Shifts and jumps - culturally responsive teaching and developing community

(CC)

When I enrolled in the Mindlab I was pretty confident with digital practice, considered myself to be a connected teacher and felt that I was quite familiar with collaborative pedagogy having explored knowledge building with my online art history class the past 2 years.

 I thought that the Mindlab would be novel, thought-provoking, and a ‘string to my bow, but I didn’t realise what a journey it would be. I have made huge shifts in my thinking in two areas - culturally responsive teaching and what it means to collaborate as a community.

My ambition regarding my professional development will become a reality in 2018.  I have been lucky enough to receive a TeachNZ award. I will complete my Masters I propose to explore how a knowledge building community might enhance student engagement.

A shift in my practice was comprehending what it meant to be a culturally responsive. Though I have a long way to go on this journey I have made huge mental jumps over the year. To begin with, I knew that it was important to be culturally responsive but could not have articulated what this meant or what it might look like in the classroom. Reading about Bishop’s ‘whanau of interest’ model for research was a revelation to me (PTC 12). He emphasises a participatory approach guided by the interests and aspirations of whanau (Bishop, 1998) The implications for my classroom are a more collaborative learner centred program that is informed by my learners' interests and goals. (PTC 2, PTC 8, PTC 9, PTC 10)

Similarly, Milne’s ‘Colouring in the White Spaces’ (2013) opened my eyes to what mainstream education is like for māori learners. Her exploration of how spaces within a school could reflect and value Māori learners struck a particular chord. Milne’s thesis explores spaces reflect the values of the community, classrooms operated according to tikanga, and learning centred around that which was valuable and meaningful to the community. This got me thinking about my own art room and what is communicated through the said and the unsaid. We have a unique opportunity with my multi-level classes to work as a community and share ideas across levels and art fields (PTC 7). Furthermore, I have been reflecting on the rich opportunities and possibilities for more authentic learning experiences that my students will connect with. We are a small rural community with the ocean at our feet, rivers to either side and preceded over by the Southern Alps. Our students have a strong sense of belonging to their local community and the environment. Immersive place-based learning (Greenwood, 2010) could be a powerful way of leveraging engagement with our learners (PTC 2, 3, 8). Our point of difference and our taonga is our local community. This is so possible if we (as a teachers and as a school) are willing to run with it. Our community groups want to connect with our school (PTC 1). For example Hokitika Industrial Heritage Park’s ambition is to pass on their expertise to our young people. This really excites me and I hope that we rise to the challenge,

 Another challenge  in my practice this year was developing a knowledge building community culture within my art history class. Certain students in my class just struggled with the collaborative nature of the course and to even share their ideas with the class. For a variety of reasons (a later start to the school year, a small community with members often absent from the VC for events within their own school community, feeling pressed to cover content in a timely fashion ) we didn’t spend as much time on developing our connections as a community as we have previously. Students largely operated as individuals rather than a team and were very shy of sharing their work with others.I believe that this  lack of connection and trust between learners impacted  on our ability to function as a community of learners. Previously students have really valued the collaborative environment and the creative thinking KBC tends encourage. “My teacher is encouraging and inclusive of all ideas. … our ideas all bounce off each other and we're encouraged to think in more abstract ways, not just gathering 'the right knowledge' ... It's a more creative learning environment.” (art history student, 2016)  (PTC 2) Knowledge Building and community development were a more natural and organic process. I have been guided by my literature review and professional readings (PTC 4, PTC 12) in my reflection on what defines a high functioning knowledge building community and what the roadblocks were in 2017 . Lai (2014) states that a strong sense of trust can be pivotal to a students ability and inclination to build knowledge in the KB community and emphasises the value of developing a collaborative learning culture within a class. Laux, Luse, and Mennecke (2016) also state that for learners to attain success within a collaborative framework, there needs to be a willingness and an ability to do so. Trust and connections within the cohort are essential elements. In 2018 I plan to orientate my students around what is means to be a community and devote our first few weeks to simply building connections and getting to know each other as people.

“Instructor pronouncements in an online discussion are treated as correct and discussion ends” Meyer, K. A. (2014) Students will often happily reply to me, but are reticent about interacting with each other. Lai and Campbell’s case study (2017) also indicated that students needed the space the freedom to ask questions, for epistemic agency to develop. As a teacher I need to position myself as a facilitator rather than expert and final authority. This will involve learning design which creates the space for ‘digital take up time’. To foster a mindset shift from the teacher as expert to teacher as facilitator I need to demonstrate to my students that they are capable of building knowledge “It requires a belief that students can deliberately create knowledge that is useful to their community in further knowledge building ” (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 2006) (PTC 5, 7)

Students also need to see the value in working as a community and understand the guiding principles of KBC. “It seems that when students had a deeper understanding of the knowledge building principles, they became more willing to contribute and improve ideas.” (Lai, 2014). It will be worthwhile to spend time at  beginning of the year orientating students to what knowledge building looks like (PTC 8), what the big ideas are and how we might go about it. This could come in the form of KBC roadmap, impact stories from students about what knowledge building means to them and the difference it made to their learning, or a mixture of the two.

I look forward to developing a more collaborative community focused environment in my classroom (PTC 6, 7).

Naku te rourou nau te rourou ka ora ai te iwi

Bishop, R. (1998). Freeing ourselves from neo-colonial domination in research: A Māori approach to creating knowledge. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(2), 199–219.

Greenwood, D. A. (2011). Why Place Matters. In Handbook of research in the social foundations of education. New York: Routledge.

Education Council, New Zealand. (n.d.). Practicing teaching criteria and e-learning. Retrieved November 20, 2017, from http://elearning.tki.org.nz/Professional-learning/Practising-Teacher-Criteria-and-e-learning

Lai, Kwok-Wing (2014). Designing knowledge building communities in secondary schools.

Laux, D., Luse, A., & Mennecke, B. (2016). Collaboration, connectedness, and community: An examination of the factors influencing student persistence in virtual communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 452–464.

Meyer, K. A. (2014a). Learning theories and student engagement. In Student engagement online: what works and why (pp. 15–36). John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Milne, D. A. (2013). Colouring in the white spaces. University of Waikato.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge Building: Theory, Pedagogy, and Technology. In Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.