Within the post below, please note the following abbreviations;
PD – professional development
DPL – Digital Pedagogy Licence
DPLA – Digital Pedagogy Licence Advanced
PBC – my school
ICTs – information and communication technologies
HOD – Head of Department

The proposed vision is presented in three components: 5 year view, PD 2010 and Accreditation 2010.

5 Year View.

1. Institutional Capacity – communities of practice implementing a cohesive approach to curriculum ownership and pedagogical development through flexible physical and virtual learning spaces collaboratively contributed to by teachers and learners.
2. Staff Capacity – collaboratively solving problems in a community of practice that recognises and encourages specialist teaching, modelling continual learning through pedagogical shift, recognition of ethical operation and respecting intellectual property.
3. Student Capacity – creation of ethical digital learning portfolios that demonstrate communication, collaboration, critical appraisal of information and 21C Learning skills as defined by the Partnership for 21C Learning.

I found it relatively easy to determine this long term view, this dream if you will.  What was considerably more difficult was mapping critical points and acheivements along the timeline towards 2015.  In doing this I decided to tread gently into 2010, describing what I feel are realistic goals, but then pushing a little harder for the end of 2012 and 2015.

By the end of 2010:

1. Institutional Capacity – proof of concept for communities of practice.  Begin with established groups (Transformative Learning in Physical Education, HODs and Admin, Digital Pedagogy Leaders).  The Digital Pedagogy Leaders will change from its current role (and name) to become a more holistically focussed community of teachers willing to challenge their practice and engage in pedagogical shift as a group.  I will pitch this as a year long PD and ask teachers to express interest in being involved.  This group will lead the school in the combined consideration of whole school priorities (eg. literacy, numeracy, ICTs, values) that are currently dealt with as separate entities.
2. Staff Capacity – 1 x DPLA enrolment. 20 x DPL submissions. 7 teachers in pedagogical shift community.
3. Student Capacity – communication and collaboration in learning

Clearly I have pitched the bar higher for staff than students, and this is simply my belief that the development of the staff will need to precede the development of students.  I will also be clearly stating and supporting the notion that to achieve the goals of DPLA enrolment and DPL submission that time and PD support is necessary.  The data from my group this year clearly reflects that when time is not provided then success is minimal.

By the end of 2012:

1. Institutional Capacity – communities of practice focussed on specific learning themes drawn from curriculum frameworks.
2. Staff Capacity – 2 x DPLA enrolment. Curriculum leaders to submit for DPL. 20 x teacher DPL submissions.
3. Student Capacity – demonstrating digital citizenship through creativity, innovation, critical thinking, problem solving, communication and collaboration.

By the end of 2015:

1. Institutional Capacity – communities of practice collaborating across the curriculum.
2. Staff Capacity – 5 x DPLA enrolment. All teachers employed at PBC by beginning 2014 to have submitted for DPL.  DPL renewals will become necessary by this point also.
3. Student Capacity – demonstrating all 21C learning skills as defined by the Partnership for 21C Learning.

One major component of my vision is the re-defining of my role as eLearning support within the school.  I will propose I lead the pedagogical shift group through the year long PD, and that another teacher is provided time to support the DPL aspirants.  Basic skills instruction will be the responsibility of the HOD and faculty staff.

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.

Secondly, my particular subject area is one marginalised by the push for a national curriculum.  Health and Physical Education has always been seen as non-compulsory and a poorer cousin of the big three (English, Maths, Science).  Without a guernsey on the national curriculum, the status and inclusion of HPE is under threat in many schools.  By nurturing teachers in my subject area I can help that little bit by ensuring HPE trained teachers are always part of the teaching workforce.  They will advocate for HPE in their schools and continue to promote the benefits of physically active learning.

However, the most significant reason for wanting to incorporate a pre-service teacher into my learning environments is that I need my students to learn how to learn from others.  I pride myself in the relationships and rapport I have with my students.  I take pride in the learning the demonstrate from learning activities within my learning environments.  But I also realise I will not always be there for them.  They need to learn from others, and learn how to manage their own learning.

A colleague posted recently on her blog, Making Connections: Proud moments about nervousness in taking a step back.  She has regularly tweeted about this nervousness.  To me this is great.  It signals here is a teacher who is concerned about the learning of her students.  Here is a teacher who is focused on her students and the engagement she has managed to engender in a subject area not normally embraced by today’s students.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with feeling nervous about drawing back.  Especially when you consider the class she is speaking about is year 11.

Yet I pose these questions to her, and others who are hesitant when it comes to “handing over control” to a developing teacher;

1. Is the learning you are proud of existent due to you?
2. Could the students (and do they) demonstrate the same learning in other classes?
3. Are you establishing yourself or the students as the dependent factor in this learning equation?

If you answer these thinking that the students are the central reason behind the learning, then it should not matter who is teaching.  If you really establish the student as the dependent factor, they will demonstrate learning despite the teacher or the learning context.  To me this was the central theme, and most exciting area of personal development, of the Digital Pedagogy License Advanced when I undertook the course last year.  It is my interpretation of the concept of transformative learning.  I see the benefits daily.  Learning processes nurtured in my learning environments transferred across contexts.  Other teachers talking to me about what little Johnny does in their class that they said I taught them (students’ words).  The learner becomes the dependent factor.

So I want my pre-service teachers to be the dependent factor in their personal learning equations, and my students will learn reagrdless of who “delivers the content.”

I have challenged my pre-service teacher in this unit we are currently doing.  There is not a lot of “content” that the students need to know.  However they must be able to form an educated opinion and validate that opinion through evidence and discussion.  I have challenged my pre-serice teacher to not deliver content.  Any content she requires them to consume or pay attention to can be delivered to the students by students, guest speakers or research.  I have told her she is not allowed to provide them information about the topic.

This has caused her some stress, noe the least because it is completely different to anything she has been taught in her university study.  However, only 2 weeks in she can see the benefits.  She realises when she walks into class she is going to engage in conversations with the students, not content delivery.  If you relate this to Bloom’s Taxonomy of the cognitive domain then foundation thinking (knowledge, understanding, application) is completed by students under their own management.  We as teachers then concentrate on developing the higher order abilities (analysis, evaluation, synthesis / creation) when we have direct contact with them.  How she has managed this is impressive.  Essentially the class is split in two.  One half is provided access to the computers to manage their own learning, the other half is taken outside where they discuss a topic in a community of inquiry.  At the halfway mark they switch.

So in reality, we have reduced our dependence on the learning equation.  And what we are witnessing is impressive.  Students learning from each other.  Students reaching out into the world in search of relevant knowledge.  Students teaching us also.

Does this reduce the importance of the teacher?  No, in fact I think we become more important as we guide students along a path of discovery and encourage them to learn from each other.  We are still responsible for the measurable product of learning (which is a debate for another time) and the relationships within the learnign environment.  I think this approach requires more work outside of traditional class time, and significantly increases the maount of time in conversation with students.  But it is worthwhile, and a system I am happy to dwell in.

So should my colleague be nervous about “letting go?”  Definitely.  But please don’t let that stop you, it is important for the development of both the students and the pre-service teacher.

It was also interesting to observe them when given time to practice.  A range of actions were observed, with a wide ranging variety of questions being asked and answered around the room.  I had never specifically planned time to allow free practice before in a PD session, but wanted to dedicate the time following feedback from previous full day events.  This allowed the participants time to think, try and question.  I particularly found it comforting when they questioned whether the application of technologies I demonstrated were relevant to their context.  This comforted me because I believe by doing this they are demonstrating digital pedagogy, where the learning is important and tools are simply tools.  If the tools I choose to use are not relevant, they should not bother with them.  This is the first PD I have conducted where this has happened.

It is that simple shift of thinking beyond the tool to purposeful application that is exciting.  The change is happening.

I have spent considerable time this week working on the tools, in preference to the pedagogy.  In particular installing software for IWBs onto teacher laptops and showing teachers how to connect their laptop to projectors and printers.  Not exactly what I had in mind when my administration offered me a position of eLearning support.  However, an amazing thing has happened.  Teachers are talking.  Conversations about pedagogy have emerged around the tools enabled.  So I listen and think “What is more important here, the tool or the pedagogy.”

Its at this point I have one of those “aaahhh” moments.  In my pet subject of Health Education we often discuss the need to enable a population to change health behaviours and outcomes by providing them with the skills, knowledge, support and services.  Why should the development of digital pedagogy be any different?  Having been through this process, how can I enable the development of digital pedagogy?

Skills and knowledge – I need to tap into them, their teaching colleagues and HODs to ensure this is maximised.  The Ways of Working and Core Curriculum Elements will provide a base for discussions about pedagogy as they should be consistent across subject disciplines.

Support and services – getting the tools to work, providing access.  But I think there is more to it than this.  There needs to be an environment where teachers can experiment, and fail.  Although I am looking for an alternative word to fail, as that insinuates they have done something wrong.  But there needs to be support for trial and refinement.

I need to go and plan my enabling approach.  I’m ecstatic that setting up IWB software has sparked conversations about pedagogy.  There have even been decisions about what the IWB would not be useful for.

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.

There has been some recent activity on the web around the purposeful planning and potential measuring of digital learning.  This has resulted in a range of matrices being published and a debate on whether the VLE (virtual learning environment) is used appropriately in today’s world.  James Clay (of e-Learning Stuff) has posted a podcast titled “The VLE Debate” which offers a range of opinions on digital learning.  My work within the Smart Classrooms Framework has highlighted three components to digital learning.  These are digital pedagogy, digital content and eLearning spaces.  Comments from the podcast that ring true to me are fears that eLearning spaces (VLEs) are simply used as repositories for digital content.  For me, this does not represent good practice in digital pedagogy.  In fact, my use of BlackBoard began as a repository for course content.  It wasn’t until I began to develop my personal learning network that I discovered the range of experiences that could be developed and implemented, encouraging interaction instead of simply retrieval.

Two recent discoveries that will further assist me in my planning of digital learning are the “Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy” and a blogpost from “Teaching in the Digital Age.“  There is a dedicated wikispace for the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy that offers a range of resources to assit planning.  The particular post from “Teaching in the Digital Age” that interests me is the development of the “Digital Age Learning Matrix” posted on 20 November.  Although the whole paper is an interesting read, the matrix is what interests me most.  In particular is the placement of the concept of “sharing knowledge” within the matrix.  Other matrices have not specified this specifically, but the purposeful contribution to the “firehose of knowledge” is interesting and certainly a 21st century skill that should be developed.

What tools do you use to plan your digital learning?

Recently I was invited to share my journey to a range of practising and pre-service teachers.  As the sole Advanced ICT Pedagogical License holder within my region, I was required to outline the difference of practice between Certificate, License and Advanced License.  This is easier said than done, as Certificate and License holders presented before me and I did not want to portray that anything they were doing was less than worthwhile.

In the end I was humbled to in the company I was in.  The six (6) teachers who presented before me were passionate about learning and certainly passionate about exploring ICTs.  It was refreshing to witness teachers both enjoying their job and striving to improve.  However, I believe that ultimately the difference between a license holder and an advanced license is that the license holder is keenly exploring ICTs to build learning experiences around, whereas the advanced license holder provides students a range of ICTs they can engage with to enhance learning.

To demonstrate what is considered “Advanced” practice, I attempted to paint the picture that the use of technology was no longer the dominant factor.  It was not about learning new tools and generating the “wow” factor, rather an explicit understanding of how the practices one implements tie in to their personal beliefs on learning.  It was important to highlight the key terms from the descriptors within the criteria for achieving the ICT Pedagogical License Advanced.  These descriptors reflect the descriptors of the ICT Competency Standards for Teachers outlined by UNESCO.  They are;

1. Knowledge creation

   Curriculum moves beyond a focus on knowledge of school subjects to explicitly create new knowledge and engage in life-long learning.  This includes the ability to collaborate, communicate, create, innovate, and think critically.
2. Transform learning

   There is a shift of power in the learning relationship.  This is more than moving from a teacher-centred approach to a student-centred approach.  It involves negotiation with the learners and amongst the learners.
   
3. Actively construct meaning
   ICT use contributes to learning, and is purposeful.  Learners actively build an understanding of the processes they are experiencing.
   
4. Integrating learning areas

   I have re-defined this as a transfer of learning.  Ways of thinking and working in my class should be transferable to other areas of learning.
   
5. Integral ICTs

   The UNESCO standards state this as pervasive.  ICTs just occur.  This leads into concepts such as ubiquitous access.
   
6. Student negotiation

   Negotiation contributes to transformative learning.  This could be negotiation of any significant component of the learning environment.
   
7. Communication and collaboration

   These are the well publicised 21C skills. Modern learning is all about the learning organisations referred to in the UNESCO standards.
   
8. Continue personal learning

   Role model that learning never stops.  Demonstrate perpetual access to learning through online networks and tools.
   
9. Contribute to leadership

   Go beyond making your classroom an effective learning space.  How do you assist others in enhancing their learning spaces.

So how does an advanced license holder achieve these?  The posts following will attempt to outline my journey with each of these.