Road Map

Background Research

• Initial Reading Reflections (on educational technology)
• Official Research Question
• Literature Review
• Participants
• Perspectives & Biases

Cycles for Master’s Action Research Project

Cycle 1: Using technology tools for shared viewing and reflection on student writing
· Research and reflection: Teacher survey on current collaborative practices
· Research and reflection: Ways of sharing student work
· Research and reflection: Discussion about reasons for sharing and assessing student work
· Action: Examining and commenting on student work using Microsoft Word and a SMART board with projector (Collaborative Assessment Conference protocol)
o Email as a reflective tool following discussion

Cycle 2: Using an electronic environment to research and discuss student writing
· Spiraling into Cycle 2
· Research and reflection: Teachers’ use of technology for activities other than professional collaboration
o Emails
o Social networking
o Chat tools
· Action: Reading and discussing the current literature on assessing student work in a discussion forum (Final Word protocol)
· Research and reflection: Analysis of teachers’ reflective postings on discussion board
· Action: Using a rubric to talk about student writing in a discussion forum (Learning from Student Work protocol)

Cycle 3: Using web-based tools for collaborative inquiry and instruction
· Spiraling into Cycle 3: Availability and cost of technology tools
· Research and reflection: Discussion with teaching teams about preferred ways of sharing
· Action: Web-based word processing for interdisciplinary planning of literacy instruction and assessment
· Research and reflection: Variation in teacher response among different methods of collaboration (email, discussion boards and web-based word processing)
· Action: Collaborative planning and discussion on an electronic calendar
· Action: Teacher inquiry and literacy instruction through the exploration, production and consumption of wikis

Final Reflections on Master’s Action Research Project

MARP Final Reflection - conclusions & spiralling into further research

From my three cycles of action research, I am left with some conclusions and some questions. First, let me state some tentative conclusions. Web-based tools do seem to be a more effective means of collaboration than discussion boards that require sign-in (particularly on more obscure sites) or email distributions. This may be due to the public availability and the lack of a need to remember complicated web addresses, user names or passwords. With Google Calendar and Google Docs, users need only their own email address to receive links and click on these links. There is no need to remember a site URL or a new username. With a wiki like Wetpaint, groups create their own unique and personalized URL, thereby making the site much more accessible and giving its creators a sense of ownership.

While hardware tools such as SMART boards are useful for the environmental benefits of saving paper and the collaborative benefits of shared viewing, the expense creates a situation in which literacy coaches or staff developers cannot rely on the presence of these tools at every work site. However, I found that 80-90% of schools had internet access and teacher computers, so using web-based tools is often more practical for collaboration.

Throughout this process, I learned the importance of 'standing on the shoulders of giants' - using others' research to help me analyze the data I gathered and to support (or refute) ideas I may have. Sometimes data can be overwhelming and puzzling. Using the research of published scholars, I have found a basis for interpreting the information I gather. In my review of my work, I found that I needed to revise my first two cycles in order to more fully interpret the data and support my conclusions with the current research literature. I eventually revised all of the Research & Reflection sections of my MARP to utilize the current literature to a greater degree in my analysis of the data I was collecting.

It was transformative for me to learn and follow the action research cycle - read literature about the topic, gather contextual information, reflect using the literature as a basis for interpretation and take specific and focused action to try to affect positive change. Knowing how to conduct action research in this rigorous way has given me a focus in my work as an educator and gives me a basis for future studies.

To this point, I also am left with some questions for further inquiry.

• First, what obstacles prevent teachers from openly and collaboratively reflecting on their instructional practice?
• Why do teachers, especially new teachers, tend to shy away from offering instructional ideas or feedback?
• What background knowledge (or understanding) among teachers is necessary, about technology or professional practice, for literacy coaches or staff developers to create an effective environment for collaboration?
• How can a literacy leader help teaching teams move from congenial relationships to more collegial interactions?
• What web-based tools work best (with most active engagement, most continual use and are most informative to practice) over a sustained period with a cohort of teachers?

I plan to continue researching this topic with more action research cycles. I have learned that technology tools can have a varying degree of impact on collaboration among educators, with web-based tools like electronic calendars, wikis and documents being the most useful thus far. These tools can create virtual time and space to stretch the bounds of teaching teams whose schedules are already overburdened. Hopefully, I can generate some interesting and innovative ways to encourage teacher collaboration around student work that will actually assist my Literacy Specialist colleagues in their future careers as coaches, teachers, staff developers or consultants.

Cycle #3 - action (part III)

For my final action, I continued my Cycle #3 focus on free, widely available, web-based tools. I had experienced a modicum of success with my first two actions using Google web tools (Calendar and Docs) - I received a higher response rate and more active engagement with these tools than in previous collaborative attempts using tools such as discussion boards and email. I was beginning to wonder whether perhaps the Google brand also had something to do with the higher response rate - were teachers more familiar, and therefore more comfortable, with using these tools? Were the Google tools more well-designed than other communication or networking tools out there? To find out, I continued my study with a non-Google web-based tool: Wetpaint wikis. This action addresses both the Inquiry and Instruction aspects of collaboration, as described in my literature review and supported by many researchers (Kinnucan-Welsch, Rosemary & Grogan, 2006; Foster, Lewis & Onafowora, 2005; Fisher, Lapp & Flood, 2005).

As part of the Learning Technology Grant LEO, the teachers at K323 in Brownsville, Brooklyn and COGCA in Far Rockaway, Queens (click on hyperlinks to learn more about these schools), planned to teach their students to become producers of cybertext. To accomplish this, they were to create a web tutorial using a wiki. We considered using Dreamweaver to create the tutorials initially, but the teachers at K323 lacked the necessary software. We researched several different wiki hosting sites and eventually decided on Wetpaint because of its familiar formatting tools (very similar to Microsoft applications) and user-friendly design. The teachers felt that it would shorten the technology learning curve, allowing them to focus more on the literacy learning of writing and producing cybertext. In particular, the teachers at COGCA were less familiar with the concept of a wiki and enlisted my assistance in teaching them about this tool, as suggested in professional development research by several researchers (Richardson, 2000; Fisher et al, 2005; Buly, Coskie, Robinson & Egawa, 2006).

I set up a basic wiki template for the two groups of teachers and then invited everyone to join as Writers, allowing them to add content and use all the tools needed. One thing we realized at COGCA was that the wiki would not function properly with any internet browser; it was necessary to use Internet Explorer on PCs and Mozilla Firefox on Macs. However, most internet browsers are available as free, reasonably fast downloads, so it did not prove to be too much of an obstacle. After the teachers joined, they began experimenting with the manipulation of text, links and widgets. On Wetpaint, there are small banner ads that rotate on the periphery of the screen; these are a source of funding that makes Wetpaint a free host for educational wikis. However, since COGCA is a Christian academy, the teachers felt a unique responsibility to control the content or type of ads that would be appearing on their students' eventual wikis. To solve this problem, we found a link to email the designers of Wetpaint that would block media images and ads.

Collaborative teams must ask themselves during inquiry, what do we want students to learn (Johnston, Knight & Miller, 2007)? This collaboration focused on the quality of student work: 1) what did we expect the students' final products to actually look like (e.g. page names, content, level of detail)? and 2) what types of tech tools did we want the students to include (e.g. photos, video, audio)? Since the abstract of the original grant referred to the relationship between content areas and the arts, the teachers agreed that audio would be essential.

At COGCA, the teachers chose Imeem for all their media uploads. Since their curriculum has more flexibility for interdisciplinary studies (including the arts), the teachers at COGCA expressed their wishes to have the students spend more time on the music and musical theory. At K323, the DOE filter blocked Imeem, so we chose JukeboxAlive instead. This wouldn't allow students to actually embed code for music players in the site; however, through our collaborative experimentation we found that it would allow students to place links in their wiki that would activate a pop-up music player. Similarly, most media widgets were blocked through the DOE filter except for JukeboxAlive.

These teachers were actively engaged in the process of learning in order to teach. Kinnucan-Welsch et al (2006) have stated that this is an essential aspect of good professional development. The teachers experimented with different parts of the wiki in order to come to agreements about what they would need to teach the students and what they would expect of the students. The teachers also invited a few students in their initial steps to experiment with the consumption and production of cybertext by using the sample wiki we had created. This was part of the planned procedures outlined in the LEO (see previous posts for a link to this document) and followed the research of Fisher et al (2005) who believe that teachers must teach according to their research-based plan.

Interested readers can view the experimental wikis for K323 and COGCA by clicking on the hyperlinks in this sentence. By clicking on the "What's New" tab, readers can see the collaborative effort that went into these wikis. As the group facilitator, I added a lot of initial content to model procedures. However, as the meetings wore on, the contributions came more and more from teachers and students.

Cycle #3 - action (part II) & further reflection

DATA: CALENDAR POSTINGS

I set up a Google Calendar event for my next two visits to J.H.S. 216 in Fresh Meadows, Queens, and "invited" the six teachers with whom I work. This action addresses the Instruction portion of collaboration as described in my literature review and as supported in different aspects by several researchers (Kinnucan-Welsch, Rosemary & Grogan, 2006; Fisher, Lapp & Flood, 2005; Buly, Coskie, Robinson & Egawa, 2006). An electronic invitation contacts the teacher via email with an embedded response option and links to a place to add a note. For my first event, I included the following description:
"Hi teachers! Please confirm my visit on Tuesday and add a comment to this calendar event letting me know what lesson you would like me to teach that day - thanks!!! (Make sure to include your name - e.g. Mr. Rayner - Lesson 5.1)"

I wasn't sure how much of a response I would get based on my previous experience, so I just asked the teachers to indicate the lesson number so as not to overwhelm them. Within 48 hours, two-thirds of the teachers had responded. Here are their postings below:

Mr. Rxxxx: 5.1 Thanks.
Ms. Dxxxx: great my students have started their first body paragraph today in class, so we will work on the second one tomorrow!
Ms. O'Sxxxx: hi Jen. My students are also up to drafting. 4.1 would be great. Thanks. Let me know what we'll need for the lesson. Thanks. Nxxxx.
Mr. Fxxxx: Hi Jen. My students have gathered all of their information and are ready to write their first draft. Can you teach lesson 4.1? We can focus on supporting arguments and evidence. Let me know what you will need to teach the lesson. Thanks, Sxxxx.

I was impressed by the way these teachers took ownership of the calendar and really used it as a way to plan collaboratively. Kinnucan-Welsch et al (2006) state that one of the four essential domains of professional practice is planning. In this school, there seems to be (based on my informal conversations with teachers) a greater push from administration for content team collaboration than in some other schools with which I've worked. However, these teachers are mostly new, just like in other schools, and are less experienced than some other groups with the use of technology in general. Therefore, I can attribute the relative success of this collaborative attempt to either the administrative encouragement to collaborate, the effectiveness of a web-based tool like Google Calendar or some combination therein.

Next, to make the calendar truly interactive, I responded to the teachers' notes on the discussion board (included in the virtual space of every Google Calendar event). Here are my notes:

Steve - for Lesson 4.1 we will need your laptop/projector with the following items pulled up: introductory animation, 4.1 lesson visual and a mentor text from the Editorials packet or Prof P's office. The students will need their laptops. We also need a plan for where students will post their work - I will be happy to help you provide comments for revision if you would like!
Hi Noreen - I love your "+33 guests"! :) For 4.1 (limited tech option), we will need: chart paper & markers, a copy of a mentor text (e.g. one from the original Editorials packet) and writers' notebooks. See you tomorrow!

Although I tried to focus the conversation onto instruction and the quality of student work by writing about revising and publishing their writing, I had already made the original invitation fairly generic because the tool was experimental. Upon reflection, I realized that I needed to make both the event and the surrounding conversation a little more specific and focused on the context of student work. I created my second calendar event for the following week as follows:

"This Tuesday is my last day to work with you on Editorials! :( However, I will still be at your school, working with the 6th grade teachers on poetry, in case you need anything. For tomorrow, please respond with your lesson # and anything I can do to be of assistance as we wrap up the unit!"

The teachers once again responded quickly. Again, I received responses from two-thirds of the group within 48 hours. However, this time the responses were either simple "Yes" clicks or very short:

Ms. Sxxxx: Hey Jennifer, I'll be up to lesson 5:1 tomorrow 6th period with class 8245. See you tomorrow! - Bxxxx Sxxxx
Ms. Dxxxx: [clicked Yes]
Mr. Fxxxx: Can you teach lesson 5.1 tomorrow?
Ms. O'Sxxxx: [clicked Yes]

In spite of the shortened responses, I decided to still respond on the discussion board. Buly et al (2006) have found that a collaborative meeting (in this case, using virtual space) dialogue should give teachers one focused idea for instruction. This time, I tried to focus my posting a little more specifically on the work of providing a solid context for student learning by writing about how the teachers could activate their students' prior knowledge about language:

Sounds like most of us are at the same place - that's great! Step 5 is all about revising, so in 5.1 we'll be working on adding a pattern of transitional phrases to lead the reader through an Editorial. Anything you can do to activate your group's prior knowledge on the topic of transitions when I ask them for suggestions will be great - thanks!
Thanks, Nxxxx - I got your email (Lesson 5.1)! If I don't hear from Mr. Rxxxx, then we are also on for 3rd period! See you tomorrow!

Based on the different types of responses I've received, I am beginning to hypothesize that perhaps teachers, especially new teachers, feel intimidated by requests that are too heavily laden with the call to reflect on instruction. Perhaps they lack confidence in their expertise and are afraid to post their ideas in a public forum or in an email reply-to-all. A question for future research might be something like, What background knowledge or experiences can I give educators to build a foundation for active and effective collaboration?

Cycle #3 - research & reflection (part III)

DATA: TEACHERS' RESPONSES TO CYCLE #1 - ACTION

DATA: TEACHERS' EMAILS (FROM CYCLE #2 - RESEARCH & REFLECTION)

DATA: RESULTS OF CYCLE #3 - ACTION (PART I)

In alignment with the research of Buly, Coskie, Robinson & Egawa (2006), I feel that it is my role to ask critical questions that will help teachers analyze the quality and context of student work. In my first cycle, I received no responses to the email I sent to teachers asking them to reflect on their instruction and the student work we'd analyzed together. In my second cycle, I observed that the subject of teacher emails was often a request for immediate assistance with some crisis, rather than using it for collaborative planning or analysis, even though I tried to pose critical, generative questions. This has led me to hypothesize that perhaps teachers would respond more readily if there was some level of accountability involved. Perhaps email is not a productive tool for collaboration; perhaps the overloaded inboxes of many teachers cause them to feel overwhelmed or to ignore messages. If the critical questions are not being addressed, then it is also my responsibility to try a different method of posing the questions.

In contrast with the above failure of a tool, I reflected on the success of my Cycle #3 action with Google Docs. ALL involved teachers were able to access the web-based document both during and after our meeting. This was partially due to the ease of use in the two different electronic environments - some teachers had experienced sign-in problems on the Writing Matters website which they did not experience when using Google applications. In addition, I think it also may have been due to the fact that there was more of a culture of collegial teamwork at K323, COGCA and Q216 than there had been at M321. Often, teachers end up feeling isolated by their classroom walls and individual responsibilities and accountability, but administrators who encourage and support collaboration can help to overcome this by providing structures for team interaction.

For my next action, I decided to try using Google calendar for collaborative planning. Having a common virtual space in which to plan and assess our progress in a unit would hopefully increase accountability among teachers for responding in a timely manner. It would also incorporate the benefits of a web-based tool like Google Docs in that it is free and available to all via any internet-connected computer at school or home. In addition, it would give us an ongoing reference for the progress being made in different classrooms, providing a connection between teachers' current practice and next steps to be learned and taken (Blachowicz, Fogelberg & Obrochta, 2005).

Cycle #3 - action (part I)

Learning Experience Outline

For my first action, I facilitated the creation of the first three parts of the Learning Experience Outline - learning context, assessment and procedures. Click on the link above to view the LEO-in-progress.

I opened a new Google Document and gave it the title "LTG K323 & COGCA LEO". Then I published it to the web, which caused Google to assign it a public link, and sent this link to all the teachers via email. Next, we collaborated on the different aspects of the outline one by one, with me as the typist adding to the document as decisions were made. Teachers were able to refresh their screens to see ongoing real-time updates, as well as to make changes themselves. This also allowed different members of the group to adopt the role of typist if I needed a break or in the future if I were absent.

For this unit, the teachers wanted to integrate several content areas with their literacy instruction. The LEO follows a backward design model, so the first step in determining how these different content areas would be integrated was to plan the learning context (standards) and assessments. The primary goal of the web tutorial that students were to create was for them to learn informational writing and speaking (standard ELA1).

However, the teachers also wanted to integrate mathematical communication and reasoning (standard MST3), technological skills (standard MST5) and the arts through response to music (standard ARTS3). Since we were made up of an interdisciplinary team, several teachers in the group had experience teaching technology and math. Several researchers have found a sound basis for interdisciplinary collaboration (Richardson, 2000; Buly, Coskie, Robinson & Egawa, 2006; Foster, Lewis & Onafowora, 2005), including the common institutional context that can increase understanding of student needs.

We accessed the standard through NYLearns.org and used these standards to then develop our own performance indicators as relevant to this project. Fisher, Lapp & Flood (2005) have found that state standards are often too broad to apply directly to classroom teaching and learning and therefore need to be unpacked by teachers at the local level. To facilitate the process, I planned to use Johnston, Knight & Miller's (2007) guiding questions for collaborative planning. These questions would help to ensure that the teams were staying focused on the goal of student learning through backward design. The first question that we needed to address was, what do we want students to learn? The performance indicators represent these teachers' vision of exactly what we want students to know, understand and be able to do by the end of the unit.

Next, we needed to develop some assessment tools to evaluate the next guiding question (Johnston et al, 2007): how will we know the students are learning? We discussed possible ways of evaluating their learning - checklists, presentations, written products, tests. Through discussion, we determined that we wanted to assess three artifacts from their project: the overall wiki design, the informational writing on the wiki and their in-class presentation of the wiki. To do this, the teachers indicated that they would like to customize some rubrics so that the standards would be clear to both teams of teachers as well as their students, since this was a multi-school partnership. We used several rubric generating web sites to fine tune our assessment tools, then created one rubric for each of the ELA performance indicators (both speaking and writing). We also created a rubric to evaluate the overall web design.

Because of the technological aspect of our collaboration, we were able to simultaneously view web content and the newest version of our LEO on our own individual laptops. The laptops were teacher units provided by their individual schools at no cost to the teachers; the web applications we used (Google Docs and an internet database of standards) were free of cost.

Cycle #3 - research & reflection (part II)

DATA: TEACHER INTERVIEW AND OBSERVATION

After determining that I needed to shift my focus toward more inexpensive, widely available technology tools, I was left with a huge array of possible options. To figure out what would best suit teacher needs, I decided to interview a group of teachers about a project that we had just begun working on.

This was the second year for them in a partnership between public and private schools. Through the Learning Technology Grant, the partnership schools are awarded software and hardware in exchange for their participation in a process called statewide Peer Review. Using the software and hardware, teachers develop a Learning Experience Outline (which is basically a very detailed lesson plan) and bring it to a collaboration session with teachers from all around New York state in order to receive feedback on their teaching and learning.

The Learning Experience Outline includes the following components: a description of the learning context; an assessment plan including checklists or rubrics; student work; procedures for both teachers and students; resources; instructional/environmental modifications; time required for collection of resources and actual execution; and reflection. The goal of the second year of the Learning Technology Grant participants was for students to create a web-based tutorial to demonstrate their knowledge of the connection between mathematical concepts and musical theory. There is a total of six teachers from the Church of God Christian Academy (COGCA) and I.S. 323 (K323) in Brooklyn participating.

At our initial meeting, I began our discussion/interview by asking how they had composed their Learning Experience Outline (LEO) in the past. Dxxxx told me that one person would type the notes as decisions were made about various parts of the LEO and then periodically email everyone the updated versions. From there we discussed the following options:

• Microsoft Word .doc in conjunction with email: Using the commonly available Microsoft software to create the LEO was an obvious option. We actually started typing the LEO - all of us on our own computers in a .doc - as we planned it. This quickly turned messy as teachers had to repeatedly stop one another mid-sentence to say, "Wait, say that again, I didn't get all of that..."! To solve this issue, we decided that we would have one typist. However, several teachers pointed out that doing it in Word would still require a great deal of saving, re-saving, emailing, and emailing again. In addition, when multiple versions of a document have been shared, it's always possible to confuse the versions.
• Projector: One teacher suggested having one typist and using a projector to display the LEO as it progressed. However, we discussed the fact that we would still need to email the document back and forth if changes were made between meetings.
• Google Docs: The next option we discussed was having one typist create a web-based document allowing real-time collaboration and editing in Google Documents. After the document was created and published to the web, the typist could email all other team members the link. This would allow all members to edit the LEO and see updates instantly and remotely.

After some negotiation and experimentation, the group ultimately chose Google Docs as its LEO site, therefore determining my first action for Cycle #3: facilitating the creation of their document in this web-based format.

Literature Review

Click here (or on the title of this post) to read my review of the literature on teacher collaboration. Basically, what I found was that there are three key components to effective collaboration: inquiry, instruction and introspection/reflection. As I continue to develop my own research, I plan to use this literature review as a framework for my own discoveries. It is a work in progress!

Spiraling into Cycle #3 - research & reflection (part I)

DATA: TECHNOLOGY AVAILABILITY TABLE
DATA: HARDWARE & APPLICATION COST COMPARISON

One of my subquestions is: what inexpensive technology tools are available in schools? In my first and second cycles, the teachers and I used SMART boards, projectors and computer lab stations to collaborate. In one classroom, the SMART board was missing some of its components, including the "marking" pens, and its speakers did not work. In addition, many teachers did not have a SMART board and projector in their classroom and so were not completely familiar with the technology. In another classroom, although a SMART board and projector had been provided, the projector was very outdated and was not completely compatible with the SMART board, affecting its display quality.

Although most of the schools in which I work have a computer lab, these may be in use by students throughout the school day or may be locked to both staff and students. In one lab, the computers were so extremely old and outdated that they were not able to be networked. From all of these observations and experiences, I knew that I needed to focus on educational technology that was not dependent on expensive hardware that was not always available.

To answer my subquestion and consider where I might need to go for my third cycle, I began by creating a chart outlining some of the technology that is currently in use in the classrooms in which I work. However, not all of the technology listed could be considered 'inexpensive' or commonly available.

• A mere 30% of teachers have SMART Boards and LCD projectors in their classrooms. The cost of a 77" SMART Board is $2099 plus over $1135 in shipping costs. Projectors can cost up to $6899, with each replacement bulb costing more than $1000.
• 75% of teachers have a laptop or desktop computer in their classroom. Most also have their own computer at home. Laptops start at around $749 with desktops starting at $399.
• A wireless cart of Computers on Wheels (COW) costs $21,072. Probably due to the cost, only 20% of teachers have their own cart (stored in their classroom). An additional 60% of teachers have access to a shared cart.
• 80% of schools in which I work have a computer lab. The great majority of these are connected to the internet. To outfit an entire lab with desktop computers, it could cost a school upwards of $15,000.
• Most schools also have purchased site licenses for Microsoft Office software. Each individual set of the basic home and school programs (Word, Powerpoint, Excel, Outlook) costs $149.
• Schools almost always have access to the internet, whether through their own wireless network or through local unsecured networks. There is a plethora of free web-based resources designed especially for educational use.

After analyzing the costs, I can see that I need to try out some technology tools that are free or inexpensive and widely available. The most inexpensive tools from the list above are the individual teacher computers (laptops or desktops), the basic Microsoft software and various free web applications.

Cycle #2 - action (part II)

For my next action, I prepared the discussion board as previously described: 1) steps & timing of the protocol, including probing questions; 2) a link to a student draft of a feature article; 3) an attachment which contained the feature article rubric.

Week 4 - Writing Feature Articles
by Jennifer Whitney - Wednesday, 12 March 2008, 02:49 PM

FA_rubric.doc
Running Away!!! by SXXXX
Learning from Student Work protocol (10 min per step)
1. What do you see? Describe without judging.
2. From the writer's perspective, what is SXXXX working on? In other words, what does she understand or not understand? What is she most interested in? How did she interpret the assignment?
3. What are the implications of this work for teaching and assessment?
4. Written reflection (~5 min): Free-write about how you will use what you learned from your colleagues today in your teaching of Step 4, Writing Feature Articles. What can we learn from SXXXX and what will you focus on in your lessons to make sure students 'get it'?
P.S. You can compare SXXXX's writing with the attached Feature Article rubric for ideas!!!

We met to read the article together and discuss what we were seeing. I had intentionally chosen a student that was not in any of their classes so that they would not feel as if their teaching were being discussed or evaluated. I acted as the facilitator for the protocol; however, it occurred to me that perhaps next time the teachers would take more ownership of the process if I asked one of them to facilitate. I observed that although the teachers offered many comments to assess the student work (e.g. the research is vague, the organization needs some tweaking, this is cute), they still seemed hesitant when it came time to share their ideas about how this could impact their teaching. This tells me that they are growing as professionals (i.e. they are getting more comfortable collaborating around an artifact) but still have a ways to go in their confidence as instructors.

After our meeting, we agreed to revisit the work and post a reflection on the forum about how this student's work could inform our practice in the upcoming portion of the feature articles unit (crafting and organizing paragraphs). I was disappointed, although not surprised, that only three teachers responded (last two postings originate from same author). The lack of reflection on teaching and assessment, both in conversation and in reflective writing, seems to point to a continued uncertainty in their own ideas and plans as instructors. Here are the reflective postings:

Re: Week 4 - Writing Feature Articles
by XXXXXXX - Wednesday, 12 March 2008, 02:46 PM

One thing that we learned from SXXXX's writing today is that students need help organizing the body paragraphs of their feature articles to include subheadings, their own ideas, research and transitions in each section. Another thing that we could focus on in mini-lessons and conferences is writing a strong conclusion; SXXXX's FA seemed to lose momentum at the end.
Show parent Edit Split Delete Reply


Re: Week 4 - Writing Feature Articles
by XXXXXXXX - Thursday, 13 March 2008, 03:37 PM

After reading SXXXX's article, I am going to pay closer attention to teaching my students how to research, and how to present their research. I did something great in my PACE class last night, that I would love to do with my students. To teach them how to present their research, I am going to hand out samples of feature articles and teach my kids how to code. They can have different colored highlighters and they can code for research that is supported, research that is not, and quotes that are presented. I think it can be a really fun activity!
Show parent Edit Split Delete Reply


Re: Week 4 - Writing Feature Articles
by XXXXXXXXX - Friday, 14 March 2008, 02:08 PM

That sounds like a terrific idea - thanks for sharing! The highlighting could also be a way to teach into the organization of the article - making sure that each section has both their own ideas as well as research support.
Show parent Edit Split Delete Reply


Re: Week 4 - Writing Feature Articles
by XXXXXXXXX- Friday, 14 March 2008, 02:14 PM

Also, just FYI, if you are looking for more examples of FAs (other than the original Lesson 1.1 packet), check out the mentor texts in Professor P's office!
Show parent Edit Split Delete Reply

One thing that I think has been a great benefit to using technology to collaborate is the amount of paper we are saving. After only two meetings (looking at protocols, rubrics and pieces of student writing), traditional meeting methods would have required a minimum of 72 sheets of paper just to view all of the artifacts. Most of this paper is usually thrown in the trash after a meeting, with only some of it being recycled depending on the availability of a recycling bin. In addition, the use of technology saved the team a great deal of time by giving participants the capability to preview web-based meeting topics and content beforehand and creating flexible time for reflection afterward via virtual meeting spaces in discussion forums.

Cycle #2 - reflection on data & a plan for action

DATA: TEACHER TALK & REFLECTIVE POSTINGS

It was suggested to me by some of my colleagues, and confirmed by the discussion I had with my teachers, that perhaps one of the reasons that the teachers were not engaging in more collaboration or responding to my prompts for collaboration was that they lacked confidence in themselves as professionals. During our last meeting, one teacher actually stated that he felt like he was always "putting out fires" and never had time to grow instructionally; he added that this made him feel like he was less than proficient as a teacher at this point in his career (less than 3 years of experience).

They also complained in their postings about the lack of time they were given to collaborate with each other because all of their planning time was absorbed with administrator-led meetings or professional development led by someone outside the content-area team. Therefore, this teacher said that they had no practice talking with each other as professionals and had been "missing a slice of the ELA pie" (see comments in previous post, Cycle #2 - action & more data). The teachers seem to have some deep resentments about the fact that they haven't had these kinds of opportunities in the past - opportunities to reflect, to ask questions of each other or to share their unique ideas and talents - stating that they feel shortchanged.

At this point, I felt that the teachers were ready for another try at reflecting on student work and the learning context in which it occurs. I based this decision on the data I collected from the teachers' reflective postings on our discussion board. One teacher stated, "In order to improve as a teacher, I need to reflect on how I get my students to produce work, and in turn how I evaluate the work." This teacher seemed to be realizing how valuable student work could be as a tool to inform instruction. Another teacher teacher felt that "the most important thing we can do for one another is togive suggestions and ask questions of each other...we will recognize the things we have picked up along the way and the things that have worked for us." Here, I sensed an opening up to the risk-taking that sometimes comes with collaboration. A third teacher seemed to recognize the essential link between common standards and quality of student work: "...working together gives us a chance to know that we are measuring the same things when we talk about standards and expectations, that students don't get graded on different scales for similar work". From these reflections, it appeared that the teachers had made some important connections in their work and would be ready to give collaborative analysis another try.

I decided to scaffold this conversation a little more with a protocol that used more precise prompting than the Collaborative Assessment Conference (McDonald et al, 2007). For this purpose, I chose the Learning from Student Work protocol (Thompson-Grove, 2000). This protocol offers the facilitator some probing questions that help to analyze the student's apparent understandings (see below). I again used the discussion board format for our shared documents and reflections. I posted a link to a student's draft of her feature article, and I also included via attachment a copy of the rubric we are using to assess students on their finished writing for the unit. This was another way of scaffolding the conversation - the rubric would give teachers a basis and language for their comments.

Cycle #2 - action (part I) & more data

For my initial Cycle #2 action, I decided to see if I could teach my team about the reasons why collaborating around student work is important and what positive effects this practice can have. The reason that I made this decision was based on my data (the lack of reflective responses I received from the Cycle #1 email) as well as on relevant literature. Reeves (2007) found that in order to be an effective instructional coach, the teachers being coached must agree that change is useful or necessary. Since the teachers hadn't responded to my initial attempt at looking at student work and reflecting on its implications for practice, I hoped that with this Cycle #2 action I could bring about some collaborative agreement.

I chose an article for us to read (Garrison, 2006) that focused on why teachers should look at student work collaboratively (to impact and improve practice), how this can be accomplished (through the use of meeting protocols) and on what questions or topics these meetings might focus (performance standards overall or the needs of a particular student).

I posted the article as well as the Final Word protocol (McDonald et al, 2007) for our meeting on a web-based discussion board. When the teachers arrived in the computer lab, they logged on and we discussed the guidelines of the protocol. Our meeting began a little late due to two teachers being tardy; two teachers were absent entirely due to their recent temporary re-assignment into the Math department to help prepare students for the upcoming state Math exam.

We took ten minutes to independently read the article. Some teachers finished early and began to talk amongst themselves about unrelated topics; one teacher responded to the talking by stating that we could go ahead without her because she wasn't finished reading. I gave her an extra couple of minutes because I wanted her to be able to take part in the discussion.

After everyone had finished reading, I invited the teachers to volunteer to read a passage that they found especially meaningful or important. Ms. Mxxx was the first to speak up. She read a passage containing a quote from author James Baldwin: "American author James Baldwin is quoted as saying, 'Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.' This idea is applicable to many life situations, but its relevance to the education change process is paramount. It is easy to become mired in procedure and lose sight of what we can control and change," (Garrison, 2006). She discussed how this passage related to her own experience as a teacher in that she feels caught up in dealing with the daily breakdown of school structureand culture and doesn't focus on actually improving instruction. Mr. Txxxxxx agreed and stated that he feels the same way, 'stuck' in dealing with day-to-day procedures and top-down mandates and unable to reflect on his practice.

Mr. Bxxxxxx was next to present. He chose to share the following passage (Garrison, 2006): "We must listen to what our colleagues are saying and reflect on our teaching practice. The willingness to grow, to be self-evaluative, and to adjust where necessary is not only professional, it is what we expect of our students. This is a life skill." The group then discussed how they feel that they rarely get the time to discuss instructional practices, but more importantly, as new teachers they felt they needed a leader to guide these structured conversations about student work or ways of teaching. They reiterated one thing I already knew from my original survey - that they have rarely spent Common Planning time in collaboration; instead, most CP time was devoted to administrative meetings or top-down information disbursement. The teachers also concurred with one another that they feel a bond of friendship with each other, but they realized that they never really get to hear each other's professional thoughts. I mentioned the distinction between congenial relationships, like the one that they share, and collegial relationships, like what we are trying to create through our collaboration, as described by Barth (2006).

After our meeting, the teachers returned to the discussion board to post their reflections. Below you will see the original post and the reflective responses.

ORIGINAL POST
Written Reflection (5 minutes)
by Jennifer Whitney - Tuesday, 4 March 2008, 05:56 PM

Final_Word_Protocol.pdf
Examples of things you might reflect on: What did you learn from the Final Word rounds today? How will today's experience impact your practice?
Link to Garrison (2006) article
Edit Delete Reply

TEACHER RESPONSES
Re: Written Reflection (5 minutes)
by XXXXX - Wednesday, 5 March 2008, 10:29 AM

The reading today touched on many things which I found applicable to my teaching practice. In order to improve as a teacher, I need to reflect on how I get my studetns to produce work, and in turn how I evaluate the work.
Show parent Edit Split Delete Reply


Re: Written Reflection (5 minutes)
by XXXXX - Wednesday, 5 March 2008, 10:29 AM

It was nice to hear what other people were thinking. I believe that we have been shortchanged by missing out on our colleague's point of view and the fact that we are all going through similiar problems yet we don't have time to discuss classroom opportunities.
Show parent Edit Split Delete Reply


Re: Written Reflection (5 minutes)
by XXXXX - Wednesday, 5 March 2008, 10:29 AM

I think as a group the most important thing we can do for one another is to give suggestions and ask questions of eachother. We have ideas to share, but we just need someone to ask so that we will recognize the things we have picked up along the way and the things that have worked for us. I will make an effort to ask for more help from my colleagues because I appreciate their different styles and strengths.
Show parent Edit Split Delete Reply


Re: Written Reflection (5 minutes)
by XXXXX - Wednesday, 5 March 2008, 10:30 AM

The potential for teamworkremainsapotential until itcan be workedin toschedules wearelosingout, weareredoingthe samework,studentsarelosing . One thingI noticed in the articlewas that working together gives us a chancetoknowthat we aremeasning the same thingswhen we talk about standards andexpectattions. Tha5t students don't getgradedon different scalesforsimilar work...
Show parent Edit Split Delete Reply


Re: Written Reflection (5 minutes)
by XXXXX - Wednesday, 5 March 2008, 10:32 AM

Dear English Educators,
I really enjoyed our CP today. I feel as if this PD was more like a therapy session. It was nice to have an opportunity to reflect on our professional status, or lack thereof. I am intrigued by the thought that we are "missing a slice" in our ELA pie! I am happy that we have the solid foundation of friendship that we discussed. I am excited to think about the wonderful professional ideas that we can share with each other. I value each and every one of you as people, and respect you as educators. The truth is that we are all wonderfully creative beings, and I cannot imagine how great it would be to combine our passions, talents, and intelligence. I love you guys.
Show parent Edit Split Delete Reply

Cycle #2 - research & reflection

DATA: TEACHER EMAILS

DATA: FACEBOOK ACCOUNTS

DATA: GOOGLE TALK WIDGET

The teachers that I am working with frequently email me. This, along with the fact that we are all Google Talk buddies and that they are on Facebook, tells me that they are comfortable using technology as a communication and networking tool. Therefore, I feel that I can eliminate issues with technological confidence and competence as possible reasons for their lack of collaboration.

The problem, as becomes clear in reading the following emails, is that their emails are all about 'crisis management'. They are using technology but not to collaborate professionally. This is supported by the findings of Suntisukwongchote (2006); teachers stated in interviews that they never used computers for collaboration and that they had never seen collaboration on the internet. The 'crisis management' nature of their emails also makes me reflect on whether I might be encouraging this simply by consistently responding to their immediate needs while only pressing for the bigger picture of collaboration once per week during common planning time.

Re: Writing Matters & student work
XXXXXX@gmail.com]
To: Jennifer Whitney
Cc:
Hello!Thank you so much Jen. We started the unit on Monday (we still don't have a projector). I love it! I am so excited about it. It is going over wonderfully with the honors class. 703 and 702 are coming along nicely as well. =)

Re: this week's 'stuff'
XXXXXX@gmail.com]
To: Jennifer Whitney
Cc:
Hi Jen,We used the animation for angle but were unable to link to anystories. XXXX spent lunch finding google bits to show parts ofstories, but even that worked intermittently so it was hard to keepstudents focused. tomorrow we're doing the Editor's Conferenceworksheet so I think Wed will be about introducing research. We havethe classes split. In my section, advanced would be DXXX, strugglingwould be DXXX, proficent (not on ELA exam last year but on articleso far) but needs encouragement would be TXXX.See you Wed.

Re: this week's 'stuff'
XXXXXX@gmail.com]
To: Jennifer Whitney
Cc:
Hi Jen!This week XXX and I have split our ELA classes. I am not sure which group you would like to work with. I have the computer and the data projector- XXX is not one hundred percent comfortable with using them. She is also less familiar with the unit. She read it over the vacation and seems to be caught up, but she missed the PD. I am trucking through with 702 and 703. Since we split, I decided to re-teach the last three lessons in a review session today. 703 made it through characteristics and choosing a topic and angle. 702 made it through characteristics and choosing a topic (although not all of them did). 701 has chosen their topics and angles. On Wednesday we should be on lesson 2.2.

Re: this week's 'stuff'
XXXXXX@gmail.com]
To: Jennifer Whitney
Cc:
KXXXX BXXXwould love your help. He is a struggling writer, but a hard worker. He produces at least 5 drafts of every piece of writing.MXXy LXXXis a student that is not yet meeting standards. She doesn't completely understand the concept of an angle.RXXX VXXX is proficient and so is LXXX BXXX.

Re: this week's 'stuff'
XXXXXX@gmail.com]
To: Jennifer Whitney
Cc:
Hi Jennifer,This Wednesday they are having the Dominican Independence/Black History Monthcelebration. 1,2,3 periods will be 6th & 7th grade assembly andperiods 7,8 will be an assembly for 8th grade. Period 4 I will haveaccess to the computer lab. The students started to search theinternet today and I hope to teach 2.3 tomorrow.They have not started the actual writing yet.

Re: prep for Step 1 & Lesson 1.1
XXXXXX@yahoo.com]
To: Jennifer Whitney
Cc:
Jennifer,
Hello!
I just wanted to let you know that on Thursday this week... it is a 1/2 day of school. I have a different class that period but you are still welcome to come as scheduled. This class however is a very LOW class. They have a hard time grasping many concepts and they talk a lot. BUT they have been exposed to writing matters projects before and have been well behaved for the last presenter. They are also a ridiculously SMALL class... (15 or less) I PROMISE to do all the management. I will even bribe them with a few things for you. I just thought you should know that because of the 1/2 day schedule, you won't be meeting the honor's class.

Let me know what you think.

RE: prep for Step 1 & Lesson 1.1
XXXXXX(32K162) [XXXXXX@schools.nyc.gov]
To: Jennifer Whitney
Cc:
One other thing, do I have to enroll the kids in the online classroom before you come... and if so... I totally forgot how.

Re: this week's 'stuff'
XXXXXX@gmail.com]
To: Jennifer Whitney
Cc:
Jennifer,
Sorry to be getting back to you so late. I do have a few students that I can have you work with in 804, but I would like to speak to you tomorrow during 1st period if that is at all possible. I have made the copies for this week and prepared the lessons, but I'm a little apprehensive about taking the students to the lab at this point. Many of them are already in many different places. Several of them are not yet finsihsed with handout 2.1 and a select few in each of my classes are still unsure of what to do for a topic. However, I am also hesitant to hold back anymore as I feel that reiterating the lsesons I have already taught would cause other problems. Let me know what you think.

writing matters classrooms
XXXXXX@hotmail.com]
To: Jennifer Whitney
Cc:
Hey Jennifer,We're having some issues with the website, and were hoping you could answer some questions. So far, everyone has created an eZine for each of their classes, but how do we create the classroom? When we log in and search the classes all three of mine and only one of XXXshow up. XXXhas his students registered, and they can log into their eZine but we can't figure out how to create the classroom. Please e-mail us back, or call the school asap so we can figure this problem out. We're searched the website, and neither XXXor myself remember the process of how we did it. Thanks a lot! Talk to you soon!

help needed for teachers
XXXXXX(26Q216) [XXX@schools.nyc.gov]
You replied on 2/29/2008 1:53 PM.
To: Jennifer Whitney
Cc:
Ms. Whitney, I had a conversation with teachers. They are having a few technical problems. If you can please email or call them. Or if you can, they want to know if you can pass by here before Tuesday, so they can be better prepared.Thanks in advance

Re: ezines & online classrooms
XXXXXX@yahoo.com]
To: Jennifer Whitney
Cc:
hi Jen -
I truly appreciate your help with regard to this unit, but I have to be honest, I am extremely apprehensive regarding the technology aspect. At least I was finally able to figure out how to set up the ezines. Just out of curiousity, can the kids post their work from home just in case the technology in my room doesn't work?

The titles of the ezines are 806 and 807 --- and the subscription key is XXX806 and XXX807 ........ real original, right?!Thanks -

Re: ezines & online classrooms
XXXXXX@yahoo.com]
To: Jennifer Whitney
Cc:
hi again -
quick question - how do i setup my classroom? ms. sXXX at my school set up her classrooms but can't for the life of her remember how she did it!
thanks -

Re: ezine & modifications
XXXXXX@gmail.com]
To: Jennifer Whitney
Cc:
Thanks Jen. And no, I have not set up an ezine yet. So if you wantsend some directions, I would appreciate.Enjoy the last bit of the weekend.

What does all this tell me? The teachers I'm working with are mostly young; they are adept with technology in general. They use email, chat and social networking sites for dealing with life and relationships outside of school. The teachers in Suntisukwongchote's (2006) study also acknowledged that they all had email addresses and most used computers on a daily basis and regarded themselves as comfortable with technology. Therefore, I feel reasonably confident that it's not inexperience with or fear of technology that is holding us back. So if it's not the technology, perhaps it's the theory that's lacking. I can hypothesize that it may be a lack of understanding of the potential benefits of collaboration, and in particular, collaboration that focuses on analyzing the quality and context of student work. Again, this is supported by Suntisukwongchote (2006), as observed in the following teacher interview quote in which the researcher finds that most teachers were not confident in the benefits of using technology to collaborate: "Teachers do not know the pros and cons of having an e-mail and collaboration through the network and so on" (p. 31).

Spiraling into Cycle #2

So, I'm thinking about the results of Cycle #1. Not everything went as planned. For one thing, only about half of my teachers responded to my first survey and only 3 teachers responded to the poll on my blog. During common planning (CP) meetings, it is a constant struggle to keep teachers focused on the work. There is little time to be wasted, since CP is only 45 minutes long from bell to bell, and yet most teachers arrive at least 5 minutes late and some did not attend our last meeting at all. Part of the reason that two of our ELA teachers missed the last CP meeting is that they were temporarily transferred to the Math department to help prepare students for the state Math exam. I do not know the exact details of this temporary assignment.

During CP meetings, a large portion of the meeting is often consumed by sarcastic banter or the venting of frustrations. I'm not saying that it's not important or even vital for teachers to have time to vent, especially in a frustrating situation - it definitely is. However, there has to be some way of maximizing our productivity and making these meetings more efficient.

Because our time is so limited, I feel strongly that technology should be considered as one real option for building collegial relationships. However, the teachers in my study have not responded the way I thought they might. Our email list-serve been used more for individual crisis management than for really thoughtful, professional collaboration as a team. When I posed the reflective questions to the group about the student work we had analyzed together, I did not receive a single post to the discussion, in spite of the fact that I had originally listed Friday, February 29th, as the goal for responding.

What do I need to do for my next cycle of research and action? First, I need to figure out how the teachers are comfortable using technology and see if I can teach into that. Based on my data, the teachers did not fully engage in the collaborative process of analyzing student work - they did not respond at all to my prompt for reflection via email in Cycle #1. I have observed during our discussions a certain weak sense of agency among these teachers in that they seem to feel uncertain about their ability to make a difference through instruction. This has been found to be a common issue among urban teachers (Foster, Lewis & Onafowora, 2005). From their lack of response and my observations about their hesitance, I need to see if I can tap into the 'soul' of their teaching (Intrator & Kunzman, 2006) to get them more engaged in this collaborative process. Finally, I need to reintroduce the idea of looking at student work, this time with a sharper focus on how it can impact instruction.

Cycle #1 - action (part I)

Here are the first results of my Cycle #1 actions! Click on the hand-out to enlarge it to legible size. During a common planning meeting, teachers and I assessed the quality and context of this student writing work in order to see what we could learn from it. According to Garrison (2006), the most effective way to conduct formative assessment that impacts instructional practice is through the establishment of collaborative teams like ours.

We viewed this student's work via a projector and Smartboard, which allowed us to collaborate and mark up the text simultaneously. Portions of the student work that teachers discussed during our meeting are highlighted, with some comments alongside in word bubbles.

We used the Collaborative Assessment Conference protocol (McDonald et al, 2007) to examine this student's progress on her feature article writing. At this point, we were looking for a strong topic; a unique, focused angle; and a specific plan for research. Some things that the teachers noticed:

• K**** has an interesting topic that will probably be engaging to an audience of her peers.
• Although K**** does not have an angle listed, it appears that she might have an angle in mind. See the arrow indicating where this idea should go.
• K**** could benefit from some conferencing about what kinds of facts and statistics can strengthen a feature article.
• This student was successful in generating ideas for interviews and quotes. This could be used as a strength to 'teach into' when talking with K**** about other evidence to include.
• K**** might need some quiet writing time to reflect and expound upon her personal experiences with this topic.

After our collaborative meeting, I started an email list-serve with the teachers to reflect upon our discussion. In the email, I posed two questions based on the protocol: 1) What was particularly helpful or difficult for you in this collaboration? and 2) How will this experience impact your practice?

Cycle #1 - research & reflection (part III)

DATA: COMMON PLANNING NOTES
During a common planning meeting, teachers and I discussed their administrator's (and my organization's) stated goal of gathering data by analyzing student writing. At our training institute, the teachers were shown a Teacher Checklist (click on the title of this post to view) that could be used for formative assessment throughout the writing unit. The checklist was one way of helping us to focus on continuous and careful examination of each student's writing process. Here were several teachers' responses when we began to discuss the goal of sharing student work:

1. "How is student work a goal?"
2. "Isn't student work just anything the students write down?"
3. "Well, we are always looking at student work..."

There seemed to be a disconnection between the stated goals of the administration and the personal goals of the teaching staff. I realized that before we could start sharing and assessing student writing, I would need to try to provide some structure for what we would analyze and how we would collaborate.

The 'what' came pretty easily as I planned my action. The writing unit we were working on was already designed to provide lots of concrete evidence of a student's process: chart notes about the genre (feature articles), conference notes about topic & angle, discussion board posts about research. The 'how' was a little trickier to determine, but I decided that some structure would help.

I decided that my action would be to plan a meeting in which teachers analyzed a student's progress thus far in their Feature Articles writing unit. I accessed protocols from McDonald, Mohr, Dichter & McDonald (2007) at http://www.teacherscollegepress.com/ to organize our group process during this meeting and chose the Collaborative Assessment Conference protocol as the most appropriate for our initial attempt at collaboration. Here is the plan:

1. Display the student work on a Smartboard. The work should be the final planning sheet from TMI Feature Articles Handout 1.4 which details the student's choice of topic, angle and inquiry plan. The use of a Smartboard allows a large group of teachers to simultaneously view the work without wasting paper on copies which would likely be discarded anyway. It also protects a student's privacy against the possibility of others seeing the sample in the trash.
2. The student's ELA teacher will give a brief presentation of the work with a description of the context. Although the protocol calls for minimal context, I feel that it would be helpful in this case because these teachers have so little experience with collaboration. In addition, Dearman & Alber (2005) state that reflective conversations about student work should focus on assessing both the quality of the work as well as the context.
3. ELA team members take turns at the Smartboard describing what they see in the work. Another benefit of the Smartboard is that it allows teachers to make collaborative notes and see each other's thoughts displayed visually. Teachers can select, highlight or mark up the work as necessary without compromising the original piece. I will encourage participants to describe without evaluating as they discuss the work.
4. Team members will discuss, "What questions does this work raise for you?" The presenting teacher will listen and make notes.
5. Team member will discuss, "What do you think this student is working on?" My role will be to encourage rigorous thinking by pressing members for evidence from the work. At this point we may delineate student strengths and needs.
6. The presenting teacher will respond to any questions or discuss the work from his/her perspective.
7. Reflection - Most teachers have very little time in their schedule dedicated to collaboration (Korsheed, 2007). Since our common planning is typically only ~35 minutes, reflection will take place through the use of an email listserve. In addition, Burns (2006) has researched email as a reflective tool and found implications for its use with students; I feel that it would be equally useful for teachers to use this way because it allows some time for thought between the collaborative learning and the response.

Cycle #1 - research & reflection (part II)

DATA: PHOTOGRAPHS OF STUDENT WORK DISPLAYS
In my previous post I stated that I would post some photographs of student work once I could ensure privacy. Here are some photographs of the displays of student work I saw. The work pictured below is representative of other shared work that I observed as I toured schools: colorful, artistic/visual in nature, aesthetically pleasing, very little writing, often group work. Other displays (not pictured below) included "Personal Color Wheels" and line drawings of animals.

I did not observe any writing work displays with the exception of very brief responses to literature in the form of the "3-D Postcards" pictured below. This suggests to me that perhaps wall displays of writing are not favored by school personnel. I can hypothesize several possible reasons why: hesitation to display 'imperfect' work (spelling errors, typos, etc.); difficult to read small print or type while walking in the hall or seated at a distance in the classroom; difficulty getting a 'finished [written] product' out of individual students (as expressed to me by one administrator).

However, Dearman & Alber (2005) have stated that the purpose of viewing student work is to refine instructional strategies; this cannot occur if only certain types of student work are being considered. In addition, researchers (Dearman & Alber, 2005; Fisher, Lapp & Flood, 2005) have found that reflection on student work should include dialogue about the quality and context of the work. With only limited samples of work being displayed and very little information being provided about the context in which the work was produced, the schools in which I work are limiting their ability to have these types of reflective conversations.

One Laptop Per Child (in New York City)

So the connection to my project here is very loose, but...this was too cool not to share! The non-profit organization for whom I work has joined forces with Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child initiative and is piloting a project in NYC public schools using the laptops. The "XO" laptop has audio and video recording capability along with BETTER WIRELESS connectivity than your expensive Mac or PC - and it only costs $188! Check it out - here's a picture of me photographing the laptop while it videotapes me! Click on the title of this post to learn more.

Data Alignment

Listed below is a table showing how my data will align with my subquestions (Falk & Blumenreich, 2005, p. 67). Can anyone suggest any other questions or sources that I should include? Click on the table to enlarge it to a legible size.

Participants

I am working with English/Language Arts and Technology teachers in several New York City schools. For demographic information about the student population in each of my schools, please visit the following websites:
J.H.S. 216 (George J. Ryan) in Fresh Meadows, Queens
M.S. 321 (Minerva) in Washington Heights, Manhattan
Church of God Christian Academy (COGCA) in Far Rockaway, Queens
P.S./I.S. 323 in Brownsville, Brooklyn

Last night in Fieldwork class, we talked about the potential importance of background information when a researcher is studying teachers. So...here is some additional information about my participants' backgrounds.

Education/Training: 63% traditional 4-year preparation program including student teaching; 26% alternative preparation route (New York City Teaching Fellows or Teach for America); 11% without any formal preparation
Specialty/Expertise: 78% general education ELA; 11% special education ELA; 11% educational technology
Experience: 53% 3 years or less; 47% more than 3 years (I used the 3-year window because it is frequently the point where many teachers either burn out or decide to stay in the field)
Ethnicity: 58% White; 32% Black; 5% Asian/PI; 5% Hispanic; 0% Native American; 0% other

What else do you think I need to know about my teachers?

Perspectives & Biases

What perspectives and/or biases might you have that will impact how you will approach your question? (Falk & Blumenreich, 2005, p. 38)

I guess you could say that I am pretty biased when it comes to technology. I believe with my whole heart that it is absolutely essential for us as educators to bring our classrooms into the 21st century through the use of technology. Not doing so, in my opinion, borders on educational malpractice, especially in urban schools (see my "Use of Technology in Literacy Instruction" presentation, posted 2/17/08). This is my perspective as a teacher of children K-8.

When I taught elementary and middle school in Atlanta, technology was as integrated into our school day as books were. I have led my students on inquiry webquests, encouraged them to practice their fluency through electronic storybooks, communicated with them through e-mail and created collages from digital images. We webbed our thoughts using programs like Inspiration 8; they tracked their own progress through a website called Quia; they peer-edited in Google documents and published their writing on the internet.

Students are using technology to read and write all the time outside of school. They send each other text messages and instant messages. They e-mail each other. They communicate in a myriad of ways on social networking sites like MySpace or Facebook. Then they come to school and are told to write with pencil in their marble notebooks. This is creating a major disconnection between 'school' writing and 'real' writing for students and if it continues we will fail as educators to create true lifelong authors, readers or possibly learners. I believe that it is my job as a teacher to help students find connections between their 'real' lives and their academic ones. Technology is one way to do that.

Now that I have left the classroom to become a staff developer, my role and my focus has changed slightly. My research is focused on helping teachers, rather than students, to use technology to their benefit. However, my perspective remains the same: it is high time that we brought American schools into the 21st century.

Technology can make teachers' administrative and instructional tasks so much more efficient, thus helping to simplify an overly complex, mulit-tasked day. Grades can be automatically weighted and calculated, then posted securely online for parents, teachers and administrators to track from anywhere. Parents can contact school personnel from anywhere at any time using e-mail. All involved parties can collaborate around the work of students - sharing, commenting, praising, questioning, planning. Electronic calendars can be used collaboratively to keep everyone on track with events and assignments. The possibilities are endless.

So what does my perspective or bias mean for my research? It means that I need to be careful about making assumptions when it comes to teachers' confidence and competence with technology. Because many teachers are not already using technology, there may be a learning curve that needs to be addressed before I implement certain tools as the 'action' portion of my project. Also, I need to be aware that not every school or teacher has the funds to spend on new technology; therefore, I must be able to plan for only those tech tools that are already present, free or inexpensive to use.

Cycle #1 - research & reflection (part I)

DATA: TEACHER SURVEY RESULTS
For my first cycle of action research, I knew I needed to find out how (or whether) the teachers that I work with were already collaborating around student work. To do this, I collected two important pieces of data: 1) a survey of teachers' current practices and 2) photographs of student work that was currently being 'shared' (I will post these as soon as I can make sure all student identities are private).

I created a 10-question survey (see the results in my "Collaboration Survey" presentation embedded at the bottom of the blog) and posted it online. Throughout my research, I wanted to not only teach educators about the ways to use technology to collaborate, I also wanted to model some of these ways. So, that was one reason that I created an online survey rather than a written one. In addition, having the survey online would calculate results instantly (great for me), would allow respondents to see the cumulative results (interesting for teachers) and would allow teachers to take the survey whenever it was convenient for them. This last issue was important because it is one of the main reasons why I feel passionate about technology as an administrative and collaborative tool - it creates time and space in organizations where both are critically lacking (Johnston, Knight & Miller, 2007).

Because the results of my survey told me that most of the sharing of student work was happening through hallway and wall displays, I needed to find out exactly what this looked like. I toured my schools to see what kinds of student work was displayed. I found that these displays mostly consisted of eye-catching or aesthetically-pleasing types of work: tri-boards, colorful posters made by groups and art work. There was very little student writing posted on the walls of the classroom or hallways. It occurred to me again how technology can create spaces for sharing when physical spaces are already occupied.

Why not use the internet as a space for teachers to share student work? Teachers could quickly view each other's students' writing; parents could see in-progress work in a matter of minutes from their cubicle at work; students could read their peers shared writing and give feedback. After all, I thought, students and teachers are already using the internet for writing (instant messaging, social networking, emailing) - why not show them a way that they can also use it for the work they do at school?

Another thing that my survey told me was that teachers currently had very little time dedicated to collaboration. I am brainstorming ways that technology could create some flexible time for collaboration, discussion and reflection.

Official Research Question

The question that I plan to explore for my Master's Action Research Project is: how can I teach educators to use technology as a collaborative tool in examining student writing work to impact practice? Originally, I had planned to focus my question on teaching students. However, as a staff developer, my daily focus would be on training and educating teachers on ways to improve their literacy instruction; therefore, I felt that my work and my research would be better served by a question that also focused on teachers.

In an electronic environment, teachers can view student work at any stage from anywhere without carrying around huge volumes of notebooks and paper. They can also share student work easily with other teachers without depriving the student of their notebook for any length of time. It also eliminates the need for complicated time management among several teachers with very different lives and schedules and priorities. Teachers can collaborate online at home, at midnight or during lunch time at school.

I have experienced online collaboration with another teacher. We were both researching ways to improve student discourse during book club discussions. Because of our very different schedules, and because we wanted to collect data in the form of a transcript of our talk, I suggested that we use Google Talk to discuss the story. This way, we could easily monitor the length of our talk because it was right there on the screen; we could copy and paste a complete transcript of the discussion with no additional effort; and we could conduct the talk at a time and setting which worked for both of our schedules.

I have also explored other tools which could be used for professional collaboration. Nicenet, although it is designed for teachers and students, is useful because it allows private and public messaging, eliminating the need for lists of email addresses; it includes a schedule of upcoming events to keep everyone on pace; it functions somewhat like a wiki in the sense that both administrators and users can post conferencing topics and responses; and it has space for uploading documents which could easily take the form of student work upon which to collaborate. There is also an area of the environment in which users can post links; I can envision these links taking the form of ERIC documents related to the collaboration or even to YouTube videos which could provide models of practice.

Critical Incident One-Pager

There was a student named ***** at my fieldwork site last semester. She is reading below grade level but does not receive any additional time or attention from the classroom teacher. In spite of the fact that most of the other students in the class are able to comprehend grade-level text, ***** receives the same mini-lessons, the same amount of conference time, the same tools and the same absence of strategy group lessons or guiding reading as the rest of the class.

As part of a recent research project, I conducted an experiment on the impact that graphic organizers could have on the structure, engagement and proliferation of ideas in students’ writing and talking about their books. ***** was part of my experimental group and received the treatment of using a graphic organizer, an alphabet/story elements matrix. The class completed the assignments and I gathered my data, thinking that the experiment was over. Then ***** approached me.

“Miss Whitney, do you have any more of those charts?” she asked. “I think that really helped me understand the book.”

I was thrilled, of course, that I had done something to awaken understanding in one of my students. But I was also troubled – how many opportunities like this one had been missed by the lack of differentiation in the reading and writing workshops? Not all students are verbal/linguistic learners; some of these kids really need to create maps and diagrams, to sketch their envisionings or to dramatize what they see happening in their stories. Don’t students like *****, who may have some reading disabilities or gaps in their knowledge, need more time and attention? They need more hours, more explicit instruction, more scaffolding and more tools for support. I will finish with a quote from a former mentor: “Being fair doesn’t mean giving every child the same thing. Being fair means giving each child exactly what they need.”

Initial Reading Reflections

Almost every aspect of modern life is affected in some way by technology. Many people utilize technology from dawn to dusk to communicate; make decisions; reflect, gain, synthesize, evaluate or distribute information, among many other functions. One would be hard pressed to find a single professional, regardless of career field, going through an entire work day without touching a computer, PDA or other electronic device. However, the same level of technology use cannot be found in many schools, which are meant to prepare students for their future lives and careers in the ‘real’ world.

School districts struggling with funding issues may not have the financial capability to purchase state-of-the-art hardware or software. Teachers, especially the veterans of the profession who began their careers in an era largely free of technology, may lack adequate knowledge of the various electronic and digital tools available to them or training on how to use those tools effectively. Students may use technology more outside the classroom for enjoyment or communication without ever making the connection to its possibilities for their academic lives.

Research studies regarding the impact of technology on learning are woefully hard to find in today’s educational journals and literature. When such studies do exist, they are often limited either in scope of participants or applications, making the results difficult to generalize.

Technology can be used to bridge the early gap in exposure to print for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Internet-based reading programs are available. Students can access electronic books, interactive stories and leveled reading passages (Tracey & Young, 2005) or full texts through publicly available archives. If students lack hardware or internet access in the home, these resources can be accessed in the school building although use may be limited by space and time (Legutko, 2007). In addition, some districts may have access to reading software through federally funded programs or studies which often target specific skills and age groups (Means et al, 2007).

In addition, technology can be used to provide instructional opportunities for students where both parents work outside the home or work second- or third-shift. Microsoft NetMeeting is a tool included in older Microsoft operating systems that has web conferencing, audio, interactive whiteboard and chat capabilities (Legutko, 2007). Tutors and mentors can use this or another similar program such as a web-based instant messenger or e-mail to communicate with and instruct students whose parents may be unavailable for homework help in the afternoons or evenings (Burns, 2006).

Finally, technology can offer additional independent reinforcement for low-performing students in schools that cannot afford to lower teacher-student ratios. The studies show that students spent a greater portion of their day engaged in independent practice with teachers as facilitators and monitors when technology is integrated (Means et al, 2007). With the student leading his own independent practice and the technological tool providing support or feedback, technology can act as another teacher in the room when districts cannot afford to hire more teachers or paraprofessionals. In addition, mentors and tutors can be incorporated at little or no cost through web conferencing or chat tools (Burns, 2006).

Although a great deal of technology exists for use in the classroom as an instructional or administrative tool, there has been very little research conducted on its effectiveness outside the arena of reading comprehension. This justifies a call for increased study on the topic, not only on specific software products, but on more specific and diverse outcomes such as reading motivation, engagement and metacognition. In the meantime, there are many benefits that can be enjoyed by both educators and students – greater and more affordable access to leveled texts, more time spent on independent practice, increased access to tutors and mentors and variable effects on technological savvy and reading engagement.