to do one of our free badged courses. The student dashboard is a desktop interface. I don't know that we will go with this if we are looking at mymahi interface as well. Hapara also has analytics, which I would be interested in exploring better  and highlights the schools activity inside gsuite since they first joined google.

My own exploration of workspaces started a wee while ago (2016), but I have always struggled to maintain my own momentum with it. However, the more we discuss our lack of differentiation at HHS the more inclined I am to want to be able to use it proficiently. I struggle with the visual look of it, which is a bit churlish admittedly, but as a professional who places a high degree of weight on how things look, it's a hard one to overcome. The real brilliance with workspaces is that it allows you to group your learners and their view of the workspace is limited to the work they are set, not the work set for other groups. 

From a pedagogical point we do not direct our HoD's at the start of the year to sit and work out PAT data and learn to read it. There is no directive to know who your high fliers, low liers and anomoly data sits within your class groupings and there is no expectation that HOD's lead their department staff in catering for these groupings. If there were, then attaining buy in for workspace would probably fall into place. This should be done in relation to HLP's and everything else that Woolf Fisher provides for us. 

Mark's session Intro into devices

Affirming we are 1:1 not BYOD - BYOD allows free reign of device choice. There are issues with this as very cheap laptops are now on the market and a whānau who does not have regular income would be hard-pressed to pass up that opportunity over the more expensive chromebook the cluster offers, even though it haas insurance and warranty built into the cost. We know it is a better deal, but we also don't have to deal (as teachers in general) with the financial constraints of not knowing if money will be even available in a few weeks. I have noticed also that new enrolments during the year, students will often come from other schools with laptops, macbooks even, as this was their previous kura's expectation; it's pretty hard to say no you have to get rid of that fancy macbook and use this chromebook. I know I wouldnt want to as a senior student... 

1: 1 is based upon the three p's of the treaty - partnership participation and protection. I hadn't thought of this before. I liked the summary we were provided around this as it was clear. It is something I would like to rejig for whānau and put up on our facebook page every now and then as a way of reaffirming our direction for equity.

We did a digital dig into how to use a chromebook - shortcut keys are very similar to a mac, so it isn't a struggle for a mac user to switch over to a chromebook, thought he mousepads are not as smooth and i would struggle to move to a chromebook over this lovely macbook. In saying that, Our Japanese teacher Nick was very early on using a chromebook as his own work device so that he knew the limitations his learners would face, which I thought was a very clever move personally. The chromebook simulator Mark introduced us to thought I found it frustrating as a user, was a little moment of inspiration for our visual arts meeting when we were trying to figure out how to introduce 30 students at once in a  year 9 class to the difference between a cell phone for photography and a proper DSLR camera. I figured if there was a chromebook simulator surely someone had thought of a DSLR camera simulator and guess what! They had; about 12 iterations of such a thing came up which has meant that we had something really cool to move our year 9's to doing online in learning WHY we love DSLR's over iphones for Art photography. Little things like this happening in the DFI make it a worthwhile experience even when you think nyou already know it all (I don't think that BTW).

Cheryl talked through us using ipads for juniors. Samsung, Apple, and no brand tablets were piloted first to ensure they knew what they were getting. Ipads came out best. I do personally wonder if this would still be the case, as Samsung certainly produce a very large range of products here at every price-point which Apple do not.  Styluses are used, so hand writing is still learnt. I loved the weight of the stylus and it certainly made using the pad a much more enjoyable experience, so much so that I have purchased one for our home use. 

You're welcome Noel Leemings for the free advertising. 

EXPLAIN EVERYTHING
I love the idea of this, but I have to admit I struggled with applying it. I spent my time consistently second guessing if there was a way of just using screencastify and voice recordings on slides etc instead... Part of that was because you have to pay for it, even though we get a good subsidy through the cluster, it still bugged me. I would like another day on this one so I can determine if i can or how I can use it effectively. This might be a summer holiday task. 

My mahi for the week going forwards:

1) Missionising how we get a directive in place to have our HoD's working together at the start of each academic year to actively use PAT data alongside Woolf Fisher research for differentiation. 

2) Getting to grips with workspace so that can become an affordance to making the first point work

3) What I have already done, but I will count it on my check list anyway (Always feels better if you have things on the checklist that are actually done!) spreading the love around Toby Mini and how it can make opening a class set of blogs very easy and therefore commenting on those blogs much easier; screencastify, their promo video and a link to the extension sent out to staff. One of the things this helps overcome - with a bit of work admittedly - is that we have many classes that are a mix of classes now and kamar/hapara cannot seem to accomodate this for us. My senior art classes are made up of seven markbooks in kamar for example, which translates into seven classes on Hapara, and seven folders to go into to retrieve my students blogs. This is now much quicker and smarter for me. 

Having read Terry's blog I'm now wondering if we need to be directive about insisting our staff are 'trained' in using Hapara effectively at the start of each year too. I wonder what others reading this would think of that? It would be super fun to be able to get in a plan how our first week would look like professionally with the distinct intention of not making it look like it normally does, but is andragogically responsive to our current pedagogy.

.