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.

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.

The first post dates back to the 6th June this year, by Dean Groom, and can be read here.  The post is titled 5 Ways to Create Spectacular Classrooms but I think this does not reflect the power of the suggestions within.  Dean does not suggest practices that could be considered groundbreaking or pioneering, yet they could easily align with any curriculum area or learning context.  I’ll reproduce the 5 suggestions below with my interpretation on how they could be applied in my context.  For Dean’s original explanation of the 5 suggestions, visit his site.

1. Use reflective, self reporting activities – In his entry Dean focuses on organisation and managment of resources and learning using Diigo.  I am thinking of applying the same concept to a learning log.  If I can establish a personal learning space in my classroom and students will have choice on the learning activities they undertake, then I see benefit in them keeping a record of what they choose to engage in and reflecting on those choices in consideration of goals set and perception of learning gain.  What resources I use to achieve this will need some further thought. Currently my students use Google for calendar and RSS reader, Zotero for notebooks, BlackBoard for LMS and Delicious for bookmarking.  I need to consider how I will get these services to work collaboratively.

   I am also keen on reflective activities for both teachers and students.  Significant changes to the shared learning space will need training for teachers and students.  This will include seeking their input on management of the space.  The potential approach described in the project idea will also need some initial framing as we expect students to learn, not be taught.  This will be fundamentally different to how they operate in any other class, but significantly beneficial to their lifelong learning.

2. Students must believe their choices and opinions matter – this extends from the previous point.  Students will have choice in learning, and I see the reflection as a method to ensure the learner sees the importance and influence of their choices.  I plan on seeking their opinions on the learning space construction and management, learning task management and evidence submitted to demonstrate achievement of assessment tasks.  But I want to add to this that I believe my teachers will also be learners in this process, therefore they must believe their opinions and choices matter also.
3. This week matters – this is essentially a process of journalling, the learning log I suggested in step 1 could address this.  Dean suggests a service called Today’s Meet which allows a time limited backchannel for open communication.  I’d prefer something more permanent at this point and will possibly tie in my concept of asynchronous conversations to achieve this.  Essentially students will construct a blogpost over the week however the blog may be written, video or audio.  However the Today’s Meet concept could be used to post a single question for the week which the students need to answer.  They can then choose the learning tasks that they believe will lead them to the answer, and reflect on those choices and the quality of answer submitted.  Blackboard has a managed release of resources option which could assimilate this functionality yet retain an archive for teacher access.
4. Make authentic connections – essentially, bring the outside world into the learning environment.  Services such as YouTube, TED Talks, iTunesU, Elluminate, SnagFilms, ABC iView, ClickView, blogs, podcasts, chats, forums and others allow this authenticity and relevance.  It will also serve the personal learning space and choice of learning tasks I am trying to achieve.
5. Build a vocabulary bank – now this is a simple, but great idea.  Each week a student is charged with the task of identifying a relevant term which they add to a dedicated wiki.  They add the term, a definition, a web reference and an application example.  A great way to build a relevant resource.

The second post is from 27th August on changED by Angela Cunningham.  Her post is entitled Tips for a Successful Cafe Conversation and is dedicated to guiding student discussion for learning.  This post was relevant to me as I enjoy the process of what I term discussion circles, where we move to a comfortable space to form a circle and openly discuss.  Angela also has 5 suggestions on how to generate productive learning discussion, but it is specifically point number one I am interested in.

1. Create a classroom environment that supports meaningful discussion – Angela has generated a set of Classroom Discussion Guidelines that she uses to teach her students how to participate productively in a discussion.  This resource is fantastic, and although I will modify it to suit the terminology of the syllabi I am working in, it certainly frames the expected participation of learners in the discussion. This is something I have been missing from my classroom.  I utilised a process of modeling appropriate engagement in the discussion however upon reflection feel that this may encourage some learners to wait for my input first.  A set of common guidelines, displayed prominently, should make this process much more effective.  I thank Angela for publicly sharing her guidelines.

So as my September holidays draw to a close, I am thinking of pedagogy, teacher training, virtual learning spaces and physical learning spaces.  I’m thinking of how these can be aligned to syllabi objcetives and Bloom’s Taxonomy.  I’m thinking of how this can be combined to enhance, enable and excite learning.

However, in thinking about how I progress through a unit of work and how it can be related to the TPACK diagram, I come to the conclusion that I tend to act like a circling shark.  I don’t begin at the central point of the TPACK framework, but rather aim to end up there.  I see that focal point as the point at which the students are experiencing a range of learning experiences within which they negotiate the pathway.  If the three arms of the framework have been implemented effectively, learners may not see the distinction between the separate knowledge types.  I am aware there are times where I focus specifically on development of content knowledge.  I am also aware that simply because Content Knowledge is the focus at that specific time, I am not ignoring Pedagogical or Technological knowledge.

Within the discussion on the Classroom 2.0 site where TPACK is presented, Punya Mishra (one of the professors credited with development of the TPACK framework) states that the framework is a continuum, in reference to teacher development.  I am beginning to think that it may also be a continuum in reference to point in time learning management.  I envisage myself as a single point roaming through the diagram, progressively getting closer to the central focus.

The reflection above does take the point of view of the TPACK framework as a working / implementation framework.  If I consider it as a planning framework then I recognise a very different approach.  I’m not quite sure how this might look in application.  The point Punya Mishra makes on the Classroom 2.0 discussion is important though – The important goal is that opportunities to develop TPACK, whether for a beginner or an expert, deal with all three of these components together, not independent of each other.

As I write this, it becomes clear to me that the three types of knowledge are well known.  Whilst at university I took many courses built on Content Knowledge and a few built on Pedagogical Knowledge.  Since teaching I have had many opportunities to experience Professional Development built on Technological Knowledge.  Rarely have I experienced them in partnership though.  So this will be a real challenge for me.  Especially as I (possibly) use it to develop my ability to build capacity of teachers.  Currently within my school I am working in a range of paths represented by this framework.  For some teachers I am definitely focused on pure Technological Knowledge.  I don’t believe that individually I can target the convergence of the three knowledge types.

Consider that I am trained within a specific subject discipline, and therefore have specialist knowledge.  This would suggest as an individual I could only build the TPACK capability of teachers within the same subject discipline.  As an individual I could address the convergence of Technological and Pedagogical Knowledge within teachers not teaching within my subject discipline.  And this in itself highlights a very important factor in the continual development of teachers – an individual approach cannot be completely effective.  Any person responsible for the Professional Development of teachers needs to engage in a team setting, and I suggest this is most effectively done with the specific clientele who have elected to attend your seminar, workshop or session.

My brain is exceptionally jumbled with the thinking around this framework (could you tell?) at the moment, hoping for some clarity on Tuesday.

For 5 hours today, all HODs and admininstration at my school collaborated on developing strategic projects based on feedback from staff.  We had identified four main areas to focus on, one of which was pedagogy.  There was a significant amount of feedback from staff that inferred they felt their pedagogy was limited by a lack of access to working technology.  In our small working group we decided to separate those comments as a misinterpretation of pedagogy.  We then developed our key issues from the remaining comments.

When we presented to the rest of the executive administration group, one HOD pointed out that 50% of the comments responding to the question “What barriers do you preceive limit your pedagogy” mentioned ICTs and maintenance of such.  He suggested we were taking liberties with the staff feedback by removing this from focus.  I responded as I would normally do in these circumstances and explain that pedagogy is about more than tools, and should not be dependent on tools.

Well a robust discussion ensued, and continued into and through our coffee break.  However it was one comment from the HOD of the Education Access Centre that shook me, and has me questioning myself.  She made a statement that staff feel they are required to use ICTs if their pedagogy is to be considered satisfactory.  I argued against that again stating pedagogy versus tools argument.  She responded that this was the significant message being sent.

Bang.  There it was.  Of course this is a significant message.  We are told daily that if we do not use the digitla tools that our students are supposedly so comfortable with that we will be left behind.  We have significant promotion of a PD framework that requires use of such digital tools.  So is it any wonder that teachers believe the tools are more important than the pedagogy.  Now I know some who read this will defend the PD framework, but there is no need as I believe in it strongly and base much of my work upon the indicators within.  However I had to agree.  The most significant message, one that I have been contributing to, is that ICT use is linked to required standards of pedagogy, strongly linked.

Now I am still not clear on how I feel about this.  It has certainly rocked me and had me reflecting since the comment was made.  Considering that my school has recently provided time for eLearning support of teachers and the fact that we require all staff to hold at minimum the ICT certificate supports this perception.  All I know is that I have significant impact on this perception.  How do I ensure the correct message is received, and staff do not feel the pressure to conform to a perception of a tool as more important than practice?

Definitely food for thought.