Mind Lab Karen Duligall

S o, 32 weeks ago I sat in my classroom and listed the things that I wanted to accomplish with the Mind Lab course.  W ell, I think I have achieved points 2 and 3, and I’ve made good progress on point number 1 - although that is a journey I continue to make. N ow, using the Cycle of Experiential Learning (Osterman & Kottkamp, 2015) I will reflect upon the changes I have made in my practice over these 32 weeks. S tage 1 : P roblem identification I had toyed with the idea of the Mind Lab course for a couple of years. I felt I had good exposure to digital learning through my eLearning leadership but I wasn’t seeing new initiatives sustained in my classroom or the rooms around me. New learning quickly died as problems identified by school leadership became more urgent. I needed to revisit my core beliefs and values and they sat so well with Mind Labs mission. And I didn't even need to move - Mind Lab would come right into my classroom - how could I say no

S tep 1 : W hat is the observed impact after the ‘Take Action’ phase? T he evidence from the ‘Take Action’ phase is that students were engaged in their learning (as long as the activities were pitched at the right level) which resulted in positive student learning outcomes. H owever, there is no evidence that it was actually the robotics that has improved outcomes and not other factors. I needed to have a control group, that I taught without the use of robotics, to compare with, in order to obtain evidence that robotics increased engagement and therefore student outcomes. W hen researching for the ‘Learn’ phase it was evident that there is no research around teaching maths using robotics, only information on using robotics to teach technology such as coding. This research, if conducted again with a control group, could provide valuable information in this field. F inally, my inquiry did not provide evidence for collaborative groups improving student outcomes as I focuse

S tep 1 : D escribe the data you have collected A s part of my inquiry, I collected data during the “Scan” phase of the Spiral of Inquiry, the aim of which was to find out how my students-to-be felt about learning particularly maths and robotics. This data was used to refine my area of further research.  S ince then all of my data collection has been during the “Take Action” phase as per my Action Plan . O n a daily basis, I have been collecting quantitative data on student collaboration and engagement using tally marks on interval behaviour logs, to see if students were actively collaborating and engaged in their learning when using the Bee-bots. Qualitative data has been collected daily in the form of post-observation interviews with each of the four target students, in order to clarify the findings from the interval behaviour logs.  N umber Knowledge tests were carried out before and after the teaching intervention to obtain before and after quantitative d

D uring my inquiry into the use of robotics in maths to increase engagement in maths learning, and subsequently to improve learner outcomes, I have made changes in my practice. My plan is for this change to filter down through my team to other Year 5 teachers at my school. Here I will critically reflect on my wider audiences using Rolfe’s Model of Reflection . S tep 1 - W hat L ooking at my practice within a wider, national, context I need to consider the future of education and the role of new technologies within this. Bolstad et al (2012) suggest that 21st-century learning is ‘an emerging cluster of new ideas, beliefs, knowledge, theories and practices”. Whilst their research project is now 7 years old, one of Core Educations 10 trends for 2019 is Human Capital which states that “we must keep learning and changing to acquire skills and dispositions that meet the needs of different contexts and emerging opportunities.” Essentially 21st Century Learning for 2019. S tep 2 - S o

T his week I discuss the ethical issues that occurred during the Taking Action phase of the Spiral of  Inquiry (Kaser & Halbert. 2017) using Rolfe’s Model of Reflection. S tep 1 - W hat W hen putting together the  Action Plan  a number of ethical issues were identified but a new one popped up involving the need to carry out baseline testing. W hilst there is no dispute that testing was required, normally I would test during week 3 once I had established class routines and developed relationships with my students. H owever, I needed the data much sooner. In my last blog post , I talked about the importance of Whanaungatanga - Building relationships - with whanau, and students. S tep 2 - S o W hat U sing Ehrich’s (2011) ethical decision-making framework I needed to consider competing forces. These fell within the Professional Ethics section - the need to develop relationships with my students, to teach them routines and foundations such as growth mindset, befo

A t this stage of my inquiry, I need to reflect upon Whanaungatanga (Building relationships) specifically my interactions and communication with parents/caregivers and whanau. I plan to use Rolfe’s Model of Reflection along with the Culturally Responsive Practice for Maori Scale (CRPMS) (Asil, 2017) as the framework for my reflection. S tep 1 - W hat N ew Zealand has been identified as having one of the widest spreads of student achievement within schools which has led to Maori students being identified by the Ministry of Education as a “priority learner group”. (Asil, 2017) R ussell Bishop (2012), explains that Maori student underachievement was originally thought to be some kind of deficit in Maori people themselves. However, there is ample evidence that Maori are just as capable of being educated as other populations. Agentic teachers are the key to making a difference. According to Bishop and Berryman (2009) “they believe that all of their students can ach