Last night, the Teacher As Researcher grant awardees and all of their CFG members were invited to take part in a networking event. The purpose of the meeting was to share the challenges and successes of our own inquiry projects, to ask questions and get support, and to network with other awardees. Sixteen people, representing 6 of the 7 funded projects, came last night.
We began with the 3-2-1 icebreaker. I asked everybody to share three things about themselves, two things about their group's project, and one burning question. The burning questions that were related to the projects were
When is documentation due?
What will it look like?
How are we going to present to the staff?
Are we our own best resource?
Does anybody else have a clue about special needs?
When will schools join the 21st Century and help teachers with technology?
How do you keep members active? and
How do you balance group needs and individual needs?
I was surprised that there weren't burning questions about collecting data and documenting work.
We then took about 30 minutes for each grant team to create an artifact that explained where they are in the inquiry process. I intentionally left the prompt open-ended. Although I brought a variety of art supplies like ribbons, yarn, play-doh, stickers, and decorative paper, every group just used poster paper, markers, and tape.
Tim then led the groups through a protocol that allowed each group to present their artifact and have colleagues ask questions. Tim called it Dia de Los Muertos because he had first developed the activity when his middle school students were presenting projects about that Mexican holiday--the protocol itself really has nothing to do with the Day of the Dead!
Click on the photos to see a larger image.
Lovie Adams points out some of the roadblocks and speed bumps in Best Elementary's inquiry project.
Peggy Given uses a pizza chart to describe the learning that her group from Johnston M. S. has already done.
As I was listening to the groups, I was again struck with the huge variety in the projects. Some involve dozens of teachers looking at overall school climate while some are looking at just a handful of students. Teachers from three different school districts were at the meeting.
During the debrief, there seemed to be consensus that the conversations helped refocus and recommit the groups. The conversations were rich, yet made me wonder how we could have changed the agenda to allow for more depth. Someone wondered aloud if the artifacts were alligned to the original inquiry questions. How have the questions changed as the groups have delved into the research?
As a result of this meeting, I will definitely schedule another support session for the spring or summer. I will also work with other HA+C staff to draw up some simple guidelines for the mid-project documentation that is due sometime in early summer.
Every participants' reflections can be read in the extended entry.
Reflections
1. What did I learn?
2. What helped us do that learning?
3. How might we build on this learning?
1. I learned that our inquiry has only just begun. We will have to continually look at what we've learned, how it's working and what changes need to be make in order to help the kids. I learned that a student focus group will really enrich this inquiry we have just begun. Now I can't wait to get back and set it up.
2. The intimate discussions with each group really worked.
3. Maybe we can meet again to discuss documentation and the 2nd year.
1. I learned that we are all very hard workers and are passionate about our areas.
2. Each other--as a group we are stronger than individuals.
3. 2 x's a year group meetings to allow us to build and network with each other. Maybe even tie into other things like RSSI.
1. My questions and dilemmas regarding our grant are similar to others.
2. Open discussion with the gallery.
3. Would have liked to have all of our grant members here today with us.
1. Other groups have same dilemmas as I do. But, I feel like we have made good progress by seeing what others have done.
2. Presentation of projects helped the learning. Questions and answers continued that.
3. To build would be nice to do this again. Maybe add more on the data collection the teams are completing. Add online discussion group and webpage presentations.
1. I learned about the scope of other research projects.
2. –Listening to oral presentations
–Viewing graphics
3. ·Delve into the "cycling back" phase of the inquiry process
·Discuss documentation of learning.
·What about on-going external support?
1. I learned about other Teacher As Researcher grant projects.
2. Time off campus to focus and meet with other grantees.
3. Food provided.
1. I got a better idea about where my group is.
I learned when document is due.
I learned that some other schools had similar issues.
2. The process of producing the artifact clarified my thinking.
Sharing/networking helped me learn about others.
3. I thought this was good--have another one (maybe at least in the fall, maybe summer?)
Question. Would more people attend (although turn out was good) if it was required somehow? or bribery-as part of review process---how active are you in the process ???
1. Need to look at deeper conversation for next meetings. Adapting the protocol seemed to work well--but the timing was hard to gauge.
2. Conversations with others involved in Teacher As Researcher seemed to help with networking and focus.
3. Next steps?
Fold into other opportunities--This could be a break out session at other events.
1. I learned that I am not alone in my struggles in focusing and carrying out the grant.
2. Actively listening to other CFGs tell where they are in their grant.
3. We might meet again with the grant teams to refocus on the directions we are going.
1, I learned about technology that teaches students Algebra (great).
2. The fact that I got to listen to all of the presentations.
3. [I'd like] a way to keep in touch with the people we've met.
1. I learned that we are all on the same page and want to do what's best for children.
2. Having a brief dialog with the groups from each school.
3. Offering opportunities for us to meet and dialog again.
1. I learned that in order to impact a school, we must first impact the teachers. Be willing to change the way we've learned to do things.
2. The Dia De Los Muertos Gallery was very helpful for me. I was able to gain insight, debrief and question others about their project as well as our own.
3. Continue to talk and meet, email.
1. I learned that all educators are people that are trying to help others. Learned that all the districts have the same problems and are trying to resolve them.
2. I learned how to solve math problems and enjoy teaching it because of practice and more practice.
3. To build on the conversations tonight, I would communicate with my colleagues in tonight's session and see how we could support this program.
Comments (4)
This meeting was very informative, but I still find us in the mode of proving our work instead of improving our work. I feel as teachers, most of us have been evaluated and held "accountable" for so long that I am not sure how long it will take for us to truly collaborate again.
Michaelann
Posted by Michaelann | January 30, 2005 10:55 AM
Posted on January 30, 2005 10:55
Like Michaelann, I think that teachers find true collaboration hard. Test scores, evaluations, and school politics seem to make educators competitive with one another. But on a positive note, I very much appreciate the Teacher as Researcher Grant, because of what it represents. It puts finances and responsibility in the hands of the practitioner. Teachers are the ones who work with children day in and day out. Teachers are the ones who handle the assessment instruments and thus know if they are valid or not. When teacher's are given more financial and research responsiblity, my belief is, that is when we will actually see things improve in education. At a time of NCLB, there is more money that I have ever seen being poured into education. But very little of the money actually reaches the campus level. Teachers are held accountable for everything from test scores to the behaviors of severely disturbed children. But it is the universities that brag about the millions of dollars they receive for their public school "initiatives". Teachers have TAKS, Stanford 10, Iowa, and a host of other things that people can physically point to and determine classroom effectiveness. How are these universities held accountable for those millions of taxpayers' dollars?
I would like to see each grant recipient share at the FRSSI this year.
Posted by Marilyn Cameron | January 30, 2005 6:04 PM
Posted on January 30, 2005 18:04
That is a great idea about FRSSI!
Maybe even a collaborative group session???
Posted by Michaelann | January 30, 2005 9:25 PM
Posted on January 30, 2005 21:25
I am attending an FRSSI planning meeting on February 18th and will share this idea. If anyone reading this blog has any ideas for consideration for FRSSI, please send them to me at lmenster@houstonisd.org. Thanks!
Posted by Lance | February 4, 2005 3:07 PM
Posted on February 4, 2005 15:07