Education Policies and guidelines

 Reflective entry 7

Explain how your application of a digital and collaborative innovation relates to national educational policies/guidelines and contemporary educational theory and compare it to existing delivery models and needs 

Taylor, Hawera and Young-Loveridge (2005) found that only 16% of learners (183 year 5 and 6 students at six different New Zealand schools) viewed their teachers as mentors and themselves as responsible for actively seeking out and constructing knowledge. Maladaptive views about teacher and learner roles have been found to have a negative impact on learners’ development of skills and the development of identity, autonomy and agency, so is this still the case in 2020? For my student with special needs, this presents many challenges. Self-directed learning often results in my students not doing anything at all as they rely on adult support. Having the correct assistive technology in place can scaffold some learning, but it has to be very structured and easy to follow.

Martin (2004) characterises agency as "the capability of individual human beings to make choices and act on these choices in a way that makes a difference in their lives”. However, although we might believe that the most transformative learning comes from the learner’s own agency, Lindgren and McDaniel (2012) underline that “giving students the sense that they have control and the power to affect their own learning is one of the great challenges of contemporary education”. Students are expected to take more responsibility for their own learning, so my aim was to find the best collaborative tools for my students that will enable them to make some choices as well as learn from their peers. For many of my students working on a collaborative tool like google docs allowed them to do this. Many of the other programmes that were being used in class were too difficult for them to access.

A classroom-focused interpretation of agency “emphasizes students’ active engagement within richly furnished curricular settings with the support of teachers who encourage student risk-taking and active, self-directed experimentation with the alternative possibilities available in such settings” (Martin, 2004).

During the lockdown last year, it was very noticeable to whanau that my students with special needs were not able to access the curriculum. Subsequent lockdowns looked very different where my students were able to work collaboratively at their level on some tasks. They were able to access google drive from either their iPads or chrome books. Some students were able to use Clicker writer and book creator more efficiently.

ILEs are very much a hot topic in New Zealand schools, and there is much debate about their pros and cons. As Australian and NZ schools continue to move from traditional classrooms to ILEs, evidence of the impact of this transition is required to direct meaningful and sustainable improvements in student learning. With the participation of a significant number of schools in both Australia and NZ, this study should be able to provide specific robust recommendations to enable students in ILEs to better prepare for their futures. Although it is an Australian publication, New Zealand schools were included in the data (Imms, Mahat, Byers & Murphy, 2017). Almost 75% were still Type A (traditional classroom and storage) or Type B (traditional classroom, storage and some 'street space' access) in 2017.

Thornburg (2004) discusses different spaces within a learning environment and uses the metaphors of campfires, caves and watering holes. As a specialist teacher working in a mainstream class with my student with special needs I did not have too much control over the classroom layout. My students were often expected to work with the adults in class to support them. Not many opportunities were created for better collaborative learning spaces, but after the last lockdown and the teacher realised that my students weren’t able to access the curriculum like their peers, the teacher and I looked at specific ways to create more collaborative learning spaces. We changed the layout of the class, regrouped students that were more tolerant and empathetic towards my student. I helped her make visuals that were put in place to support my student to access programmes and apps. There were days where students wanted to be in a campfire and days where they wanted to remain in the watering hole. When my students felt sensory overload, these choices were available and we saw the difference it made to the student's self-confidence and knowing that they had choices.

Tiven, Fuchs, Bazari and MacQuarrie (2018), state that there are three evaluation types important to understand what a program is accomplishing and how outcomes can be enhanced and strengthened: 

• Needs assessments, what is needed and for whom, provide recommendations and consider implementation

• Process evaluations, aligning implementation with program expectations

• Outcome evaluations, is the program achieving its goals for student learning?

By making the small changes we did, I was able to answer each of these questions.

References

Martin, J. (2004). Self-Regulated Learning, Social Cognitive Theory, and Agency. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 135-145.

Smith, G. (1995). Whakaoho Whānau: New Formations of Whānau as an Innovative Intervention into Māori Cultural and Educational Crises. He Pukenga Korero, 1(1), 18–36.

Taylor, M., Hawera, N., & Young-Loveridge, J. (2005). Children’s views of their teacher’s role in helping them learn mathematics.   

Tiven, M. E., Fuchs, E., Bazari, A., & MacQuarrie, A. (2018). Evaluating global digital education: Student outcomes framework. New York, NY: Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 

Thornburg, D. (2004). Campfires in Cyberspace: Primordial Metaphors for Learning in the 21st Century. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning.