Week 32: Key change in my professional practice

Osterman and Kottkamp (1993) contrast professional development by experts with a reflective practice model such as blogging. They suggest the traditional approach results in knowledge acquisition whereas reflective practice leads to change in behaviors via self-awareness.

Step 1 (What): Identify one key change in your professional practice

I have chosen to identify (and implemented) in my practice has been collaboration (Hack education research). I have learnt to appreciate the necessity for learners (in my Year 7 & 8 class) to collaborate in all learning areas (at primary) to enable them to understand other learners needs, thoughts, new ways of looking at problems, listening to others with understanding and empathy, and building up their social skills in the process. Students learn more from each other than from their teacher, and given time to collaborate, children inevitably make far greater connections and deepen their thinking. Learners in my class appear happier and more cohesive at school.

Step 2: Evaluate the identified change

Reflective practice: An Experiential Learning Cycle

The cycle has 4 stages including problem identification; observation and analysis; abstract reconceptualization; active experimentation.

Stage 1: Problem identification

Learners below or slightly below (without specific learning needs), did not appear to be making any significant progress to bring them in line with the NZ curriculum levels and their peers. In numeracy, writing and reading, the same individuals appered on intervention sheets and planning, marked as ‘below curriculum level’. Previous attempts of giving additonal home learning, focusing on specific needs (gaps), providing extra tuition time worked to little avail. As Osterman & Kottkamp (2015) state, ‘the drive to implement a change in practice is often started by a gap in an educator’s desired condition and the reality’. The reality led to questioning whether a different approach would work? This was important because I wanted to make a difference to the learners, make their time at school valuable and to provide equitable opportunities for all children.

Stage 2: Observation and analysis

Data gathered during Term 1, 2018 was compared to results from children’s learning in 2017. The time extra time spent on these learners appeared to be wasted. Data was gathered using standardised testing, for numeracy (PAT, GLoSS and IKAN), writing (e-asTTle matrix) and reading (STAR, PATs, Running Records).

I considered the 21st Century Skills learners need to be using and insights into previous learning I had about (but not fully engaged with and implemented) began to surface. Collaboration and teamwork stood out as an area I could to do better in and implement. I realised that I mostly ability grouped and used a teacher centered learning model that was not providing enough opportunity for student voice.

Stage 3: Abstract re conceptualization

From gathering assessment data and analysis of the learner’s situation, I had an insight into considering collaborative learning (a process of re-conceptualization). I began to implement gradually a tuakana teina model into the classroom. This consciousness raising (coupled with exposure to new approaches) led to me making significant changes to my program. It was an experiential process, lessons did not go according to plan, with a lot of re-directing and guiding for learners.

Stage 4: Active experimentation

It was exciting implementing new ideas, not all learners embraced them and at times it was a struggle to encourage students to work together with noticeably different levels. Teaching social skills (patience, empathy and understanding) was important and an area I had not counted on needing to do. It required a lot of active modelling of what group collaboration looked like for example in numeracy: allowing all members to have a turn at trying to explain their strategy and ensuring that all members could show how the group solved a problem (rather than one person solving the problem continuously). Slow implementation of changes was more effective.

Step 3 (What next)

Learners who are ‘well below’ the NZ Curriculum levels or those with special needs present a delima with their involvement in mixed ability collaboration. Negatively, these learners get lost in their peers working or leave to friends to solve problems and do the majority of the work. The positive, that they feel included and are still learning from peers. One solution was to have them collaborate in their own group (similar needs), with some success, but this rquires further exploration. The process of inclusion works for religious education, physical education, inquiry learning, writing (using Google Docs and blogging), but not so well for numeracy and reading (peers need to practice patience at this time).

A process of rotation mixing groups up daily (currently have maths mates or groups for term), would give at or above students a break from working too often with special needs or well below learners. Another idea could be to make simpler entry level tasks for maths that the special needs learners can do to make them feel capable? Remaining open to new approaches, exploring and experimenting with them  to test whether their practical application is also a next step.

References

Osterman, K. & Kottkamp, R.(1993). Reflective Practice for Educators.California.Corwin Press, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.itslifejimbutn otasweknowit.org.uk/files

Osterman, K. F., & Kottkamp, R. B. (2015). Reflective practice for educators: professional development to improve student learning.(2nd ed.) New York: Skyhorse Publishing.