Activity 5: Professional Connection Map

Activity 5:
Professional Connection Map

Connecting Learning

Co-constructed with a critical friend with different impacts on our teaching.

Discoveries:

1. Everyone is connected somehow  and intersect as seen on our big mess of a map. This can be a good thing as people from different disciplines share, combine and construct innovative ways to teach and a better understanding of how learning looks like. However, there is also a danger of creating echo chambers with people who have the same point of views agreeing with what you have said. This means the professional connections has no critical thinking or challenging of practices.
2. After doing the map, I realised the more you participate and contribute in your professional connection the more impact it has on your practice.

Goals for my professional connections:

I’m a lurker. I have shared what others have created, but I haven't shared my practice. My goal for my professional connections is to contribute and participate more of my practice. eg. An example if contribute to #edchatnz discussions.

Remove myself from my professional connections and seek connections with different perspectives (remove myself from the potential of echo chambers). 

What are or what would be the benefits and challenges of working in a more interdisciplinary environment?

Benefits

Challenges

Ties nicely with 21st-century learning and what is happening currently - connection of concepts, knowledge constructing around concepts, problem-solving, cultural awareness and critical thinking (Mathison & Freeman, 1997, p.24). Child- centered approach that seems them as a whole (Mathison & Freeman, 1997, p.28). Learning is real for them. Mathison and Freeman (1997) they are more motivated, therefore, their achievement increases. It is active learning rather than passive learning (Mathison & Freeman, 1997) It encourages team-work between teachers and less scheduling problems as everything flows. The complains about not having time to teach maths is gone.  The area of discipline could be enriched, connections made and formed and learning is less fragmented (Mathison & Freeman, 1997, p.18)  Ultimately, like our map everything is connected. Learning is connected. Does our curriculum reflect this?

Setting up the right environment for collaboration and debate. If it is one discipline contributing/sharing while others are not contributing - it's not really interdisciplinary. Time, resources and trusts need to be in place. Jacobs, (Mathison & Freeman, 1997, p.20 calls this transition time and a huge risk to take. Fostering growth mindset in teachers to allow for collaboration. In our context, the phrase I hear is “but I have nothing to offer, I’m not good at anything”. Find what model will suit our context, shall we start and interdisciplinary and move towards integrative? It is complete restructuring and that will be scary for most. Introducing it to parents especially parents asking for why aren’t they learning facts?(Mathison & Freeman, 1997, p.22) Accountability methods so that we know that learning is interconnected and authentic. Do they enhance learning and complex issues as stated by Ackerman (1989 as cited in Mathison & Freeman, 1997, p.22) Admin support and suitable skills (Mathison & Freeman, 1997) Do we really know what it means to be interdisciplinary, integrated and integrative?

What’s next?

Within my connections and discussion, decide what models suits best - interdisciplinary, integration or integrative? Do I want to stick to something that is aligned with tradition, look at global issues or a co-construct the curriculum with the students/learners?

References:

Mathison, S. & Freeman, M. (1997). The Logic of Interdisciplinary Studies. Retrieved from

     http://www.albany.edu/cela/reports/mathisonlogic12004.pdf