Module 4: Collaborative Inquiry Group Project
For module 4, we were asked to complete a group collaborative inquiry project. Two classmates and I engaged in the process and discovered, "What reading comprehension strategies best help ESL learners in the classroom?"
Module 3: Reading Reflections
After reading the three articles I feel more comfortable and confident engaging in CI with my fellow classmates. I was a bit nervous as we all have different professions, teach different grade levels, and have different burning questions. What if my group isn’t all bought in? What if we can’t agree on a burning question to inquire about? What if we all have different views of the CI cycle and process? The three articles cleared the air for my worries and helped me better understand CI!
In the Collaborative Inquiry as a Professional Learning Structure for Educators, the authors share a five-stage process that the Ontario Ministry of Education developed: “determining what knowledge and skills students need; determining what knowledge and skills teachers need; deepening professional knowledge and skills through focused inquiry; engaging in new learning experiences; and reflecting on the consequences of changed practice (Ontario Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat 2010) (page 643).” This gave me a clear visual of what the process of CI will look like and helped me adjust my concept map. Further, they explain what actions will take place in the cycle in both articles DeLuca wrote. DeLuca states, “All teachers must contribute to deep conversations grounded in a cycle of questioning, reflecting on evidence, and taking action’ (Nelson et al. 2010, p. 178).” The value of CI and action is lost if the group is not open to deep conversation. Which lead me to thinking: what if a member is an introvert? What if a member is a new teacher and does not feel valued?
Quickly, the authors addressed these issues and squashed my concerns by expressing the value of trust. I think trust is a HUGE part of CI. In my eyes, a whole session should be taken to discuss norms and build trust with each other. As mentioned, “The collaborative work can highlight a teacher's lack of knowledge or experience.” I wonder if this is why newer teachers are afraid to engage in CI? Or if seasoned teachers won’t buy in when collaborating with a wide ranged group of leveled teachers because they don’t value or believe in the skills/ideas of a newer teacher? A teacher reflected on the process and said, “If everybody's comfortable in their own skin, you can learn … it's important for us to be able to give up that little bit of pride and say ‘No, I don't know what I'm doing. Someone has to help me with this.’ Sometimes teachers struggle with that.” So, how do we gain trust and build this safe area for a group? What ways can we break down the barriers to make teachers all feel on the same level when collaborating?
DeLuca identifies three important keys when collaborating. Dialogical sharing, taking action, and reflection. As I mentioned earlier with building trust, I think a key part of it is how we reflect and respond to feedback from peers. Although the three key points are not stages but to be used to help navigate through CI, reflection sticks out to me as an issue when collaborating. The article states, “Reflection was an ongoing part of the project as we attempted to make sense of the experience and what we were learning’ (Goodnough 2005, p. 90).” Reflection requires us to be vulnerable, to reflect on our strengths and weakness, and to be honest with yourself and each other. If we are not honest with each other or honest in our own reflection, it can stall the CI process. Valkenburg’s talked alot about reflection and said, “What can be thought about and taught is the explicit reflection that guides the development of one’s knowing-inaction habits.” What kind of norms can a group set to help with reflection?
Two other important key things stuck out to me while reading that really helped me buy in on the CI process. Those were teacher-leaders and that fact that DeLuca addressed the issue of time. They explain, “teacher-leaders not only help ensure that work is relevant to group members, but they can also help to build rapport between their colleagues and external facilitators by encouraging productive discussions amongst group members (Kennedy et al. 2011, Forey et al. 2012) Page 647.” I have nothing against administration, but there is a different value or perspective that occurs when a fellow colleague or teacher is leading. They are engaged with the same stress, classroom issues, and perspectives. I feel staff engages better and would respect the CI process when lead by a teacher. We often look at things as “tasks” when given to us by administration. The other key item addressed was, “release time was provided to teachers for planning and delivering activities that worked within the school master schedule. (Page 648)” The article explains that the teachers were provided the time to successfully collaborate during the school day. DeLuca stresses this “buy in” and time issue again in his other article, Systemic Professional Learning Through Collaborative Inquiry: Examining Teachers' Perspectives. On page 68, he states, “For buy-in to occur, teachers need to believe that they will be fully supported in their CI work (Nelson & Slavit, 2008). Support factors include release time, leadership, guidance, data literacy support, and a culture of collaboration within the school (DeLuca et al., 2015).” Again, the two articles align and prove that there are key factors needed in order to have successful collaboration.
Going back to building trust, I think having teachers engage in CI is also helps the school community and atmosphere. After the teachers engaged in the CI process in the article, they mentioned that “experiences with CI have encouraged teachers to work collaboratively and learn from each other beyond formal CI structures: ‘When there's a little problem you just chat about it instead. You're not always waiting for a CI.’ (page 74)” This safe atmosphere for teachers to feel comfortable to discuss issues, ask for help, and reach out to each other opens doors for so many possibilities for the school.
Overall, DeLuca’s article’s showed clear examples of teachers engaging in the CI process. It explained the positive outcomes that occur when teachers are collaborating and with the key elements put in place how beneficial it can be!
Module 2: Technology Montage
Concept Map
Link to the full map: http://popplet.com/app/#/5124741
Case Study Discussion
As I mentioned in my previous post, Collaborative Inquiry: A Facilitators Guidewas very visual for me and helped me better understand our four topics.
Where do you see it fitting?
I really enjoyed this guide. I know many staff members would look at it as “extra work,” but that is why it is important to pick a team to collaborate with that is committed and willing to spend the extra time on it. I think if a team properly filled out and used this guide to help solve their issue, they would see a positive change. I see a strong collaboration team working in a school when teachers are given the time to do this. In order to find success and have teacher "buy in" on the process, they have to WANT to make a change, not be forced to by admin.
Do you like the process that is outlined?
Yes, I really like the outline and stages. My favourite part of each step was the activities. I think they were quick, engaging, and helped me understand the stage much better. This is so useful to do with your team because the activities will ensure that each member understands the stage. I enjoyed the activity for “framing the problem.” I think the “if’s” and “then’s” example was so simple but shows the team members that if they buy into the process, results will occur. The scenarios were very simple, but sometimes we need to see the goal or possibilities to help us engage.
How might you use it?
I think the activities are something that can be done in a staff meeting in small groups, or with your grade level team. I think the guide is very straightforward and useful to use when engaging in this process. I really enjoy collaborating with other grade levels. I find the same issue usually occurs through each grade. For example, students in kindergarten are struggling with comprehension, but so are the 3rd graders. So, a team like this could collaborate to find what the problem is. Why aren’t students understanding this skill across the board?
Do you see issues with it (e.g. applicability to different situations)?
I don’t see issues other than commitment with it. I truly believe if someone wants something badly enough, they will find a way to make it happen. So, finding a team who all want to improve their teaching and classroom is key.
I do think collaborating with other schools would be great. During my first year teaching, we had an option to attend a professional development twice a month for 6 months (If you missed a session, you did not get the points for this PD, so people were committed!). This included all of the schools from the area. We sat with our grade levels, and after the PD, we had time to collaborate. The amount of new knowledge learned was amazing. I think often we get stuck in our ways and what the other grade level teachers or the school is doing, we forget there is more out there. We often brought up situations with struggling readers, how to better teach comprehension, ect. I think this would have been an excellent opportunity to engage in collaborative inquiry because the group chose to be there after school, was committed, and each person had new ideas.
“Team members should be made aware of the commitment of time and energy that will be required throughout the process. (pg. ii).” I loved that they mention this because when I think about forming a collaborative inquiry team, I picture it happening before or after school. So, outside of our teaching hours. I also connect with how they mention that it will take energy. Changing or adding a strategy into your classroom takes time and effort. It may not go smoothly and we may fail many times before it works. It is important for us as educators when joining a team and implementing new strategies into our classroom to keep this in mind.
Module 1: Collaboration, Inquiry, Problem Solving & Design
Collaborative Inquiry:
The Collaborative Inquiry: A Facilitator’s Guide and the video by Kerry McDonald is what really solidified my understanding of what collaborative inquiry really meant. From the Collaborative Inquiry: A Facilitator’s Guide, they stated, “Collaborative inquiry is a process in which participants come together to examine their own educational practice systematically and carefully using techniques of research.” This definition was clear to me, it was the video that helped identify the stages and process better for me.
Reflection on Toward a Design Theory of Problem Solving by D. Jonassen
After reading, I thought the Jonassen article did a great job explaining and helping me understand the difference between ill-structured and well-structured problems. On page 67, he explained that well-structured problems are the problems we most commonly encounter in schools and during test. These require rules, understanding of concepts, and principles to solve. Ill-structured problems are the everyday problems that emerge in life. These are hard for us to solve because they are not predictable and the content domains are not being studied in school.
The text goes on to state, “the primary reason is that complex problems involve more cognitive operations than simpler ones (Kluwe, 1995). Therefore, working memory requirements increase at least proportionally. Accommodating multiple factors during problem structuring and solution generation places a heavy burden on working memory. The more complex a problem, the more difficult it will be for the problem solver to actively process the components of the problem (page 68).” So, the best solution today, may not be the best solution for that problem tomorrow. It is ever changing. They give a good example of how video games can be complex and well structured, while also having to determine clothes and hair color for your character making it a simple ill-structured problem. They mention how it is a struggle to teach students how to solve ill-structured problems. With them being on board with video games and electronics, it made me think of the new Netflix series, Black Mirror: Bandersnatch. If you are not familiar, in simple terms, it is a series where the watcher has 10 seconds to choose which path they will take. The adventure is based on what you pick. I know every ill-structured problem is different, but I am sure there is a tech guru out there that could create something like this for students to help with ill-structured problems and solving them. At least more realistic and valuable than the way we are currently struggling with. Just a thought!
Another quote from the article that caught my eye was, “If problem solvers do not believe in their ability to solve problems, they will most likely not exert sufficient cognitive effort and therefore not succeed. Their self confidence of ability will predict the level of mindful effort and perseverance that they will apply to solving the problem.” If it is a well-structured problem or an ill-structured problem students need confidence in order to solve it. So, if they do not have the basic fundamental skills to solve 2+2, then they will not have the confidence to solve a written story problem. This also applies to ill-structured problems too. If a student does not have the skills or strategies to know how to handle their emotions, they will not be able to solve a bigger problem that occurs. Pretty simple and straightforward!
Reflection on Katz article about inquiry:
This article was the most straightforward to me. It talked alot about inquiry and collaboration within schools. On page 36, Katz states, “collaborative inquiry that challenges extant thinking and practice has the potential to drive school improvement because it attends to both shared learning activities as well as individual knowledge formulation processes.” This hit home for me. I have been in three different school districts as a teacher. In each school district, I usually enter hearing that there are low reading scores and we are working so hard to improve this. Now that I think about it, we would have meetings to discuss scores, strategies, and it always ended with us being handed a new thing to do. Never once did we challenge what was already occurring. It was like we slapped a band-aid over what we did and got back up on the bike, instead of asking what was happening now with this curriculum, our teaching, and these students. It was easier for us to try something new than to dig into what was wrong now. As teachers, we need challenged in order to better our students.
Katz then discuss on page 37, “This more rigorous definition of learning means that sitting in a workshop may not be learning, reading a book may not be learning, and – contrary to colloquial rhetoric – people may not (and probably are not) learning each and every day. It all depends on whether or not the activities one is engaged in contribute to a permanent change in knowledge or behaviour.” How many times have you honestly sat in a school workshop that didn’t pertain to you? A perfect example was this past year, I was the 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade writing teacher. Yet, as a whole staff, we attended a workshop on how to teach the new math curriculum. What?! Yes, my thoughts exactly. I was learning, yes, but I was not engaged because the activities we were engaged in did not contribute to change in my knowledge and position as a teacher. Of course, I could have soaked it all in, but we all know as a teacher, I had my own agenda on my mind. I feel sometimes (and I could be wrong jumping to conclusions like this) schools forget to look into what each teacher needs specifically to grow. My first school I taught at was excellent at this. We each were given a budget that we were allowed to use to attend workshops and conferences that we felt helped us grow as professionals. Amazing right? As a first year teacher, I needed all the help with classroom management and engagement, not a workshop on aligning standards across curriculum. We are constantly told to differentiate instruction and challenge our students, so why as educators are we not differentiating our learning to what gaps we need to fill and be challenged in?
Finally, the part of the article that stuck out like a sore thumb to me was this: “Another example (simplified to make a point) is the teacher who has been teaching reading the same way for years who subconsciously only looks for evidence that this method of teaching is working (i.e., focusing on the students who are learning to read) and ignoring the evidence suggesting that it is not working (i.e., not focusing on the students who are struggling, or attributing their struggles to other factors beyond the pedagogy).” (page 37)
This part of Katz article made me want to challenge myself and re-evaluate some of my teaching. Some years, I do the same thing (small groups for reading, a certain project, or teaching strategy) because it is easy and I am good at it, and because I feel the results are good. I am making it my priority to start looking at the bad data even when the test average was bad. Instead of patting myself on the back for having 80% of students pass and moving on, what can I change for the 20%. This would be a perfect time to have collaborative inquiry with other team members to try new methods to fix the 20% of students not understanding.
Reflection from Spiro's article about problem solving:
A few thoughts from the text: On page 108, Spiro states, “That professional domains are ill structured becomes especially clear when one considers teaching (e.g., Lampert, 2001; Palincsar eta!., 2007; Shulman, 1992; Sykes & Bird, 1992). A prospective teacher can take a dozen courses on "methods," but once in the field it becomes clear that "it's not that simple," "it depends," "it's not either-or" are watchwords of practice. For example, how does one teach the appropriate situation-specific application of a ubiquitous teaching concept like "scaffolding" (Palincsar et a!., 2007)?” The United States has been faced with a disgusting amount of school shootings over the past few years. This is a perfect example of what Spiro is discussing. Never in my years of schooling did I think they would be having to discuss let alone teach future educators how to deal with trauma like this and loss. I felt as a teacher, I learned more my first year in the classroom than I did my four years of schooling because of exactly what Spiro explains. Nothing is clear, each student, class, ect is different. You can certainly give ideas and methods to help and guide a teacher, but there is no way to teach every specific situation that will occur.
How do they all fit together? To start, collaboration requires us as educators to work together with other team members. This means that we have to be open to learning and trying new methods as well as sharing our strengths and weaknesses with each other. Once we have determined the problem, we try different methods and ideas and collect evidence on our findings. From my understanding, that is the inquiry part. The problem solving and design occurs when we identify what type of problem we have. Determining if it is an ill-structured problem or well-structured problem and design a plan. This is the cycle talked about in The Collaborative Inquiry: A Facilitator’s Guide where they go over the four stages in which these four concepts all come together.
I look forward to reading others responses in hopes to better understand these four concepts!