Whakataukī: Me Mahi Tahi Tātou Mo Te Oranga O Te Katoa

Module 2

GEPRISP

Module 2

GEPRISP

Whakataukī: Me mahi tahi tātou mo te oranga o te katoa.

Literal:We must all work as one for the well being of all.

Overview

This module outlines the core elements of Te Kotahitanga as they are encapsulated in the acronym, GEPRISP. Each element is defined and examined in detail. The links between GEPRISP and practice are outlined in terms of classroom practice and the implementation of the professional development programme. The synergistic nature of GEPRISP is examined and specific examples are provided of how the GEPRISP model guides all levels of Te Kotahitanga.

Section / Contents / Page
1 / Background / 2[SE1]
2 / Making sense of Discourses and Discursive Positioning The Link to Te Kotahitanga / 3
3 / Understanding the elements of GEPRISP / 4
4 / PSIRPEG: Gathering evidence of the effects of implementation / 7
5 / GEPRISP/PSIRPEG and the professional development / 11
6 / The elements of GEPRISP / 12
7 / The synergy of the elements of GEPRISP / 245
8 / Reviewing GEPRISP: Activity template / 25
References / 289

Section 1: Background

The professional development model in Te Kotahitanga applies each aspect of GEPRISP (Goal, Experiences of Māori students, teacher’s discursivePositioning, Relationships, Interactions, Strategies and Planning) across both the implementation of the professional development and the evaluation of its implementation. In this model The Effective Teaching Profile is operationalised at multiple levels: between Māori students and teachers in classrooms, between teachers and facilitators, and between the Research and Development team and facilitators.

Section 2: Making Sense of Discourses and Discursive Positioning

Parker (1992) defines a discourse as “a system of statements which constructs an object” (p.5). Burr develops this idea further by asserting that a discourse refers to “a set of meanings, metaphors, representations, images, stories, statements and so on that in some way together produce a particular version of events” (1995, p.48).

In Te Kotahitanga the concept of discourseis understood as the sets of ideas, ofteninfluenced by historical events, that influence one’s practices and actions, how one relates and interacts with others, and,as a result, how one understands and explains those experiences (Bishop, Berryman, Powell & Teddy, 2007; Bishop, Berryman, Tiakiwai & Richardson, 2003). Discourses are recognised as having a major influence on the images and experiences that teachers and Māori students have of each other, and therefore on their relationships and interactions.

Burr (1995) makes the point that, “numerous discourses surround any object and each strives to represent or construct it in a different way… claims to say what the object really is, claims to be the truth”. However claims as to what is the reality, what is the truth, “lie at the heart of discussions of identity, power and change” (p.49). Burr suggests that the meaning behind what we say “rather depends upon the discursive context, the general conceptual framework in which our words are embedded” (p.50). One’s actions and behaviours, how one relates to, defines and interacts with others, are determined by discursive positioning, that is the discourse within which one is metaphorically positioned.Discursive positioning therefore can determine how we understand and define other people with whom we relate (Bishop, et al., 2003; Bishop, et al., 2007; Shields, Bishop, & Mazawi, 2005).

The Ministry of Education’s strategic direction, aimed at improving education for Māori, is informed by outcomes and targets set by the government’s Education Priorities, by the Ministry’s Statement of Intent, by strategic work emerging from Hui Taumata Mātauranga and by partnerships forged between iwi Māori and the Ministry of Education (Ministry of Education, 2005a). It has been argued that Māori aspirations could be better met within bicultural discourses such as these (Durie, 1998). However, from previous experience, these initiatives are unlikely to make a difference unless they also attempt to address the dominant discursive positioning, inherent in many colonised societies that pathologisesthe indigenous condition (Shields, et al., 2005; Walker, 1990) including that of the indigenous Māori population in New Zealand (Bishop, et al., 2003; Bishop, et al., 2007; Smith, 1999).

The Link to Te Kotahitanga

It is a fundamental understanding of the Te Kotahitanga project that until teachers consider how the dominant culture maintains control over the various aspects of education, and the part they themselves might play in perpetuating this pattern of domination, albeit unwittingly, they will not understand how dominance manifests itself in the lives of Māori students (and their communities) and how they (as teachers) and the way they relate to and interact with Māori students may well be affecting learning in their classroom. Therefore, the professional development devised by the researchers includes a means whereby teachers’ thinking can be challenged, albeit in a supported, private way.

Cognitive and affective dissonance, in effect, cultural dissonance, which Timperley, Phillips and Wiseman (2003) identify as being necessary for successful professional development, can lead teachers to a better understanding of the power imbalances of which they are a part, in particular those power imbalances which perpetuate cultural deficit theorising and support the retention of traditional transmission classroom practices. Changing teachers’ explanations and practices (discursive repositioning) about what impacts on Māori students’ learning, involves non-confrontational ways for teachers to challenge their own deficit theorising about Māori students (and their communities) through real and vicarious means.

Section 3: Understanding the Elements of GEPRISP

GEPRISP, as the model for implementation of the professional development, begins by acknowledging and highlighting the need for the specific GOALof improving Māori student participation and achievement. Māori students’EXPERIENCESof education and those of their significant others are then used in a problem-solving exercise at the Hui Whakarewa (Module 6A) which allows for a critical examination of teachers’ discursivePOSITIONING and the implications for classroom relations and interactions with Māori students. Through the process of critical reflection upon the evidence presented in the narratives of Māori students and others, a professional learning conversation is created wherein teachers can make connections with their own experiences in similar settings. In this way teachers are provided with supported opportunities to discursively reposition in ways that: acknowledge their own mana and rangatiratanga; realise their own agency; and liberate their power to act. RELATIONSHIPS and INTERACTIONS, that are fundamental to the culturally responsive Effective Teaching Profile (ETP), are introduced at the Hui Whakarewa andSTRATEGIESthat can be used to develop culturally responsive learning contexts and learning conversations are modelled. The importance of detailed PLANNING to bring about change in classrooms, departments and across the school is promoted.

PSIRRPEG: The model for evaluating the professional development implementation

For the evaluation of the professional development implementation at the level of teachers in classrooms, the order of GEPRISP is reversed into PSIRPEG (the P is silent). Facilitators loop back through each of the elements within the model, in a continuous cycle.Facilitators focus target teachers on the need forPLANNING that will develop STRATEGIES to promote discursive INTERACTIONS that in turn will lead to quality and productive learning RELATIONSHIPS with Māori students. Such relationships will reinforce teachers’ agentic POSITIONING. Together these elements work towards improving Māori students’ EXPERIENCES and promote the GOAL of improving Māori students’ educational engagement, participation and achievement.

Module 2

Understanding the components of GEPRISP and PSIRPEG

The implementation and evaluation process

Module 2

Section 4: PSIRPEG: Gathering evidence of the effects of implementation

When it is undertaken collaboratively PSIRPEG is useful as a means of evaluating the likely outcomes of planning. Teachers, facilitators, and school leaders are all supported to understand and apply the GEPRISP/PSIRPEG model. Thoseworking in leadership roles will also be encouraged to use the acronym GPILSEO (Bishop et al., 2009) to promote their own planning and implementation.

In order to evaluate the effects of the professional development implementation, evidence can be collected under each of the PSIRPEG headings, using a variety of qualitative and quantitative data gathering means.

PLANNING: Do teachers plan their lessons to create culturally appropriate and culturally responsive relationships and interactions in their classrooms?

Evidence of planning for classroom interactions is gathered using the observation tool. In addition, whole school planning may be promoted and led by the principal.Changes in planning and the links between planning and delivery may then be examined.

STRATEGIES: Are teachers using new strategies to support their implementation of a culturally responsive pedagogy of relations in the classroom?

During the course of the classroom observation, facilitators record evidence of the use of discursive strategies in the classroom.Teachers should be able to demonstrate an increased range and type of co-operative and interactive strategies over the period of their participation.

INTERACTIONS: Are teachers engaged in developing new teaching and learning interactions?

Each term, Te Kotahitanga teachers are observed using the observation tool to examine changes in the teaching and learning interactionsthey have with Māori students. Over the period of their participation in Te Kotahitanga, teachers will be supported to interact more discursively with students. Discursive pedagogies mean thatstudents will have more opportunities to actively engage in the construction of knowledge by talking about their prior experiences as the basis of constructing new knowledge. In this respect, learning can be said to be discursive or in the conversations.While traditional transmission type pedagogies are not expected to be replaced, there will be more of a balance of interactions betweenthese two pedagogies (transmission, discursive).

It is also expected that evidence of these changes willbe systematically collected. Evidence will include changes in: Māori students’ engagement with learning; work completion; Māori student and teacher interactions; proximity between the teacher and Māori students; Māori students’ involvement in power-sharing learning strategies;increase in the cognitivechallenge of lessons and; evidence that Māori students are able to use their prior knowledge and experiences as an on-going means for developing new understandings within their classroom learning.

RELATIONSHIPS: Are teachers engaged in developing new relationships with Māori students?

Te Kotahitanga teachers are observed using the observation tool to examine evidence of caring at three levels: manaakitanga, caring for Māori students’ wellbeing; mana motuhake, caring for and having high expectations of Māori students’ achievement; and ngā whakapiringatanga, teachers’ caring for the provision of well-managed learning environments in order for this to take place.

POSITIONING: Are teachers challenging their own discursive positioningso that they reject deficit theorising in regards to Māori student achievement and focus instead, on their own agency to make changes?

Teacher’s discursive positioning can be investigated by means of conversations, in-depth interviews and surveys among a sample of teachers during their participation in Te Kotahitanga.

EXPERIENCES: How might Māori studentsstudents’ educational experiences look now?

Māori students’ educational experiences may be systematically investigated by means of conversations, in-depth interviews, and surveys among a sample of Māoristudents during the project, to review their engagement and participation in learning and their identity as learners.

GOAL: What is the evidence of changes in student performance?

Where possible, evidence should be gathered of changes in Māori students’ performance in terms of changes to their participation in education: absenteeism, suspension, stand-downs, exclusions, retention rates, and their academic achievement.

The Evidential Basis of Te Kotahitanga

GEPRISP / The Evidence

G

Goal: The need to improve Māori students’ educational achievement

/ Measurable shifts in Māori students’ education participation and achievement

E

Experiences: The need to examine Māori students’ educational experiences

/ Shifts in Māoristudents’ thinking with an increase in their positive experiences

P

Positioning: The need to challenge teachers’ discursivepositioning

/ Shifts in teachers’ thinking from deficit to agentic positioning

R

Relationships: The need to develop new relationships within teachers’ classrooms and pedagogies

/ Evidence of relationships of caring for Māori students at three levels:

Caring about the wellbeing of learners
Caring about their achievement
Caring for the learning context

I

Interactions: The need to develop new interactions with Māori students

/ Shifts in interactions from traditional/ transmission to active / discursive

Strategies: The need for new strategies

/ Evidence of an increase in the range and type of cooperative and interactive strategies

Planning: The need for effective planning so that all of this can happen

/ Evidence of planning:

In-class
Amongst teachers
Middle leadership
Whole school
Principal leadership

Module 2

Evidential Basis of Te Kotahitanga through GEPRISP

Module 2

Section 5: GEPRISP/PSIRPEG and the Professional Development model

The Te Kotahitanga professional development model,which supports the implementation of the ETP,is structured around the GEPRISP/PSIRPEG framework. The GOAL, the need to improve Māori students’ educational achievement, is both the beginning and end point of this model and remains at all times the central feature or kaupapa of Te Kotahitanga. For those participating in professional development as Regional Coordinatorsregional coordinators or facilitators, understanding Māori students’ educational EXPERIENCES is a prelude to their understanding how to challenge teachers’ discursivePOSITIONING in relation to Māori students’ achievement. From these understandings the need to develop positive RELATIONSHIPS with Māori students becomes apparent and conducive to supporting in-class INTERACTIONS and introducing STRATEGIES that will enhance learning outcomes for Māori students. For this to take place, PLANNING is essential. PLANNING to incorporate discursive STRATEGIES into the classroom that will change teachers’ INTERACTIONS with students and vice versa, students’ interactions with each other, with their learning and thus with the curriculum. As a result of these changes, RELATIONSHIPS between teachers and students will change. Different relationships will affirm or challenge existing teacher POSITIONING with regards to Māori students’ educational achievement which in turn will lead to changes in Māori students’ EXPERIENCES within the education system thus leading to the GOAL of raising Māori students’ achievement.

The professional development approach therefore is one where teachers and facilitators must also have planned opportunities to develop their own relationships. On the basis of these relationships both groups can collaborate more effectively to co-construct mutually agreeable goals, outcomes, protocols and parameters for success. The provision of ongoing and informed feedback and coaching between teachers and facilitators requires facilitators to make frequent, regular visits to the classroom to model the type of relationships and interactions that are fundamental to the implementation of the Effective Teaching Profile.

In addition, working within classroom settings has provided mutual benefits to facilitators, to Regional Coordinatorsregional coordinators, to the Research and Development team and to teachers. Facilitators, Regional Coordinatorsregional coordinators and the Research and Development team have opportunities to further connect theory to practice. Teachers benefit from collaboration, critical reflection and collegial feedback. Importantly, the relationships and interactions that are fundamental to the professional development process are those that are being fostered in classrooms. Facilitators, Regional Coordinatorsregional coordinators and the Research and Development team are guided by the same metaphors as guide effective relationships and interactions in the classroom.

Exercise 1:Authorising Student Voice

Part A.

In groups, discuss what you think is meant by authorising student voice. Record your ideas below.

Part B.

Cook-Sather (2002) identified from a wide rangingwide-ranging review of the literature:

“The work of authorising student perspectives is essential because of the various ways that it can improve educational practice, re-inform existing conversations about educational reform, and point to the discussions and reform effects yet to be undertaken” (p.3).She further identified from the literature that authorising students’ perspectives was a major way of addressing power imbalances in classrooms in order that students’ voices could be heard and have legitimacy in the learning setting.

Cook-Sather (2002) identified that authorising of students’ experiences and understandings can:

• directly improve educational practice because when teachers listen to and learn from students, they can begin to see the world from those students’ perspectives (Clarke, 1995; Davies, 1982; Finders, 1997; Heshusius, 1994)

• help teachers make what they teach more accessible to students (Commeyras, 1995; Dahl, 1995; Davies, 1982; Lincoln, 1995; Johnson & Nicholls, 1995)

• contribute to the conceptualisation of teaching, learning, and the ways we study them as more collaborative processes (Corbett & Wilson, 1995; Nicholls & Thorkildsen, 1995; Oldfather & Thomas, 1998; Shor, 1992)

• make students feel empowered when they are taken seriously and attended to as knowledgeable participants in important conversations (Hudson-Ross, Cleary & Casey, 1993)

• motivate students to participate constructively in their education (Colsant, 1995; Oldfather et al., 1999; Sanon, Baxter, Fortune & Opotow, 2001; Shultz & Cook-Sather, 2001).

Discuss the concept of authorising students’ experiences alongside these findings. Use the recording sheet on the next page to respond.

Exercise1:Authorising Student Voice - Recording Sheet

Authorising students’ experiences in New Zealand classrooms.
Consider your experiences as students in light of the research findings on the previous page. Record your responses / ideas.
Consider your experiences as teachers of Māori students in light of the research findings on the previous page. Record your responses / ideas.
What sense do you make of this?
How might you apply the above conclusions?
Reflection
In your reflection journal record your responses to the following questions:

What has this activity contributed to my theorising about Māori students?
How has this activity contributed to my theorising about Te Kotahitanga?
What implications does this have for my practice?
What will I do differently?

P[SE2]

Exercise 2: Recognising deficit theorising