Cycle 2 Report
Grow Together: Creating through Jam Sessions
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 2
Grow Together: begin collaborating with ARP mates, peer observation, team planning, forming 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.
