The CART Grant cohort met last night from 4:00-7:00pm at Challenge Early College High School. Present were Karen, Linda, Debbie, Matthew, Terri, Ron, Michaelann, Sonia, Lauren, Chong-Hao, Carolyn, Donna, and Tim. Two of the ten groups did not have a representative present at the meeting.
The purpose of the meeting was to build our network of fellow researchers, get support for any challenges we might be facing in our research, and deepen our understanding of how to gather data and generate evidence.
We began with the “Affinity Groups” icebreaker and then jig-sawed Chapter 13, “Monitoring Practice and Looking for Data,” in Action Research by Jean McNiff and Jack Whitehead (2006). Click on the thumbnails to see some of the learning from the chapter.
Since the snacks were late getting delivered, we took some time to simply go around and share what our initial questions are and what sorts of data we’ve already collected. Examples included chalk talk posters, summaries of peer observations, samples of student work, parent comments, written reflections, archives of student case files, email correspondence, personal journals, and many others.
We refreshed ourselves with yummy sandwiches, wraps, fruit, cookies, and drinks from Jason’s Deli and then engaged in a new protocol dubbed “The Heart of the Matter.” Each group displayed an artifact that they brought with them and wrote a brief description of the artifact. We then quietly examined each other’s artifacts and wrote down clarifying questions. Each group responded orally to the clarifying questions, and then we again quietly walked through the room to re-examine the artifacts and add probing questions and connections.
Tim debriefed the process and I wish I had audiotaped the debrief.
We asked that people email any questions that they have about the grant and promised that answers would be posted on line where everybody could refer to them.
Reflections are in the extended entry.
Reflection Questions
1) What did you learn?
2) How did the meeting influence you or change your thinking?
3) What support do you need?
“1) Learn?
--types of evidence
--different research methodology
2) Influence?
--more narrative and reflection
--reinvigorated me to work on things that are not urgent
3) Further support needed
--What is the expected product of this research? journal article? presentation? can we see some samples?”
“I thought it was very interesting how other group projects connected to things that we are doing. I better understand the ‘action’ component of the research that I did before I came tonight.
The protocol helped stimulate conversations and dialog between all the group members.
Scaffolding work is important before understandings or dialogs can take place.
This meeting influenced me to narrow down a portion of this grant where I can collect student data ‘action’ oriented.”
“1. Learn?
The information from the groups deepened my understanding of the process.
2. Most importantly, the modeling of this meeting—scaffolded and reinforced my understanding of ‘deepening the work.’
3. We need support on our budget—we also need just a sounding board on our work.”
“1. Learn—It is important to set ground rules & MODEL behavior desired.
2. I think we are on the right track, but may need to state goals/objective for each meeting”
“1) All of us are trying to improve schools & in different ways.
2) The influence is to go back to my school expand to the other grade levels.
3) Visits from others to receive an outside view.”
“I’m glad to be part of the CART experience—listening to all members share their work and guiding questions helps guide my own work with my group.
Hearing that others face dilemmas similar to ours (building trust), while at the same time working with close-knit colleagues makes the whole research process less scary.
I would like to engage in online discussions as well as visits to other CART participants’ schools to get an idea of the work outside of my own little world. Being part of this research is both inspiring and challenging. . .”
“Next time I would like to see what the evidence tells sans the verbal story—
I loved having additional members—Debbie’s people & Ron—they make it broader!
Still thinking about the “Heart of the Matter”—not sure either way.
Meeting was long. . . need to set norms or ground rules and monitor time.”
“1) Interesting the levels of research questions or perhaps the kinds of research questions that are asked
2) The questions always influence me in that they give me ‘food for thought’—another perspective & more to think about. The questions posed helped me to think deeper especially since I come from the ‘East’ perspective
3) Continued availability. Group e-mail good idea [?]”
“*Always good to receive feedback from people who do not know you or your work.
*Will use ‘The Heart of the Matter’ to bring back to my CFG members (making work public)”
“1. Learn—diff types of data that are acceptable—emails, photographs, etc.
2. How did this mtg influence you?
Not sure. Like to know more about what others are doing.
3. Further support—I always like 1.2.3. step by step directions but it never happens! It’s flexible so that’s good.”
“I learned that there were many different topics in this grant. All of the topics were very interesting. The discussions were very stimulating.
The questions about our ‘question’ really helped me in the direction that we could go.”
“1. Questions to ponder
2. Influence—continue to evaluate collection of data
3. What will the end or final product look like?”
Comments (2)
Are there any penalities for non-attendance at the meetings? Will there be a product from the funding organization about the work? Will there be a collaborative pieces created?
Posted by Michaelann | October 18, 2007 2:45 PM
Posted on October 18, 2007 14:45
To respond to Michaelann--
1) Yes, there are penalties for non-attendance of meetings, and these are taken on a case by case basis. We believe that the time we spend together is very important for the successful completion of the grant. As our most recent reflections indicate, participants learn a lot from making their work public and making connections with each other. We have an obligation to be each other's validation group. Penalties may range from a small fine (from the grant money) to make up for the time I'll have to spend bringing everybody up to speed to total forfeiture of the grant if there is an egregious, ongoing problem.
Remember that a group has fulfilled its meeting obligation as long as one member of that group attends the CART support meeting. I understand that the lead researcher may not be able to attend every meeting because of other commitments. We are all leaders and are pulled in many different directions, but with proper planning, I hope that at least one person from each group will attend.
To aid your planning, I promise to confirm the spring meeting dates as soon as possible. I am just waiting for U of H to publish their spring class schedule.
2) Yes, the funding organization will produce a product about the work.
3) Collaborative pieces would be an appropriate outcome, but we will have to wait and see what relationships develop.
Posted by Donna | October 18, 2007 3:32 PM
Posted on October 18, 2007 15:32