Recently our long serving principal announce his retirement.  Our current (acting) principal has spoken at staff and HOD-Admin meetings about preparing for change.  I think his initial presentation to staff was generally misinterpreted, his follow up discussion to HODs more focused and understandable.  His main point is that regardless of who is eventually appointed principal it is illogical to assume they will lead and manage as our retired principal did.  In other words, we need to prepare for change, change that is inevitably going to happen but at this point is difficult to predict.  The acting principal has suggested that when a new principal is appointed it would be easy for them to target the “low hanging fruit.”  It was this comment of low hanging fruit that drew most criticism from the general staff, however the point he was trying to make is relevant.  The obvious underperforming elements of a school would be easily noticeable by new leadership and be a logical target for refinement.

So do I have any “low hanging fruit.”  Most definitely.  We were asked to consider his reflections, or cultural observations, that he categorised as “pillars” and “dark matter.”  His point of dark matter was that it may be occurring, but it is not obvious as a consistent, whole school approach or evidence is lacking.  The dark matter as identified is;

• focus on data driven improvement
• strategy
• shared accountability
• holistic behaviour management
• performance development

I definitely have some things to consider in this list.  Data driven improvement across the faculty is lacking.  We have mechanisms to review data, but it is mostly achievement data.  I think there is other data we can gather and reflect upon for improvement.  I need a process for this to occur to ensure my staff engage and take this seriously, because at this point most don’t.  There is very little reflection on student achievement, student satisfaction and student engagement.  The vast majority of our reflection and refinement is based on teacher opinion, a system which is lacking in my opinion.

Use of data could be tied into strategy.  As could performance planning.  Currently there are a number of things happening separately not connected to a faculty improvement strategy – I can feel a mind map coming on!  I’ve been challenged to develop a school wide strategy for the advancement of digital pedagogy, so a faculty improvement strategy should be similar in design process.  The problem is our school wide strategies are disjointed.  These need to be refined before I can comprehensively develop a faculty level strategy.

There are definitely some challenges here for me as a leader and manager.  Combined with the Vocational Education rectification processes identified in a recent internal audit, development of documents for a tertiary credit partnership, review and planning for the Digital Pedagogy License Advanced Community and planning for 2010 – this is going to be one hell of a busy finish to my working year.

Yesterday I invited two staff members to be the teachers in this project.  Both seemed excited by the invite which is a good thing.  I have purposely picked them for a number of reasons.

Staff member A sits in the main HPE staffroom and I believe has the potential to be an excellent teacher.  2010 will be their 3rd year at our school.  They are well organised and always working within timelines from myself or administration.  They have spent large amounts of time preparing resources for their classes, and although this will change tact with this project the time commitment is important.  Their learning management needs refinement, and I believe this process will allow them to critically reflect on their influence on the learning environment and improve their practice acordingly.

Staff member B is my most energetic and motivated staff member.  They are constantly seeking advice and feedback on performance and show an ability to critically reflect and adapt their practice.  They sit in a staffroom across the other side of the school, which should result in a spreading of the influence of the project.  The fact that they like to talk about their teaching will aid this process.  This will also encourage me to leave the main HPE staffroom more often to interact with my other staff.  This staff member is well organised and always works within timelines.  They seem to thrive in team situations, although I see the potential for leadership within them.

So now I am getting excited.  At this point there are three priorities that need to be addressed.  First and foremost I need to formalise the plan for the project.  As it is an action learning project I need to frame it as such.  This includes the recruitment of critical friends.  I’d like to have critical friends for each of the following aspects;

• syllabus implementation
• staff development
• student achievement and satisfaction data
• pedagogical practices
• digital pedagogy (incl. use of specific tools and processes)

There may be other areas I incorporate critical friends and no doubt they will become evident in the plan formalisation process.  I have not yet identified the requirements or commitment of critical friends, but if you are interested in being one for this project then I encourage you to let me know.  If you can’t dedicate the time (I know we are all busy) there will be opportunity to read our progress and comment as such.

Secondly I need to provide a range of readings to my staff to increase their understanding of transformative theory.  I will do this through the creation and transfer of a Zotero notebook, demonstrating to them the use of such technologies that I want incorporated into the project.  Thirdly, we need to meet to refine the work program so that it enables the success of the project.  Aspects like the use of physical activities that allow the teachers to be “close” in the early stages.  Our classroom is next to our hall, so if the first unit of work has an activity in the hall the teachers will be relatively close.  This will enable student choice and teacher support of each other.

I can feel the momentum building.  I am excited, I am heartened by my staff’s excitement.  And I am strong due to your support.  Those that are reading this and sending comments via the blog, twitter, email or facebook are keeping me strong.  Thanks to those who have already volunteered to be a critical friend.

After a couple of attempts, I finally have a viewable video of the project pitch to staff online.  I’m hosting this one on Vimeo as it is slightly longer than 10 minutes.

Transformative Learning Project pitch to staff from Shane Roberts on Vimeo.

I’ve been asked to present this to the executive administration today, after which I will need to select staff to work within the project and begin professional development and specific planning.  Exciting times.

Recently I had the opportunity to attend a leadership breakfast.  These are an initiative of the district office of my employing organisation. They provide an opportunity for Principals, Deputy Principals, Heads of Department and school based leaders (such as year coordinators) to attend an informal breakfast with a keynote presentation.  This latest breakfast was accompanied by a keynote presentation on feedback.  The pitch of the presentation was centred around providing feedback to staff, however I believe it has equal application to our roles as teachers.

One salient point the presenter made was to consider the underlying messages that are interpreted as feedback.  What are we doing that provides feedback to others about our feelings, thoughts, professionalism, intent, knowledge, concern etc?  Are there reactions to students that may be providing feedback that does not enhance or support our image as professionals? I see examples of this regularly, comments from teachers that undervalue theoretical knowledge in HPE relative to practical performance. I hear comments (value judgements) on students’ nutritional choices that could be interpreted as more than friendly advice on health.  This is potentially a minefield. Feedback can often be associated with fear. Negative feedback reinforces this. Ineffective provision of feedback can reduce performance, taking their mind off the job and focusing it on perceptions of who they are, not how well they are doing. We need to consider that in our teaching and management, and consciously counteract the fear component.  So how do we do this.

The suggestions from the presenter centred around changing the role and understanding of feedback.  Make feedback helpful.  It should be a shared interaction, a process that enhances performance.  We need to create a shared context and a shared focus.  A shared context occurs in terms of background and support.  All parties need to acknowledge existing relationships and any history.  This can be particularly difficult if previous history involves negative situations with feedback.  The shared focus is about understanding individual and collective goals from the feedback process.  Is the feedback linked to goals and priorities.

Hmm, not so simple as providing an opinion.

I have successfully pitched the project concept to my immediate supervisor, who reported to the principal and I have their support for this (relatively) radical project. The project is based on my understanding of Transformative Learning, as proposed originally by Mezirow and built on concepts such as Connectivism and 21C learning skills.  Why do I term it relatively radical – quite simply nothing like this has been implemented at my school previously therefore staff and students have not experienced this approach to learning.  I’ve blogged my thinking that has lead to this project before – A potential project; Constructing purposeful learning spaces; Planning my learning environments for 2010; and Learning 2010 – an update.

So my thinking has formalised into a project proposal, that in a rough form was pitched to my supervising Deputy Principal. I pitched the idea using one slide and a lot of talk.  I’ll need to refine that when I pitch to staff.  The slide used is embedded below.

As you can see, there are three learning foci; content learning, conceptual / contextual learning, and reflective learning. It is the interaction of these three learning foci that will determine the success of this project for students and parents.  I believe it is the support and professional development of teachers that will determine the success for teachers.  These two (2) vital components need to be combined and considered at the forefront of the project for success to be achieved.  A lot of work, but exciting times.

The final question that will form the framing of the action learning project is yet to be finalised, however the one I am proposing when pitching the project to my staff on Tuesday is included in the project pitch here.  Details of the project are still forming in my head (and my evernote), however the teachers who decide to be involved need to be included in the final development of the project plan.  This in itself will be an exciting process as I encourage my staff to unlearn then re-learn.  I intend to post more here as the project develops.

The existing infrastructure that enables this project includes blocking the 2 classes onto the one timetable line – which means they are both in PE at the same time.  This ensures the two teachers teach the cohort instead of singular teachers teaching their classes.  The National Secondary Schools Computer Fund ensures I can have 30 laptops in my classroom, and convert 5 LAN points to wireless access points.  I’ve been given permission to research and purchase (partially funded through the facilities budget) alternative furniture that will align with the goals of the project.  The HPE department already owns a large number of devices that can be utilised.

Fingers crossed it will be well received.  It is significantly different to anything they have considered previously.

I had the good fortune to attend a MasterClass for Smart Classrooms Teacher Award winners last week, which was an inspirational and motivating two days with some remarkable and focussed teachers.  This MasterClass was conducted by a few awe-inspiring and highly intelligent educators – @agrei8, @checkingboxes, @joram10, @bobrodgers54 and @fzwilkins.  One of the activities we were guided through caused me to focus on how I support the development of digital pedagogy skills in my staff.  There were quite a few great ideas suggested from the participants, and if they read this they will recognise them here.

So I’ve been thinking of a potential project for next year.  The concept is not yet definite in my mind, and will need discussion with my staff and critical friends, but the essentials are;

• teachers won’t individually teach classes, they will collaboratively teach a cohort.
  (this will work better if the classes are on the same time / period)
• paperless
• a range of devices will be utilised (iPod, video camera, still camera, computers)
• lesson content and learning tasks delivered via RSS
• student digital portfolios
• students choose learning activities each lesson
• Students surveyed regularly to provide feedback

My plan is to offer this to staff as an option.  Benefits to include Professional Development and devices supplied, requirements include exploring digital pedagogy, sharing of practice.  I’m unsure whether I will be one of the teachers involved or act as a critical friend.  I think for succession planning and leadership density, my role is best as the critical friend.  For this I will need to trust my staff and let go of direct control (akin to a recent blog “the importance of letting go”).  I need to consolidate this plan, and get some advice before 2010.

Recently I was fortunate enough to be involved in the facilitation of a workshop designed to prepare HODs and HOCs (middle management) for a 1:1 environment.  The 1:1 environment will essentially be forced upon all secondary schools by the current federal government as they fund the provision of computers and laptops for every student in years 9 to 12.  Unfortunately, too many school administrations believe that preparation for a 1:1 environment is as simple as having the space and furniture.  Inevitably this results in poor integration of ICTs into the curriculum.  One particular session I was responsible for was entitled “What it looks like.”  My role here was to describe some of the processes I have in place to enable a rich ICT experience for learners in my class and staff in my school.  As regular readers of my blog will know, the whole school strategy is very new therefore I could not provide much information there.  However I could provide plenty of ideas in regards to processes I put in place to enable ICT rich learning in my classes.

My interpretation of a 1:1 environment is more complex than having 1 device for each child. Its about a process that encourages use by students to achieve learning outcomes.  My 1:1 environment involves four processes.

1. Increase choices
   I’ve found in my experience that when you increase the options available to students, the use of ICTs in learning is greater than when you specify a particular item. Sometimes one has to be creative in promoting this choice.  For example you may wish your students to blog a response.  This does not provide them a choice, but if you ask them to choose how they blog (words, audio, pictures) then engagement generally increases.  I have no hard data to support this, just observations from my own experience.  In particular I notice that when a range of devices are available, then student use is increased.  Not all may use the camera, but if they can choose between camera, iPod, phone, audio recorder and Flip Mino there is bound to be something they will use.

   The increasing choices also aligns with a significant aspect of Transformational Learning Theory – student negotiation.  Provide the learners with some power in the learning relationship for increased engagement and ownership of learning.

2. Increase access
   Improving access to ICT is as much about learning design as it is marketing.  By designing learning experiences and assessment items that utilise ICTs you are increasing required access.  Marketing is still for me the biggest challenge.  This marketing could be relevant to staff and administration in an attempt to change policy and allow or encourage utilisation of a particular device or resource, or it could be to students by demonstrating the benefits of use to their life long learning (learning beyond that required within my subject).
3. Increase usability
   Increasing usability has some crossover with the concept of increasing access.  Through marketing of benefits I hope to promote the usability of certain technologies to life long learning, and cross curricula performance.  I believe the main influence on increased usability is the role modelling by the teacher.  If the learners see the teacher using the resource effectively, they are more likely to attempt use themselves.  So increasing usability for me is generally a focus on teacher competence and utilisation of a resource.
4. Increase prevalence
   The age of ubiquitous learning – anytime, anywhere, anyhow.  This in itself drives the need for increased prevalence of ICTs.  I specifically encourage my learners to continue learning once they leave the boundaries of the timetabled class and walled classroom.  Simply using a camera to capture items of interest as they continue through their lives, and using them when in th “boundaried learning” is a step towards ubiquitous learning.  The concept of information consumption and analysis as continuous is enhanced and enabled by the use of a range of devices and technologies.

The Smart Classrooms strategy of my employer has developed a concept entitled 21 Steps to 21st Century Success which outlines a program of preparation for a 1:1 environment.  My take on it is a little more focussed on learning implementation but both deomonstrate the need for preparation prior to implementation.

A number of events are occurring in my professional life at the moment which are resulting in a critical focus on my application of digital pedagogy.  Local, regional and state opportunities to be involved in leading professional development are ensuring I maintain a consistent message in regards to digital pedagogy.  The largest impact is the development of a Digital Pedagogy Leadership team at my school.  The development of digital pedagogy at my school has been slow and generally unguided.  As mentioned previously my administration as recognised this and provided me with timetabled time to incorporate a role of eLearning support within the school.  This will allow me to work closely with teachers to develop practices, but also learn of existing practice and promote it amongst the staff.

The South Coast region recently implemented a program for Digital Pedagogy Leaders. This allowed schools to nominate a leader who would work within a community of other school Digital Pedagogy Leaders.  This is an awesome initiative of @djone91 (you can find her blog here).  Our school recruited a highly motivated English teacher (@skhill_03) who is participating in the Digital Pedagogy Licence Advanced community to be our leader  This is a teacher I have a lot of personal and professional respect for, and enjoy working with.  She has brainstormed a leadership plan for the school.  A process where staff reflect on their practice and samples of work are posted within a community for open access.  This is our Digital Pedagogy Leadership team.

Some significant choices were made when recruiting for this team.  First and foremost we decided that accreditation within the levels of the Smart Classrooms Professional Development Framework was not going to be the focus.  I believe strongly in the framework and its application as a reflective and planning tool, however with such small representation of accreditation within my school diverting the focus elsewhere is important.  Therefore within the group we have recruited there is only one Digital Pedagogy Licence holder (besides myself and the leader).  Some of the others are aspirants currently working towards the licence, and some aren’t.  We have specifically recruited teachers who demonstrate sound pedagogy, commitment to students and influence within sectors of the school.

The plan involves the Digital Pedagogy Leadership team leading the staff through a reflective process, and then identifying practice that can be shared.  The ultimate goal is to have a culture where staff do not feel threatened by sharing their practice, and there is a space where staff can retrieve samples of practice to refine for their own context.

The most significant decision we made with this plan was to base the samples of practice on generic thinking skills, in this case Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain.  We believe that regardless of the curriculum area, the six levels of thinking should be present in any teachers’ repertoire.  Analysis in HPE should be no different to analysis in science.  By centralising the thinking skills and positioning curriculum as context we hope to break down some of the existing barriers that see subject departments working independently of each other.

The greatest challenge for me is I am purposely moving back “from the spotlight” allowing the team to estabish themselves as leaders.  I will need to maintain the message they are delivering, and ensure that what each of them contributes enhances the plan.  But is is time for others to show leadership within the school.  If you are interested in seeing the plan in a little more detail, click here.  We are pre-phase 1 at the moment, preparing the leadership team for implementation.  I am excited by this, enjoying working with my digital pedagogy leader and team and hopeful this can see some real success in development of pedagogy across the school.

Recent work of a colleague who gets a fair bit of blog love from here has seen me reflecting on the inherent risk associated with the expanding use of digital tools in education.  What is risk when it comes to digital pedagogy?  Is it the risk of using the actual tool, risk of failure in terms that the lesson may not implement as planned, risk of inappropriate use, risk of privacy breach, risk of incurring financial cost, risk of any number of things?  To be honest, before this discussion with @mobbsey my thinking on the risks with digital learning centred on the protection of my students.  Since the discussion, and the subsequent web cruising and reading, I am considering a whole lot more.

Acknowledging risk is one thing, one must also assess it then put in place steps to manage it.  The assessment and management of risk is something @mobbsey has been thinking about considerably, and has shared with me some planning documents she is developing to aid the risk analysis and management process for teachers.  The process is similar to that of HPE teachers when managing physical activity.  It is when I made this link to my curriculum knowledge that my perception of potential risk inherent with digital pedagogy expanded remarkably.

First consideration is copyright.  I have blogged previously about my focus on students learning appropriate use of digital resources and their guided discovery of Creative Commons licensing.  One aspect I promote the onsideration of is the aspect of “Share and Share Alike.”  However as an employee of an educational organisation I don’t officially or legally own my work.  Anything I create for use in my employment by my employing organisation is owned by the organisation.  Does this then limit my ability to share and share alike?  I can certainly share within certain boundaries, for example by direct request and response.  But am I sharing alike if the work is not re-posted to a public domain?  Does this represent risk is the use of licensed work?

Secondly, the consideration of license is huge.  I acknowledge the relative safety we enjoy as educators in Australia where use of material for education within our closed classroom environments can occur without fear of copyright breach.  I fear less informed educators do not realise the potential risk of making public materials they have used in such a fashion.  My understanding is by letter of the law if a copyrighted material is used as a learning resource or in a piece of work produced, this can be freely displayed to students and teachers within the school only.  This does not include shown to parents, visitors to the school or sharing to others outside the school.

Is there risk opening our students awareness of digital tools and theirpotential use.  If I show my students that phones can capture images, then phones can connect to the internet – it is not incredible that they may join the two and realise they can easily post pictures to the internet.  Indeed there are many services out there that make this process too easy.  Does this learning, despite being productive and effective, increase the risk of privacy issues with our students?

As I think along this concept, my mind keps running deeper and deeper and I don’t think there is a simple solution to it at the moment beyond the corporate control that currently exists.  My employing organisation has a filtering service, provides a secure LMS and allocates each teacher a webspace.  This maintains control of the resources (which they rightfully own) and ensures some level of safety.  Essentially, within those boundaries the risk analysis and management is already done for us.

And then there is the idea of real risk versus perceived risk.  Perception of risk in regards to digital tools is heavily dependent on teacher experience and knowledge.  A teacher who has not experienced the troubles a digital tool could bring may not perceive as high a risk.  A teacher pushing the envelope of corporate control in the pursuit of innovation and engagement may not perceive a risk with their planned activities, whereas others in different contexts may.  I guess this is why we are restricted, and that our work is owned by the corporation.

Now I know some of you will react strongly to the idea that we as teachers do not own our work, and that the corporate control could be a good thing.  I have had many debates with teachers about these issues, and I have often lamented the restrictions (perceived and real) of the corporate control.  Yet now, I may see some logic behind it all.

In the end, I think the process @mobbsey is looking for is for teachers to think and communicate before they innovate and implement digital pedagogy.  As a Head of Department, I can totally agree there.  I would expect the same of any of my teachers attempting to innovate with physical movement, why should digital tools be any different?

Further to my last post where I was challenged on my focus and beliefs in regards to the interplay and interdependence of digital pedagogy and digital tools, I have spent some time this last week deliberately focusing on functional use of technology.  I have concentrated on not asking the questions about learning intent, instead listening to teachers openly and then assisting them to work around the hardware or software problems they perceive they have.  Through this I have discovered 2 remarkable things.

Firstly, I can see and hear genuine excitement from teachers when their problems (perceived or real) are solved.  An example occurred with interactive whiteboards that are installed at my school.  We have 3 Teamboards and 3 Starboards at my school.  Since the managed operating environment was installed last year the IWB software has not been activated on the relevant computers.  This has not occurred for a number of reasons.  One board is owned by Maths, and they have seen a number of acting HODs since that time.  Three boards are owned by Academic Excellence, whose HOD believes they are inferior boards to Smartboard and therefore has not bothered with them.  I’ve spent considerable time over the last week working with my techie and the board manufacturers to establish a plan of action that would allow me to install the software on teacher laptops and have the boards usable.

To gain access to the boards, I’ve had to enter the classrooms while classes are running.  Its amazing how this brings interested teachers out of the woodwork.  There is a substantial number now asking questions like “Do you think you can get them to work?” and “How can I get access?”  There is genuine excitement as digital tools are made accessible and available.  Now that I have successfully trialled an install on my laptop, my lunches next week are already booked as teachers queue to have their laptops prepared.

The second amazing occurrence I have witnessed is that teachers are much more willing to talk to me about digital pedagogy if my initial approach is about digital tools.  I believe I have experienced much more conversation and engagement by a focused approach on improving access to technology and listening to their perceptions without judgement (a skill that I should be well and truly aware of as a HOD – I know).  There is also the off-shoot of them wanting to show me what they can do.

All of this is possible due to two reasons.  Firstly my administration, in particular my upline manager, recognise the efforts I am making within the school in this area and have created a position of eLearning support where I am provided time to assist teachers individually.  Secondly, a good relationship with my techies which has seen significant trouble shooting to enable this process.  One of the great achievements is the creation of an “Local Installation Logon” where I can log onto any computer and a list of installation files is stored on the desktop.  I then have permissions to install on that local machine.  This has included scripts for installation programs that require OC (techie) permissions, such as the teamboard software.

This does not change my beliefs in regards to digital pedagogy, I am simply realising there are alternate ways to achieve my goals.  I now need to trial methods of engaging the ‘advanced’ digital pedagogues within my staff and those in the “preparing for Digital Pedagogy License submission.”  This group is where a more structured approach can be useful.  I am refining some planning templates that I have developed, and I hope to trial these on my license group.  Their intent is to provide evidence of thought and planning in regards to the use of digital tools and digital pedagogy.  A “Risk Management Template” by an inspirational colleague has opened the door to further possibilities for me also, thanks to @mobbsey for sharing.

So, a slight shift in my approach reaping results.