Cycle 3 Report
Impacting organizational change through the design of a collaborative PD model.
Carr & Kemmis (1986) state that the introduction of the peer development process, the evaluation of its impact on colleagues taking part and subsequent reflection on how the new model could be improved, sit within the action research paradigm. To that extent, in cycle three (3), I designed a technology peer-to-peer professional development initiative for the school, based on what I learned, through a review of current research on social motivational theory and teacher motivation to participate in peer-to-peer professional development. A white paper was developed based on insights I gained from teachers in the previous two (2) cycles. There were absolutely no assumptions that the school would adopt the plan or any of its recommendations. Before presenting the white paper proposal to teachers for feedback, I solicited and incorporated feedback about it from my cadre mates, professor, and the Curriculum Technology Coordinator and Director of Technology and Information Systems at the school.
My primary concern was with how faculty would react to the plan: Would they be motivated to participate in a peer-to-peer professional development program like the one detailed in the white paper if it existed at the school? I distributed a copy of the plan to (1) teacher at every grade level (as well as an art and science specialist) for their review. I included my literature review and overviews of cycle one and two and then solicited feedback from them through a questionnaire and via a face- to-face focus group like meeting. Additionally, I solicited feedback from participants about how I could improve the plan.
Research indicates that providing continuous support and promoting interaction among teachers are keys to successful teacher professional development (Hiebert, et al, 2004). The plan outlined specific steps toward implementing a teacher centered collaborative approach to integrating technology. It outlines a structure that may allow a teacher the time and opportunity to be “engaged in a process of developing their individual expertise” and the expertise of the group as a whole, while focusing in on a common objective. It proposes a Learning Circle model for teacher professional development as a possible structure in which teachers could work together to achieve their goals. Riel (2013) describes them as collaborative project-based work environments that allow members to take individual ownership. Rather than assign some teachers as leaders, the white paper suggests grouping faculty into small learning circles with distributed leadership properties to accomplish specific goals. The result of their efforts is a technical product that represents their efforts and learning that can help support those that come after them. These may take any form teachers agree to including, but are not limited to: a curated collection of their work, a narrative or other document, written reflections, lesson plans, and/or published products such as a website or digital print publication such as a list of apps, flow chart, info graphic, etc. (Riel & Polin, 2004 p. 16).
The role of the Technology Facilitator. The circle is guided by an experienced technology leader who guides the group, offers insights, advice, tools, and best practices. Riel states that, “The role of the technology facilitator person is not to lead the circle, but rather to serve as an information agent tracking and sharing expertise with circle members, facilitating the meeting and focusing members on collaboration.” The Technology Facilitator’s job is to work with the faculty on their self-identified curriculum goals, suggest tools and shorten the learning curve for teachers in the use of these tools. In addition, s/he is responsible for understanding the concerns, issues and challenges of each individual teacher in the adoption of technology and will tailor their feedback to address the individual needs of each classroom. The hope is that the plan will serve as a motivating, meaningful and productive means by which teachers at the school are able to integrate technology into their classrooms. As an educator, I expected that teachers would generally find it motivating.
Cycle 3 Question: If I design a technology integration plan based on current research about social motivational theory and teacher motivation to participate in professional development, how will teachers respond to it?
Carr & Kemmis (1986) state that the introduction of the peer development process, the evaluation of its impact on colleagues taking part and subsequent reflection on how the new model could be improved, sit within the action research paradigm. To that extent, in cycle three (3), I designed a technology peer-to-peer professional development initiative for the school, based on what I learned, through a review of current research on social motivational theory and teacher motivation to participate in peer-to-peer professional development. A white paper was developed based on insights I gained from teachers in the previous two (2) cycles. There were absolutely no assumptions that the school would adopt the plan or any of its recommendations. Before presenting the white paper proposal to teachers for feedback, I solicited and incorporated feedback about it from my cadre mates, professor, and the Curriculum Technology Coordinator and Director of Technology and Information Systems at the school.
My primary concern was with how faculty would react to the plan: Would they be motivated to participate in a peer-to-peer professional development program like the one detailed in the white paper if it existed at the school? I distributed a copy of the plan to (1) teacher at every grade level (as well as an art and science specialist) for their review. I included my literature review and overviews of cycle one and two and then solicited feedback from them through a questionnaire and via a face- to-face focus group like meeting. Additionally, I solicited feedback from participants about how I could improve the plan.
Research indicates that providing continuous support and promoting interaction among teachers are keys to successful teacher professional development (Hiebert, et al, 2004). The plan outlined specific steps toward implementing a teacher centered collaborative approach to integrating technology. It outlines a structure that may allow a teacher the time and opportunity to be “engaged in a process of developing their individual expertise” and the expertise of the group as a whole, while focusing in on a common objective. It proposes a Learning Circle model for teacher professional development as a possible structure in which teachers could work together to achieve their goals. Riel (2013) describes them as collaborative project-based work environments that allow members to take individual ownership. Rather than assign some teachers as leaders, the white paper suggests grouping faculty into small learning circles with distributed leadership properties to accomplish specific goals. The result of their efforts is a technical product that represents their efforts and learning that can help support those that come after them. These may take any form teachers agree to including, but are not limited to: a curated collection of their work, a narrative or other document, written reflections, lesson plans, and/or published products such as a website or digital print publication such as a list of apps, flow chart, info graphic, etc. (Riel & Polin, 2004 p. 16).
The role of the Technology Facilitator. The circle is guided by an experienced technology leader who guides the group, offers insights, advice, tools, and best practices. Riel states that, “The role of the technology facilitator person is not to lead the circle, but rather to serve as an information agent tracking and sharing expertise with circle members, facilitating the meeting and focusing members on collaboration.” The Technology Facilitator’s job is to work with the faculty on their self-identified curriculum goals, suggest tools and shorten the learning curve for teachers in the use of these tools. In addition, s/he is responsible for understanding the concerns, issues and challenges of each individual teacher in the adoption of technology and will tailor their feedback to address the individual needs of each classroom. The hope is that the plan will serve as a motivating, meaningful and productive means by which teachers at the school are able to integrate technology into their classrooms. As an educator, I expected that teachers would generally find it motivating.
Cycle 3 Question: If I design a technology integration plan based on current research about social motivational theory and teacher motivation to participate in professional development, how will teachers respond to it?
Cycle 3 Evaluation.
A quantitative questionnaire was distributed to thirteen (13) participants, ten (10) responded. Their responses were anonymous. I facilitated two (2) semi-structured discussions with some of them about how the plan could be improved. At these meetings, I once again submitted my overarching research question to the group. I then solicited general feedback about the concepts outlined and their sense of what they believed may and/or may not work for teachers given the everyday pressures that they deal with. I utilized quantitative research coding protocol to help uncover what aspects of the plan they felt might motivate them to participate. The coding helped me organize and analyze the data as means to interpret teacher feedback and to evaluate the plan’s potential impact on their motivation.
My findings regarding the significant positive relation between peer-to-peer professional development and teacher motivation are consistent with the research. An analysis of the questionnaire data from cycle 3 shows that: All of them agreed that knowledge sharing with colleagues is a viable means of professional development. Almost all of the respondents agreed that they would participate in and would enjoy a program like this. Most also felt that this initiative will help teachers feel more connected to each other, that they would recommend it to other faculty, and that they thought other faculty would participate. This particular comment about the power of peer-to-peer professional development highlighted their reactions:
A quantitative questionnaire was distributed to thirteen (13) participants, ten (10) responded. Their responses were anonymous. I facilitated two (2) semi-structured discussions with some of them about how the plan could be improved. At these meetings, I once again submitted my overarching research question to the group. I then solicited general feedback about the concepts outlined and their sense of what they believed may and/or may not work for teachers given the everyday pressures that they deal with. I utilized quantitative research coding protocol to help uncover what aspects of the plan they felt might motivate them to participate. The coding helped me organize and analyze the data as means to interpret teacher feedback and to evaluate the plan’s potential impact on their motivation.
My findings regarding the significant positive relation between peer-to-peer professional development and teacher motivation are consistent with the research. An analysis of the questionnaire data from cycle 3 shows that: All of them agreed that knowledge sharing with colleagues is a viable means of professional development. Almost all of the respondents agreed that they would participate in and would enjoy a program like this. Most also felt that this initiative will help teachers feel more connected to each other, that they would recommend it to other faculty, and that they thought other faculty would participate. This particular comment about the power of peer-to-peer professional development highlighted their reactions:
I guess what I love, love, love, love is the idea that we’re all experts here. We have some kind of specialty to share, and I do think presenting to your peers face to face is great. I think it could really spur a lot of inter-related curriculum ideas, even across grade levels. It could just help in communication between all of us as a community. Face to face experiences, like instead of having a speaker come. We’re all the experts, and we have these little workshops, and then somebody can find something out about what you know, and it’s something you’ve done, and relate it to something in their class, and maybe there’s a connection, and so all of a sudden kindergarten and fifth grade are doing something together, right? We should be sharing what we know with each other or what we’re passionate about and see what’s born from that.
|
Cycle 3 Reflection.
The data suggest that teachers saw value in the initiative. They all agreed that they would participate if it were implemented; however, they were unsure if the plan would achieve its expected outcomes. Most teachers reported that they felt the program would only partially meet their professional development needs and were unsure about whether the plan would provide long term support toward integrating technology into their classroom.
Teachers were asked and offered feedback on how the plan could be improved. The following themes emerged: the need for both traditional and collaborative professional development, providing necessary time to reflect, issues with product driven learning as accountability, addressing issue of entrenched interest against cultural change, and developing more creative ways to engage colleagues in online collaborative environments.
Traditional and Collaborative Professional Development. I asked teachers about whether they would prefer to have a speaker centered model or collaborative approach to PD. One stated that it depends on what you are learning. He continued, “I think it depends on what the topic is because if it is something that’s more conceptual or a little abstract you need somebody to stand there and explain it to you, and it’s not something you can do hands on. But if it’s learning how to do something then that’s more appropriate to actually meet … doing it hands on and working through it as you learn. So I mean like you said I think there are benefits to both it just depends on what the topic and objective is.” Another teacher agreed, but added that she couldn’t see every professional development being this way (as the white paper lays out).
Time to reflect. The process of reflection and the time to do it was important for teachers. Many spoke to the fact that it is an intrinsic part of their profession and why they chose this profession in the first place. This particular comments reflected their thinking:
The data suggest that teachers saw value in the initiative. They all agreed that they would participate if it were implemented; however, they were unsure if the plan would achieve its expected outcomes. Most teachers reported that they felt the program would only partially meet their professional development needs and were unsure about whether the plan would provide long term support toward integrating technology into their classroom.
Teachers were asked and offered feedback on how the plan could be improved. The following themes emerged: the need for both traditional and collaborative professional development, providing necessary time to reflect, issues with product driven learning as accountability, addressing issue of entrenched interest against cultural change, and developing more creative ways to engage colleagues in online collaborative environments.
Traditional and Collaborative Professional Development. I asked teachers about whether they would prefer to have a speaker centered model or collaborative approach to PD. One stated that it depends on what you are learning. He continued, “I think it depends on what the topic is because if it is something that’s more conceptual or a little abstract you need somebody to stand there and explain it to you, and it’s not something you can do hands on. But if it’s learning how to do something then that’s more appropriate to actually meet … doing it hands on and working through it as you learn. So I mean like you said I think there are benefits to both it just depends on what the topic and objective is.” Another teacher agreed, but added that she couldn’t see every professional development being this way (as the white paper lays out).
Time to reflect. The process of reflection and the time to do it was important for teachers. Many spoke to the fact that it is an intrinsic part of their profession and why they chose this profession in the first place. This particular comments reflected their thinking:
The one thing reading it and you did address at the end and I think is the age old problem for all of us is time for reflection or the time to actually, if we’re learning this new technology or doing this, the actual time to absorb it, to try it, to think about it and to implement it, is huge. Before you forget, is huge and that time thing is through line here we don’t have it. It is one obstacle I see. I don’t know how to create it, but it is essential.
|
One more thing: Organizational culture, institutional change and taking issue with product driven learning as accountability. Organizational culture may play a large part in the decision making of teachers. School culture varies between educational institutions, each culture being influenced by the environment in which it exists and the people that inhabit that space. Within these cultures live the norms, belief systems, and ideologies of the institution. Impacting institutional change may be seen as one of the primary barriers to integrating technologies into the classroom. A teacher commented: I think that you have to figure out how to make it not feel like one more thing. I think that there are a lot of wonderful educational ideas but as you present something like this to faculty, they should not be made to feel like, “Oh my God one more thing I have to do.” I think that’s where the culture of the institution has to be such that it’s not one more thing… it has to be an integral part of how we do things.
I think having the products is going to feel like another thing. I think for reflection and with collaboration there’s not always a product sometimes it’s just sitting and talking and get through anything and in different ways and it’s not necessarily you know something at the end.
It depends on culture of the learning institution because there are schools that build in that piece- the last Friday of every month is a half day, for our students. I think more and more schools are going to that. But then if you want to be inclusive of all community, what do you do with those with children going to daycare. So it depends on the learning institute. The only thing, I think, is you mentioned it… the challenges, right? Challenges implementing a program like this is sort of a static culture or an attitude that certain teachers may have. It’s always the same, always the same individuals who are resistant to change, and I think maybe say a little bit more about how strong that force could be if somebody’s resistant to change. And, they maybe have the administration’s support or the administration really values their opinion. That force can really be challenging, even if everybody else says they want it. It doesn’t matter how many people over here want to do this, if one person really is resistant, and that person has the ear of the administration, that could make it really difficult. |
Engagement in online dialogue. Teachers also voiced the necessity and difficulty in staying engaging in online dialogue with others. For authentic learning, mastery, and growth, teachers need to stay involved in the process and dialogue. After the actual PD or experience has passed, how does one continue to commit to the process of sharing with other colleagues online?
The only problem I feel with a forum kind of think like Edmodo is that sometimes when you post your own thing, then you’re not apt to sign on again to look at other people’s, so there needs to be some incentive. I think, for us to just keep going back, back, again and again to look and get ideas from other people. If it’s immediate, and there’s a set time, like at 9 o’clock we’re going to sign on to chat about this, like twitter chats you know.
|