Manaiakalani Wānanga 2021 - Powerful Relayers

Moving to an online Google Meet platform this year, Wānanga 2021 was again the pivot we were all looking to for collective programme direction. I, for one, was not disappointed. The day had inspiring and sobering provocations, showcased MIT teacher innovations (which we should all be digging into) and of course, the all important research analysis for planning ahead to 2022. A huge shout out to Dorothy, Russell and the wider team of organisers and presenters for all your mahi. Some of the “hotspots” I have been digesting include:

• Pat Sneddon’s metaphorical analogy of Learn | Create | Share as “our vaccination and syringe which is our capability”. Although the nation is “stark and different” in these times of pandemic (and increasing economic hardship), Pat emphasised teachers as powerful relayers both in terms of: i) the vaccination message, and ii) being able to deliver seamless, ubiquitous, effective learning for students and whānau.
• I found Pat’s use of the term “relayers” to be particularly thought provoking because of the connotations with electrical charge, and that relays convert small electrical stimuli into larger currents. 

• What might we take from the analogy in light of the wider messaging from the research team and the MIT teachers’ innovation? Electrically speaking, relays are amplifiers. Although people generally associate relay with sports (where team members take turns passing the baton to complete a race) the important point about relays embedded in electrical products is they not only hand signals on, but current is radically changed during switching mechanisms. Dr Rebecca Jesson’s provocation picked up on this theme by asking leaders how they will support teachers to power up reading change-actions. She highlighted 5 components of deliberateness and emphasised the importance of leaders’ intentionality and participation in the relay: i.e. as teachers identify areas for change, consult data, and devise SMART goals...the process should not stop there. By inviting leader feedback (e.g. observation; review), and building in co-evaluated next steps, space is created for reciprocal transformation to occur. What I took from this is: a ‘powered up change in practice” does not happen in isolation. 

In terms of identifying change-areas from the data, Dr Rebecca Jesson, Georgie, Kiri and the Manaiakalani Research Team presented comprehensive analyses of observations and surveys of teachers, students, leaders and families. The resulting framework from their mahi offers a powerful model for conceptualising reading practice design going forward as it: a) brings together elements of the Manaiakalani pedagogy, high leverage practices and digital affordances, and b) is a mental model to plan effective reading practice:

An initial look at the data (though unfortunately I was not able to sit in on any of the all important collective sense-making) highlighted some “big ticket items” that for me, centred on connections: 

• Firstly, how connections can be amplified across text sets. Drawing on the work of LaVenia (2019), text sets were “too frequently a hodgepodge of selections organized under a vague theme, such as serendipity or adventures. Fortunately, the most recent versions of core programs present units of instruction with unified themes and selections that build knowledge over several lessons” (LaVenia, 2019). 

• Secondly, leveraging the connections across text sets as new contexts for known vocabulary and for multiple exposures. Teaching new vocabulary is well represented in the data but what are our more deliberate methods of optimally planning for repeat encounters? 

• Thirdly, personal student connections to texts are made via mirrors, windows and sliding doors -  Dr Rudine Bishop’s notion of mirrors and windows still demands our attention beyond Dr Aaron Wilson’s challenge in 2020: that is, for our students to see themselves reflected in their reading  - their diverse “rich mosaic of experiences, values, perspectives, and cultural ways of knowing, being, doing, and communicating.” I wonder, are we following through this two stepped, layered process as Bishop conceived? That is, getting to know our students and finding mirror texts that reflect their identities, and then, using window texts, to open up diverse worlds, which students make sense of (and critique) in light of their worlds. Both offer connections back to students’ lives and experiences to amplify engagement. Apart from strong Matariki representation, our data still shows the need for far more intentional mirrors. 

• Critical reasoning through extended discussion and questioning: A big push is needed here! How can we get far smarter in our planning by leveraging the ideas (or characters or settings or styles) between texts, as competing or dissonant voices? And equally important, how do we empower children with talk principles that promote critically reasoned conversations about those ideas?

• Lastly - and “a real accelerator for learning” - how are we deliberately plan to build the (self) assessment-capability of our students? In other words, how do we strengthen learners' executive function muscles? For a profile of characteristics, the research team promote this useful summary:

There is so much more to dig into, and I still haven’t got to the MIT teachers inquiries and innovation! But that’s for another post... Going forward, I am keen to review the Manaiakalani observation research practice examples and associated reading programmes clusters are using, but I am also keen to know:

Question. How does the above resonate with you in your context? And if so, what will be some of your next steps in the powering-up relay?