Week 32. Reflect on how you have changed your practice during your Postgraduate DCL journey

The driver of change to my classroom practice is the use of the SAMR and TPCK tools, and how these influence children's development of new knowledge through constructivist means (Puentedura, 2010).  I am constantly questioning the implementation of digital devices, beyond the obvious that they are very good for hooking into student’s enthusiasm. However enthusiasm only goes so far, and it is the design and planning of the learning activity that will develop high levels of engagement. I am more aware than ever of aiming to get above the augmentation line, and completely avoiding Substitution on the SAMR scale (Puentedura, 2010).   Papert's notion that focuses on how students learn is very important when integrating the use of digital devices and the apps or programmes that can be accessed for learning (Ackermann, n.d.). 

Another result of the course is my awareness of how I constantly reflect on my practice. More than ever this course has provided greater depth to my everyday reflections.  The course has allowed me to take a step back to evaluate the interconnectedness of SAMR and TPCK and how these may help develop 21^st Century thinking skills, including collaboration to develop critical thinking.  All of these aspects have brought to my attention the significance of designing and planning that is required when implementing technology or any learning activity in the classroom.  I know it is not good enough to get out the Chromebooks and provide a maths or language game, if that game is not going to enhance learning outcomes through experiences that challenge students cognitively and results in an outcome where new knowledge is discovered, transformed and developed (Panitz, 1999).

Another aspect of reflection and change that has occurred to my teaching practice is how I teach and engage my Maori students.  I challenge myself how I incorporate Maori pedagogy to enhance learning activities, and how such pedagogy improves my design of activities. As a result, the principle of Kotahitanga is important, which is about moving forward in our learning together and collaboratively (Bishop & Berryman, 2009).  Therefore, woven into this pedagogy is ngä whakapiringatanga, and empowering and activating the engagement of all students (Bishop & Berryman, 2009).  I am challenging myself balance placing the learner at the centre of developing new knowledge, rather than learning being completely teacher-driven, especially in a classroom with many students.   I understand that student agency, student's voice is an important aspect of Maori pedagogy.  It is about working beside and co-constructing, rather than simply directing (Stucki, 2012).  

I have plenty of room for further learning on my part as a teacher, and this is what makes teaching unbelievably interesting, and motivating. 

References:

Ackermann, E. (n.d.). Piaget ’ s Constructivism, Papert ’ s Constructionism : What ’ s the difference ? 1–11.

Bishop, R., & Berryman, M. (2009). The Te kotahitanga effective teaching profile. Set: Research Information for Teachers (Wellington), (2), 27. Retrieved from https://ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.213529626&site=eds-live&scope=site

Panitz, T. (1999). Collaborative Versus Cooperative Learning -a Comparison of the Two. ERIC Digest.

Puentedura, R. (2010). SAMR and TPCK: Intro to advanced practice. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf

Stucki, P. (2012). A Maori Pedagogy: Weaving the Strands Together. Kairaranga, 13(1), 7–15.