Action Research Project
School of Rock: Join the Technology Revolution
An Action Research Project based on integrating technology into elementary classrooms
School of Rock: Join the Technology Revolution
Jacquelynn Loehwing
Pepperdine University, Online Master’s in Educational Technology
EDC 638 A-D
Dr. Margaret Riel
Abstract: The Problem
Many teachers in my school are not using technology resources offered by the district in an effective way to enhance instruction. This may be due to a lack of interest, time, and support given to teachers to become comfortable with the resources. As a result, students are not being given sufficient opportunities to learn through modern technology. Additionally, students are not becoming proficient in the modern technology that is becoming important to everyday life. Schools need to prepare students to become a successful part of society; however, my school is not acknowledging technology skills.
"Traditional" (paper and pencil) learning experiences lack the engagement needed for students to retain information and extend knowledge to a new level of understanding because of the nature of the world around us. Students are used to being stimulated through multiple medias at a time and have grown accustomed to functioning in that manner. Therefore, students are becoming less engaged in learning and are not putting enough importance on this life-long skill. Further, "traditional" (old school) means of teaching do not meet the unique needs of each learner, making differentiated instruction more challenging for teachers. Education today is ever changing, and many teachers are not utilizing the expertise of their colleagues to learn—they are not sharing ideas, team planning, or asking for advise or help from others.
Research Context: Community of Practice
I teach among six fifth-grade teachers working at Ore Valley Elementary School. Our district, Dallastown Area School District, is located in the heart of York County in south central Pennsylvania. We house over 800 students, in kindergarten through fifth grade. In self-contained classrooms of about 24 students, teachers are responsible for teaching heterogeneously grouped students in all content areas. Student learning abilities range from scoring below basic to advanced on the Pennsylvania Standardized State Assessments (PSSAs) and include students with learning disabilities, second language acquisition, and mental disabilities. Teachers are expected to differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all students using flexible grouping, differentiation strategies, and available instructional technology.
Each classroom is equipped with a variety of instructional technology, including teacher and student laptops with full wireless access, SMART Boards, Student Response Devices, Digital Cameras, a variety of online database resources like ReadingAtoZ.com and UnitedStreaming.com, and open source access. Even with an ample amount of resources, technology is not being utilized as an instructional and educational tool in most classrooms. This is due to the fact that our district lacks the instructional support teachers need to learn and use technology as an instructional tool.
Literature Review: Technology-Based Staff Development
Technology and Learning
According to Seymour Papert, we are entering the "age of learning" and the rapid advancement in technology has brought about the need for improvements in learning as well as the provision of opportunities to improve "learning environments." New technologies will enhance learning, especially for children, by providing opportunities to meet the unique needs of each learner. Unfortunately, Papert concludes that there is one thing holding this revolution back: schools.
With limited budgets and extraordinary intentions, many school districts may find they are torn between what they can afford and what they want to provide students in the world of technology. The following criteria for choosing technology are commonly used when considering budgets: access, costs, teaching and learning, interactivity and user-friendliness, organizational issues, novelty, and speed (Bates, A.W.). Besides budgets, school districts are faced with the hopeful, yet unrealistic, demands of the No Child Left Behind legislature, projecting 100% of students will score at proficient or advanced levels in standardized state assessments. Even if there were sufficient budgetary allowances to purchase the latest technologies, would teachers have the time to use them? Would standards be covered and would students achieve at a proficient level?
The problem in my school is that technology is available but is not being utilized in many classrooms. This may be due to a lack of teacher interest, lack of support to help teachers use it, or a lack of time for teachers to learn and plan on using technology to enhance instruction. However, technology is proven to be a useful tool in engaging students in the learning process. In order to learn, students must be meaningfully engaged in learning activities through interaction with others and worthwhile tasks. This collaboration can be achieved through the use of technology (Kearsley and Shneiderman, 1998).
Constructing Knowledge
Academic standards are laid out very meticulously for teachers to follow. They are the foundation of curriculum mapping. They have been examined, tested, and approved by officials from the states. Teachers are well informed of what they need to teach, but how they need to teach more objective. How do kids learn? Learning is something valuable, yet setting a goal and working to achieve it is something some kids have never seen before in their lives, according to Papert. In order to do this, we (teachers) need to provide meaningful, project-based learning opportunities for students to engage in. Not only does Papert understand the process of learning as a social engagement, he is an advocate of using engaging media to do this, as he is the creator of LOGO software, which enables children to construct meaning through their own actions. His belief suggests that learning is constructed: "Constructionism is built on the assumption that children will do best by finding (‘fishing’) for themselves the specific knowledge they need. Organized or informal education can help most by making sure they are supported morally, psychologically, materially, and intellectually in their efforts" (Papert, p.139).
Learning theorist Jean Lave suggests that learning is a social experience that cannot occur without human contact. Her theory revolves around the idea of “Communities of Practice,” or groups to which people belong with others that share the same interests, hobbies, jobs, etc. These communities of practice are “places” where people can learn from each other and involve themselves in relationships that will allow them to connect to others. These communities revolve around meaningful aspects of life and occur in many situations (Wegner, 1998). The idea that learning is a social and meaningful event is important to consider as teachers are planning learning experiences for their students.
Another expert learning theorist that values the social aspect of learning is Vygotsky. He believes that since children learn so much through interaction with each other, the curriculum schools create should be designed to emphasize interactions between the learner and the learning experience (http://www.funderstanding.com/vygotsky.cfm). He also claims that culture influences how children learn. In a culture filled with technology, media, interactivity, and communication, shouldn’t we, as educators, consider the interests and lifestyles of our students when planning our lessons? Vygotsky goes beyond merely supporting social learning in his research. He says that there is a zone of proximal development in which collaboration with peers can take a child to a higher level of understanding.
Effective Staff Development
When planning staff development opportunities for colleagues, it is imperative to remember that the goals need to be based around student learning. In addition, one must consider the means of conducting staff development. Finally, the staff development must be relevant and meaningful to those involved. These aspects should be determined before the staff development takes place.
According to a song by Bob Dylan, “The times, they are a changin’.” However, some people are very apprehensive to adopt and accept change in education. In order to maintain a consistent balance with the world, change in education is necessary. While the content educators teach may remain similar from year to year, the way they teach it must be adapted to fit the needs and interests of today’s students. In order to do that, schools need to strive to have strong instructional leaders. The first level of learners must be administrators. The learning must continue with teachers to ultimately reach students. Like all effective instruction, staff development must focus first on the intended outcome—student learning (Rutherford, P., 2006). With that at the heart of staff learning, teachers may become more comfortable with the changing ways of instruction.
Staff development opportunities are often designed to provide isolated experiences: single-topic workshops, infrequently scheduled curriculum planning days, one-time training sessions. Effective staff development needs to include more. Reys et al. (1997) have identified important factors in successful staff development programs:
· Long-term effort (at least 2 years)
· Technical assistance, as well as emotional and intellectual support networks
· Opportunities that stimulate and promote intellectual growth.
· Collegial atmosphere in which teachers share views and experiences.
· Opportunities for reflection on one’s own practice.
· Focus on teaching for understanding through personal learning experiences.
· Encouragement to make small changes and to learn from them.
· Pedagogy of professional development congruent with pedagogy desired in classrooms.
· Professional development grounded in classroom practice. (Gibbons, S.; Kimmel, H.; O’Shea, M., 1997).
Meaningful evaluation of teacher implementation is also necessary for creating effective staff development. In these ways, teachers will be able to see and experience the value of becoming a learner. One of the most critical aspects of staff development is the teachers’ attitudes towards these opportunities. Change in instructional practices may seem like an obstacle teachers need to conquer. Self-efficacy (a person’s perceived ability to perform on a task, i.e., the belief that he or she can activate the behavior required to produce a desired outcome) enables teachers to feel confident that they will be able to successfully perform in a way that will meet the expectations of instructional practices.
The teaching staff must see relevance in staff development opportunities being offered before they will feel comfortable and willing to participate, especially if these opportunities are not required by the school district. As with all learning experiences, the intended outcome must be apparent and desirable. When staff development is focused on student learning, the outcome is relevant because it is the goal and job of teachers to facilitate student learning. Staff development should be based on specific data, state standards, and curriculum. These educational elements will drive instruction and will promote appropriate student learning. Authentic student data will enable educators to see what needs exist as they continue to promote success. State standards help to show key concepts and essential understandings that should be covered in instruction. School curriculums illustrate specific topics and skills that need to be sequentially taught. These tools will aid in making staff development relevant and meaningful to those involved (Rutherford, P., 2006).
Effective staff development requires significant planning. Student learning needs to be at the heart of the staff development opportunities; it must be the impetus for development and must be defined as the intended outcome. Staff development opportunities must be designed in a way that gives ample support to teachers, promotes intellectual growth, has an appropriate learning environment, gives opportunities for reflection, focuses on teaching through personal experiences, encourages small changes, is congruent with desired classroom pedagogy, and is grounded in classroom practices. In addition, staff development must be relevant and meaningful to those involved. A sound staff development plan that encompasses all of these aspects will surely promote successful teacher learning.
Researchers contend that the more traditional forms of staff development are less effective than new findings. One-shot workshops are not effective and are essentially a waste of teacher’s time. Anthony Rebora, the author of A Facilitator’s Guide to Professional Learning Teams, states,
We’ve got to have some way to keep the teaching profession as close as possible to societal needs. And right now society is changing so fast. Breaking through the culture of isolation in schools can help teachers become more connected—to each other, to changes in students’ needs, to new instructional techniques.
It is true that staff development can be an effective way of keeping teachers current in their practices. A method of staff development that has been recently researched is Professional Learning Teams. These teams are made up of staff members that focus on specific student needs and improving their practice of teaching. Learning teams provide all members the opportunity to grow professionally and have leadership roles within the learning team. An effective learning team will give all members a chance to voice opinions and collaborate to determine the team’s focus.
Learning teams should meet regularly, at a minimum of an hour a week. While meeting daily is ideal, this time requirement is unrealistic for most educators. Learning teams should start with small, doable goals based on the needs of their students. Basing research and practice on student needs will enable educators to differentiate instruction and meet the demands of all learners. The roles of learning teams in a school district are to examine student needs, collect data, reflect on experiences taking place in the classroom, and evaluate current teaching practices. Members should be picked based on school needs, not strictly based on volunteers or invitation. Those who are reluctant to fully embrace the idea should be encouraged to participate anyway:
Rick DeFour, who’s pretty much the grand guru of professional learning communities, cautions that collaboration by invitation doesn’t work, because isolationism is so deeply engrained in schools. There comes a time when you have to say to those who are reluctant, “We understand your feelings, but this is something that we think will make a difference for the kids.” (Teacher Magazine. October 25, 2007. “Team-Oriented Teaching.”)
Learning teams need support from school administration. Principals need to stay in close contact with these teams to be aware of what is being accomplished as a result of their work. While they do not need to attend all meetings, it is imperative that communication between principal and learning team be open and easily accessible. School administration should make the work of learning teams visible to the rest of the school and the community so that their efforts are not only recognized, but the results of their research can be shared with others. It is also extremely important to have appropriate buy-in from a school’s administration. This may help alleviate time constraint problems and resource issues.
Just like any professional practice, learning teams must be constantly evaluated for effectiveness. Professionals should look at how teachers are reacting to the experience, what teachers are learning as a result of the experience, and how student performance is changing. They should also examine the changes in classroom application and teacher performance. The effects may not be immediately apparent, as there are usually many initiatives being adopted by school districts at once. However, effective learning teams will produce noticeable changes in student performance (Teacher Magazine. October 25, 2007. “Team-Oriented Teaching.”).
Action Research Method
Action Research is a reflective process of problem solving carried out together with peers of a community of practice. It is a collaborative effort that is based on research, analysis of data, and revisions of action plans through various cycles. Unlike traditional research, it focuses on changing oneself based on the process of learning through the action taken to solve an identified problem. Action Research is an important part of creating an ideal environment in a community of practice.
Analysis of the Plan: Weighing the Options
As I began to look at the problems I wanted to tackle and the ways in which I would achieve my goals, I had to weigh the pros and cons of my Action Research Plan. To do this, I examined the favorable and restraining forces involved in my plan and rated their importance from 1 to 5 (1 being least important, 5 being most important). I analyzed this reflection to determine whether my visions were worth carrying out. Based on the needs of my school and my anticipated plan, I concluded the following:
Pros
Teachers will be involved in professional development that allows them to experiment with new teaching strategies that may improve instruction (4)
Teachers will be analyzing best practices compared to their practices and the effects (5)
Teachers will be able to compare practices with others and reflect on their own teaching techniques (4)
Teachers will be supported as they learn new technology and how to use it in instruction (5)
Students will experience learning through useful and relevant technology (5)
Students will be engaged in new learning experiences (3)
Students will learn to use technology needed to survive in everyday life outside of the classroom (4)
Students will be motivated to participate in learning experiences (3)
Pros Total = 33
Cons
Training teachers to use technology will take time (4)
Integrating technology into instruction will require teachers to change their lesson plans (3)
Helping teachers use technology will require support from other teachers (3)
Students may not know how to use the technologies implemented in instruction, so lessons will take longer to complete (3)
Resources may not be available for teachers and students to use (5)
There may not be support from administration to implement this action research plan (5)
There may not be teachers that are willing to participate in this action research plan (5)
Cons Total= 28
I modeled my force field analysis after Kurt Lewis’s example. I found it very difficult to rate the pros anything but 5 and to rate the cons anything but 3 or lower. I ardently support this research project because it will benefit students and teachers alike. I believe that using our knowledge to help others remains the key to changing our educational system. I was interested to see the results of my plan and was eager to begin my Action Research Project.
The Process
Cycle 1: Grow Within—Developing Individual Talents
Introduction:
Because there is a growing trend of technology resources being “wasted” and unused in my school, I saw a real need for change. Our district is one of the few in our area with the ability to provide classrooms with an abundant amount of instructional technology resources. It is not being utilized as it should for several reasons. Teachers are expected to use technology in their instructions without sufficient support. Also, teachers are not given enough time to learn how to use the technologies themselves. As a result, students are not being given opportunities to explore learning through technology and are not fully engaged in learning experiences. Further, teachers are finding it difficult to reach the needs of all students because of the diverse levels of abilities in our classrooms. This is where my action research began.
I set the following goals for my first cycle to improve the individual skills of five teachers in my small action research group:
1. Create a "mentorship" that will allow a group of teachers to receive adequate support needed to integrate technology into instruction by providing weekly group instruction on modern technologies offered by our school district, reflecting on teaching practices through wordpress blog, peer observations, surveying students about their current learning environment, research of current "best practice," and open discussions that will drive instruction.
2. Provide tutorials for members of mentorship that will allow them to learn appropriate technology skills and be guided through integrating those technologies into instruction. Members will reflect through blogging and through reflection forms about each learning experience. They will also take part in reflection discussions that will enable them to learn from each other and collaborate.
Among several research questions were three that really guided my discoveries: “If I create a mentorship with a group of teachers that teaches them how to implement available technology, will they begin to feel more comfortable utilizing technology in their classrooms in various instructional ways?” “How will increasing the use of technology as an instructional tool affect student engagement in learning experiences?” and “Will increasing the use of technology in classrooms enable teachers to effectively reach all learners in a way that meets their needs?”
Cycle 1:
Grow Within: using technology in the classroom like SMART boards, Student Response Clickers (Turning Point), websites, blogs, digital cameras (video and still), podcasts/vodcasts, Microsoft office suite, PhotoStory, Movie Maker, online surveys
Actions
Cycle 1 was started in September of 2007. New to the fifth-grade team, I spent the first few weeks of school acclimating myself to the teachers with whom I’d be working for the rest of the year. Through weekly meetings, we established relationships and began talking about our goals as a team for the year. In accordance with our district’s policies, we were required to participate in a learning experience our district refers to as “Differentiated Supervision,” which would last the whole year. Through this process, we were able to select an activity that would in some way increase the quality of our teaching. As we brainstormed ideas, I began to realize that I could use my Action Research Project as our team’s Differentiated Supervision project. After presenting this proposal to my team, I learned that all members were eager to participate. I was able to form my research group. I would call this my technology mentorship.
My initial plan called for weekly meetings and assignments to discuss the instructional technology we were using in our classrooms and to learn how to use more technology resources. To find a starting point of instruction, I pre-assessed each team member’s prior knowledge and comfort level of technology use. I created a survey using the website http://www.SurveyMonkey.com/ to determine how technology was already being used in the classroom. In completing this survey, I could easily assess where each member viewed technology as an instructional tool and how each was using it. I found that my group of 5 was split: there were 2 who were comfortable using basic technology tools in their daily instruction; there were 2 members who were using technology at least once a week in instruction; there was 1 member who was very uncomfortable using and having her students use technology at all. Even in a small group of 5, this split would significantly complicate my planning of technology-based instructional activities.
After several weekly meetings, my technology mentorship group found that time was a restraining factor in my Action Research. Our busy school schedules seemed to prevent us from meeting regularly. When we did meet, we were not able to devote sufficient time to discussing technology usage, and it seemed that my ARP was becoming a burden for all of us to continue to participate in and contribute to. I needed to revise my plan of attack in order for my group members to benefit from our technology correspondence. After consulting for many weeks with my OMET Learning Circle and sifting through the highly useful advice they offered, I decided to take an alternate approach.
While studies show it is important for an action research group to meet at least once a week, I knew it just was not possible. In order to take on another initiative, beyond what our district was requiring us to do, I had to make the process easier for my mentorship participants and me to handle. I decided to create online tutorials for each project. I stored them in a shared folder that was easily accessible to all participants. I also created step-by-step instructions for reference with each project. Moreover, I created a generic reflection sheet participants would complete after the projects were carried out. In planning each technology project, I allowed for a two-week span between projects. This would give sufficient time for each participant to view the tutorial and instruction sheet, decide how to use the project in his or her classroom, implement it, and then reflect on the experience. I thought that the reflection piece was important to our process so I could see what instructional technology projects were most effective. I also wanted to analyze the reactions of the participants so I could assess the project choice. The process of reflection represents a vital step in the learning process. Since our meetings were no longer face to face, I did not want to lose that aspect of learning.
Reaction
My initial vision of my Action Research Project (weekly meetings where we could discuss and learn about instructional technologies) was ideal on paper. However, in actually executing the plan, I learned that the original vision was not feasible. For the teachers who already felt they had too much on their plates, I needed to create a process that would allow them the flexibility to learn when they had time. The revised plan was easier to manage for both the participants and me, and everyone could take ownership in their participation. It included all the valued aspects of the old plan: discussion, instructional support in creating technology-based learning activities for students, and reflection on the activities.
Reflection
Cycle 1 provided valuable insight on how to effectively offer support to teachers that are learning a new way of teaching. During this phase of my Action Research Project, I was able to learn more about the teachers participating in my research and how they view education. I gained knowledge about their teaching philosophies and educational values, in addition to learning about their views of technology as an instructional tool. I created a plan of action and learned how to revise my plan in response to real-world contingencies that arise, sometimes unanticipated, for over-worked teachers.
My initial plans emphasized a consistent, weekly meeting time with my technology mentorship group because I felt the efficacy and potential of the plan relied on such an allotment. I wanted to be able to openly discuss teaching strategies, both technology-based and non-technology-based, and create a learning environment that was a safe place to share ideas. My view of this process was very rigid. I felt, in the beginning, that a structured meeting each week was the only way to create this learning experience for my mentorship. As we had to struggle increasingly each week to accommodate our meetings, the experience turned into more of a burden than a valuable practice. At this point, I knew I needed to examine my plan and revise it to meet the needs of the learners, just as I would.
I thought about my experience with OMET and the way the program handles time constraints and face-to-face meetings. It is designed to facilitate time management and it allows the participants to control learning times. This is what makes OMET work for most of the students. The participation that is required, with the exception of class meeting times, is managed by each individual. This philosophy was one that I could apply to my technology mentorship.
In revising my plan, I decided to drop the weekly meetings. This was not a possible commitment each member could make. Instead, I would create project assignments using the SMART Recorder to make tutorials. I would also write step-by-step instructions for each assignment so my technology mentorship participants could have a variety of tools to use when implementing each technology into their instruction. Also, a generic reflection form would help me to consider each technology assignment and assess its usefulness in the classroom. In addition to each participant’s reflections, I was able to see where to go next, as one question on the reflection sheet dealt with project ideas generated by the participants.
My revised plan proved to be more effective in our technology mentorship. However, now that I understood more about mentoring and about managing support for a group of learners, I wanted to create a mutually benefiting learning environment, where all participants could be valuable instructors. I wanted to introduce the aspect of peer observation into my technology mentorship so more of the instructing responsibility was being taken by the participants. The tutorials that I was creating still had a part of the technology mentorship; however, we could broaden our learning by learning from each other.
I began to operationalize my revised plan by creating observation guidelines, reflection strategies, and a specific protocol to follow—invaluable additions for getting the most out of this experience. Another thing I considered was the support and buy-in I would receive from administration. In order to have peer observation, we would need to have coverage available to us. A written rationale would be a functional document to submit to my principal in order to make obtaining coverage easier.
Cycle 2: Grow Together—Creating through Jam Sessions
Introduction:
Cycle 1 created a foundation for my technology mentorship group. They were able to learn basic technology skills and how to utilize them in their instruction. However, there was something missing from our experiences together: relevance. I felt that the work we were doing was necessary and essential in bettering ourselves as teachers. In a true mentor relationship, though, all parties should be learning. In the way that our action research was set up, I was doing the teaching and the others were doing the learning. Shifting this arrangement would help me to create a sense of ownership and relevance in our action research. I began to give up the control so that more learning could be accomplished.
The problems I began focusing on in Cycle 2 dealt with the teachers in my technology mentorship. They were not seeing the relevance of our learning and therefore had trouble putting total effort into our work. I predicted that I had to be seen as less of an expert and more of a facilitator of learning. The goals I set for this cycle were based more on the dynamics of my mentorship:
1. With the use of peer observation, classroom collaboration, and team planning, members will begin to help each other through the process of learning.
2. As mentorship members apply technology skills learning through meetings and tutorials, as well as collaborate with each other, they will begin to find ownership in this teaching process. They will work together to help each other become more proficient technology integrators and will reflect on their teaching.
I utilized the following research questions to guide my discoveries: “In what ways will teachers begin to reflectively collaborate by being a member of the mentorship?” and “In what ways will providing/offering opportunities for continued learning develop teachers’ technology integration?”
Cycle 2:
Grow Together: begin collaborating with technology mentorship group, peer observation, team planning, forming true mentor relationships
Actions
Cycle 2 began in mid-January, 2008. At this point, I was starting to learn more about mentoring relationships and just how important it was to give participants ownership in what they were experiencing through my Action Research Project. Cycle 1 evolved from my original plan to train teachers how to use technology through weekly meetings, to my new focus on creating tutorials (in place of meetings) for teachers to view at their own convenience. After viewing the tutorials, the participating teachers would create the “technology project” to use in their own classroom. Then, they would reflect on it using a standard reflection form.
While the tutorials seemed to be working better than the realistically sporadic, weekly meetings, there was still something that was missing—something that would make this group experience more meaningful. Teachers were still apprehensive about participating. I felt that I did not just need to make this experience easier to manage or squeeze into weekly schedules. I needed to make it more relevant. I needed to give the participants something more meaningful.
Feeling as if I had given the members of my technology mentorship group enough tools to make it on their own and feel confident about using technology as an instructional tool, I took my Action Research Project to the next phase—peer observations. In the quest to find relevance in this research, I found mentoring to be a valuable route. After clearly planning out a rationale to present to my principal in seeking approval of this vision, I consulted with my group to frame our peer observation experience. In considering all angles and appeasing all levels of technology-savvy users, we created the following schedule for our Peer Observations:
Round 1: Observing ME
Round 2: Observing any teacher in anything—doesn’t have to do with technology
Round 3: Observing any teacher using technology
Round 4: Observing any teacher using technology
Round 5: Overall reflections on Cycles 1 and 2
This experience was broken down into 5 rounds, not weeks, for specific purposes. One of the most important qualities a teacher can have is flexibility. Not knowing for certain what kind of surprises we would face in the coming months, we attached no specific dates to the levels of peer observations we would complete. In order to document the effects (if any) of this experience, we created a generic reflection sheet to use with all observations. This would allow us to truly reflect in round 5 and would serve as evidence of our growth.
Reaction
In our initial peer observation meeting, I was not presented with the reactions I had expected. Trying to anticipate future problems, I believed I had thought of it all. However, participants brought up fears, points of discomfort, and reasons for apprehension that I had not considered. Brainstorming together helped us get all concerns ironed out before we began our peer observations and devise a plan in which everyone would feel comfortable participating.
After the first round of observing me, participating teachers began to realize the purpose of peer observations—see what others do, see what works, see what does not, and gain insight on how to teach. It was interesting to read some of the reflections, mainly due to the fact that the teachers were commenting on my teaching, because the teachers were much more observant than I expected. The reflection sheet requires them only to write down what they were seeing, but the teachers were delving much deeper into the experience. Not only were they reflecting on what they were seeing, but also on things like my real-time decision making, students’ reactions to the learning experience, etc. I could tell that some had let their shields down and were more open to advancing to round 2.
I believe the idea of round 2 (observing teachers in anything, technology not required) was essential in creating a comfortable process. I really wanted the teachers in my group to become open to peer observations and feel confident in their teaching. After examining their reflections, it was apparent to me that this stage was necessary. Teachers were finding strengths in each other that may have been lost if we had limited ourselves to only observing lessons that included technology. All the teachers were really able to shine. I gave them the option of reading the reflection sheet that was created after their own lessons (someone else evaluating them). While one of them was not interested in viewing it, the others were, and really enjoyed having honest feedback on their lessons.
We were now ready to begin rounds 3 and 4—observing teachers using technology. Though the second round was a success, I feared that an increased feeling of pressure would plague the teachers. Even with the support we have created in our group, technology was a source of stress for a lot of teachers. I decided to pair the teachers up for round 3, placing them with teachers of similar technology skill levels. This would allow them to see that any use of technology, at this point, was acceptable and could be effective to teaching. I only hoped that they would keep open minds during the last two rounds and would continue to show confidence in their abilities.
Round 3 was successful and in round 4, I decided to leave the observation pairs up to the technology mentorship members. They chose whom to observe according to their comfort and interest levels and reflected accordingly. The peer observations were not only helpful in gaining insight on what other teachers were doing in their classrooms, they were useful in learning ideas of how to integrate technology in the classroom. After the four rounds of observations, the technology mentorship individually reflected on the first two cycles of my Action Research Project. It was these reflections that shaped Cycle 3.
Reflection
I learned the most from the process of setting up this cycle, for the most part because I started listening, instead of dictating. While there were opportunities for my technology mentorship group members to voice what they wanted to learn next and reflect on the learning they had accomplished in Cycle 1, I neglected to take into account their preferences and opinions of how the group should be run. I made this Action Research Project more about what I thought would make a good experience for them and not what they thought.
I found it very useful to consult them when setting up guidelines and making a plan for our peer observations. After listening to the group members talk about how they were feeling and their apprehensions observing each other, and more importantly, their anxieties about being observed, it was easy to see that I had not thought of it all. My planning had only just begun. Just as I valued creating a safe learning environment in my classroom for my students, I needed to make sure the participants of my technology mentorship felt safe to participate, contribute, and learn from their experiences.
What was missing from my first cycle of research, though, was relevance. My Action Research Project seemed relevant to me because it is based on a subject about which I was passionate. People who did not see technology as a necessary tool in education were feeling as though the extra work they were voluntarily doing was only benefiting me, in that I was able to conduct a required research project using their time, bodies, and opinions. The truth was, in my opinion, we were making very important changes.
As teachers, it has been our responsibility to plan learning experiences that not only reflect required content and meet students’ individual needs, but also capture their interests, promote creative, critical thinking, and arm them with twenty-first-century skills. This vision of change has become a difficult but essential component of today’s education. Through my Action Research Project, I would support these teachers in becoming more proficient in skills having to do with technology.
After the first and second rounds of observations, the teachers began to see the relevance. They understood the purpose of our work and how it could help them. The technology mentorship teachers began to open up to the idea of being observed and observing. As a result, their comfort levels in participation increased. I attributed this breakthrough to their honest feedback and creative thinking as we brainstormed the appropriate protocol to follow during peer observations. As we began the third round of observations, I encouraged more feedback and valued the opportunities we got, as a group, to reflect on our process. I hoped to continue to be sensitive to their needs and comfort levels so that the trust we had developed continued to grow stronger. By the time Cycle 2 was completed, I was confident that our group had enough experience, expertise and knowledge to reach out to other teachers in our school in supporting them in learning the tools needed to educate today’s students.
Cycle 3: Grow Beyond—Making Rock and Roll
Introduction:
As I began to see the members of my technology mentorship group as expert peers in the field of technology, instead of merely my “students,” I felt more comfortable giving the control of this research to them. We were all beginning to see the value in our research, and through their reflections, I concluded they knew we needed to devise a plan to reach all the teachers in our school. They valued technology as an instructional tool, but more importantly, appreciated the changes that were occurring in themselves as teachers and learners.
Handing the reigns over, I left the planning to the teachers in my technology mentorship group. Their mission was to create a plan for providing support for all the teachers in our building in integrating technology into instruction. The goal that shaped Cycle 3 was the following:
· To create a plan to provide instruction, development, and support of instructional technology skills for all teachers in our school.
I articulated the research question that guided my discoveries in this way: “If members were given a chance to create a plan for developing technology skills in all teachers who work in our school, what types of teaching philosophies would they incorporate and what plan would they devise?”
Cycle 3:
Grow Beyond: form a plan of action that will enable our technology mentorship group to reach other teachers in our school to help them use technology resources as instructional and educational tools
Actions
Cycle 3 began in May, 2008. We had finished four rounds of peer observations and were beginning to reflect on the first two cycles of my Action Research Project. In my mind, I had an idea of where I wanted to go with my third cycle—beyond my small group of teachers to the whole school. Like the proverbial diner whose eyes are bigger than her stomach, I did not accurately gauge my realistic ability to complete the task. I consulted my learning circle with this idea to reach all the teachers in my school in the few months that were left in the school year. After helpful discussion about the implications of such a plan, we concluded that it was too big of a task to realistically complete well. Instead, I would use the members of my technology mentorship to develop a plan of action.
Based on their reflections on the first two cycles, we determined that the work we had done was not only relevant, but also necessary. There was a real need in our school for support. Teachers had been overloaded with new curriculum requirements and an increasingly diverse set of students to reach for countless years. To add another task, learning how to use technology, to their already filled plates was impractical and likely to be pushed aside, especially if it was not an assigned requirement. Teachers understood that technology was a relevant part of students’ lives. They appreciated how using it in instruction could be motivating and engaging. But they just did not have the time, ability, or patience to figure out how to effectively utilize the resources technology offers. Of course, there were a few exceptions to this generalization. Some teachers were willing and capable of teaching themselves how to use technology as an instructional tool.
Members of my technology mentorship group decided that we, as a group, with the help of other willing and able teachers, could viably form an instructional support group for all teachers in our building. Surprisingly, without my prompting, the mentorship group began to talk about gaining teacher buy-in, giving the teachers ownership in the learning, and making the experience a reflective learning process. I was so proud that I had instilled these important philosophies into our action research and that they had picked them up as critical elements to include in our instruction.
As we began planning, I challenged the members of my technology mentorship to think about what they had learned about learning through this experience. I wanted them to weed out the ineffective parts and embrace the ones that worked. We had three main goals to consider: teacher buy-in, ownership of the learning experiences, and reflection. We also had to construct an experience that would take a reasonable amount of time and effort on the teachers’ parts. Our planning became more extensive than I imagined it would be.
I wanted to make sure everyone had an opportunity to form ideas about the logistics of our new project and its goals individually. I hoped that we could bring a variety of ideas to the table and use them all to shape our plan of action. Each member took some time to research staff development methods and create some answers for how we could achieve our goals. Before the members of my group shared their ideas, I thought it was important for them to understand that the plan we formed could realistically change as we began taking action. I explained to them how the visions of my action research started and how, with time and reflection, they changed because of what I was learning. The nature of action research as a reflective process makes it ever-changing. We came together in a face-to-face meeting to brainstorm. Dealing with one goal at a time, our ideas began to come together.
The Plan
· Step 1: Teacher Buy-in
We decided to create a “homemade” Public Service Announcement to show at the first faculty meeting of the 2008–2009 school year to gain teacher buy-in. An informational message laced with humor, starring our very own teachers, would be an appealing way to persuade teachers. After showing the short film, we would briefly explain our goals and intentions for our Instructional Technology Support Groups and the logistics of its workings. We would save the details for our attendance of the first grade-level meetings, in the hope that teachers would not be turned off by explicit details of our group’s objectives.
· Step 2: The Groups (Focus on Ownership)
At weekly grade level meetings (already a mandatory part of each teacher’s schedule), one of the members would stop in for a brief visit to gain insight into the curricular goals of the teachers’ instruction for the upcoming week. We would discuss possible ways to integrate technology into an aspect of the curriculum being taught. Based on teacher responses, we would form a plan to integrate technology in one lesson that week. This plan would incorporate content being taught in the upcoming week and would consider teachers’ ability and comfort levels using technology. Within the next few days, we would work with the teachers to instruct, develop, and support them in using technology for their lesson. We would create resources to help them in this process.
· Step 3: Reflection
In order to see the value of the use of technology, we determined it was important for teachers to reflect on their change of instruction. We also considered the fact that teachers would be reluctant to participate in another task if it was time consuming and if they did not see the value of the process. To make the reflection simple yet effective, we created a short survey teachers would take after completing their weekly technology lesson using http://www.SurveyMonkey.com/. We would collect the responses and summarize the general reflections in the next grade level meetings. Using the reflections, we would repeat the process of planning a new technology lesson. We would also store the technology lessons in a shared folder so teachers could easily access them to reuse, share, and adjust.
I understood that the ambitions of my group’s plan were set high, but I also knew that it would be powerful for my group to reflect on this plan and see how it could be improved. While this plan of action was not set in stone, we intended to begin with the new school year. We had already created our Public Service Announcement and were in the process of proposing our ideas to seek approval from our principal. With his consent, we would be prepared to begin our Instructional Technology Support group in September of 2008.
Reaction
I was much more comfortable in this cycle handing the reigns over to the teachers participating in my technology mentorship group. I had gained a deeper respect for them, both professionally and personally, through this process. I was seeing them as leaders because they were making the same leaps of learning that I was. They were seeing the value of our research and they believed in it. I knew that we could do more together than any of us could do individually.
I was pleased that my group agreed that we needed to work beyond the six of us to reach the whole school. They did not see it as extra work or another thing to add to their plates. They also felt confident enough to be part of the leadership. They saw technology as an effective and necessary tool to teach students of today. The way they worked together and accepted each other’s ideas was a tell-tale sign that a respect for one another had been developed in our group. They saw themselves, and each other, as the experts ready to make more experts.
The fact that they felt it was important to gain teacher buy-in told me that they considered the risks and the restraining forces our actions would entail. This also told me that they reflected on their personal experiences and may have even witnessed me considering the restrictions they brought as I changed my Action Research Project to better accomplish our goals. It was most useful to think about what motivated us when a new initiative was presented for the first time. Making a good first impression is important—ours would be presented in a simple manner incorporating the familiar faces of our teachers and humor. The importance would not be lost in its simplicity and the goals would seem achievable. The much needed scaffolding would be available for teachers to help them be successful.
As I contemplated the implications of assisting each grade level plan one technology lesson a week, I realized that this may be a challenging task to take on. This required us to not only attend six meetings a week, but also to prepare the resources for the technology lessons ourselves on top of the demands of our own teaching responsibilities. I was impressed with the group’s willingness to give this time without tangible compensation. While there was enough good will and generosity from the members of my group, time could have been a factor that we lacked. The constraints we could encounter over the school year fluctuate, but what was consistent was the rush to get everything accomplished. My intent in agreeing with this preliminary plan was not to set my group up for failure. I thought that they had created for themselves a great opportunity to reflect on our work. Is it achievable? Is it effective? Those will be powerful points of reflection.
Using http://www.SurveyMonkey.com/ as a source for reflection was clever, in my opinion. It was easy, it was standard, and it could effortlessly become a quick part of a teacher’s routine. This would provide our group with immediate feedback on the support we were giving. The website http://www.SurveyMonkey.com/ was an effective means of collecting data, as it compiled and presented the data, making the results easy to analyze and use instantaneously. We could present this data in an easy-to-read format for teachers at their grade level meetings and use it as a starting point in planning the next lesson. I thought that this would be valuable in our Instructional Technology Support groups.
Reflection
This cycle was different from the first two. In it, I really learned more about leading through others. I began to value the members of my technology mentorship group as respected leaders, not just teachers. They did the work in creating a plan to reach all the teachers in our school and support them in the use of technology. They took my passion and my visions, and made them their own. Most of all, I could really see the effects of Action Research in this cycle. My focus had again shifted.
I was not overly worried about the technical skills of learning technology. In fact, I was more concerned with how much the members of my technology mentorship would learn through this experience. This was the valuable part. I could see them begin to reflect on what they had experienced and what we were doing—and make decisions based on that. I did not worry about the fact that I had not taught them all that they could learn about technology because I realized that I could not teach them everything. The spotlight was taken off educational technology and put on them. I had not even realized this, though, until I wrote my reaction to Cycle 3.
As I watched my group create a plan to teach and support other teachers in our school, I realized that our plan was different from the plan I used. They took what was missing, relevance, from my first cycle, and incorporated it into their teaching plan. By letting teachers decide how to use technology in their lessons, they were creating ownership in the learning, as I did in my second cycle. Finally, they planned for easy, effective reflection that would be useful in creating more technology lessons, similar to the third cycle. Some of the restraining forces, though, remained.
On paper, my group’s plan seemed as though it would work without many flaws. However, in experiencing the demands of teaching and trying to fit in another weekly meeting, I had my doubts that it would realistically pan out. My first reaction to this plan was to stop the group and tell them to rethink the time frames. I appreciated my role in guiding them through the planning, but after consideration, I intentionally declined to intervene. This was something they could figure out and learn through the experience. Failure plays a crucial role in learning. In fact, planning an experience that does not work can be more powerful than planning one that does. I saw my role in this group changing from facilitator of primarily instructional technology experiences to facilitator of learning. And I decided, as I sat down to reflect on Cycle 3, that learning was a more valuable skill in our ever-changing environment. Technology was important in our current lives, but would it be tomorrow? And if it was not, what would be important? And how would we deal with those changes?
Final Reflection: So What?
In deciding on an orientation for my Action Research, I really had to examine my community of practice. I felt lucky to work in a school district that was able to provide so many resources to its teachers. I was impressed with the fact that I could call on the Instructional Technology director for any new “toy” I had heard about. However, not all teachers were seeking these types of instructional tools. In fact, most teachers were pushing them to the side and not exploring their uses at all. I began to see a need. The teachers in my school had so many opportunities at their fingertips. They were lucky to have access to engaging instructional tools. But they were not taking advantage of our supply.
I knew this was a problem I needed to change. My Action Research began by searching for an answer. Action Research proved to be a frustrating, yet enlightening, process for me. As this was my first time conducting this type of research, I was expecting to experience something completely different from what I did. Frustrations occurred when my research did not go as I had predicted and I needed to change my plan of action. However annoying this might have been, it was the most helpful piece of my experience. Those frustrations shaped the changes that I was making in my plan and facilitated the shifts in my thinking that enabled such change. Most of all, they fueled my learning.
I began the preliminary work of my Action Research Project by researching what others had already done. Preparing my literature review, I learned the advantages of using technology in classrooms. I understood the implications of staff development and researched effective ways of conducting similar support groups. I delved into constructive learning and communities of practice because I was interested in creating my own learning community. The research I conducted before I involved anyone else in my Action Research was helpful in laying the foundation of my plan. I was able to use the information I learned through the research to make decisions about how I would conduct my staff development and how I would plan the logistics of our group to effectively use our time.
I began planning my first cycle by listing all the technologies I wanted to introduce to the teachers participating in my action research. I had already decided to work with the current fifth-grade teachers in my building, as I would be working closely with them through the year and would easily be able to relate to the curriculum they were teaching. I felt that this experience would be critical in bringing us together as a team and would help us to better ourselves as teachers. Sharing the common content was also advantageous for us because we could share ideas, use the resources we made, and compare lessons for all content areas.
According to my initial plan, my technology mentorship would meet weekly to learn a new technology skill to use in instruction. I would teach them in our small group and show them different examples of ways to use the skill. I felt I was giving them ownership of the learning because I would base my instruction off of what they wanted to see and what skills they already had. In my research, I found it was important to have a consistent schedule and meet at least once a week. However, this was not plausible for the technology mentorship.
Our meetings were less frequent and the technology aspect of our conversations started to be pushed to the side. The format of my Action Research Project was not working. Frustration was sinking in. I thought about how I could reach these teachers without taking up their own planning time. How could my instruction be fitted for their needs in a way that was convenient and reasonable?
I began mimicking the way the OMET program worked. I made tutorials and instruction sheets for the teachers and gave them more time to complete and reflect on the projects. We lost the face-to-face factor in this change, but the technology mentorship group was still learning and seemed to see the importance of using technology. They were experiencing success. In my mind, I assumed that this success would help them to become more confident in using technology. Some were still not conforming.
As I began my second cycle of research, I really examined the participants in this group. I looked at their reactions towards the technology lessons they were creating. I scrutinized their reflections and explored their attitudes towards technology. It was not progressing as I had hoped. I realized that relevance was missing. I was taking the skill of technology and isolating it. Further, I was directing the group—making the decisions, doing the instruction, acting as the expert. My challenge had shifted again. I needed to help the teachers in my technology mentorship see the relevance in using technology. I also needed to shape my group into more of a true mentorship relationship, not an instructional group.
I was confident that teachers had gained basic technology skills. Some were still resistant to using technology, as it was much easier to teach using traditional methods. What I really wanted, though, was the learning to broaden. I wanted the teachers in my technology mentorship to see themselves as experts—not just in technology, but in teaching. I also wanted them to see each other as experts. An expert is not someone that knows everything about his or her topic, but someone who has a high degree of skill in a certain field.
I discussed with my group the possibility of peer observations. Seeing each other teach and use technology would help the teachers develop an appreciation of the skills we had in our group. In our conversations about the implications of our peer observations, we decided that we really needed to be aware of our comfort levels in this cycle. This was not meant to be a way of assessing other’s teaching; it was a way of learning from each other.
The observations started with me. All group members observed a lesson in my classroom. In being the first to be observed, I hoped others would see that this experience could be enlightening and non-threatening. I also wanted the teachers to feel that they were doing similar things that I was in my classroom. The second round of observations was merely to observe another teacher—no technology was necessary. The next two rounds would include technology and the final round would be reflection only.
Through peer observations, I felt we became more of a mentorship. We were able to see other teachers become the expert. We learned from each other to develop our teaching skills as a whole. Not only were we able to share ideas within our group, we were able to witness each other’s strengths. The respect we had developed for everyone in our technology mentorship had increased and everyone had taken a turn in the “expert” seat. In this cycle, I had observed higher growth. I felt this growth was attributed to the relationships we were beginning to form. With heightened confidence, all the teachers were taking a part in the teaching. Our actions were truly starting to make a difference.
While I saw more growth in Cycle 2 than I did in Cycle 1, I felt that the preliminary work we accomplished in the first cycle was necessary. We needed to level the playing field. The comfort levels of the technology mentorship teachers varied. Some had been using technology every day, while others avoided it like the plague. With a basic technology skill set mastered, we could all incorporate some form of technology into our instruction and we could all begin learning from each other. As we reflected on the first two cycles, it became apparent that the teachers in my technology mentorship were beginning to see the relevance of our work.
With an enhanced sense of confidence as teachers and technology users, we decided that we could make a difference in our school. I was impressed with the enthusiasm the group showed for taking on this vision. After all, it would create more work for the members of my technology mentorship. As they began to own the idea of helping others and providing the much-needed support to other teachers, the issue of time diminished. They became passionate about their roles in this change.
We decided to start a technology revolution, so to speak, in our school. As even a cursory glance through history will attest, a revolution marks an urgent and thorough upheaval in outmoded structures thought to suffocate some aspect of life. In our school, traditional pedagogical approaches and attitudes prevented students and teachers alike from benefiting from the various technological resources made available to all. We wanted to provide the necessary support for teachers in our school so they would feel confident using technology in their instruction. We wanted the students in our school to have the opportunity to explore learning through technology and become proficient in its use. I decided to leave the preparation of our new plan to my technology mentorship. I felt confident that in experiencing a small-scale version of our new vision, they could handle this task.
I was pleased and impressed by their work. They considered how to achieve teacher buy-in to this new initiative, organization of weekly meetings, and the importance of reflection in this experience. Their ideas went leaps and bounds beyond what I had initially planned for the first steps in my Action Research Project, and I was thoroughly impressed with how seriously they took our new plan of action. Most importantly, their planning highlighted the impact of their experiences, allowing their learning to shine through. I was confident that they had become better teachers and learners as a result of our work together—and so had I.
Though my experience at Pepperdine University is coming to an end, and my Action Research is at a temporary recess, I anticipate that I will continue learning as I persist through Action Research. Because of my work this year, I have gained incredible confidence in my teaching and leading. I feel that I have much to learn about guiding teachers through this important experience, but I am open to the frustrations that will unquestionably come my way. As an Action Researcher, I do not see my inquiry coming to an end any time soon, yet I am overjoyed with the idea of continuing my quest for a desirable community of practice. Though I cannot predict what the road ahead will bring, I feel that I am ready to take on the challenges that are presented to me through research, action, and reflection.
Resources
Barnwell, Paul. (2008). Can Changing the Discourse Change The School? Education Week, Vol 27, No 19, 26.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing Ourselves: An Inquiry into the Nature and Implications of Expertise. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company.
DeFour,Rick (2007, October 25). Team-Oriented Teaching. Teacher Magazine.
Erekson, T., & Shumway, S. (2006). Integrating the Study of Technology into the Curriculum: AConsulting Teacher Model. Journal of Technology Education, Vol. 18 (Issue 1), 1-12.
Gewertz, C. (2007, March 29). Outside Interests. Education Week, Vol. 26, Issue 30.
Hoff, David J., (2008) Amid Pessimism on NCLB, Talks Continue. Education Week, Vol. 27, No 16, 18-19.
Hoff, David J., (2008). Spellings Hopes to Guide NCLB Renewal Into Spotlight. Education Week, Vol 27, No 17, 1,20.
Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. P. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into practice, (pp. 154-170). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
http://www.funderstanding.com/vygotsky.cfm
Lomax, P., McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2004). You and Your Action Research Project. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
SERVE (2005). A Facilitator’s Guide to Professional Learning Teams: Creating On-the-Job Opportunities for Teachers. National Staff Development Council
Wahl, L. (2002). Edutopia: Success Stories for Learning in the Digital Age. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Appendix A: Initial Technology Mentorship Survey
1. What do you teach?
2. Describe your instructional style. How do you teach? What techniques or theories do you model instruction from?
3. Describe your students' interests.
4. How do you tap into student interests when planning instruction?
5. Describe the intellectual level of the students in your class. My class is an equal mix of high, middle and low learners.
All learners are at the same level.
There are mostly high learners with a few low learners.
Most learners in my class are below grade level.
Other (please specify)
6. How do you reach the needs of each learner in your class?
Cancel Copy
7. Describe your comfort with using technology. Total techie.
Sort of techie.
Not so techie.
What's a techie?
Other (please specify)
8. How do you use technology in your classroom?
9. How do your students use technology in the classroom?
10. Describe your goals, specifically, of being a part of this Action Research Project.
Appendix B: Technology Mentorship Project Reflection
Please complete the following questions after you have implemented your technology project.
Subject Used: ______________________
Prep Time: ________________________
Implementation Time: ________________
Project Type: _______________________
In what context did you use your technology project?
Approximately what percent of your students were engaged in the learning experience?
Was this lesson effective? Why or why not?
Did you encounter any problems in the process of making or implementing this project?
Would you use this project again? Why or why not?
What would you like to learn next?
Appendix C: Peer Observation Reflection
The purpose of this peer observation is to learn ways to improve your teaching. Please keep an open mind about what you see and reflect on your experience in a positive way.
Teacher Observed:
Lesson Context:
Duration of Lesson:
Observations
Points of Interest
In what ways did the teacher engage his/her students in the learning experience?
How did the teacher measure student learning?
In what ways were students able to demonstrate an understanding of the lesson’s content?
How did the teacher differentiate his/her instruction?
What is something you would implement into your instruction based on what you saw?
How was technology used in this classroom?
Appendix D: Peer Observation Protocol
Please utilize the following protocol when completing your peer observations.
Time
Action
Behavior
5 minutes
Observe classroom dynamics
Silent observation, no writing
5 minutes
Observe lesson being taught
Write down observations about lesson
15 minutes
Observe teacher and student engagement
Write down observations about teacher and student engagement
10 minutes
Observe student behaviors
Write down observations about student behaviors
10 minutes
Reflect on lesson
Leave classroom, enter faculty room and reflect on experience using reflection form
