SMART criteria Topic 5 forum

Specific

Measurable

Achievable

Result focused / realistic

Time bound / timely

Comparing school goals to the SMART criteria has identified effective and somewhat ineffective goals. I believe the goals set by my current school are set within its contexts regarding the students and community. The four major goals that the school is trying to accomplish will be beneficial to both the school and students and using the SMART criteria has identified this. These goals are specific, measurable, achievable and results focused and/or realistic, where some of the goals fall short is the achieved or completion date (Time bound /timely). Perhaps the implementation of the SMART criteria is an effective method to be used during the planning process and as an evaluation tool in the development of a strategic plan within a school and school library context.

Module 5 post 2 Mission vs Vision

The school that I’m currently working in mission statement is as follows ‘mission is to provide high quality educational services, developing the honesty, compassion and integrity of our students, and adding to the economic, cultural, social and sporting capital of our community’.

The school’s vision statement is as follows ‘Our vision is to create an inclusive learning community in which everyone values their education and benefits from opportunities provided by the school to achieve their potential’.

There is a clear difference between the schools mission and vision statement. The mission statement highlights why it exists and its core purpose. I find it memorable, inspiring and focused on the students and community.  

The vision is quantitative, future casting and audacious, as it is concerned with the future potential of both students and community. To find the mission and vision statement could be tricky for community members and time poor teachers, therefore I believe it needs to be more visible for staff, students and community members.

Module 5 Environmental Scan STEEP

By viewing the internal and external factors within the school I currently work in using the STEEP process, many emerging issues were highlighted .Most concerning is the gap that appears with the technology available to students through the school and the technology that student are exposed to at home. Through thoughtful planning, collaboration and evaluation this concern can be identified and goals and processes can be put in place to help close this gap.

Digital Literacy

There are elements of digital literacy in the General Capabilities of the Australian Curriculum. Map your current understanding of digital literacy to the General Capabilities.

My understanding of Digital Literacy has now expanded to not only include effective and safe use of ICT (word processing, web tools and social networking) but to include the components of information and critical literacy as stated by Wall and Ryan (2010, p. 31). These components include, defining, locating, selecting, organising, presenting and evaluating information and questioning, problem solving and reflective thinking.

DL is linked to the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Capability of the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2013, p. 61). The elements that relate to digital literacy include (ACARA, 2013, pp. 61):

•             Recognising intellectual property

•             Using ICT to safely create, communicate and share information

•             Information literacy: locate, access, generate, organise, and analyse data

•             Selecting and evaluating the integrity and value of information sources

•             Generating ideas, plans and processes

•             Generating solutions to challenges and learning activities

•             Collaboratively constructing knowledge, sharing and exchanging

•             Applying technical knowledge and skills to efficiently and securely manage digital data

•             Understanding of context

Furthermore DL is linked to the Critical and Creative Thinking Capability and the elements which relate to digital literacy (ACARA, 2013, p. 78):

•             Inquiring – identifying, exploring and organising information and ideas

•             Seeking solutions and putting ideas into action

•             Reflecting on thinking and processes

•             Transfer knowledge into new contexts

•             Analysing, synthesising and evaluating reasoning and procedures

 

•             Draw conclusions and design a course of action

How would you develop a digital literacy framework for your school in the context of the Australian Curriculum?

•             Through collaboration with staff and personnel with expert knowledge identify key aspect of DL that is nationally recognised to incorporate into the framework.

•             Use the ICT and Critical and Creative Thinking capability framework from Australian Curriculum General Capabilities as foundations to develop the DL framework.

•             Use Personal and Social Capability as well as the Ethical Understanding Capability to guide in the creation of the DL framework.

•             Create authentic learning opportunities with the use of technology.

Reference:

ACARA. (2013). General capabilities in the Australian curriculum.  Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/GeneralCapabilities/Overview/General-capabilities-in-the-Australian-Curriculum

Wall, J., & Ryan, S. (2010). Digital literacy : a resource for learning. Resourcing for curriculum innovation (pp. 31-35). Camberwell, Vic.: ACER Press

Conflict Resolution Questionnaire

After completing the Conflict Resolution Questionnaire my approach to managing conflict was identified as COLLABORATING (above average assertiveness, believe in two people working together can produce better results than individuals.

I thought and still think of myself as being assertive, perhaps not above average, and I do believe that two heads are better than one. Furthermore, I believe avoidance is part of my conflict management repertoire that I need to work on as an aspiring Teacher Librarian.

Collaborative Curriculum Programs Module 3 post

The element of leadership practice in collaborative environments that I would like to explore further that also already exists in the school I currently work in is the practice of collaborative curriculum design mentioned by Collay (2011, p. 92). I would like to explore this practice further as I believe this would  develop my content knowledge and allow for professional dialogue to occur with more senior and experienced staff members further enhancing my Instructional practice. Furthermore, I perceive I don’t hold leadership qualities such as my colleagues and this type of collaborative, professional development practice with allow me to develop these qualities and permit me to effectively communicate my own ideas and practices to the entire school, where appropriate.

Looking into the future, I would like to explore the approach of collaborative inquiry as Goodnough (2005) mentions. This approach serves a dual learning purpose as it will develop my own inquiry and instructional practices and help student to obtain a better understanding of the content while solving ‘real’ or significant problems.

Reference:

Collay, M. (2011). Teaching is leading. Everyday Teacher Leadership: Taking Action Where You Are (pp. 75-108). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Goodnough, K. (2005). Fostering Teacher Learning through Collaborative Inquiry. Clearing House, 79(2), 88-92.

Leadership for Learning Topic 3

‘Leadership for Learning’ is a complex and dynamic theme that supports the numerous forms of leadership styles that exist. It focuses on practice, connects all levels of leadership allowing followers to shape the leadership practice (MacBeath & Dempster, 2009, p. 44). L for L creates connections to numerous people from varying positions within a school and its community (social capital), prompts monitoring, regulation and evaluation of how we learn (Agency) and driven through the behaviours, actions and the conditions we create for students, teachers and parents, stimulating continuous improvement (Moral purpose) (MacBeath & Dempster, 2009, pp. 46-47).

Instructional Leadership is the most popular form of leadership in educational settings. Smith & Andrews identify four dimension of IL; Resource provider, instructional resource, communicator and visible presence (Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005, p. 18). This type of leadership to me encompasses a teachers role in an education setting.

From my own experiences I believe that as a teacher I use a range of Piaget, Vygotsky, Skinner and Bruner theories. Rewarding students (Skinner), nurturing environment allow for social interaction (Vygotsky), student centred activities targeting student prior knowledge (Piagets) and considering cultural aspects and learning outside of school (Bruners) (Moore, 2012, pp. 5-23).

The theories that support instructional learning include Behavioural Learning Theory, Constructivist Learning Theory and a new digital theory, Connectivist Theory. Behavioural Theory is predominately teacher directed, Constructivist theory is based on learners creating their own knowledge from interactions and experiences and Connectivist Theory is comprised of collaboration and connections in the knowledge building process and the way information is displayed (Starkey, 2012, pp.23-27). These theories mentioned can incorporate technology, are outcome based and allow for teacher centred and student centred activities to occur. Furthermore these theories allow for collaboration and reflection, supporting instructional leadership in the 21^st Century.

Reference:

MacBeath, J. E., & Dempster, N. (2009). Leadership for learning. Connecting leadership and learning: principles for practice (pp. 32-52). London: Routledge.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). Some theories and theorists on leadership. School leadership that works: from research to results (pp. 13-27). Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved January 27, 2014 from http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/lib/csuau/docDetail.action?docID=10089219

Moore, A. (2012). Theories of teaching and learning. Teaching and learning: pedagogy, curriculum and culture (2nd ed., pp. 1-30). London: Routledge.

Starkey, L. (2012). Knowledge and connectivism. Teaching and learning in the digital age (pp. 20-28). New York, NY: Routledge.