Cycle 3 Report
Grow Beyond: Making Rock and Roll
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?
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?
ARP Goals
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.
4. Create a plan to provide instruction, development and support of instructional technology skills for all teachers in our school.
Cycle 3:
Grow Beyond: form a plan of action that will enable our small 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?
