The Interdisciplinary Map....is it really new??

Here is my Interdisciplinary Map.I tried to show that the main “theme” content was in place during the early days  of my teaching career (1980) and that the collaboration that was used drew upon the strengths of the people around you.

What was very very important were the skills each person had, but also the links that each teacher had in a social and professional context:  a friend or colleague, who could be relied upon (sometimes -put upon) to add to the termly “theme”.

This “theme” the overarching TOPIC which was broken down by the 7 curriculum areas that existed in New Zealand then was jointly planned and executed.(As an aside the 7 curriculum areas were individually updated and the unpacking of these was a lot simpler to do as a staff)

The Arts(Music Dance ,Drama) ,Social Sciences,Technology ,Science, English and Maths were then integrated and the learning was teased out through both knowing the needs of the students but also looking to bring on board a wider range of skills -the Teachers as learners as well.

The graphic is my reflection on the shift from the “80’ through to the present day.

The middle section of the Harekeke (flax) shows the New Zealand Curriculum as it was released and the right hand side shows the digital shift.

I did feel watching the American models of this new Interdisciplinary “ approach that there may be some element of “kickback’ from teachers who were and are now very keen to distance themselves from the prescriptive schooling structure in the United States that occurred during the same time scales in my map.No offence intended.

In my teaching context -a hard technology classroom this approach suits design work collaboration and personal interest to create right down to the ground. It is the use of the digital applications and design applications that I am now working towards with my students. Projects are individualised ,though there is scope for collaboration. Historical cultural and geographical links are explored.

I have children keen to explore and make ,there is a design room and a complete workshop,and we create together. These elements are linked to the comments below from the ACRLog blog site.

“Two of these elements can be controlled: (a) favorable attitudes and personality qualities toward interdisciplinary engagement and (b) common goals determined between the involved parties. The third element—(c) workplace conditions—is largely out of the collaborators’ control but still impacts the partnership. When all three facets come together, we believe successful collaboration can occur. In the event that one facet is absent or lacking, we believe that collaboration can still function but may be difficult to sustain.”

ACRLog welcomes a guest post from Laura MacLeod Mulligan, M.L.S., Information Services Librarian, and Dr. Adam J. Kuban, Assistant Professor of Journalism, both at Ball State University.

In looking carefully I wondered if we have just altered our jargon again -could this be “edspeak”- cross pollination, Multi faceted,data mining, systems thinking,interdisciplinary integration,combining domains,.......but I still prefer to use the language I use with my students:

Critical thinking

Creativity

Collaborate

Communicate.

Whats my take on social networks for online teacher professional development

Thanks for stopping by….the hook is below in “bold”.

From the webinar and the readings the following reflections have simmered in note form for some weeks. I was a new member to the Virtual learning Network and needed to sort myself early, making sure I had the “sound and vision” as David Bowie would have put it, under control.

I had set myself a huge time space so no hitches could take place.

I had No preconceived ideas on the flow, structure or the Webinar protocols that I knew others would have in place. I didn’t think it was really a place for me as I am a Hard technology teacher - Yr 7 & 8 students - woodworking, metals, plastics...etc.

Critically discuss the use of social online networks in teaching or professional development.

So with that in mind here is a summation of what I thought and how I now can say - I liked it!I

It worked for me, given that the timing of previous sessions were never going to fit.

Karen Melhuish had said that this is was a “thriving participatory system vs educators to engage in an informal kind of Professional development.. To share

*Immediate concerns

*Contexts in our practice

* Leadership”

So for me - this electronic communication is an alternate road to the ‘in house’ professional development that is in schools here in New Zealand today.

It has been a long time since the advisory and specialist services were catering for teachers and management providing outsourced (out of school) professional development.

Mostly in this day Senior management will be provided with these opportunities.

Or in our cases - MINDLAB has furthered our discourses and learning networks.

We have Communities of Learning that have been implemented, the personel selected and the odd opening day, but they have lumbered into existence, require serious management and only offer a trickle down level of professional development to the classroom level teacher.

Harsh perhaps, but to quote Fullan (2006) “Effective school change and system lift places professional development at the heart”  of the matter here.

Timperly et al, (Best Evidence Synthesis -Teaching) noted that it has to be ONGOING- action Inquiry research…..

• With methodology
• Formal policies and curriculum
• Social organisation
• Current discourse

What the webinar offered was a participatory platform for providing what what was also outlined and wanted from (BES) - diversity in teacher community discussions, and the IMPACTS for diverse learners.

So what was it that puts the likes of me off - bearing in mind that FAMILIARITY in practise with Technology is a cornerstone of the changing digital landscape.

My past attempts had been thwarted by access, the timing to connect with a group was never aligning with my schedule, the required sorting of access through differing platforms or organisation, reluctance generally to use a digital voice out into the unknown, and or to people unknown.

What has happened to my mindset on this now. In reflection…….

1. The sidebar provided the names of the participants - I knew members and could acknowledge their presence during the process
2. Technical advice was forthcoming from a facilitator who popped the links in at a timely juncture
3. Sound and vision set backs and volumes were ironed out with prior early set up
4. I was happy with the ability to control image and voice, just to listen where necessary
5. The pace of delivery could be controlled
6. The information delivered when organised can be tight and target appropriate

Would I join in  again -Yes I am out there now, am looking and listening on two groups.

Participating???

Just past Risk taking..needing more familiarity.

Cultural Sensitivity......

Indigenous knowledge and cultural responsiveness in my practice

The following continues the reflections that are assigned to us and relates to Maori, Pacifica, and refugee nations; the latter whom are non english speaking and who attend our school.

In my context showing “Tuakana teina” is imbedded into our appraisal system - linked by the works of Professor Angus Hikairo Macfarlane.

We are an Intermediate, with  Year 7 and 8 students, which draws on the whanau (family) from differing contributing schools.

My classroom is a Hard materials workshop, where ‘design and make’ are the order of the day.

The classroom is, of course, the daily lived experience of students; thus validation of students’ cultural identities and valuing of the cultural knowledge students bring with them to school have the potential to make a difference (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003; Sleeter & Grant, 2009).

Things we know - the effective teaching profile which developed out of Te Kotahitanga and the research work of Bishop and Merryman (2006), shows learning and achievement improves when teachers put aside deficit thinking and focus on building positive relationships and setting high standards.

Recently at a Conference (Nelson 2017) M Berryman who was apart of the above development said ‘Relationships first, culture second and structure third’. She said the students felt the most important thing to them was that the teacher really cared about them.  She was talking about the pedagogy of relationships - interactions emerge from relationships; culture counts (it’s important) and power is shared between self determining individuals with no dominating relationships of interdependence.

Pedagogy = responsive and interactive .

Learners / Teachers are connected through a common purpose/vision and reciprocal responsibility.

In my own practice I am fully aware that my relationship building comes first, mutual respect - being able to laugh at myself (slightly self deprecating without losing face), wait for the response - don’t hurry the “korereo”(conversation/talk), or push questioning, remain calm/open. I have  a design brief to help draw out cultural inferences and influences which often opens the lines of reciprocal acknowledgement.

We also know teaching is determined by the quality of inquiry into the relationship between teacher actions and student learning. Effective teachers inquire (reflect) into what they do (outcomes), along with what happens to students (learning), and then they take actions in what they do to improve the outcomes for students (Aitkin 2007).

Hence our inclusion, pardon the pun, with teacher appraisal linked to Hikairo (Professor Macfarlane).

(Hattie 2009) presented evidence that teachers who are passionate about making a difference are more likely to make that difference. Teachers who are “activators” and provide quality feedback for students are far more effective than when teachers act as “facilitators”.

The four most effective methods from Hatties effect size analysis work that need to be remembered are - feedback, instructional quality, direct instruction and remediation/feedback, presupposes that you already have a cultural responsiveness in place.

Differentiated learning (Bloom 1974) recognises the prior learning we all bring to a task and that all individuals require different levels of challenge, pace, context and content.  The Ministry of Education study on “Student participation and achievement in Science” (which essentially is what my technology classroom is), stated that they are a social justice and equity issue because of the roles science and its applications play in addressing many of the challenges and exploring the opportunities facing society today (Ministry of Education, 2007).

New Zealand primary classes increasingly include students with diverse cultural, linguistic and experiential backgrounds. For some of these children their home and cultural background, ways of interacting, and making sense of the world allow them to fit easily into school science. Others, although their knowledge and experience are just as rich, struggle to find a way to engage and participate in classroom science learning.

We successfully operate a bilingual Maori classroom, we have a schoolwide - all cultures Kapahaka performing group. Pacifica this year formed their group for singing dance and Sasa, and the Refugee nations have begun to develop the school gardens for the growing and sharing of vegetables for all.

Importantly like the other teachers, I still where  indigenous knowledge and cultural responsiveness consider myself a Learner.