​The second key change in my practice is the realisation that technology needs to support the pedagogical approach of my teaching, not determine its focus. I knew this, and even promoted it to others I worked with, yet during my MindLab digital assessments, the focus unconsciously twisted to the undesirable. The project I had outlined to my students lost its true focus (the patterns of human settlement) and became a tedious exercise research content for slides on particular settlements to use with Aurasma, which as it turns out, could not be used in conjunction anyway. I feel that even though this ideas is one teachers know theoretically, we need to continually question our programme to ensure the end justifies the means - time is a valuable asset in the classroom!

From a pragmatic point of view, this could also benefit the trust and the programme as a whole. Exposure in the community could result in financial and skill support for an organisation that relies on volunteers for their operations.
​
The benefits of such a collaboration are great, and the motivation and excitement from an educational perspective are high. Yet to make this work, as a teacher you can envisage the complex, time consuming and intensity of the process. The support of many of the other connections listed in the above network would be important. And ideally, carrying out the project as a postgraduate thesis working alongside a teacher with similar aspirations and goals would not only ease the time burden, but give the project an academic rigour a solo teacher simply cannot support when working full-time. ​

The term 'indigenous knowledge' is often referred to as the practices and understanding embedded in the cultural traditions of people from a particular region. It is commonly pitted against scientific knowledge or ‘modern’ knowledge (Ajibade, 2003). This juxtaposition seems to oversimplify and prove unnecessarily unhelpful.

Unpacking the term ‘indigenous knowledge’ helps to position the two not as competitors but as possible complementaries.  The former Director General of UNESCO, Frederico Mayor described traditional wisdom by stating, “The indigenous people of the world possess an immense knowledge of their environments, based on centuries of living close to nature. Living in and from the richness and variety of complex ecosystems, they have an understanding of the properties of plants and animals, the functioning of ecosystems and the techniques for using and managing them that is particular and often detailed” (UNESCO, 2010).

In the report, Enhancing Matauranga Māori and Global Indigenous Knowledge, Mead (2012) reflects on the continuing evolution of indigenous knowledge, “mātauranga Māori is not just traditional knowledge, nor a static and unchanging thing—it is dynamic and includes the uptake of scientific tools”. This more practical understanding follows how cultures have adapted over the centuries. But in recent decades globalisation has caused many nuances in culture to be subsumed. Homogenization of cultures keeps questions around maintaining traditions relevant.  The report raised questions relating in nature: “Is mātauranga Māori fundamentally part of a living culture in the sense that it is meant to continue to grow and adapt to the 21st century, or is it a taonga that should remain in the traditions and constructs of the past pre-European colonisation days?” Beyond that, “Is it appropriate to merge indigenous and western science-based knowledge?” 

In my experience, many Māori students are unaware of the plethora of traditional practices that formed Māori indigenous knowledge. I consider this a great loss both in terms of a preserved taonga that can be reflected on as historically important, and the possibilities lost for my students to combine traditional knowledge systems with scientific understanding in the future. The knowledge system my Māori students do operate within, however, still varies significantly to my own. As a Pakeha, the majority of my life I have operated inside of familiar knowledge systems, without having to “shift the paradigm through which [I] view the world in order to make sense of things” (Theory of Knowledge, n.d.).  It is the understanding that one belongs a particular culture, particularly if it is the dominant culture, where cultural responsiveness plays an important role.

Gays (2001, p.106) definition of cultural responsiveness, “using the cultural characteristics, experiences and perspectives as conduits for effective teaching” resonates with me as it doesn’t place emphasis on the tangible or definitive aspects of a culture. Earl et al (2008) elaborates on this point by stating,  “cultural responsiveness is much more than introducing myths or metaphors into class. It means interacting with their families to truly understand their reality; it means understanding the socio-political history and how it impacts on classroom life” (p. 12).  I believe the reasoning behind ‘the achievement gap’ between Māori and Pakeha could be resolved through true cultural responsiveness. ​

Political, economic and social global trends stretching into the 21st century are complex, harrowing, and noticeably underway. Population pressures, shifting economies, disruptions from technological advancement, populism and exclusion, the nature of conflict, and attention demanded by environmental issues all predict of significantly harder times to come (NIC, 2017). These trends are not only inextricably linked but they are converging at a pace never experienced in human history (Pearson, 2103).  ​

​These major global trends serve as umbrellas to a web of more focused trends, specific to contexts and/or societies. Although negating the connections and focusing on one does a disservice to the complexity of the trend, it allows some clarity and, it appears, a tad more hope.

The NMC/CoSN Horizon Report reported on the need for workforce trends to be reflected in schooling (2016). Workforce trends are influenced by many, if not most, of the aforementioned social, political and economic trends. In particular are the rise in technology and a shifting global economy. Automation and technological innovation are “poised to transform a widening array of work practices and the way people live and communicate” (NIC, 2017, p. 15). Global markets pit national economies against each other, but are at the mercy of migration.  Workforce trends themselves are not easy to predict, but throughout the literature, media and hype flexibility, socially intelligent, technologically savvy, and creative are all buzzwords for the future worker/creator. It makes you reflect how committed schools are to preparing their students to be part of a future workforce.  ​

The intermediate school in which I worked is a well-resourced upper decile school, with 19% Māori. Deciles are calculated from the socio-economic status of the households in the area from which the school draws on.  A selection of households within the area are analysed in terms of the income, occupations of the adults, crowding in the home, education qualifications, and percentage of parents who have income support ERO, 2015). These figures are averaged across the contributing suburbs and form a school's decile rating. I worked at several public intermediates in the district and there is a significant difference in the resources available to staff and students and the number of high needs students. At the other end of the spectrum there is an intermediate with a struggling roll, listed as a decile 4 (which is inflated because more affluent families in the area send their children to the alternative), and many more behavioural issues - in part due to the socio-economic situation combined with lack of staff and resources to help. 

Although the decile rating is reasonably high in the more well-resourced intermediate, there tends to be several students within each class with high needs. High needs are not necessarily determined by socio-economic factors, although they do play a role. Despite the resources available, distribution has not been directed towards an effective way of helping these students, or their teachers, in their education. My thoughts on this are that the school is familiar with 'managing' average behaviour, and students with extreme behaviour aren't common enough for effective strategies to be put in place. On reflection, this seems to be the case with Māori students, or those with other ethnic backgrounds. The school has the odd 'cultural' event, a poster or two in classrooms, the odd multilingual greeting - but the culture of the school accommodates white, middle class, 'average' behaved students. 

What the school does do well, in part to their the large roll, is offering a wide range of opportunities in sport, culture and arts. From speaking with staff, this is what has previously defined the school culture. Involvement was strongly promoted among students, and even though the number of opportunities has continued, if not more, it seems that opportunities are now for those who know how to take advantage of them. To give examples, school radio, ski/snow trips, mountain bike training - new activities in the last few years - are niche activities for those a few students, many requiring existing skills. What has become less of a focus is helping those students unaware of how to participate or help those without learn skills.

In terms of the professional environment, the school has gone through a significant transition with a change of leadership. The former placed emphasis on structure, blanket participation in professional development (whether you needed it or not), reprimanding the whole staff (whether you did it or not) - where as the new principal allows teachers to follow their own paths without, the perhaps necessary, checks and balances to ensure quality teaching. Although a stance was made about keeping conversations professional, which was an issue under previous leadership, the avenue to air grievances or put forward suggestions has not been established. This can severely effects a staff's ability to maintain professionalism. 

Sources:
​Education Review Office (ERO)  http://www.ero.govt.nz/review-reports/highlands-intermediate-02-07-2015/
Decile system ​www.education.govt.nz/school/running-a-school/resourcing/operational-funding/school-decile-ratings/

The guru of such things, Etienne Wegner, has a few clues as to whether you are, or whether your group is simply just a community.  Mr Wegner gives a big thumbs up to being a part of a community of practice as it has a multitude of benefits such as sharing and solving problems, coordinating activities, and good old academic debate. I've experienced two of those three in our little MindLab Facebook community, but I've also experienced all three generally as member of Facebook. So what distinguishes a community from one of practice? In the eyes of Mr Wegner three characteristics are crucial (paraphrased):

1. Domain: Valued collective competence in a particular area
2. Community: Interaction from people involved
3. Practice: Community members who practice in their area of competence

1. Domain: Valued collective competence in a particular area
This is where I believe my general Facebook community falls short. Not simply because I disagree with many of the idiotic responses I get to my political posts, but because personal Facebook pages are not bound by a particular area of interest.  Our MindLab Facebook page, however, is related to a particular area - the MindLab course. Even at its thinnest thread - organising to have a wine - drinks are intertwined with celebrations of MindLab achievements, discussion of frustrations, or the occasional dread further assignments. There is also a healthy dose of academic debate after a wine. What about other activities suggested by Wegner? The following also get a tick from our MindLab community: requests for info, sharing resources, seeking answers, growing in confidence that you're on the right track, documenting evidence, discussing developments, and identifying gaps in understanding. 

2. Community: Interaction from people involved
These all happen on a weekly basis and are greatly appreciated by all involved - the more you put in, the more you get out of it. Which leads to to the second characteristic - community. As part of a previous assignment I looked at the numbers involved in our MindLab Facebook group. Although not everyone who attended the face-to-face sessions are actively involved, the majority are and we're regularly active. Well done us! 

3. Practice: Community members who practice in their area of competence
In terms of practicing our area of competence, we all are working towards (read practicing) gaining our MindLab qualification, but more than that we are all practicing educators. The essence of being a part of the MindLab is the betterment of education through more informed practitioners. 

A sense of belonging
The most significant impact of being a part of this community of practice is the sense of camaraderie. If you're frustrated, you express it, and within hours you know someone else is feeling your pain.  Need a resource and you can't navigate the bloody website - someone will post it for you, champion. Missed out on the webinar, a much appreciated girly-swat will give you the low down. Or maybe you're on a Tinder date in Alaska and can't access the extension page - boom, three others have applied on your behalf (thanks team).

As the creator of the page I do feel a little like a mother with a child, but just as it would likely be the case, I have occasionally abandoned it for more exciting things. Luckily, we have all adopted it like our own and its grown into a little being of its own.  Bless.

For more on communities of practice read from the guru himself:  Etienne Wegner: Introduction to Communities of Practice

Another consideration for the innovator is being a highly reflective teacher, and having an awareness of their pedagogical beliefs. For example, Google Docs can help facilitate collaborative writing, but collaboration itself is not a new phenomenon in the classroom. A teacher who introduces this technology to her students is better placed if she facilitates working together before Google Docs is introduced. 

Finally, for the innovator is the ability to find help in their school if needed. Zhao et. al call this being a 'socially savvy' teacher. Often a small issue can be resolved by asking another staff member rather than waiting on an 'IT professional' to make their weekly visit to the school.
​
The Innovation
The success of the technology being introduced relies on two conditions - the distance from the status quo and the dependence on other factors. The distance from the status quo considers both the values of the teacher, the pedagogical practice, and the existing technology. Aurasma is going to be more successful if the students are already familiar with ipads - this is an example of less distance between existing and new technology.

Dependence refers to the teacher relying on others outside of her authority to make the technology work, or technology beyond her control. Often there is only one Google Admin in the school, if they are busy but a teacher needs to reset a password, they are dependent and this can cause an issue. 

Of all of these domains, Zhao et. al considers the innovator the most important and I agree. I have found myself as an innovator - of which many innovations were successful - because of my IT proficiency and drive to support my existing pedagogy. However, I have also been very aware when my dependence on others, and lack of human and technological infrastructure has made an introduction so frustrating that I've changed approach. Something that I need to remember, and which I believe is an important lesson for IT leaders in schools, is Zhao's statement that IT integration needs to be a 'evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach' - steps not leaps!

Two models used for the assessing the quality of activities involving digital technology are SAMR (Substitute, Augment, Modify, and Redefine) and TPACK (Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge). Below are the explanations of each model. They both look at the overlap of technology and how we integrate (the pedagogy) of our programmes. 

Below is a simple self-explanatory comparison of the two models.

I'd like to try and introduce Aurasma into our MindPlus programme (gifted education). Our overarching theme for the conceptual development section is patterns, of which animal patterns will be the focus for the term. This is the first task that comes to mind...

Proposed task: ask each group of students to investigate a particular category of patterns (strength, order, beauty, survivability). Ask them to create a short presentation (video, slide etc) about what constitutes that category, what animal patterns fall into the category, how those animals utilise their patterns. 

Following this, students print out a range of animal patterns in their chosen category and create auras for each. First the category appears,then it goes into more depth about the animal and its particular pattern. Each group carries out this task.

The teacher then displays the animal patterns around the room. Students use the Aurasma app to then try and guess the animal and category of pattern before they Aurasma the images.

SAMR: I would consider this task to be a mix of modification and redefinition of a paper based task in a similar vein. Paper presentations with flaps that you lift up after you've guessed would get the same information across, but rule out video presentations. 

​TPACK:  When using the TPACK model to assess, I would find it difficult to distinguish between a complex pedagogical task, with high technology use, and deep content knowledge and something at the lighter end of the scale. I would consider this activity as achieving TPACK but not on a particularly deep level.

The augmented reality apps we tried out in class were Aurasma, Quiver, Anatomy 4D and Elements 4D. With Aurasma, once you've downloaded the app onto your phone, you follow or subscribed to creator of an aura you would like to view (in the video below the creators would be the newspaper company, Kellogs etc), then hold your phone camera over an image and witness an alternative image or video appear!

The app I played with using Google goggles was Google Cardboard -  a super low-cost alternative to virtual reality headsets. The video below gives a basic explanation of how it works.