Cycle Two
For my second cycle of Action Research I began meeting weekly with a group of four 6th grade teachers. These teachers had been asked to pilot the implementation of a one to one iPad program for the 2013-2014 academic year; our weekly meetings are a formal way to share, plan, and assess the variety of ways that iPads can be used in their classrooms. By joining their meeting as a “technology expert” my hope was that I could help to guide a collaborative learning community where the teachers inspired and taught each other. In reflecting on my first cycle’s positive results I sought to understand the work of a tech steward in a group setting:
How will collaboration between a technology steward and a small group of teachers impact the spread of knowledge and innovation among the group.
By seeking to understand their experiences in being mandated to adopt a new technology in their classrooms I hope to be able to effectively cultivate similar innovator groups elsewhere on campus. By working with a group I want to know the best ways to help harness the group member’s individual experiences and ideas in a collectively beneficial way. Essentially, rather than relying on a single expert technology user, I began this cycle hopeful that by working in a group environment I’d be able to help create a clear path for each member’s expertise to reach the others.
In providing the tools and the space for group collaboration and inspiration to take place I had sought to understand the ways in which a technology steward can help to spur innovation not by demonstrating, but simply by encouraging and assembling the tools and environment for collaboration.
Working with a group for the second cycle, as compared to a one on one partnership in my first cycle, presented a surprise for me that in retrospect is obvious. In our weekly meetings each member of the team had less accountability than both MJ and I felt when it was just two people. With a total of five people in each meeting, a group member could be unprepared or mentally elsewhere without that being apparent to other group members. The group size also meant that faculty may have felt ok about coming unprepared to the meetings, in the hope that someone else would come ready to share. This lack of personal accountability in our group may not occur in every group situation, but a group dynamic enhances the likelihood of this compared to two people working together. In my first cycle if MJ or I were unable to have given thought and action to our work we would have rescheduled our meeting to allow for thoughtful preparation. Accountability can be necessary for some to ensure that work and ideas are followed through with action.
When a shared Evernote folder was introduced to teachers, it was my hope that by providing the space for collaboration and discussing it in person, our faculty would be able to take the lead. I was hesitant to dominate the in-person or online conversation too much; I felt that by always being the first to contribute or the most vocal contributor I would be taking ownership away from the faculty. In looking back on this with my learning circle it became apparent that until I was able to actually demonstrate the ways that our Evernote folder could be used, the tool would go unused. After this discovery with my learning circle I chose an iPad app that I had been working on with an Upper School class, Creative Book Builder, and wrote up a description of how it was being used in a French class and the ways that it might be used in a 6th grade curriculum. In addition to a written description I included a YouTube link for a demonstration of the product as well as a link to the app developer’s website. This demonstration of one of the ways in which Evernote could be used helped to guide a number of behaviors: sharing details about great project ideas or tools to implement, a modeling of the type of notes that could be created and shared, and identified colleagues outside of our group whose opinions and expertise could be called upon.
In discussing with my learning circle, along with other trusted colleagues, the stop and go of progress I felt during this cycle, it became clear to me where I steered my group wrong as a steward. In thinking about what made my first cycle so successful was that I was there for MJ as a steward in helping to guide her class where she wanted it to go. Our relationship started with a lengthy conversation, largely by MJ, about her take on technology and her hopes and fears for her classroom. With this knowledge I was able to recommend tools and ideas that fit in with her teaching methodology and philosophical approach to technology. Tools were adopted quickly because they were all centered on her needs and wants. MJ adopted these tools rapidly and innovated beyond them due to a collaboration that focused on her needs.
I lost this connection when I started meeting with a larger group. Rather than knowing each teacher individually, I knew each teacher in the context of the group. I brought ideas and tools to our group that I thought held mass appeal, but they weren’t specifically targeted towards an individual in the same way that my work with MJ was. While I worked with teachers individually, such as JB’s interest in the way I use Twitter, it was still about an interest of mine and not necessarily an interest of his. This is confirmed by the fact that JB has not adopted Twitter as a tool for exploration of new apps and curricular ideas.
In order for this group to harness their collective power, I think that the best approach that I can have as a steward is to meet with them individually. This type of individualized approach would allow me to customize suggestions and support towards each of their varied needs and interests. I wonder in what ways this individualized attention will impact the use and usefulness of the collaborative work and sharing that was setup during this cycle.
How will collaboration between a technology steward and a small group of teachers impact the spread of knowledge and innovation among the group.
By seeking to understand their experiences in being mandated to adopt a new technology in their classrooms I hope to be able to effectively cultivate similar innovator groups elsewhere on campus. By working with a group I want to know the best ways to help harness the group member’s individual experiences and ideas in a collectively beneficial way. Essentially, rather than relying on a single expert technology user, I began this cycle hopeful that by working in a group environment I’d be able to help create a clear path for each member’s expertise to reach the others.
In providing the tools and the space for group collaboration and inspiration to take place I had sought to understand the ways in which a technology steward can help to spur innovation not by demonstrating, but simply by encouraging and assembling the tools and environment for collaboration.
Working with a group for the second cycle, as compared to a one on one partnership in my first cycle, presented a surprise for me that in retrospect is obvious. In our weekly meetings each member of the team had less accountability than both MJ and I felt when it was just two people. With a total of five people in each meeting, a group member could be unprepared or mentally elsewhere without that being apparent to other group members. The group size also meant that faculty may have felt ok about coming unprepared to the meetings, in the hope that someone else would come ready to share. This lack of personal accountability in our group may not occur in every group situation, but a group dynamic enhances the likelihood of this compared to two people working together. In my first cycle if MJ or I were unable to have given thought and action to our work we would have rescheduled our meeting to allow for thoughtful preparation. Accountability can be necessary for some to ensure that work and ideas are followed through with action.
When a shared Evernote folder was introduced to teachers, it was my hope that by providing the space for collaboration and discussing it in person, our faculty would be able to take the lead. I was hesitant to dominate the in-person or online conversation too much; I felt that by always being the first to contribute or the most vocal contributor I would be taking ownership away from the faculty. In looking back on this with my learning circle it became apparent that until I was able to actually demonstrate the ways that our Evernote folder could be used, the tool would go unused. After this discovery with my learning circle I chose an iPad app that I had been working on with an Upper School class, Creative Book Builder, and wrote up a description of how it was being used in a French class and the ways that it might be used in a 6th grade curriculum. In addition to a written description I included a YouTube link for a demonstration of the product as well as a link to the app developer’s website. This demonstration of one of the ways in which Evernote could be used helped to guide a number of behaviors: sharing details about great project ideas or tools to implement, a modeling of the type of notes that could be created and shared, and identified colleagues outside of our group whose opinions and expertise could be called upon.
In discussing with my learning circle, along with other trusted colleagues, the stop and go of progress I felt during this cycle, it became clear to me where I steered my group wrong as a steward. In thinking about what made my first cycle so successful was that I was there for MJ as a steward in helping to guide her class where she wanted it to go. Our relationship started with a lengthy conversation, largely by MJ, about her take on technology and her hopes and fears for her classroom. With this knowledge I was able to recommend tools and ideas that fit in with her teaching methodology and philosophical approach to technology. Tools were adopted quickly because they were all centered on her needs and wants. MJ adopted these tools rapidly and innovated beyond them due to a collaboration that focused on her needs.
I lost this connection when I started meeting with a larger group. Rather than knowing each teacher individually, I knew each teacher in the context of the group. I brought ideas and tools to our group that I thought held mass appeal, but they weren’t specifically targeted towards an individual in the same way that my work with MJ was. While I worked with teachers individually, such as JB’s interest in the way I use Twitter, it was still about an interest of mine and not necessarily an interest of his. This is confirmed by the fact that JB has not adopted Twitter as a tool for exploration of new apps and curricular ideas.
In order for this group to harness their collective power, I think that the best approach that I can have as a steward is to meet with them individually. This type of individualized approach would allow me to customize suggestions and support towards each of their varied needs and interests. I wonder in what ways this individualized attention will impact the use and usefulness of the collaborative work and sharing that was setup during this cycle.
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