MindLab Practice Blog

This blog uses Rolfe et al's (2008) model of reflection in conjunction with Osterman & Kottkamp’s (1993)/Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning models to reflect on MindLab's role in my  Professional Learning . Analysis of Osterman & Kottkamp (1993) and Kolb (1984) can be found in my previous blog . What? “Teacher’s continuing professional development can improve teacher quality and teaching practice” (de Vries, Van De Grift & Jansen, 2014, p.338). Our Code Our Standards (2017) identifies the expectation for professional learning (Figure 1). Figure 1 When used in conjunction with Timperley (2008) – Figure 2, we must critically examine our own practice with student outcomes at the centre.   Student “needs” drive teacher “needs”.   Professional learning is not measured by teacher mastery of skills, rather the impact changing practice has on valued student outcomes (Timperley, 2008, Guskey, 2014). Figure 2 Problem Identification - h

The final blog has us looking at a particular model of reflection and using it to reflect on an aspect of our practice that has been enhanced, developed, challenged, through the Mind Lab process.  I thought I would make life a bit easier for people and summarise  Osterman & Kottkamp’s (1993) model of reflective practice, a s well as Kolb's (1984) experiential learning model - the clear inspiration for that model.  I have included learning styles that come from Kolb's (1984) model because they could equally be applied to that of  Osterman & Kottkamp’s (1993).  Here goes ... Osterman & Kottkamp’s (1993) model of reflective practice (Figure 1) is primarily based in Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory (Figure 2).  As such the theoretical underpinnings of Kolb’s theory translate easily to that of Osterman & Kottkamp. Importantly, the performer/learner places greater emphasis on one particular stage which tends to reflect their learning style. All stag

This blog uses Rolfe et al’s (2001) reflective model consisting of three key questions:  What? So What?    and  Now What?  to reflect on two whole school contexts: 1.  Policies - Banding of students in Year 9/10 (Mauri Moe/Noho) 2.  Goals - Ka Hikitia/He Kakano/Kia Eke Panuku (Mauri Oho/ Ohooho moving towards Mauri Ora) What? Cultural responsiveness and indigenous knowledge have been elaborated in a previous blog . Durie (2016) uses the state of mauri to describe the holistic wellbeing of an individual/learner and can be expressed through three states :   Mauri noho, ohooho , and ora (Table 1).   It is comparable to Pohatu (2011) use of the terms mauri moe , oho , and ora (Table 1). Table 1 Moving from a state of moe / noho to ora can best be realised through a lens of, “equity, excellence and belonging” (Berryman, 2016).  My personal definition of culturally responsive practice is where the student is at the centre of learning and all students can be activ

  Miessler (2008) What we need is a great big melting pot Big enough to take the world and all it’s got And keep it stirring for a hundred years or more And turn out coffee coloured people by the score Blue Mink (1969) Ah the late 60’s and early 70’s when the  Melting Pot Theory  was proposed as a somewhat naïve utopian way of removing division as a result of difference.  If everyone was the same and treated the same then there would be no conflict.  However, the subtext to that idea was everyone had to adhere to the dominant White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) paradigm.  My how things have changed.  Diversity is celebrated.  Viewpoints outside the dominant culture have challenged the status quo and become increasingly acknowledged in education and integrated into current practice.  Indigenous knowledge in New Zealand has transformed practice over the last decade by challenging the view that everyone is the same, and one size fits all in education.  Indeed, New Zeal

This blog uses Rolfe et al’s (2001) reflective model consisting of three key questions: What? So What?   and Now What?   The global trend under consideration is declining levels of physical activity in the face of advancing technology and increased leisure time. What? A detailed analysis of this issue can be found in my previous blog . The KPMG Australia (2014) report suggests, “in the United States, 47% of jobs could be automated within 20 years” (p.26).   Equally, the NIC (2017) report noted that, “automation, artificial intelligence (AI), and other technological innovations threaten the existence of vast swaths of current jobs” (p.14).   Hand in hand with this, societal trends are leading to less, not more physical activity.   While declining rates of physical activity are complex, there is little doubt across the literature that the implementation and assimilation of technology into society has caused global changes in physical activity levels (Nigg, 2003; Hallal, And

As technology develops and is integrated into our lives, it transforms our lives.   Mostly, the integration is a positive such as the development of early detection procedures for health issues, biomedical research, and surgical procedures.   However, the technology can also be detrimental to health.   Many manual jobs have been, or are being (consider the future role of AI), replaced with technology.   This leads to an increase in leisure time and, cocomittantly, an increase in generally sedentary behaviour.   A global trend which will only continue to develop in significance, is the importance of physical activity as a preventative health-care measure.   How can technology be used to address an issue it is partially responsible for?   It is part of the problem.   Can it be part of the solution? Kohl, Kohl, Lambert et al (2012) note that physical inactivity is the fourth largest leading cause of preventable death worldwide and accounts directly for some 3 million deaths per