Cycle 1 Report
Grow Within: Developing Individual Talents
Problems
1. Teachers in my school are not using technology resources offered by the district in an effective way to enhance instruction.
Possible causes:
1. lack of interest
2. lack of time
3. lack of support
2. Students are not being given ample opportunities to learn through modern technology
Possible causes:
1. Untrained teachers
2. Untrained students
3. Lack of instructional support
3. "Traditional" (paper and pencil) learning experiences lack the engagement needed for students to retain information and extend knowledge to a new level of understanding
4. "Traditional" (old school) teaching does not meet the unique needs of each learner
5. Many teachers are not utilizing the expertise of their colleagues—they are not sharing ideas, team planning or asking for advise/help from others.
Action Research Questions
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 to utilize technology in their classrooms in various instructional ways?
How will promoting technology use in the classroom affect the ways in which students build knowledge?
How will increasing the use of technology as an instructional tool affect student engagement in learning experiences?
Will increasing the use of technology in classrooms enable teachers to effectively reach all learners in a way that meets their needs?
How will the increase of technology integration impact constructive learning?
In what ways will providing/offering opportunities for continued learning
develop teachers’ technology integration?
In what ways will teachers begin to reflectively collaborate by being a member of the mentorship?
Goals
ARP:
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 observation of group members integrating technology, 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.
3. With the use of peer observation, classroom collaboration, and team planning, members will begin to help each other through the process of learning. As mentorship members apply technology skills learning through meetings and tutorials, as well as collaborate more 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.
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 one was started in September of 2007. New to the 5th grade team, I spent the first few weeks of school acclimating myself with the teachers that I would be working with 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 to our district’s policies, we were required to participate in a learning experience that would last the whole year our district refers to as “Differentiated Supervision.” 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 ARP 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 www.SurveyMonkey.com to determine how technology was being used in the classroom. In completing this survey, I could easily assess where each member viewed technology as an instructional tool and how they were using it. I found that my group of 5 was split. 2 were comfortable using basic technology tools in their daily instruction. 2 members were using technology at least once a week in instruction. 1 member was very uncomfortable using and having her students use technology at all. Even in a small group of 5, this split would prove to be difficult in my planning of technology-based instructional activities.
After several weekly meetings, my 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 discuss technology usage and it seemed that my ARP was becoming a burden for all of us to continue to participate 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 Learning Circle and sifting through loads of 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 wasn’t 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 of 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. I also created a generic reflection sheet participants would complete after the projects were carried out. In planning each technology project, I allowed for a 2 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 their 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 is so important 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 ARP (weekly meetings where we could discuss and learning about instructional technologies) was ideal on paper. However, in actually carrying out the plan, I learned that it just wasn’t feasible. For the teachers who already feel that they have 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 of the activities.
Reflection
Cycle One provided valuable insight on how to effectively offer support to teachers that are learning a new way of teaching. During this phase of my ARP, 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 as well as learned about their views of technology as an instructional tool. I created a plan of action and learned how to revise my plan in order to make it structurally and realistically work for an over-worked teacher.
Initially, I really wanted to have a consistent, weekly meeting time with my ARP group. I felt that I needed that time to be as effective as I could. 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 each week increasingly became a struggle to meet, the experience turned into more of a burden than a valuable experience. I knew this was when I needed to examine my plan and revise it to meet the needs of the learners.
I thought about my experience with OMET and the way the program handles time constraints and face-to-face meetings. It is set up in a way that time management and learning times can be controlled by the participants. This is what makes OMET work for most of the students. The participation that is required, minus class meeting times, is managed by each individual. This philosophy was one that I could apply to my ARP 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 ARP 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 deals with project ideas generated by the participants.
My revised plan is proving to be more effective in our ARP mentorship. However, now that I understand more about mentoring and about managing support for a group of learners, I want to create a mutually benefiting learning environment, where all participants can be valuable instructors. I want to add the aspect of peer observation into my ARP so more of the instructing responsibility is being taken by the participants. The tutorials that I am creating can still be a part of the ARP, however, we can broaden our learning by peer observation.
In order to make this usable, creating observation guidelines, reflection strategies and a specific protocol to follow may be valuable in getting the most out of this experience. Another thing to consider is the support and buy-in I will get from administration. In order to have peer observation, we will need to have coverage available to us. A written rationale may be a functional document to submit to my principal in order to make obtaining coverage easier. This will be my next step in starting Cycle Two.
