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.