Mark Osborne

Week 32 - Reflect on your learning journey - (Check)

Stage 1:

Prior to starting the MindLab I had preconceived ideas about what collaboration was.
I teach in an innovative learning space where myself and another teacher 'collaborate'
it is said that we do collaborative teaching/learning.

Another rather large problem for myself as a teacher is the fact that research supports
heterogeneous grouping however when this was used in our classroom space it was strongly
suggested from management that we stop and to go back to streaming as we have a very low
achieving year group who they believe would benefit from 'traditional teaching'.

Stage 2: Observation and analysis

What kind of data of the identified problem you have gathered?

Firstly my colleague and I are working at level 5 on the ITL rubric. However when we it became apparent that although we are working collaboratively our students are still on stage 1 where they are required to work in pairs or groups.

Secondly in regard to heterogeneous groups we started the year with such groups. I felt that for

the first time in a very long time I had evened out the playing field for my students. I had students

of mixed ability, gender and nationality in each group. When I introduced a new concept and a child

knew something about it, they became the expert. I saw an genuine interest from different students

in each topic we did. Every year previously when I name my groups children instantly know who

the lower achievers are based upon what group they are placed in and you can hear the kids

ranking themselves. However this year I didn't experience this. Until I had to stream. One little

boy who is in the lower group who had previously been so eager to share his thoughts I could

visibly see his shoulders slump.

Stage 3: Abstract reconceptualization

In regard to collaborative teaching after an in depth discussion with my co-teacher we have

decided that we need to come up with activities that promote collaboration. We will need to

change a lot of the traditional ways we teach. The 21st century skills Voogt & Roblin (2010)

include collaboration as being one of many necessary skills to prepare our students for an

unknown workforce in the future. We need to investigate what this will look like with one

curriculum area before implementing it in all areas of the curriculum. We will need to ensure

that management understand what we are doing and why.

In relation to heterogeneous groups MOE (2017) states that 'we as teachers should

develop a learning-focused culture, a culture that is focused on learning, and is characterised by

respect, inclusion, empathy, collaboration and safety".  Which I believe heterogeneous grouping

does. Hattie & Yates (2009) suggests that there is little difference to outcomes between whether

or not you use heterogeneous groupings or not. However he does explain that children who are in

the lower levels usually stay in the lower levels throughout their schooling. I am wondering whether

this is because of the fixed mindset that they develop when they are  put in 'the low group'.

Dweck (2016) explains that students from lower socio economic backgrounds have a fixed

mindset and perform at lower level compared to their wealthier peers. Could the connection

between always being in the low group and a having a fixed mindset be connected?

Stage 4: Active experimentation

I have learnt that I still have a long way to go in regard to both implementing collaboration and

heterogeneous groups Fullan et al (2005) found that successful change involves learning during implementation. One of the most powerful drivers of change involves learning from peers, especially those who are further along in implementing new ideas. So visiting successful schools and using eight forces of leading change (Fullan et al, 2005).

Resources
Fullan, M., Cuttress, C., & Kilcher, A. (2005). Eight forces for leaders of change. JSD, 26(4).

Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on academic achievement.

Claro, S. Paunesku, D. Dweck C, S (2016)

PNAS August 2, 2016 113 (31) 8664-8668; published ahead of print July 18, 2016 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1608207113

ITL Research. (2012). 21CLD Learning Activity Rubrics. Retrieved from https://education.microsoft.com/GetTrained/ITL-Research

Ministry of Education (2017). Our code, our standards. Retrieved from https://educationcouncil.org.nz/content/our-code-our-standards

Osterman, K. & Kottkamp, R.(1993). Reflective practice for educators.California:Corwin Press, Inc. Retrieved from hhttp://www.itslifejimbutnotasweknowit.org.uk/files/RefPract/Osterman_Kottkamp_extract.pdf

Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn

Hattie, J. & Yates, G. (2009)

Voogt, J. & Roblin, N. (2010). 21st Century Skills Discussion paper. University of Twente. Retrieved from http://opite.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/61995295/White%20Paper%2021stCS_Final_ENG_def2.pdf

Week 31 - Evaluate Your Impact (Check)

Week 31 Evaluate Your Impacts

Task 1: What is the observed impact after the ‘Take Action’ phase?

Moving into the checking phase of Timperly, Kaiser and Halberts Spiral of Inquiry (2014), I am checking and analysing what I have done and what the observed impact has been.

I initially started the inquiry process to investigate "How the use of robotics and learning with collaborative groups, could be used to promote student engagement and have a positive impact on mathematical outcomes?" my initial hunch was that using robotics would increase engagement which would in turn have a positive impact on on mathematical outcomes. This was based on the fact that I had surveyed the students towards the end of 2018 and they had expressed an interest in robotics. However through informal observations I found that the robots where more of a distraction to the lesson.  There was a lot of time taken to get to know how to use the robots, time that could have been better spent doing other tasks. Interesting to note that the robots have been sitting in the class untouched by any child since the last math session. If the students had been really engaged with and wanted to use the robots there would be no way of me being able to keep them away from them. The interest is just not there.

So while there has been an obvious increase in students mathematical outcomes. I can not say that it is because of the use of robotics. I believe it could be because of the urgency that was created by having to complete a set amount of maths sessions. I have also observed the positive impact of the collaborative groups within the class. The students are mixed abilities and during groups sessions there has been a lot of discussion and sharing of ideas and thoughts from all students. I can see an increase in the students willingness to share and having the confidence in doing so. There seems to be less competitiveness. The students are developing a more growth mindset about maths also.

For my next inquiry I will ensure that I only have one area of focus in my big question. I would ensure there are resources available to support what I am wanting to teach. I would also ensure that it is over a longer time frame. I would like to further investigate how working within collaborative groups improves mathematical outcomes for all learners.

Halbert, J., Kaser, L., & Koehn, D. (2011). Spirals of Inquiry: Building Professional Inquiry to Foster Student Learning. Paper presented at 24th International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement. Limassol, Cyprus. Retrieved from http://www.icsei.net/icsei2011/Full%20Papers/0053.pdf

Week 30 - Analysing Data

Week 30 - Analysing Data

I set out on this inquiry to find out, "How the use of robotics and learning with collaborative groups, could be used to promote student engagement and have a positive impact on mathematical outcomes?"  The data collection that I had originally planned in the "Take Action" phase of Spiral of Inquiry did not quite work out as I had planned. Originally I had planned to create a tick chart (Quantitative) that would show how the students were interacting throughout the lesson, as cognitive engagement is shown by asking questions. However this was just not practical when having to teach at the same time. This now means that we have no data to show whether the students were cognitively engaged in the learning tasks. I did however use a number knowledge as a pre and post test (Quantitative) as a way to collect baseline data and then show progress.  To get my data ready to analyse I had to mark and get a percentage. 

Pre test taken February

Post test taken March

Data collected from the class

I then had to enter my data into a spreadsheet which makes it easier to view when you are dealing with a whole class.Data that did not relate to my Inquiry question was taken out.Names where then changed to letters of the alphabet so individual students could not be identified.A bar graph was created to show pretest scores (blue) and post test score (red)I will use this data to compare the pre test scores and the end results. I will then find by what percentage each child has improved. I have found that while I can see an improvement in test scores. I am unable to compare the data with typical test score and to say that my students performed better using robotics because as Efron and Ravid (2013) explain the methods for interpreting quantitative data; after using the new method, to typical test scores using the existing method. The difference between the two means will reveal whether your students performed better using the new approach. 

I feel that there are so many variables present. I don't honestly know if the students improved because of the collaborative groups I put them in or if it was in fact the use of robotics. How do I know that they students increase in test results are not because of the warm up math activities I did prior to the lesson? Or the homework I set? or that their parents were doing extra work with them during the weekend. I don't feel that I have enough quality data to say that in fact "The use of robotics and learning within collaborative groups, could be used to promote student engagement and have a positive impact on mathematical outcomes?" Next time I do an inquiry I will at having a control group. I will take more time in the data collection and I will only have one variable in my big question.  

References

Efron, S. E., & Ravid, R. (2013). Action research in education: A practical guide. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. (e-copy available in Unitec library).