Cycle Three
Reflecting on the work of my second cycle I wanted to try something different with my approach to the group of 6th grade teachers I had been working with. In addition to meeting weekly as a group, I wanted to setup individual meetings with as many group members as possible. By meeting individually I anticipated that I would be able to make a more direct connection personally and professionally with each member of the group, and in doing so be able to better offer more interesting and compelling technology ideas for their classes. By attempting to better understand each group member’s individual motivations and concerns with technology in their classroom, it only makes sense that my ability to support and enhance their work would be improved. In beginning this cycle I expected that by focusing more on individuals, I would be able to see concrete changes to classroom lessons as well as an increase in the use and effectiveness of the collaborative tools introduced in cycle two.
In examining my role during this third cycle I’m struck by how vital it is for a technology integrationist to know his or her audience. Both DMV and JB both explicitly welcomed a variety of ways in which an integrationist could support his or her classes. DMV is correct when he pointed to the importance of who the integrationist is: the interpersonal relationship and trust needed between a classroom teacher and an “outside expert” makes or breaks the possibility of enhancing rather than detracting from the work.
All teachers will approach their classroom, and the potential for integrating technology, in a personal way. Without understanding this personal approach it becomes much more challenging to find the easiest angle to work towards a goal (without knowing the teacher, the goal is another unknown). When a conversation is opened up to explore a teacher’s pedagogy, the work of an integrationist is made easy: curate and exhibit the ideas most likely to engage the teacher, while helping to overcome the challenges and impediments that are identified.
To me, this is a powerful realization of the true challenging work of an integrationist: building relationships. While I’m a social person and have always found it easy to forge friendships and positive relationships in the workplace, there’s no doubt that there is a limit to the colleagues that are a good fit with my personality and approach. I don’t intend this in a negative way for my colleagues or myself, rather just as a statement of inevitability. This does not mean that those colleagues with which an integrationist can not form a solid relationship are out of luck; an integrationist, if effective, will have multiple entry points for teachers. The work done during cycle two in trying to cultivate a learning community replete with collaborative tools can give an entry point for a teacher more likely to trust a fellow teacher than an outside expert. By showcasing great lessons, tools, and ideas an integrationist can provide a community with the ability to self-direct their own experimentation, and provide them a means to engage and collaborate with each other.
In examining my role during this third cycle I’m struck by how vital it is for a technology integrationist to know his or her audience. Both DMV and JB both explicitly welcomed a variety of ways in which an integrationist could support his or her classes. DMV is correct when he pointed to the importance of who the integrationist is: the interpersonal relationship and trust needed between a classroom teacher and an “outside expert” makes or breaks the possibility of enhancing rather than detracting from the work.
All teachers will approach their classroom, and the potential for integrating technology, in a personal way. Without understanding this personal approach it becomes much more challenging to find the easiest angle to work towards a goal (without knowing the teacher, the goal is another unknown). When a conversation is opened up to explore a teacher’s pedagogy, the work of an integrationist is made easy: curate and exhibit the ideas most likely to engage the teacher, while helping to overcome the challenges and impediments that are identified.
To me, this is a powerful realization of the true challenging work of an integrationist: building relationships. While I’m a social person and have always found it easy to forge friendships and positive relationships in the workplace, there’s no doubt that there is a limit to the colleagues that are a good fit with my personality and approach. I don’t intend this in a negative way for my colleagues or myself, rather just as a statement of inevitability. This does not mean that those colleagues with which an integrationist can not form a solid relationship are out of luck; an integrationist, if effective, will have multiple entry points for teachers. The work done during cycle two in trying to cultivate a learning community replete with collaborative tools can give an entry point for a teacher more likely to trust a fellow teacher than an outside expert. By showcasing great lessons, tools, and ideas an integrationist can provide a community with the ability to self-direct their own experimentation, and provide them a means to engage and collaborate with each other.
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