REFLECTING ON THE LEARNING...

“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow,"  is to learn something. That's the only thing that never fails.’’

T.H. White from The Once and Future King (GoodReads, 2018)

I have been pondering about students learning through teaching each other. While I was initially considering my own students, there is a parallel process with the forum discussions around the Assignment 2 e-portfolio (VN, SG, JW, & MB, 2018). I quietly reflected during that conversation that whether Niki’s non-response at the time (and since answered) was purposeful or not, the fact remained that we were teaching each other in using digital technology in education. Authentic learning in action (Davis, 2018).

I have previously talked in a blog post (no longer available to view) about growing self-efficacy in terms of digital technology, taking risks, and encouraging creativity (Brosnan, 1998). All of these traits were evident in that forum discussion. In her blog post “My Take on Quality Learning”, MB supports this view in her statement

“learning and building knowledge is co-constructed between participants... Both parties are involved in a joint enterprise of making meaning that builds new knowledge and strengthens prior knowledge” (MB, 2018)

Which got me thinking about Niki as the keystone figure, and the importance of her role in my learning. It seemed to me that if the keystone figure holds back, the floundering “tadpoles” (to steal MT's analogy) (MT, March 2018) have to learn very quickly to grow their legs! This is somewhat akin to the transformative leadership approach (Levin & Schrum, 2017), as Niki empowers us (whether we want her to or not) to accomplish more than we thought possible, and to become leaders in our own ecosystems.  While I might still be floundering, one thing I’m developing fast, if not my legs, is a better understanding of myself at least.

In my interview with a leader (blog post “Leadership Interview: An exploration on leadership style”, of 26 March), what stood out for me was the importance for him to be in alignment with his values (VN, March April 2018). This requires one to know oneself well. FR's Mr Karl supports this in his leadership interview, where Mr Karl states

“Well, as I said, you have to get to know yourself better than anyone and understand your capacity. It is not hard to adapt your leadership style to any setting if you know all about yourself.” (FR, 2018)

Both Mr Karl and my interviewee had a mix of leadership styles (transformative, distributed and instructional) as per the leadership options offered by Levin and Schrum (Levin & Schrum, 2017). A quick digital search of styles found a more diverse variety of educational leadership types (for example see EduZenith and EdTechReview), which might partly be due to semantics, but nevertheless demonstrated that three options were somewhat limiting (EduZenith, 2018; Gupta, 2016). Reading the blogs and forum messages from other students, it appeared that most student’s interviewees tended to have a mix of the three styles Levin and Schrum put forward. This was reflected in SG's comment that each model had strengths that should be embraced (“Inspiring Leadership” blog) (SG, 2018).

In exploring this topic, I became curious about leadership styles, and the contentious debates around distributed leadership (“Exploring the Distributed Leadership Style” blog) (VN, March April 2018). I am curious about its extensive use in New Zealand schools, however JW, in her blog “Leadership:  An Interview - Primary Principal”, pointed out the benefits of distributed leadership in integrating technology into schools (JW, 2018). Meanwhile, JL's bibliography showed a positive light towards transformational leadership (“Annotated Bibliography: A Research on leadership styles” blog post) where he states that 

“it is suggested that Transformational has a positive effect on schools’ leadership ability to facilitate change in school restructuring initiatives, and is suitable for dealing with the demands of schools in 21st Century” (JL, 2018).

Leadership that facilitates change in an educational setting, “restructuring initiatives”, and dealing with modern learning practices, brings me back to my own learning context within my ecological setting. My blog, “Using the Arena Framework to Explore Integrating Technology-Based Online Learning in a Relational-Based Learning Environment” explores my teaching context and has the main themes of the importance of self-growth of the student, process of change, and working towards the development of self-efficacy (VN, March April 2018). All of which are part of my own journey of course. 

I felt challenged in working with a context that seemed at odds with many others, but as JW mentions in her forum comment, “many of us have contexts that are unique” (JW, 2018), and this includes how we are in our working ecosystem as well as our living and learning environment. These thoughts are resonating with my process of change, and the impact that has occurred on the various ecosystems I am connected with, as a result of this learning environment and experience.

A lot of learning and growth occurred in getting it all off my chest in my blog of 10 April, “A Personal Exploration of the ISTE Standards”, a critical reflection of the ISTE Standards against this course (VN, March, April 2018).  One point I talked about was the importance of feedback, which was supported by a number of comments in NS's blog posts, including students learning to give and receive feedback; the “significance of immediate feedback”; and her leadership interviewee reporting that the feedback he received from students, parents, and teachers was his “greatest reward” (see blog posts “Designing and teaching a hybrid course: the role of feedback” and “Conversation with a Deputy Principal”) (NS, 2018). While these views supported my stance, I can now see that this level of feedback might be viewed as being somewhat akin to soothing an anxious child. Self-efficacy also involves the ability to self-soothe.

I also stated that I was wanting communication but not offering it myself. This tension seemed reminiscent of ST's push/pull comments in her blog “A draft casestudy plan on Instagram in the classroom” (ST, 2018). While her remarks are based around the integration of new technology in the classroom, I suggest the same could be said for anything that is being undertaken for the first time, such as the tension between moving towards what is new/novel and the pulling back from what is difficult or not working.

My own critical thinking, problem-solving and decision making (as per the ISTE standards) has been severely tested throughout my learning process (VN, March April 2018). I recognise now that much of my frustration in my critical reflection was directed at Niki, and for this, I apologise. The learning in that regard came much later. I do, however, uphold that the intensity and brevity of this course creates a challenge for promoting creativity and quality of the learning.

I recognised my own situational dilemma in digital learning mirrored that of my students, particularly in the push for the autonomy of learning and my own reactive push back against that. In the midst of my floundering about in the dark, I came to realise that I needed to just stop and do whatever felt right at the time (self-efficacy), hence the critical reflection. This forced sense of autonomy has helped me realise the point I was missing – that whatever I undertake, I can set about reviewing and researching without anyone needing to hold my hand.

FR's poignant perspective explores this issue in his forum post of 19 April, “The challenge of online learning in fostering learners' autonomy: a personal experience”(FR, 2018), as does MT's response. They both discuss this issue in relation to adult learners and the challenges of being a self-directed learner. In MT's response of 20 April (MT, 2018), she cited a quote from Boud and Walker that was particularly pertinent:

“When learners are involved in making decisions about their own learning, particularly the nature, scope, and purpose, learning becomes more productive, meaningful and relevant to those closest to the action” (as cited in MT, 2018).

I have been sitting with questions regarding whether implementing digital technology is the right action for my contextual situation. Particularly the implications that might stem from this in terms of its effect on human relationships. In some respects, this links with the importance of authentic learning, as in, is it relevant (emphasis added)? JW reported in her blog “Quality Learning using a Digital Tool”, that the relevance to herself, and her context, of what she was learning helped her become “deeply immersed” in it (JW, 2018), while MB suggested that

“when we add a digital ‘tool’ to the partnership we have to ensure that the tool compliments, and not disrupts, the co-construction of meaning or the partnership in learning” (see blog post “My Take on Quality Learning”) (MB, 2018).

The human aspect of digital citizenship, including the personal, societal and cultural aspects, and the ethical responsibility that comes with that, is paramount.  This relates to not only the importance of human connection as discussed, but also in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, and the ‘digital divide’. This term has come up several times on the student forums and blogs and appears to refer largely to the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ in terms of students with access to digital technology, such as JL's reference to it on his blog “Curriculum Reform Caused by Adopting M-Learning in ESOL” (JL, 2018). SG has given a broader view of it in a previous blog post “The Digital Divide” (SG, 2016) which includes not only the technology but the access to knowledge. This is closer to the context in which I work where older students are often lacking not only the technical knowledge, but also the experience of having had digital technology as an intrinsic part of their lives. In other words, it simply doesn’t come naturally. MB's excellent post “Quality Learning” discusses accountability in the quality and equity of education, including asking the important question of: at whose feet does this lie, and for whose benefit (MB, 2018)? A good question to ask with regards to whether the integration of digital technology is pertinent.

Honouring diversity through the tenets of the Treaty of Waitangi, namely the principles of partnership, participation and protection (Clements, 2016), is important for all members of society who feel marginalised in some way. This is echoed in MB's post in which she states that acknowledging and respecting diversity in New Zealand education is fundamental to the adherence of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (MB, 2018). The New Zealand Curriculum’s directions for learning (and encompassing the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi) holds the vision of young people becoming lifelong learners (Ministry of Education, 2007). It stands to reason then that this vision should extend to those students who are still learning in their later years.

FR offers a quote on his blog that seems very apt for all societies where there are students who are marginalised or disadvantaged in some way:

“No pedagogy which is truly liberating can remain distant from the oppressed by treating them as unfortunates and by presenting for their emulation models from among the oppressors. The oppressed must be their own example in the struggle for their redemption” (Paulo Freire as quoted in FR, 2018).

Lastly, I wish to comment on the learning around change models. In some ways, this seems quite separate from all that has been discussed, disconnected even. There is less commentary on the student blogs in regard to this, and in some respects, this matches my ambivalence with this section of the paper. In my essay I explored the change models of the Arena (Davis, 2018) and the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) (Hall & Hord, 1987). Both had their strengths, however, overall, I found that the Arena offered a more holistic approach and encompassed students’ perspectives (VN, March 2018) which would be better suited to my working context. I feel it would offer a clearer view on whether integrating digital technology would be to the most benefit for my students. However, SG felt that the CBAM allowed for

“the unique understanding that each person comes from. People are all different and therefore have both learning differences and differences in experiences.” (“Enhancing Change in Today’s Schools” blog post) (SG, 2018).

Having said that, I am in an evolving ecosystem of learning. These considerations are likely to evolve and change as well.  My legs have started to sprout, but I’m sure there is a lot more growing and changing that needs to happen before I begin to croak.

[Apologies if I have not referenced the blogs accurately with regard to APA style. I have endeavoured to retain confidentiality of fellow students.  Please feel free to comment, advise, correct or reflect on any of the above.]

[Image via Pixabay, no attribution required.]

REFERENCES

Brosnan, M. (1998). The impact of computer anxiety and self‐efficacy upon 
          performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14 , 223–234

Clements, A. (2016). Te Tiriti o Waitangi – living the values. Retrieved from School News: https://www.schoolnews.co.nz/2016/11/te-tiriti-o-waitangi-living-the-values/

Davis, N. (2018). Digital technologies and change in education: The Arena framework. New York: Routledge.

EduZenith. (2018). Educational Leadership. Retrieved from EduZenith: https://eduzenith.com/types-of-leadership-styles-in-education

FR (2018). Leader Interview & Reflection [Blog post]. Retrieved from FR blog post

FR (2018). The challenge of online learning in fostering learners' autonomy : a personal experience. From Support and Discussion Forum for The Personal Perspective Forum. Retrieved from Forum discussion - The challenge of online learning...

GoodReads. (2018). T. H. White Quotes. Retrieved 20 April, 2018, from GoodReads: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/21627-the-best-thing-for-being-sad-replied-merlin-beginning-to

Gupta, P. (2016). Educational leadership styles for school leaders to know. Retrieved from EdTechReview: http://edtechreview.in/trends-insights/insights/2390-educational-leadership-styles

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the Process. Albany: State University of New York Press.

JL (2018). My Journey on EDEM630 [Blog]. Retrieved from JL blog

JW (2018). Digital Technology Learning Journey [Blog]. Retrieved from JW blog

JW (2018). Re: A personal experience of the ISTE standards. From Support and Discussion Forum for The Personal Perspective Forum. Retrieved from Forum discussion - A personal experience...

Levin, B. B., & Schrum, L. (2017). Every Teacher a Leader: Developing the Needed Dispositions, Knowledge, and Skills for Teacher Leadership.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

MB (2018). Quality Learning [Blog post]. Retrieved from MB blog post

Ministry of Education. (2007). New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media Limited.

MT (April, 2018). The challenge of online learning in fostering learners' autonomy : a personal experience. From Support and Discussion Forum for The Personal Perspective Forum. Retrieved from Forum discussion - The challenge of online learning...

MT (March 2018). Growing tadpoles [Blog post]. Retrieved from MT blog post

NS (2018). EDEM630 blog [Blog]. Retrieved from NS blog
SG (2016). The digital divide [blog post]. Retrieved from SG blog post

SG (2018). Redefining education one tool at a time. [Blog]. Retrieved from SG blog

ST (2018). A draft casestudy plan on Instagram in the classroom [Blog post]. Retrieved from ST blog post

VN (2018, March, April). Teaching from a place of learning: Experiential learning in action [Blog]. Retrieved from VN blog

VN (2018, March). Review of the Arena Framework and the Concerns-Based Adoption Model. EDEM630 Essay. Christchurch.

 VN, SG, JW, MB (2018, April). Assignment 2 - portfolio. General questions and answers about assessment forum discussion forum. Retrieved from Forum discussion - Assignment 2