18 February 2019
I will use the Mauri model to critically examine how taking action(s) during my Inquiry has been informed by indigenous knowledge and culturally responsive pedagogy. I will focus on decision making and learning activities.
What? Being a Te Kotahitanga school, it is Russel Bishop's definition of indigenous knowledge and cultural responsiveness that makes the most sense to me. It is also based on this understanding that I have tried to model my practice. He defines cultural responsiveness as "a caring and learning relationship". He talks about:
- Having high expectations of students
- Prepare for Maori to be Maori in the classroom
- Manage classroom behavior because of a shared cultural appreciation, context and respect
- Providing meaningful interactions (feedback and feedforward) and sharing co-construction of work (shift away from transactional leadership in the classroom)
- Teachers having a range of strategies
- Teachers using evidence (largely derived from students voice and other's in the community) to inform teaching
Edtalks.(2012, September 23).
So what? My understanding of indigenous knowledge and cultural responsiveness I am discovering is very much situated between Level 1: Actions and Expressions of Inactivity and Level 3: Actions and Expressions of Proactive on the Mauri Model. The reason I identify with such a broad spectrum of awarenesses and interactions on this model is because I feel that in some instances I am aware (as if awoken) and actively encourage and embrace each student for who they are and where they place themselves in this world in terms of their cultural identity. I feel that sometimes these differences are actively considered by me when I plan my lessons and learning activities. I realise this happens because I care about my students, who they are, where they come from, what they bring with them into the learning space and context and how they interpret information because of these factors. I also care about teaching them and therefore want to engage their interests so that the learning can take place in a way that makes sense to them. I want my students to feel noticed and recognised for who they are and I do not want them to question the relevance of what we are learning (due to the context or content I have chosen based solely on my interests and frame of reference) to their lives as young, often Maori, boys. From my inquiry, last weeks observations of student engagement and depth of thinking, as well as the student's voice gathered at the end of the week, I was able to inform my practice in a way that better represented the boys in my class. Together we identified that visual texts were more culturally appropriate than written texts, for flipped learning. This made me aware of how I will use written texts in the future. Especially, at what point in the learning journey, what purpose I want it to have and the context of it (is it something that will interest my boys or is it just a good piece of writing that does the job, but means nothing to them as young Maori men?).
However, there are also times in my practice when I only consider what needs to be learned and feel that my students just need to learn it, as it is, irrespective of what it means to them in terms of their identity and how they might learn best. Recognising this makes me feel ashamed. Never do I not care for my students! But sometimes I feel a bit stubborn about the content they just need to know. Ironically, it is in these lessons that students are least engaged or happy in class which in turn creates further frustrations in me because they are not open to learning. This is a direct link to what Bishop mentions in terms of Classroom management 'taking care of itself' if students feel valued and cared for. I feel most comfortable from my own cultural point of view and sometimes feel anxious about how to make something more relevant, so I just stick to what I know. The inquiry around flipped learning has been a wonderful eye-opener for me in terms of the power of collaboration when it comes to creating learning contexts. Boys feel valued when asked to share their views on a lesson. But it is not enough to just pay lip-service to it. It has to be consciously and deliberately considered and implemented in future lessons.
What next? I can clearly identify the advantages of being culturally responsive, not only for the benefit of my practice but especially for the benefit of my students and our learning relationship. I see that consistency in my practice is key. That I need to be more consistent. Cultural responsiveness needs to become as much a part of me as a person, as it is a part of my practice. I believe that this would mean embracing actions and expressions of a transformative leadership style. "Transformational leadership is defined as a leadership approach that causes change in individuals and social systems". Transformative in terms of practice and self. I will make the cultural awareness and responsiveness the forefront of my thinking. Everything I will do will be with my students in mind, as Maori boys. I will give them agency to choose how they want to be assessed and what context they want to learn from. Choice of texts and genres will be co-constructed. I will also seek the voice of the wider community.
References:
Edtalks.(2012, September 23). A culturally responsive pedagogy of relations. [video file].Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/49992994
Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Cavanagh, T. & Teddy, L. (2009).Te Kotahitanga: Addressing educational disparities facing Māori students in New Zealand. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5),734–742.
Pohatu, T. W. (2011). Mauri - Rethinking human wellbeing. MAI Review, 3, 1-12. Retrieved from http://www.review.mai.ac.nz/index.php/MR/article/v...
https://www.langston.edu/sites/default/files/basic-content-files/TransformationalLeadership.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment