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.

Professional context - Our Place

Westland High School is coeducational and caters for years 7 to 13. It has a decile rating of 6 and a roll of 373. We are a small rural school on the West Coast.

Our learners are 20% Māori, 1% Asian, 1% Pacific, 4% Other, with the remaining students identifying as Pākehā. Our contributing schools range geographically from 'just up the road' to 26 kilometres away. We are geographically isolated, however, this has its own unique advantages. Students are connected to the environment with many rich geological features readily accessible.

We are a 'broad church' and arguably have a wider range of community concerns to attend to than a more homogenous urban school.

Our students are connected to the region and the community. Our school site acts as a hub for many community events (community sport, community ACE classes etc). Our Māori students feel a strong sense of identity and are confident with learning  within Te Ao Māori

There is a disconnect between aspirational rhetoric and practice. Westland High School states that it prioritises the success of Maori students, however, a recent ERO report identified significant issues. "This intention is not supported with action planning by leaders and teachers to cohesively support Māori learners to achieve success. ... Trustees and leaders need to work collaboratively with Māori learners, whānau, the Māori community and school staff "

Sadly this contrasts starkly with Māori achievement only a few years ago where Māori learners were achieving at the highest levels within our classes and bucking the national trend for our decile rating and felt happy and confident in their learning at Westland High School. We seem to be in a state of mauri moe (Pohatu, 2011) (withdrawn, disengaged, lacking energy) currently. I have been agonising over this, as I don't think we're doing our maori learners justice.We need to connect with and value our learners and for this to be evident in the classrooms, in the playground, in the way that we do things. We need to communicate through the said and unsaid that we value maori culture and maori learners.

Much like our learners, there is a sense of disconnection amongst staff. We talk about a future focused school, however collaboration is at a low ebb. “Major decisions affecting teaching and learning have been made with little consultation. This has led to a lack of collaboration and low morale amongst staff.” (ERO, 2017) This sense of disconnection and frustration of not being heard and not being communicated to has led teachers to operate within a culture of individualism (Stoll, 1998). Teachers operate autonomously within classroom siloes. There are elements of Balkanism (Stoll, 1998) with small instances of spontaneous collegial support and collaboration amongst staff.

We seem to lack a school wide culture that connects us as a group. Schein (as cited by Stoll, 1998) defines organisational culture as the deeper ingrained ideas and values shared by the group. That is the things that define us, that we just know ‘that’s how we do things’. We lack a central culture as a school. We are currently fragmented and paralyzed as a school and need to regain a sense of common culture and what drives us. This will involve a realignment “a mutual process of coordinating perspectives, interpretations, and actions so they realize higher goals”(Wenger, 2000). While we need clear and inspiring leadership to guide us, we all have a part to play in supporting organisational change.

I am optimistic that if we as a school (in the broadest sense) place the learner at the centre of what we’re doing, we will find the strength to dust ourselves off and connect to our common purpose.

"Hutia te rito o te harakeke, Kei whea te komako e ko? Ki mai ki ahau; He aha te mea nui o te Ao? Maku e ki atu, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata"

Reference list:

ERO. (2017, June 29). Westland High School - 29/06/2017. Retrieved from http://www.ero.govt.nz/review-reports/westland-high-school-29-06-2017/ 

Stoll. (1998). School Culture. School Improvement Network’s Bulletin 9. Institute of Education, University of London. Retrieved from http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Culture/Understanding-school-cultures/School-Culture

Potahu, T. W. (2011). Mauri - Rethinking Human Wellbeing. MAI Review, 3, 1-12.

Wenger, E.(2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization,7(2), 225-246.

Culturally responsive classroom - being at home at school

After reading about culturally responsive teaching, the idea that stuck with me was power-sharing (Cowie et al, 2011, p. 3, tuākana teina in action). Within ako, and the concept of tuākana-teina there is a valuing of cultural knowledge and the expertise that rangatahi bring to  the classroom. This is a massive mindset shift for some teachers, yet is completely in line with 21st century pedagogies such as knowledge construction within Knowledge Building Communities. (Student centred learning, authentic contexts, diversity of ideas, valuing of student knowledge and expertise) Another concept that resonated was valuing and drawing upon community knowledge. "The teachers used an ensemble of strategies to welcome and highlight the value of community and student funds of knowledge" (Cowie et al, 2011, p. 3, para 4) . Akonga are more likely to engage with learning that reflects them and values them.

Milne (2013) critiques mainstream education in NZ,  'Colouring in the White Spaces' referring to the pervasive hegemony of Pakeha culture in education. Her case studies all designed learning environments that reflected their community and their values. This ranged from the physical design to values. Students felt valued, felt empowered and felt at home at school. Milne's recent blog post ('Why not whiteboy's writing, October 15 2017) powerfully critiqued the pervasive deficit thinking in our schools around Māori achievement. If we believe that our learners are able and we actually work at engaging with te ao māori and connecting with learners, connecting learning to their worlds, then maybe we'll see a shift. " the knowledge we value—and measure—is also White and it, therefore, benefits the children whose values match, and whose values are embedded in and reproduced by our schools ... We need to learn to read the world of our Māori children and craft our pedagogy around that world." (Milne, 15 Oct 2017) As teachers, we need to look at where our locus of control is and that starts with us and our pedagogy.

I will critique communication methods and learning activities within my school, against the Mauri model (Potahu, 2011). Communication is how a school connects with akonga and the broader community, through the said and the unsaid.  Learning design inevitably has values behind it.  As a school we have some work to do around these areas. A recent ERO report identified that Māori students felt confident in their learning within te reo and kapahaka, however, this is not translating to the broader school. This suggests that our learners are in a state of mauri moe (withdrawn). As a school, we need to look at our practices and ask 'why'. To move into Mauri Oho (proactive), we need to recenter our learning design to enhance Mahana (warmth) and relationships in learning. This involves taking time to connect with our learners and to really be present, connecting with their values and more than that, designing an environment where student values inform their learning.  

So, as a digital immersion school  with 1/3 Māori learners how do we design a space (physical and virtual) that is authentically Māori, and affirms Māori learners?  The symbolic levels of communication (what is valued, what is celebrated, the kind of language we use to describe ourselves in a public space) speak volumes to our Māori community.

Bishop's An indigenous approach to creating knowledge (1998) is useful here. He refers to a 'whanau of interest', describing the metaphorical whanau as a place for constructing shared meanings guided by mutually understood protocols.  "it is the concerns, interests and preferences of the whanau that guide and drive the research processes". There is much to be learnt from Bishop. How powerful would it be if teachers were to define their classes as 'whanau of interest' and value the ideas and ambitions of their learners?   

Reference list:

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

Cowie, B., Otrel-Cass, K., Glynn, T., & Kara, H., with Anderson, M., Doyle, J., Parkinson, A., & Te Kiri, C. (2011). Culturally responsive pedagogy and assessment in primary science classrooms: Whakamana tamariki. Summary Report Wellington: Teaching Learning Research Initiative. (PDF - 76.84 KB)

Knowledge Building Gallery. (n.d.). Introduction. Retrieved from http://thelearningexchange.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/KB-Gallery-0-Introduction-Accessible.pdf

Milne, A. (2013). Colouring in the white spaces : reclaiming cultural Identity in whitestream Schools (Doctoral dissertation, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10289/7868

Milne, A. (2017, October 14). Why not White Boys' Writing? [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.annmilne.co.nz/my-blog/2017/10/14/why-not-white-boys-writing-1

Potahu, T. W. (2011). Mauri - Rethinking Human Wellbeing. MAI Review, 3, 1-12.