Interrogation of Blended eLearning PLD Provision Supplementary Notes to accompany presentation hosted in a Weebly site By: Diana Wilkes

Blended eLearning (BeL) as a Transformative Professional Learning (PL) provision

Background to BeL and Rationale Structure and Approach BeL PL is outlined in the Project Initiation Document (PID) dated 31 March 2011 and was designed to be one of five programs in the overarching eLearning Professional Learning and Development programme. The PID provides the parameters for expectations of Te Toi Tupus responsibilities with regards to BeL PL in line with Ministry priorities and responds to key drivers for change: raising student achievement through a system wide approach which includes: Providing additional support to schools with a high proportion of students traditionally underserved by the education system Making changes to centrally funded professional learning and development arrangements See Appendix A for a more detailed review of BeL and the tools that are used during provision of PL. Aim The aim of BeL PLD is to provide a professional learning and development programme for schools in the four regions that is: Evidenced and inquiry based, with action research in the form of inquiry at its core Responsive to regional, local and school needs Underpinned by e-learning planning frameworks Inclusive of learning communities, creating and fostering opportunities for collaboration within and between schools Based on a blended model, including face-to-face and online support, both synchronous and asynchronous to promote technology supported learning environments Coherent and integrated with learning networks and PLD provision (PID, 2011) Facilitators work with Ministry personnel, other PLD providers and the school staff to ensure a more personalized approach in each school. In addition, a comprehensive risk management and project evaluation process was developed and has since been refined to ensure comprehensive and valuable reporting that will inform the Ministry to demonstrate the shift in cluster support to a regional model. Underpinning Learning Theory This aim signals that BeL PLD is transformative in approach and design and although the PID (2011) does not refer directly to a learning theory, it can be argued that BeL PLD blends the basic tenets of constructivist, experiential and connectivist approaches, thus, it is transformative in this way also. Transformative theory promotes shifting the impact on learning and engagement away from conforming and reforming to transforming (see Figure 1 below).

D Wilkes- Transformative PL Provision

Figure 1: Transformational Matrix (Source: Upgrade Your Curriculum, 2013)

Constructivism, where knowledge is first constructed in a social context and involves prior learning (Vygotsky, 1978) is promoted in BeL through active participation in Communities of Practice (COPs) and action research. Connectivsm, which is when connections come to life through networks to aggregate, remix, and co-construct knowledge (Siemens, 2010) is embedded in BeL through the development of Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) for our cyborg teachers with connected knowledge networks for blended professional learning environments. Experiential learning theory where "knowledge is created through the transformation of experience" (Kolb, 1984, p. 41) is seen in BeL as there is ample opportunity for teachers to trial new tools and strategies through blended workshops and by inquiring into their practice. Impact / Effectiveness of this provision The BeL Intervention Logic (see Appendix A) aims to improve the process outcomes and school level outcomes with the ultimate intention of improving student outcomes. Improving these (school outcomes) is what is most likely to lead to improved student outcomes, particularly for Mori, and also Pasifika students, students with special learning needs, and those achieving below curriculum expectations. (MOE Intervention Logic Model, 2012). Through implementation of teaching as inquiry with a BeL goal that is in line with the school targets and priority learners needs, BeL is making a significant impact in many schools. With regards to the teachers as learners, anecdotal stories with BeL facilitators from around New Zealand indicate that BeL is shifting thinking and mental models in many teachers. Teachers are recognizing that BeL PLD is about improving learning with smart digital technology choices and that the tool isnt the solution- their teaching practice is what is going to make the difference. Even though it is notoriously difficult to measure the impact of PL on teacher practice and student outcomes, BeL self-review tools and milestone reporting do indicate an overall nation-wide impact, though these are not in the public domain to share at present (A. Chakif, personal communication, October 10, 2013). Transformative BeL: Kennedy (2005) and Ginsberg (2011) describe Transformative PL as a provision where: the facilitator is a partner in the learning process and acts as a change agent a personalized, one size fits one approach is applied, blending all PL provisions as needed data driven and reflective inquiry (critical friend feedback) unites and is at the heart of the provision ensuring PL is proactive and conscious (Action-Research model) at learner-teacherleader-facilitator levels new knowledge can lead to real transformation of learning issues of power are considered to ensure equity 2

D Wilkes- Transformative PL Provision

free-flow of communication and interactions there is an increased capacity for professional autonomy participants are equipped with the skills and opportunities to act as shapers and knowledgeable critics of reform

In addition, Cranton & King (2003) propose five strategies for transformative professional learning: action plans, reective activities, case studies, curriculum development, and critical theory discussions. In BeL, these five strategies are actually blended and they are grounded in the overarching action research approach in order to promote professional learning autonomy. Facilitator as Change Agent Because BeL Facilitators employ the transformative approach they are able to: act as a change agent for all learners in the school community through inquiry provide blended support focusing on the pedagogy be culturally responsive and promote equity for priority learners who have been traditionally underserved, moving away from deficit theorizing (Bishop & Berryman, 2010) personalize the PL for individual schools and teachers and support in a blended approach develop agency within the schools so they are less dependent on external support, including use of eLPF as a review tool promote coherence across PL provisions by focusing on the pedagogy both striving for a shared language and feedback loop; and between key documents such as NZC, eLPF, PEP, Ka Hikitia, MOE Intervention Logic, research etc. promote distributed leadership engage and support the existing PLCs within the school , promoting a COP and critical friendships as a mechanism of internal support and self-directed learning opportunities In BeL, the focus on pedagogical content knowledge, cultural responsiveness, transparency, distributed leadership, inquiry, strategic planning and an overarching transformative approach (see Appendix A) really places BeLFs in a strategic place to help teachers and leaders make a difference to learning through a blended, transformative provision (C. Jager, personal communication, October 15, 2013). According to Blewett, Keim, & Leser (2006), the transformative model works towards high access to content and process and has six attributes as seen in the Figure 2. I believe that BeL PLD is in line with the Transformative model because BeL includes all six as follows:

Figure 2: Transformational Education (Journal of Extension, 2008)

D Wilkes- Transformative PL Provision

Figure 3: PL Models

In addition, Figure 3 outlines the nine different models of CPD which are in three broad categoriestransformative, transitional and transmissive as determined by Kennedy (2005). This framework can be used to pinpoint the BeL PL provision as The Transformative Model. I will use the five questions Kennedy provides to critique PLD models to demonstrate my thinking around why BeL is a transformative provision:

Figure 4: BeL Transfomrative (based on Kennedy, 2005)

D Wilkes- Transformative PL Provision

Critical Comparison: Coaching and mentoring requires; active initiation and participation within the process, pressure and support to maintain the process long term, changing behaviours and beliefs and ownership of the change process (Coaching Leadership, Robertson, 2005) . Coaching is often 1:1, prompting deep learning to move teachers out of their comfort zones, provokes vicarious learning and provides outside perspectives to lead to a study of practice not self. It implies that one partner is novice and one is experienced, often leading to a more transmissive PL provision (Kennedy, 2005). The critical difference between coaching/mentoring and transformative provisions is that while transformative PL may use coaching/mentoring if it is needed it has all approaches available, making it flexible and needs based. BeL has been described as transformative and will be compared with the Coaching/Mentoring Model using Timperleys 10 Key Principles to effective PL below.

D Wilkes- Transformative PL Provision

BES- PLD Principle 1. Focus on valued student outcomes

Transformative BeL PL provision compared to Transitional- Coaching and Mentoring provision The research indicates that if PL is not focused on student outcomes it is ineffective (Timperley, 2008). Both transformative BeL and transitional coaching/mentoring models support this principle and aim to use robust data to inform goals (PID, 2011 and Robertson, 2005). In Tomorrows Schools-Yesterdays News Hattie indicates that improving capacity requires sustained effort- not just professional development days but various forms of coaching and mentoring (2011, p.126). So while a coaching/mentoring model has the potential to meet PL needs in terms of content, it can be transmissive in design. On the other hand, the transformative BeL approach is far more open-ended and personalized. This can also be attributed to the nature of self-governing schools who are guided by NZC but create their own curriculum in consultation with their community. Effective PL will integrate theory and practice but must also take into account prior learning. Working in collaborative communities provides the cognitive tools, ideas, theories, knowledge and concepts to make sense of their experiences. In BeL, this is iterative, dynamic, creatively chaotic, transformative and evolves through the interaction in groups (Earl and Hannay, 2011, p.187) because teachers have many opportunities for 1:1 coaching, access to their PLN/COP, needs based workshops and critical friendships where multiple people can play multiple roles compared to the coaching model. Timperley (2008) highlights that the most effective approach to PL involves cycles of inquiry that begin with the learners needs. Both BeL and coaching/mentoring emphasise the use of data to make goals but the iterative nature of inquiry makes BeL a stronger provision, especially in terms of sustainability (A. Chakif, personal communication, October 15, 2013). Robinson (2003) argues that developing teachers as researchers is a professional necessity. In her PLD-BES Timperley (2008) reminds us of the relationship between trust and challenge. The multiple types of professional learning that Hatties metaanalysis found were most effective- classroom observations, micro-teaching, video/audio feedback and practice (Hattie, 2010) all create opportunities for building trust and providing support. However, the research literature privileges particular types of activity, such as modelling and coaching, a synthesis of the research does not reveal that any particular activity is of itself more effective than another (Timperley, 2008, p.16) so both provisions enable this principle. Robertson (2005) describes coaching as a distinctive, sometimes reciprocal, relationship between (at least) two people who collaborate to set professional goals and achieve them and Garmston and Wellman state The skilful coach focuses on group members perceptions, thinking and decision making processes to mediate resources for self-directedness(p24 Adaptive School). However, although a coach is often in a position to challenge existing mental models, BeL PL enables coaching/mentoring and taps into the teachers connected networks. According to Timperley giving teachers time to reflect together about their practice and how to improve it ( 2011, p.119) is important and BeL builds in opportunities to do this especially in relation to teaching as inquiry. Coaching/mentoring can build in these opportunities too but will depend on the schools systems and COP. Note that there is little evidence that reflection without input from external expertise to the group leads to the kinds of changes to practice that have a substantial impact on learning (Timperley, 2011, p.119). Both provisions can generate a cognitive conflict which can disrupt existing 6

2. Worthwhile content

3. Integration of knowledge and skills

4. Assessment for professional inquiry

5. Multiple opportunities to learn and apply information

6. Approaches responsive to learning processes

7. Opportunities to process new learning with others

D Wilkes- Transformative PL Provision

8. Knowledgeable expertise

9. Active leadership

10. Maintaining momentum

mental models to prompt new learning with their colleagues. External experts need to challenge assumptions and provide needs based learning. For coaching, research ...demonstrates that the presence of facilitators acting as scholar-practitioners and/or researchers in the coaching process not only is welcomed by participants but also strengthens the reflexive nature of the model (Robertson, 2005, p.71). However, BeL affords far more opportunity for external expertise through the blended approach and connected networks such as the VLN as well as f2f experts from Netsafe, Creative Commons, Te Toi Tupu etc. as well as promoting internal expertise and distributed leadership. BeL Facilitators often have to disrupt their mental models at National/Regional huis which builds their facilitation capacitiy and equips them with a kete of resources/strategies/tools/questions making them more effective agents of change. Active involvement of leaders in the promotion and participation in teachers professional learning rather than leaving this important part of school organization up to others (Timperely, 2011, p.118) is essential. Both BeL and Coaching/Mentoring can promote active leadership and rely on leaders who are willing to invest in the learning process, leading learning by modelling learning transparently. BeL has the hook of digital technology and the continuous online support to help maintain momentum whereas our coaching traditionally depended on f2f time. With coaching/mentoring provisions a continued journey is expected, the coach may change but the support remains (Robertson, 2005). With BeL, the nature of the PL leads to BEL facilitators becoming obsolete due to school agency and sustainability (C Jager, personal communications, October 10, 2013).

Furthermore, the transformative approach within BeL is more effective PL than coaching because it is, by definition, multi-approachal ensuring a one size fits one approach.

D Wilkes- Transformative PL Provision

APPENDIX A: Description of BeL PL

D Wilkes- Transformative PL Provision

References Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In: Anderson, T. & Elloumi, F. Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University. Retrieved from: http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/pdf/TPOL_chp02.pdf Bishop, R. & Berryman, M. (2010). Te Kotahitanga: culturally responsive professional development for teachers. Teacher Development. 14(2). 173-187. Cranton, P and King, K. (2003). Transformative Learning as a Professional Development Goal New Directions for Adult and Continuing EducationVolume 2003, Issue 98, Article first published online: 2 JUN 2003 Hattie, John. 2010. P.186Cognition Institute Tomorrows Schools: Yesterdays News. Hattie, John Visible LEarning Connectivism: A new learning theory? Retrieved from http://elearning.surf.nl/e-learning/english/3793 Dewey, J. (1916). How we think. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and Connective Knowledge. National Research Council Canada. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/files/Connective_Knowledge-19May2012.pdf Dunaway, Michelle Kathleen. (2011). Connectivism: Learning theory and pedagogical practice for networked information landscapes. Reference Services Review, 39(4), 675 - 685. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/journals.htm?articleid=17003461&show =abstract#sthash.Kuje14Oq.dpuf Earl, L. and Hannay, L. (2011). Educators as Knowledge Leaders, in Robertson, J. and Timperley, H. (Eds). Leadership and Learning (pp186-201). London, England: Sage. Garmston, R. & Wellman, B. (2009). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups. Christopher-Gordon: MA. Ginsberg, M. B. (2011). Transformative professional learning: A system to enhance teacher and student motivation Corwin Press, A SAGE Publications Company. Hargreaves, A. (2011). Fusion and the future of leadership. In Robertson, J and Timperley, H (Eds.), Leadership and Learning (pp. 227-242). London, England: Sage. Journal of Extension. (2008). Defining a Transformational Education Model for the Engaged University. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2008june/comm1.php Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Ministry of Education. (2012). Supporting future-oriented learning and teaching - a New Zealand perspective. Wellington, New Zealand:. Rachel Bolstad and Jane Gilbert, with Sue McDowall, Ally Bull, Sally Boyd and Rosemary Hipkins. Ministry of Education. (2012). Intervention Logic Model. Retrieved from http://community.tetoitupu.org/groupcms/view/15117/evidence-plan-and-inquiry

D Wilkes- Transformative PL Provision

OConnell, P. (2012) Is Sustainability of Educational Reform an Article of Faith, or Can it be Deliberately Crafted? Pub Learning Media Ltd. New Zealand Robertson, J. (2005). Coaching Leadership: Building Educational Leadership Capacity through Coaching Partnerships. Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER Press. Robinson, V. (2003). Teachers as Researchers: A Professional Necessity? Set: Research Information for Teachers, no. 1, pp. 2729. Siemens, G. (2010). Connectivist Learning Theory. Retrieved from http://p2pfoundation.net/Connectivist_Learning_Theory_-_Siemens Sachs, J. (2003) The Activist Teaching Profession. Buckingham: Open University Press. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., and Fung, I. (2007). Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration [BES]. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Timperley, H. (2011). Leading teachers professional learning. In Robertson, J and Timperley, H (Eds.), Leadership and Learning (pp. 118-130). Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Upgrade your Curriculum. (2012). Transformational Perspectives: Transformational Matrix. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/112014/chapters/TransformationalPerspectives.aspx http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/doi/pdf/10.1080/19415250903457224

10

D Wilkes- Transformative PL Provision

11

D Wilkes- Transformative PL Provision

This Intervention Logic used for BeL places students at centre, uses data robustly, accounts for assumptions of PL chain of influence, is evidence based and evaluative. Inputsactivities outputsoutcomes impact This involves a robust scoping phase which includes initial interviews, conversations with the Senior Advisor from each school. Retrieved from http://community.tetoitupu.org Outcomes: There are four project outcomes that facilitators work towards using a personalized approach founded in a highly intensive scoping process. Facilitators work across a number of schools within their region. Retrieved from http://community.tetoitupu.org
Outcome 1 Leadership Raised capability of leaders and schools to use eLearning (tools and practices) for continuous improvement Accelerated student achievement through increased quantity and quality of ICT enhanced learning opportunities Leaders and teachers have improved e-capability and practice The Enabling e-Learning web presence is used to connect and support leaders, teachers and PLD providers

BeL PL is in line with the MOEs Integrated System of Support for Learners operating in the the school initiated iteration and promotes culturally responsive approach with all schools. Retrieved from http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/System-ofsupport-incl.-PLD

Outcome 2 Student achievement Outcome 3 Teacher e-capability Outcome 4 Use of the EEL web presence

Focus on the WHY- golden circle:Strategic planning is emphasised and a need for a common language and shared vision that is informed by what we know about effective pedagogy and student data (especially priority learners) [WHY]; as well as purposefully planned PLD that is based on needs to ensure coherence and promote agency. Retrieved from http://www.learning-by-design.com

eLPF: The eLearning Planning Framework (eLPF) is a roadmap for BeLFs and schools that promotes reflection, identifies next steps, evaluates across 5 dimensions, creates a common language, aligned with NZC based on BES. Exit strategies include its future use as a review tool to ensure sustainability. Retrieved from www.elearning.tki.org.nz/.../eLearning%20Planning%20Framework.pdf Inquiry: BeLFs use the BeL Inquiry model for their practice and the teachers use the Teaching as Inquiry model to ensure we are adapting to meet needs of our learners. Coherence as described by OConnell (2012) is a critical aspect of sustainable PL and will only occur when inquiry is embedded in practice and when we all align the technology with the pedagogy/teaching method and way of working (Stevenson, 2013). Retrieved from http://community.tetoitupu.org

Constraints & Assumptions: Te Toi Tupu. 2011. BeL Project Initiation Document. Budgets and time are biggest constraints but some assumptions become constraints when they are not in place, for example, it is assumed that schools have sufficient infrastructure (they often do not) to actively engage in BeL PLD.

12

D Wilkes- Transformative PL Provision

1-What types of knowledge acquisition does the CPD support?

2-Is the principal focus on individual or collective development?

3-To what extent is the CPD used as a form of accountability? 4-What capacity does the CPD allow for supporting professional autonomy?

5-Is the fundamental purpose of the CPD to provide a means of transmission or to facilitate transformative practice?

Emancipatory and communicative knowledge are at the heart of transformative learning. In BeL, teachers are supported to reflect and understand themselves as contributors in their learning community. The blended approach calls for connected knowledge through the development of personal learning networks that utilize platforms such as the VLN, google apps and twitter to curate information, create content and cultivate curiosity. Transformative learning theory is all about making meaning of our world through our experiences. BeL experiences are both individual and collaborative in nature which is inherent in the BeL approach. Through Teaching as Inquiry, active PLCs, critical friend relationships, coaching partnerships, training sessions, cascade PLD opportunities, teachers leading learning in teckie breakies etc. the teachers have a myriad of online and f2f prospects to grow both individually and collectively. The four project outcomes around leadership, student achievement, teacher e-capability and use of the EEL web presence are indicative of what is expected of all BeL PLD stakeholders. Participation in teacher inquiries and progress against the eLPF are key measures. Through a huge emphasis on Teaching as Inquiry (Action Research Model) that explores BeL interventions to meet student needs- teachers are empowered and encouraged to embark on investigations that are authentic and relevant to their specific classroom context. It is personalized in this way. In addition, some online cascade and mentoring opportunities exist and in-school training is employed on occasion. The BeL schools are also often already engaged in a form of PLC or utilize a buddy/critical friend system. Whenever possible, BeL endeavours to align BeL PLD with other in house/external PLD programs (C Jager, personal communication, October 15, 2013) The purpose of BeL is to facilitate transformative practice; combining a number of processes and conditions that support a transformative agendarecogniz(ing) the range of different conditions required for transformative practice (Kennedy, 2005, p.246). It is based on the needs of individuals and the school as a whole- a one-size fits one approach. This supports educational change, embraces new knowledge and calls for a balance of all PL approaches to ensure sustainability (Bolstad et al., 2012). Ultimately, BeL cultivates transformative practices through provision of new perspectives and a personalized approach to setting goals.

13