Cycle One
I began cycle one of my action research with the goal of helping teachers who were not using technology at my school explore the value of technological innovations. My strategy was to partner with a 9th grade History and English teacher who I will refer to as MJ. My first cycle research question is:
How will individual collaboration between a technology integrationist and a teacher impact a teacher’s ability and desire to further utilize technology in their classroom?
I hoped that by working individually with a teacher, there would be opportunities to introduce a variety of new project ideas to MJ, help her gain new skills and tech confidence, and be able to identify teaching innovations on the part of MJ that went beyond the planned tech tools. By building a partnership with a single teacher as opposed to leading a group, it was my belief that there would be a greater ability to maintain flexibility in our approach and timeline.
By providing direct collaboration between a technology specialist and a teacher, cycle one suggests that it was possible to generate excitement about technology tools and to engage a teacher in these tools beyond a demonstrated idea. MJ was ready to adopt a web forum for her class after only 2 meetings, suggesting that that the obstacles that had prevented her from doing this in the past were small, but challenging. In her consistent and profuse thanks to me for my collaboration, it was clear that having me as a safety net and collaborator provided the means for her to try out new ideas.
MJ was in charge of her class during this cycle just as she had been for the close to 20 years she has taught at this school, but the presence of a collaborator gave her the ability to “braid the pieces” of technology together. While Diigo was not a new website or tool for MJ, sharing the responsibility of content creation with her students however was a brand new initiative. Partnering with a technology specialist did not stop errors or glitches from occurring, but they did prevent these glitches from putting a halt to the technological work being attempted.
The adoption of Diigo as a class tool for collaboration has been rapid, with 22 separate articles posted to the site in just 3 days. This level of participation is exciting though perhaps misleading. When looking at the collection, the most “views” that any of these newly posted resources had is five, with most having two, one, or zero views on Diigo. There has not been enough time or direction at this point for long-term collaboration to have taken place, though it is great to see a veteran teacher trying out a new space for learning.
The obstacles to technology adoption that I had thought about when considering my work environment held some truth. MJ confirmed that she felt a complete lack of time to try something new, a nervousness associated with knowing whether something new would be effective, and a potential lack of self-interest in technology for her class. A real surprise was how minor, to me, some of the obstacles to adoption were for my partner. All it took for MJ to want to try a technology integration project was a willing collaborator, a demonstration of the tool, and engaged dialogue. I thought that there may have been difficulty finding a project that MJ would be excited about, or that the project would be problematic due to tech hurdles for students or disengagement in an online space, neither of which proved to be true.
By engaging with MJ’s needs in a respectful and curious way I was able to understand why she was afraid of technology in her class, and offer suggestions of something that held potential to enhance the dialogue she valued so highly. By listening to a particular teacher’s needs, rather than trying to force a particular methodology or tool, I realize that the chances of an excited and engaged teacher grew significantly. This type of work requires that the technology specialist wants to work with and for the teacher, not have the teacher simply do as they say. As I move forward with my second cycle, looking at the ways in which a technology specialist can work with a group of teachers, it is crucial to keep this sense of collaboration and partnership vibrant and true.
How will individual collaboration between a technology integrationist and a teacher impact a teacher’s ability and desire to further utilize technology in their classroom?
I hoped that by working individually with a teacher, there would be opportunities to introduce a variety of new project ideas to MJ, help her gain new skills and tech confidence, and be able to identify teaching innovations on the part of MJ that went beyond the planned tech tools. By building a partnership with a single teacher as opposed to leading a group, it was my belief that there would be a greater ability to maintain flexibility in our approach and timeline.
By providing direct collaboration between a technology specialist and a teacher, cycle one suggests that it was possible to generate excitement about technology tools and to engage a teacher in these tools beyond a demonstrated idea. MJ was ready to adopt a web forum for her class after only 2 meetings, suggesting that that the obstacles that had prevented her from doing this in the past were small, but challenging. In her consistent and profuse thanks to me for my collaboration, it was clear that having me as a safety net and collaborator provided the means for her to try out new ideas.
MJ was in charge of her class during this cycle just as she had been for the close to 20 years she has taught at this school, but the presence of a collaborator gave her the ability to “braid the pieces” of technology together. While Diigo was not a new website or tool for MJ, sharing the responsibility of content creation with her students however was a brand new initiative. Partnering with a technology specialist did not stop errors or glitches from occurring, but they did prevent these glitches from putting a halt to the technological work being attempted.
The adoption of Diigo as a class tool for collaboration has been rapid, with 22 separate articles posted to the site in just 3 days. This level of participation is exciting though perhaps misleading. When looking at the collection, the most “views” that any of these newly posted resources had is five, with most having two, one, or zero views on Diigo. There has not been enough time or direction at this point for long-term collaboration to have taken place, though it is great to see a veteran teacher trying out a new space for learning.
The obstacles to technology adoption that I had thought about when considering my work environment held some truth. MJ confirmed that she felt a complete lack of time to try something new, a nervousness associated with knowing whether something new would be effective, and a potential lack of self-interest in technology for her class. A real surprise was how minor, to me, some of the obstacles to adoption were for my partner. All it took for MJ to want to try a technology integration project was a willing collaborator, a demonstration of the tool, and engaged dialogue. I thought that there may have been difficulty finding a project that MJ would be excited about, or that the project would be problematic due to tech hurdles for students or disengagement in an online space, neither of which proved to be true.
By engaging with MJ’s needs in a respectful and curious way I was able to understand why she was afraid of technology in her class, and offer suggestions of something that held potential to enhance the dialogue she valued so highly. By listening to a particular teacher’s needs, rather than trying to force a particular methodology or tool, I realize that the chances of an excited and engaged teacher grew significantly. This type of work requires that the technology specialist wants to work with and for the teacher, not have the teacher simply do as they say. As I move forward with my second cycle, looking at the ways in which a technology specialist can work with a group of teachers, it is crucial to keep this sense of collaboration and partnership vibrant and true.
Reception of Innovative Technnology in the Classroom: Curating Ideas Through Action Research
David Levin
Pepperdine University Learning Technologies Cadre 15
David Levin
Pepperdine University Learning Technologies Cadre 15