To show mastery in PLO 8, I used my EDU671 final presentation, which was an action research proposal. The link to this original assignment can be found here:
After viewing the original assignment, my redesigned work for EDU697 is below.
Week Five
Assignment: PLO 8
Dyane Plumly
EDU697
Dr. Philip
Orlando, Ed. Spec
July 28, 2014
Introduction
The assignment
that I have elected to redesign to match Program Learning
Outcome 8 “demonstrate the ability to
make informed decisions regarding the use of technology in support of learning
and leadership” is the EDU671 final assignment. In EDU671, we were required to
create an action research proposal. In mine, I proposed the idea of using
School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS). In this
plan, I focused heavily on creating change in my classroom. I also focused on
the potential for collaboration and leadership through technology, but did not
focus on the specifics of how this would be accomplished. I elected to redesign
this assignment because I wanted the opportunity to formulate now only the
“what” of the action research proposal, but also the “how” in specific regards
to leadership and technology. In
this narrative, I have also included a discussion regarding the ability o make
informed decisions regarding technology, particularly in its support of
leadership, as well as a reflection on the challenges of this redesign work.
Principles & Theory
According to
Wagner and Ice (2012), learning analytics are shaping the way that students
engage and learn with technology. They note that “Learning analytics provide
the tools, technologies, and platforms to empower educators to open the door on
meaningful learning experiences that can engage, inspire, and prepare current
and future students for success.” Learning analytics allow learners to not only
have a more personalized experience, but to also access the information they
desire more quickly because of the data “breadcrumbs” left behind that provide
information about a person’s habits. According to Edge (2012), the most
important connection is the one between people and it highlights the fact that
we are becoming a data-driven society. In my redesign, it was my hope to make a
connection between the technology that was used to monitor student’s habits
online and offline in an effort to support better behaviors in the
classroom/school.
In short,
both resources suggest that making informed decisions about how and why we use
technology in the classroom is critical for educators. It is imperative that
the technology decisions we make are smart, but also ones that benefit our
students as we push them forward to becoming college and career ready in an
ever-evolving digital world. And as we make these strides toward technology
integration in our classrooms, we must also act as innovative leaders.
Yet,
educators must also remember that technology is only a tool, it is the way in which it is used that
makes it effective. As a teacher-leader, the technology choices that we might
for instruction and change must match our end
goal.
Newby,
Stepich, Lehman, Russell, and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2011) state that “The strategic selection of
media is based upon the needs of the learners, the desired outcome, and the
constraints of the environment, as well as what methods and activities need to
be supported.” For example, in my own classroom, I use a learning management
system to facilitate discussions. According to Ubell (2010) information sharing
is often done through a Learning Management System (LMS) which offers many
services housed in one central, administratively controlled, place. Ubell
(2010) also states that discussion forums are the most frequent form of
communication between team members and offers both synchronous and asynchronous
opportunities for communication and collaboration. In addition to this LMS, I
use synchronous and asynchronous Web 2.0 tools, such as Google Drive, to work
in real-time with my students over their assignments and projects. These are
examples of technology tools that match the learning need. Yet, these
integrations are a major shift for my students and required great support.
Ubell notes that critically thinking learners do not suddenly emerge - they
must be developed by the facilitator. Ubell (2010) states “For virtual teams to succeed, instructors must
encourage students to practice collaborative skills — giving and receiving
help, sharing and explaining content, and offering feedback but also
interrogation, critique, challenge, argument, and conflict.” These are skills
that must be taught - and not only to students, but also to educators who must
participate in the change. However, for the redesign, the focus was on using
technology to monitor, track, and share student behavior. Due to this, the technologies
varied drastically from what is commonly used in my classroom. New technologies
had to be selected in order to best the match the current need – implementing SW-PBIS.
The implementation
of such a drastic change in behavior expectations for the redesigned EDU671
assignment requires leadership. Leadership, particularly when using technology,
requires careful decision-making. These decisions guide the framework and
scaffold the course and what students learn. It requires “judgment, compromise,
tradeoff, and creativity,” and this requires leadership on behalf of the
educator. (Horton, 2012).
Lastly, as a
leader, particularly with technology integration and changing the way we teach
in our classrooms, there are several aspects that must be highlighted: the need
for buy-in from stakeholders (i.e. sharing small wins and accepting varying
levels of resistance), the readiness to determine nonnegotiables, and the
ability to maintain scale and sustainability. People (educators, learners,
administrators, parents/guardians, etc.) must feel empowered and accept the
changes of how we teach in the classroom. These aspects of leadership must be
addressed when choosing our technology needs and implementing any type of change
or technology integration and will be discussed in depth in the redesign of the
original action research proposal.
Redesign
In
the original EDU671 assignment, I did not outline specific technology tools that
I would use and only made generic references to the use of technology. I had only
simply noted that technology would be a critical resource in the implementation
of SW-PBIS and that the use of Chromebooks and iPad apps would be needed. Yet,
in this opportunity to delve deeper into this assignment, the necessity to
specify the technological tools for instructional/behavior use is critical
because as Newby, Stepich, Lehman, Russell, and Ottenbreit-Leftwich
(2011) note, “The
strategic selection of media is based upon the needs of the learners, the
desired outcome, and the constraints of the environment, as well as what
methods and activities need to be supported.” As a result, the specific
technologies that will be used in this action research proposal are Happara,
GoGuardian, and ClassDojo. Happara and GoGuardian are both tools that can be
used to monitor student use of computers (to both blacklist and whitelist sites
for student use and monitor their history). In encouraging positive behavior,
student computer use will be monitored and rewarded for appropriate use of
their computer and effective and responsible use of their time on the Internet.
In connection to this, the iPad app, ClassDojo, will be used to track student
behaviors – both positive and negative. This will allow us to track student
behaviors to not only continue to motivate and encourage positive behaviors
with students, but to track and monitor progress of behavior throughout the
SW-PBIS implementation progress. These are smart technology decisions that
match the desired outcome and will help to enforce the specific action plan
proposed.
Yet, in order to
have any success with SW-PBIS, a leader must also create buy-in from the
stakeholders of the proposed change. In this scenario, the stakeholders of
SW-PBIS are the teachers in the school (there are four of us), the students,
parents/guardians, probation, and administrators. Since the changes directly impact all parties
involved, there must appropriate collaboration for implementation in order for
the change to effectively occur. When analyzing the stakeholders and the change
being implemented, the proverb “It takes a village to raise a child” truly comes
to light. By actively engaging the all stakeholders, some of who may oppose the
action research plan, in the collaborative and creation process, it “will add
value and[...] they may be persuaded to appreciate the value of the change
strategy by being part of its development” (Spiro, 2011, p. 54). In this way,
stakeholders will be invited to the creation of the SW-PBIS rules (for location
specific posters described in original assignment) and as part of the
monitoring and analysis meetings that will occur throughout the year.
Once buy-in is
initially established, a critical component of the leadership aspect of PLO 8
is to also maintain it. In order to ensure buy-in and that SW-PBIS continues to
evolve and develop throughout the year, small wins will be shared throughout
the year. Spiro (2011) notes that having
small, early wins is imperative in order to demonstrate to participants and
stakeholders that the change outcome is feasible and beneficial. An essential
part of having these small, early wins is to have documentation and to share
this information for those involved and impacted by the change. Spiro (2011)
continues to discuss how these early wins must also meet certain requirements:
tangible and observable, achievable, having more benefits than losses,
nonthreatening to its opponents, and maintains the values of the organization.
In addition to not having early wins, Spiro (2011) notes other mistakes that
leaders may make are not using enough data, not reaching or moving toward the
final objective, and not publicizing the wins and positive outcomes enough. In
the original assignment, there are timeline and data collection slides. As data
(particularly with the use of ClassDojo) is collected about the success of
SW-PBIS according to the timeline, this information will be shared. Electronic
newsletters and an email will be sent out to keep stakeholders informed,
celebratory moments will be had in the classrooms with students and teachers
with PowerPoints to show progress, and a blog will be created to track the
learning that occurs throughout the year. In this way, the technology used will
support the leadership needed to support SW-PBIS.
Spiro (2011) also asks several critical
questions that can be used to guide a leader’s assessment of readiness for
scale and sustainability. When considering these questions and responses, the
leader (myself, as the creator of the action research proposal) is willing to
identify the program elements that are nonnegotiable. As a result of this, the
leader of this change can also understand that not every part of the program is
essential. Increasing positive student behaviors are what is nonnegotiable in
this proposal – the action steps and specific implementation may vary. This
flexibility will be negotiated with the stakeholders, particularly as we
progress throughout the year and monitor the progress.
In this redesign, the scale and
sustainability are also newly addressed. In this
context, scale includes both the breadth and depth of the
implemented change (Spiro, 2011). Without sustainability, or long-term staying
power, the change has little meaning (Spiro, 2011). As Spiro notes, “The
problem isn’t solved by a program; it is solved by changing behavior and
culture” (p.126). As discussed above, this redesign, which addresses the need
for collaboration with stakeholders, the dissemination of small wins, the
nonnegotiables, and the appropriate technology selections to both support and
monitor student progress, allows for the sustainability of SW-PBIS – as this
action research proposal works to changing student behavior and culture in the
school to create more student successes.
Ethics
Mills (2014) notes “In research, the ends do not
justify the means” (p. 27). The purpose of my action
research study will be to determine how using a combination of technology and
positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS) strategies will affect
classroom management in a classroom with an at-risk population.
In my
particular case, understanding the population for my area of focus is critical.
I am a teacher with Juvenile Court and Community Schools. At my specific site,
the students range in grade from 7th-12th and in age from 12 to 19 years old -
yet, all these grade levels and ages may be mixed inside one classroom of 25-30
students. In addition, my particular school site is the Special Day Class
designated school. Lastly, as my classroom is less than five miles away from
the Tijuana border, approximately 80% of my students were raised in
Spanish-speaking homes.
In general,
my students are in my program because they already have a documented history of
behavioral problems. Due to this, my area of study is important to me to help
create a better classroom environment and better citizens in the community.
Yet, in this action research study, certain ethical considerations must be
made.
My first
ethical concern that I must address is the specific needs of my students with
special needs. As my program serves the SDC students in our region, many of my
students have an IEP. In order to respect my students (respect for persons), I
need to ensure that my PBIS strategies and technology use do not infringe on
the specific learning disability or behavioral needs of students according to
their IEP’s.
As my
students are in high school, I also need to respect them by explaining the
purpose of my action research. They deserve to be informed of the research
being conducted. In addition to this, I must also get informed consent from
parents and probation officers. When considering the informed consent from
parents, it is important that parents have access to my Teacher’s Assistant who
is Spanish-speaking and that written information is delivered in Spanish so
that all families have access to the content. I must also get consent from
probation officers, as some terms of student’s probation limits certain uses of
technology and/or supports specific behavior consequences. Informing students,
parents, and probation officers about the study, as well as gaining their
permission, is also an ethical concern outlined in the Belmont Report.
Lastly, as
discussed in the Belmont Report, the concern of beneficence will be addressed.
As a teacher, it is always my goal to do no harm and only practice what I
believe is in the best interests of my students. Throughout this action
research, I will remain flexible in my course of action and implementation so
that all students are in the safest and most beneficial learning environment
possible.
By making these considerations, my action
research proposal should be able to move forward in order to continue best
addressing the needs of students, while simultaneously ensuring that the ethics
of research, and my ethics as an educator, are kept intact.
Challenges Experienced/Reflection
In
creating this final redesign, many challenges arose. For this particular
Program Learning Outcome, I struggled to determine which assignment would be
the best fit. In order to use technology to support leadership, I only had a
few options of prior assignments to select – either the implementation of
SW-PBIS or the implementation of math learning centers in my classroom (EDU658).
As my leadership has changed again this year, I elected to redesign the EDU671
assignment in the hopes that my own leadership skills might be used in order to
share the proposed change with my colleagues.
As
with all previous weeks, it is also always imperative to me that all the redesign material I
created would be relevant to my current teaching practice. It is critical to me
that I am effectively designing and creating content that my students will
benefit from – both as a way to save time for myself and in order to ensure
that my students are benefiting from my experiences as a student and what I am
learning. When considering this redesign, this was particularly beneficial in
the selection of the technology tools that I selected. Although as a leader, I
want to remain flexible and adaptable to input from stakeholders and the ways
in which the action plan might change throughout its course, it was important
for me to begin the selection process of aligning my tools with my desired
outcome. By doing so, I can begin to use these tools immediately in my
classroom – even before the full implementation of SW-PBIS so that my students
may be accustomed to the expected behaviors that I have created for them.
Lastly, on a
personal level, I struggled with this redesign in regards to my position as a
leader. In my current program, there are not many opportunities for teachers to
act as leaders, as our district has become top-heavy and rejected teacher input
in decision making. As a result, I wanted to ensure that the strategies that I
came up as a leader could be implemented on varying levels – both at my
individual school site (only four teachers and three classrooms) and for the
potential district level. In this way, I had to create strategies for
stakeholders, small wins, and sustainability that I found feasible and
effective at both degrees.
Conclusion
By adding the redesigned components above, which uses technology
to reinforce leadership in a significant change being implemented, it is the
hope that SW-PBIS can be successfully and effectively implemented. The redesign
of my original Action Research Proposal highlighted the need to not only
implement positive changes into my classroom, but to ensure that the
appropriate technologies are selected to support the change and the leadership
that effective and sustained change requires.
As an educator, I have many considerations to make when initiating
change due to the individuals that are affected, the ethics that must be considered,
and the benefits that are hopefully created by the change. In this case,
technology created the opportunity to implement, monitor, and share the results
of my action research. As a Master of Teaching and Learning with Technology, it
is critical that I be able to meet Program
Learning Outcome 8 to “demonstrate the ability to make informed decisions
regarding the use of technology in support of learning and leadership” for the
benefit of my students and my colleagues.
References
ClassDojo. https://edshelf.com/tool/classdojo.
2014.
Edge (2012,
September 9). Reinventing
society in the wake of big data. Retrieved from Edge: http://www.edge.org/conversation/reinventing-society-in-the-wake-of-big-data
GoGuardian. https://goguardian.com/. 2014.
Hapara. http://hapara.com/products/. 2014.
Horton, W. (2012). E-Learning
by design (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley
Mills, G. E. (2014). Action research: A guide for
the teacher researcher (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. A.,
Lehman, J. D., Russell, J. D., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2011). Educational
technology for teaching and learning (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Spiro, J. (2011). Leading change step-by-step:
Tactics, tools, and tales. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
(1979). Ethical principles and guidelines for
the protection of human subjects of research. The Belmont Report. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html
Wagner, E., & Ice, P. (2012, July/August).Data
changes everything: Delivering on the promise of learning analytics in higher
education. Educause
Review, 33-42. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM1243P.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment