As a 7th-grade science teacher, I’ve seen firsthand how students respond when learning goes beyond worksheets and lectures. Fullan and Langworthy (2014) stress the importance of deep learning, an approach grounded in real-world relevance, collaboration, and creativity. This aligns with my classroom goals, where I utilize technology, such as virtual labs and interactive simulations, to help students grasp abstract scientific concepts. When I use Bloom’s revised taxonomy to design lessons that encourage students to evaluate and create, rather than just remember or understand (Huitt, 2011), I notice stronger engagement and retention.
Equally important is equipping students with digital and media literacy skills. Hobbs (2011) emphasizes the need to teach learners how to analyze, evaluate, and produce digital content responsibly. Which is an essential skill in an era of misinformation. In science, this means showing students how to question the credibility of online sources and present evidence-based findings through digital platforms. However, not all educators adopt these strategies at the same pace. Rogers (1963) identifies the five adopter categories that explain this variation: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Understanding this helps me support hesitant colleagues and foster a more unified approach to digital teaching.
As a future administrator, these theories and practices will shape how I lead professional learning and school culture. I intend to advocate for instructional models that prioritize higher-order thinking and technology integration, while providing differentiated support based on where staff fall along the innovation adoption curve. Kuhn (2008) reminds us that balancing depth with curriculum coverage is essential; as a leader, I would help teachers slow down to go deeper when it matters most. By grounding decisions in research and empathy, I hope to empower both students and staff to thrive in a digitally literate, future-ready school environment.
References
Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deeplearning. Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/ARichSeamEnglish.pdf
Hobbs, R. (2011). Empowering learners with digital and media literacy. Knowledge Quest, 39(5), 12–17.
Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta State University. http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.pdf
Kuhn, M. S. (2008). Connecting depth and balance in class. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(1), 18–21.
Rogers, E. M. (1963). The adoption process II. Journal of Cooperative Extension, 1(2), 69–75. https://archives.joe.org/joe/1963summer/1963-2-a2.pdf
Kourtney, I really enjoyed your post. As a hopeful future administrator, too, I am thinking about the implementation of these "new pedagogies". A lot of educators will be willing to embrace the process and learn so they can give our students the best educational outlook. However, I think about the struggle that might come with trying to implement such new pedagogies to teachers who have been in the system for 20+ years. As administrators, we are responsible for getting ALL of our faculty and students on board. This is a potential issue I anticipate.
ReplyDelete