Cycle Three: Building Mentoring Relationships
The purpose of this third cycle was to continue working one-on-one with the participating teachers, and to increase communication with these teachers to further develop mentoring relationships with the three. After spending much of the second cycle focusing on the use of the Edublogs platform, all three teachers expressed an interest in integrating iPads into their classrooms. With that in mind, I developed a day-long training for all three participants addressing iPad integration in learning activities.
Research Question:
How can I personalize instructional technology professional development to support teachers in their creation and attainment of technology integration goals?
Cycle Three Question:
If I focus on building mentoring relationships with teachers while working with them on technology professional development, how will it impact teacher use of technology and attitudes toward developing technological skills?
Action Taken:
While still meeting with the participating teachers on a fairly consistent basis, the scheduled sessions began to decline as the teachers became more involved in end of the year preparations. To allow the participating teachers to fully focus on technology professional development, I obtained approval and support from school administration to develop and carry out a day-long training for all three participants addressing iPad integration in learning activities. The schedule for the day involved a visit to an area school with a 1:1 iPad program in grades prekindergarten through four, lunch as a group to discuss our observations and possible application of ideas with the devices we have available, and time in our school conference room to try out a few of the apps we had seen utilized.
To promote continued communication with these teachers, I implemented a weekly "check in" email to inquire if there was any technology related question or issue with which I could assist.
Evidence Collected:
I collected the following evidence during this cycle: field notes, a listing of all interactions with the participating teachers, action research journal reflections, blog posts (newsletters, images and portfolio items) created by participating teachers, and portions of the TAC (Teachers' Attitudes Toward Computers) Questionnaire. Field notes were dictated or written immediately after meeting with participants. They focused on the interactions between the participants and me, questions or concerns that arose and plans for future training. Journal reflections were posted to my action research blog. The number, frequency and complexity of the teacher blog posts were documented at the end of the cycle. Only the portions of the TAC (Teachers' Attitudes Toward Computers) Questionnaire correlating with enjoyment, anxiety, and semantic perceptions were administered at the end of cycle three to determine if there had been any change in the attitudes of these teachers toward technology.
Analysis:
As the third cycle began, we moved into the last few months of the school year. During this time of year, more and more is expected of teachers in regards to testing, gathering student artifacts, preparing for performances, and end of year activities. This limited the time the participating teachers were available to work on technology professional development and made it necessary to discontinue weekly sessions and utilize more spontaneous interactions to continue providing training and support. Throughout cycle three, I documented all interactions I had with these teachers in which I was able to assist them with learning about technology or solving some technology-related issue. These interactions included:
- 7 scheduled sessions
- 6 impromptu sessions
- 12 conversational resolutions, and
- 10 emailed resolutions.
Teacher Interactions
While the number of scheduled sessions decreased, the number of impromptu sessions and conversational resolutions remained consistent with the numbers from cycle two. The number of email resolutions increased, and a number of these began with my weekly "check in" emails to the participating teachers.
To determine a measurable outcome from our work together, I continued to monitor the frequency and complexity of the blog posts and recorded the total number generated in cycle three by each participating teacher.
Number of Blog Posts During Cycle Three
With the end of the school year approaching, DH focused on uploading artifacts to each student's portfolio. For each student, she successfully posted three items to their portfolio page. Each post contained images of student work taken with a classroom iPad and uploaded to the blog using the Edublog app. This is a more complex process than DH had been used in cycle two, and it demonstrates her continued effort to master and simplify the process of uploading items to the blogs using both the website and iPad app.
Student Portfolio Items Uploaded by DH
Though AP did not post any material to the classroom blog, she did upload an item to each student portfolio. This was a rather ambitious post, since it was a video of a student presentation that she filmed on the classroom iPad. From there, she had to upload each video to YouTube and then embed the video in a portfolio blog post. The process was rather challenging, since prior to this work, she did not even have a YouTube account.
Student Portfolio Item Uploaded by AP
In early May, I took the three participating teachers to an
area school with a 1:1 iPad program in grades PK-4 through four. We spent the
morning observing classrooms, engaging in discussions with classroom teachers
and interviewing students about their experiences using the iPads as a learning
tool. When finished, we continued our group discussion over lunch, and upon
returning to school worked together to experiment with a few of the apps we had
seen earlier in the day. After the day long training, one of the participating
teachers said, "This has shown me what (kindergarten) students can
do with an iPad. I never thought they could do so much." During
our lunch conversation, one teacher expressed relief that the iPads had not
been used for everything in the classroom. "I thought they would
use them for everything, and the children wouldn't be able to work together on
more hands-on activities." Upon returning to school, DH had a
lengthy conversation with an administrator about what she had seen and her
interest in trying to emulate it in her classroom. All of the feedback I
received from this day was positive and included ideas of how devices might be
used in the classroom with students. With only our conversations before, during
and after the event to measure these changes, my findings are not based on quantitative,
but on qualitative data, I feel secure in stating that there was an improvement
in both attitude and confidence in these teachers.
At the end of cycle three, I asked my participating teachers to complete the TAC Questionnaire as a tool to determine if any change had occurred in their interest, comfort and attitudes toward technology. Since I was looking specifically at these three subsets, I administered the three sections of the test pertaining to them, the first two consisting of fifteen questions each and the final consisting of a semantic differential scale of ten adjective pairs. With the end of cycle three coinciding with the end of the school year, one of my participants, DG, was unavailable to complete the questionnaire, so I was only able to compare results for DH and AP. Using this tool, I found very little change in the resulting scores.
TAC Comparisons
Reflections:
The Actions:
As the school year ended, the time these teachers could devote to technology PD quickly declined. With that understanding, we discontinued our scheduled meetings and I implemented a weekly “check-in” email to see if they had questions, concerns, or needed assistance with technology use. These emails kept the line of communication open and helped the teachers in two ways. First, it reassured them that I was indeed available to assist them. Second, it served as a reminder to them to keep thinking about technology and its use. When I began analyzing my data at the end of the cycle, I was surprised to see the number of technology related interactions I had with them in a time frame of less than two months. As I reviewed my notes, I came to realize that more than 50% of these interactions had been a direct result of my “check-in” emails.
When I queried my participants if there had been one technique or approach we had used that had the most positive impact, all three stated the school visit and daylong session had been the most meaningful to them. The ability to see the result of technology integration in action, and the opportunity speak with the students about their perceptions of how the technology worked in their classrooms, was the most effective in improving their attitudes toward technology use. Our group conversation at lunch was the most positive I had with these teachers. Not present were the usual statements focusing on the obstacles to technology integration, such as the lack of time and an attitude that what they were already doing was sufficient. They shared ideas and brainstormed possible ways to integrate the technology we have available into their classrooms. The conversation lacked the tone of “I have to do this,” and appeared to reflect an attitude of “I want to do this.” Our day spent together was incredibly productive with the lengthy school visit, hour long lunch discussion, and two hours spent experimenting with iPad apps that had interested them earlier in the day.
The Researcher:
In examining my role during this third cycle, I was struck by how vital ongoing communication with participants is necessary for successful technology PD. These interactions must continue beyond the actual training sessions and, as I found through my work on this project, can become a crucial part of the learning process. I also came to understand that it is the presence of mentoring relationships within the context of technology PD that is most effective in improving teacher attitudes towards the use of technology in and out of the classroom. I have come to realize that the time spent building meaningful trust relationships with these teachers holds as much, if not more benefit than time spent creating videos and materials for training sessions. As a technology steward in my workplace, I will move forward in my work with colleagues with this understanding, and it will influence my planning for training in the future.
Crafting an effective technology PD program is not an easy task, and implementing it is even more challenging. Teachers often find themselves working in isolation from their colleagues, and this is most damaging when teachers are attempting to bring new elements into their classrooms. Without the sharing of ideas and experiences, teachers often find themselves losing confidence in what they are trying to accomplish and reverting to old techniques. With this and the idea of situated learning in mind, I developed the immersive, daylong training session with all three participants. I have a tendency to be an introverted person, so taking on the leadership role in planning and implementing this day, working with peers from a different school, was challenging for me. The process demonstrated to me how important it is to be assertive, and that my leadership abilities are directly impacted by my perception of myself in a leadership role.
For me, this experience, and its positive outcome illustrated how effective alternative PD formats can be in changing teacher attitudes toward and confidence in the use of technology. I enjoyed being creative with my structure for this daylong session, and I will continue to seek out innovative, meaningful, and accessible ways to construct technology PD in the future.