(1) upload a screenshot of the part of the STEER tool your cluster ETOs were looking at.

(2) List out the questions that you would like to ask the school next to understand the school better.

(3) List out some ways (actions) where you can help the school to progress to the next developmental level.

Could you give examples of how the indicators level in 2.1.1 would look like at Primary school level?

How do we encourage schools that looking at STEER holistically as a school will be of more value?

Scope of vision - P expressed that the school would like to focus on Maths Dept which will trailblaze the implementation of 'Greater Customisation of Learning' and share their success stories before getting the rest of the staff onboard. (Level 2/3?)

Concern - how about the teachers in the other departments? How are they doing?

Whose perception is that the some dept are more ready than others, the SLs or the HODs?

Ownership of Vision - Vision is not owned by the entire school yet. (Level 2)

And then take the opportunity to reassue the school that it's not the rating that matters per se.

-Brandon

-Brandon

Role play

How pervasive must the practice be to in Level 3? For eg. if only 3 depts are in Level 3 will the school be in Level 3? Teachers design learning experiences for active learning with technology to meet students' diverse learning needs, in order to deliver customised and differentiated learning (e.g., by adjusting the learning pace or learning content to different student needs)

3.1.2 Core questions:

1. In what ways are teachers currently applying basic KAT in their lesson designs?

Question - what does it mean by applying basic KAT?

at pri school, must the integration of tech into SOW be done for every level or would it suffice for p4 onwards given that the guideline for pri is to focus on tech adoption for p4-6?

• Ask further probing questions to elicit evidences

• Ask questions to probe towards the next level of development to reinforce that the school is at current level of practice.

(2) Questions:

• How do they begin to address the challenges of physical limitations?

• How have learning spaces been enhanced with digital connectivity to seamlessly integrate technology and ensure that physical limitations do not hinder the learning experience?

• What basic digital connectivity solutions are in place in learning spaces? (not asking this as they are a PDLP school so basic set-up and considerations should already be in place)

(3) They might rank themselves as L4 (there is use of augmented/virtual reality for immersive learning with the outside world, e.g., virtual field trips and learning journeys.) but based on what was shared, it was only done by one teacher for a class of about 15 students.

• we might probe further about plans to replicate the success with other teachers+class and/or in other subjects (so that it is not teacher-dependent)

• to clarify about tech tool(s) and plans to support this process and if more support is needed from ETOs

2. Start with the suggested open-ended questions to invite IP Head to share the e-Pedagogy practices. Use Affirm-Clarify-Probe-Affirm approach to clarify school's understanding of what they interpret as "baseline e-Pedagogical practices"

3. Share examples of how e-Pedagogical practices can look like in a subject area based on EdTech PS to facilitate conversation if helpful. E.g. design and enact lesson w ALP in mind, application of KATs, etc.

2) Probe for evidence of sharing

3) Check if they are keen to share on other learning communities and provide guidance to other teachers

If the POC or SLs attending the meeting do not have information on all depts cause different depts may have different practices, and teachers may vary in their competency levels. If that's the case, we can encourage them to further this discussion on domain 3 within their SMC.