Our group gave a presentation on topic of Strategic e-leadership--building architecture for learning and innovation. This session has connections with session where teachers' new competencies framework and session where introduced the ecology model of change.Why do we need to build architecture for learning and innovation? As we know, integrating technology into classes requires new competencies of teachers. To sustain the innovation, we have to make sure the key species--teachers as model learners to master the new skills to align the vision of ITE policy. In addition, as mentioned in Ecology model, innovative practices compete with the traditional practices, there is a need for radical change for the whole system to be a habitat to nurture and sustain innovation, including pedagogy, assessment, infrastructures etc.
Stein and Coburn 's (2008) compare two cases of building learning architectures in different areas,.
One in New York City and the other in Greene. The Greene's is more successful for the interaction is crossing the boundaries and build network. The coaches are teachers as well, thus easier in putting themselves in the teachers' shoes. In addition, more stakeholders are involved in the process of decision making. However, New York city's case is more like situation in Hong Kong. This indicate us to redesign the learning architecture in Hong Kong schools.
The SITES M2 research paints a very different picture of innovation policy in Finland versus Hong Kong. As I heard from one of my friends working in a kindergarten in Hong Kong, teachers are more in a competition relationship than collaborators. However, atmosphere in Finland is more friendly and creative, teachers share experiences and is more likely to sustain an innovation.
Nancy(2011) proposed a ecology model and in this chapter focuses on innovation in classroom level.
The teacher are the keystone species (ecosystem dependent on its thriving); student roles as the 5 species that are pollenated by the butterfly (pedagogical practices).
Stein and Coburn 's (2008) compare two cases of building learning architectures in different areas,.
One in New York City and the other in Greene. The Greene's is more successful for the interaction is crossing the boundaries and build network. The coaches are teachers as well, thus easier in putting themselves in the teachers' shoes. In addition, more stakeholders are involved in the process of decision making. However, New York city's case is more like situation in Hong Kong. This indicate us to redesign the learning architecture in Hong Kong schools.
The SITES M2 research paints a very different picture of innovation policy in Finland versus Hong Kong. As I heard from one of my friends working in a kindergarten in Hong Kong, teachers are more in a competition relationship than collaborators. However, atmosphere in Finland is more friendly and creative, teachers share experiences and is more likely to sustain an innovation.
Nancy(2011) proposed a ecology model and in this chapter focuses on innovation in classroom level.
The teacher are the keystone species (ecosystem dependent on its thriving); student roles as the 5 species that are pollenated by the butterfly (pedagogical practices).
References:
- Stein, M. & Coburn, C. E. (2008). Architectures for Learning : A Comparative Analysis of Two Urban School Districts. American Journal of Education, 114(August), 583–626.
- Law, N., Yuen, A., & Fox, R. (2011). Educational Innovations Beyond Technology. Educational Innovations Beyond Technology: Nurturing Leadership and Establishing Learning Organizations (pp. 217–232). Boston, MA: Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-71148-5
- Law, N., Kankaanranta, M., & Chow, A. (2005). Technology-supported Educational Innovations in Finland and Hong Kong: A Tale of Two Systems. Human Technology, 1(October), 176–201.