Preliminary stages of collaboration with mentor and colleagues
Prior to submission of my MSL analytical essay on 5 June, 2011, and the school’s Assessment Audit, I had to find a specific issue within my school. I then had to write a critical analysis of a particular educational thinker’s ideas and examine the implications of these ideas for educational leadership and practice more generally, and specifically in relation to my school. I identified the three dimensions of the thinking processes domain generally, and focused on reflection and metacognition specifically, and what my AR project might be, to improve that issue within my school. A detailed log outlining the steps taken and time spent is included, Appendix 3.
Prior to writing the essay, and during meetings with my mentor, I had chosen a possible AR project about developing ‘thinking’ and ‘tools for thinking” in my school, as it was clearly an aspect that I had identified that was an area that could be changed and improved upon, in the curriculum, to improve teaching and learning and student performance outcomes.
A tour of the school undertaken by me, indicated no displays or posters or evidence on classroom walls and other spaces of graphic organisers, thinking tools, visible thinking, Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences, Ryan’s Thinkers Keys, De Bono’s Thinking Hats or Costa and Kallick’s 16 Habits of Mind, to name a few. There was also no evidence of visible learning goals or learning styles of students as outlined in the Victorian Transformation matrix framework documentation (DEECD Transformation matrix).
I identified the importance of Dewey’s work (1910, 1915, 1916, 1933) on thinking and read many of his writings, and other educators in Philosophical Documents in Education (Johnson and Reed, 2008), and Lipman’s work (2003) about thinking.
In teaching thinking, Victorian teachers are encouraged to ‘model skilful and effective thinking and make their own thinking explicit as part of their everyday practice’ (adapted from VELS). Dewey’s contribution in the field of thinking is acknowledged here and his attitudes of ‘open-mindedness, whole-heartedness and responsibility incorporated (Dewey, 1933/1998, p. 29-33). For Dewey, 'thinking is the accurate and deliberate institution of connections between what is done and its consequences' (1964, p. 505). Dewey spoke of the need for developing certain qualities or traits of character such as open-mindedness or sincerity, wholehearted or absorbed interests, responsibility, as well as the need for a habit of thinking in a reflective way (1964, p. 224-228). Thinking is also imbedded in the e5 Instructional Model and PoLT. The e5 Instructional Model, Designing learning activities, Figure 3.8 (DEECD, Teachers connecting with e5, 2010, pp. 70 – 71) outlines Cognitive Processes that can be used to design learning activities. The AR project aims to develop these thinking processes by explaining the language and ‘unpacking’ explicitly and directly, some of the thinking skills ESL new arrivals need as a foundation in a mainstream setting.
I discussed the ideas about the specific issues I had identified for a possible AR proposal during meetings with my mentor and informal conversations with my colleagues prior to writing the analytical essay on June 5. After submission I shared my analytical essay with my mentor and colleagues, as a possible AR proposal and they were very supportive and enthusiastic.
The Assessment Audit drafted on June 6 and implemented in the following weeks, confirmed my proposal that thinking processes and language were not explicitly part of the ESL NAP curriculum, language planners or lesson planning for teaching and learning. On October 10, I had another mentoring meeting and my principal approved my AR proposal. Formulating the exact AR question resulted in many informal conversations, copious email correspondence in which my colleague and mentor made constructive suggestions and improvements.
The 2011 Assessment Audit listed all the tools teachers use for assessing speaking, listening, reading and writing, but only three thinking tools were mentioned.
Based on the issue I identified and as a result of the Assessment Audit in Term 3, and a proposed curriculum review outlined in the SSP and AIP, an AR team was formed and have met formally and informally on numerous occasions to plan and collaborate on the project.
Using the e5 Instructional Model as a framework, and the purposeful use of technology with digital portfolios, provision for thinking processes will be implemented in the curriculum planning and documentation and hopefully, finally in many classrooms (using Fullan’s change management principles and Instructional core).
The AR team will introduce the language and understanding of the learning styles, selective thinking skills, Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (in DEECD, Teachers connecting with e5, 2010, pp. 72-73), Gardner’s Multiple intelligences, explicit use of a variety of thinking tools, graphic organisers and the disposition of the 16 Habits of Mind. This will be an introduction of thinking processes for students before they transition into a mainstream setting, so that they are better able to develop the inquiry dispositions that they will need to learn in a community of thinkers.
The school intranet curriculum resources databank contains aims and objectives, units of work, worksheets, an activities bank and assessment examples for all the domains in all the strands, except for thinking. The thinking domain in the Interdisciplinary strand is empty. There are almost no resources or thinking processes or tools or skills available. The AR team will focus on the opportunity to change and improve the databank by collecting, developing and trialling thinking materials and resources that can be shared amongst all staff and the wider community, during the ‘spiralling process’ of the AR project.
The 2011 school curriculum, Term Planners and Language Planners have no explicit titles or headings for the thinking language used in Bloom, Gardner, Habits of Mind etc.. No spaces or columns were allocated for thinking tools, graphic organisers or thinking skills, as it has not been a specific goal in the NAP. This is an issue or opportunity that I have identified that the AR team can improve and hopefully change. Draft Thinking Processes Domain to be trialled for possible inclusion in Language Planner, Appendix 4.
Prior to writing the essay, and during meetings with my mentor, I had chosen a possible AR project about developing ‘thinking’ and ‘tools for thinking” in my school, as it was clearly an aspect that I had identified that was an area that could be changed and improved upon, in the curriculum, to improve teaching and learning and student performance outcomes.
A tour of the school undertaken by me, indicated no displays or posters or evidence on classroom walls and other spaces of graphic organisers, thinking tools, visible thinking, Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences, Ryan’s Thinkers Keys, De Bono’s Thinking Hats or Costa and Kallick’s 16 Habits of Mind, to name a few. There was also no evidence of visible learning goals or learning styles of students as outlined in the Victorian Transformation matrix framework documentation (DEECD Transformation matrix).
I identified the importance of Dewey’s work (1910, 1915, 1916, 1933) on thinking and read many of his writings, and other educators in Philosophical Documents in Education (Johnson and Reed, 2008), and Lipman’s work (2003) about thinking.
In teaching thinking, Victorian teachers are encouraged to ‘model skilful and effective thinking and make their own thinking explicit as part of their everyday practice’ (adapted from VELS). Dewey’s contribution in the field of thinking is acknowledged here and his attitudes of ‘open-mindedness, whole-heartedness and responsibility incorporated (Dewey, 1933/1998, p. 29-33). For Dewey, 'thinking is the accurate and deliberate institution of connections between what is done and its consequences' (1964, p. 505). Dewey spoke of the need for developing certain qualities or traits of character such as open-mindedness or sincerity, wholehearted or absorbed interests, responsibility, as well as the need for a habit of thinking in a reflective way (1964, p. 224-228). Thinking is also imbedded in the e5 Instructional Model and PoLT. The e5 Instructional Model, Designing learning activities, Figure 3.8 (DEECD, Teachers connecting with e5, 2010, pp. 70 – 71) outlines Cognitive Processes that can be used to design learning activities. The AR project aims to develop these thinking processes by explaining the language and ‘unpacking’ explicitly and directly, some of the thinking skills ESL new arrivals need as a foundation in a mainstream setting.
I discussed the ideas about the specific issues I had identified for a possible AR proposal during meetings with my mentor and informal conversations with my colleagues prior to writing the analytical essay on June 5. After submission I shared my analytical essay with my mentor and colleagues, as a possible AR proposal and they were very supportive and enthusiastic.
The Assessment Audit drafted on June 6 and implemented in the following weeks, confirmed my proposal that thinking processes and language were not explicitly part of the ESL NAP curriculum, language planners or lesson planning for teaching and learning. On October 10, I had another mentoring meeting and my principal approved my AR proposal. Formulating the exact AR question resulted in many informal conversations, copious email correspondence in which my colleague and mentor made constructive suggestions and improvements.
The 2011 Assessment Audit listed all the tools teachers use for assessing speaking, listening, reading and writing, but only three thinking tools were mentioned.
Based on the issue I identified and as a result of the Assessment Audit in Term 3, and a proposed curriculum review outlined in the SSP and AIP, an AR team was formed and have met formally and informally on numerous occasions to plan and collaborate on the project.
Using the e5 Instructional Model as a framework, and the purposeful use of technology with digital portfolios, provision for thinking processes will be implemented in the curriculum planning and documentation and hopefully, finally in many classrooms (using Fullan’s change management principles and Instructional core).
The AR team will introduce the language and understanding of the learning styles, selective thinking skills, Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (in DEECD, Teachers connecting with e5, 2010, pp. 72-73), Gardner’s Multiple intelligences, explicit use of a variety of thinking tools, graphic organisers and the disposition of the 16 Habits of Mind. This will be an introduction of thinking processes for students before they transition into a mainstream setting, so that they are better able to develop the inquiry dispositions that they will need to learn in a community of thinkers.
The school intranet curriculum resources databank contains aims and objectives, units of work, worksheets, an activities bank and assessment examples for all the domains in all the strands, except for thinking. The thinking domain in the Interdisciplinary strand is empty. There are almost no resources or thinking processes or tools or skills available. The AR team will focus on the opportunity to change and improve the databank by collecting, developing and trialling thinking materials and resources that can be shared amongst all staff and the wider community, during the ‘spiralling process’ of the AR project.
The 2011 school curriculum, Term Planners and Language Planners have no explicit titles or headings for the thinking language used in Bloom, Gardner, Habits of Mind etc.. No spaces or columns were allocated for thinking tools, graphic organisers or thinking skills, as it has not been a specific goal in the NAP. This is an issue or opportunity that I have identified that the AR team can improve and hopefully change. Draft Thinking Processes Domain to be trialled for possible inclusion in Language Planner, Appendix 4.