Revised Chapter 4 Outline
Chapter 4 Findings
4.1 Overview of chapter
· This chapter firstly presents the data from the questionnaires and the analysis of both wiki content and recordings of key meetings that were held during this project.
· These findings are then analysed to identify the themes that emerged in relationship to the core messages identified in the literature review in Chapter Two.
· The chapter concludes by bringing together the findings from the triangulated data to enable discussion in the following chapter.
(Please note, as the statistical data was generated from four respondents only (the total number of participants in this research), this data is not able to be applied out of the context within which it was gathered).
As this project is action research into the shift of a group’s practice rather than a case study into individuals, all participant quotes will be generically referenced to Isteam not individual participants, unless more than one Isteam is represented in the conversation. This will also help to maintain anonymity.
4.2 Baseline Questionnaire
Introduction
This questionnaire was done at the start of the project and was completed online. Data from Likert-type scales were allocated a computer generated ‘rating average’ according to the number of points on the scale. Each question’s scale had different numbers of points so ratings are not comparable between different questions.
Section 1 - Professional learning communities
This section questioned the Isteam’s understandings and application of professional learning communities within their current practice.
Firstly Isteam were asked what professional learning communities were. The common message was that these were groups of ‘like minded people’ with a purpose of sharing ideas and practice. While two references were made to the sharing of ideas, three took this deeper, referring to learning and challenging ideas to shift practice. Three references were made to the use of readings in such communities, “theory and research may be discussed to facilitate and further knowledge and understanding” as one way of facilitating shifts in practice. There was one reference to the continuity of professional development being aided through professional learning communities. The key features of professional learning communities to emerge from this were openness, having a common interest, being member driven, and the need to provide both challenge and support.
The number and type of professional learning communities Isteam provided for their teachers were predetermined by the output contract they worked in. Outputs all had particular contractual structures requiring a set frequency of meetings and structure to these learning communities. For example, the literacy contract adviser was obliged to provide two workshops per term and one in-school visit, the early childhood facilitator had one workshop per term and two centre visits. All Isteam had these teacher forums or clusters already in place before the research had begun.
The final question in this section asked about what Isteam did to engage teachers in professional development, and while they generally offered strategies for managing the process “choosing times and places with participants” and showed good understanding of co-constructive pedagogy “ask open questions that involve teachers being reflective”, they didn’t suggest strategies for actually engaging teachers in the learning. Instead, they took it for granted that teachers had to come to the meetings “they are a compulsory part of the professional development”, or “I probably do very little as there is an expectation they will participate”. This theme of engagement strategies was to emerge later as a major focus during the pedagogy phase of the project.
Section 2 – Online learning communities
The second section questioned the advisers’ understanding of online learning communities and to see how they viewed the potential for these in their work. This section also provided an insight into advisers’ existing schema relating to two things: what they saw as the challenges teachers would face when using wikis, and what the practical and pedagogical benefits to adviser practice could be.
Isteam recognised the similarities between face to face and online learning communities with three references being made to the difference being the location; “the same as the PLC only it happens online not face to face”. One added that the online environment would allow access to a much wider audience; “a range of participants from wider area than just in school can communicate, read, discuss, learn and share their practice using the internet tools available”. This perception of similarity needed to be explored further to understand more about the characteristics of online environments.
Isteam were mostly in the early phases of providing online learning communities for their teachers apart from one who was new to the job and had inherited an existing wiki from her predecessor, so all were open to the opportunities without prior conceptions.
Time and technical skills emerged as clear themes (mentioned by all) when Isteam talked about what they felt teachers were going to need to help them engage in online learning communities. Two references were made to the need to feel safe or have a trust if they were to contribute online, but they also added that teachers would need to be convinced it was worthwhile; “some kind of proof that it is useful to them”, be encouraged and motivated, to see others contributing and have opportunities to practice.
Online learning communities were seen as potentially beneficial to the way advisers work. Suggestions included efficiency, time saving, travel, cost effectiveness, doing things once and not having to wait for meetings to do things.
Isteam also identified several ways that online learning communities could help their pedagogical practice. For example: developing leadership by enabling others to take a lead role within the community, long term sustainability of professional development, connecting theory to practice and encouraging discussion between schools which otherwise doesn’t happen outside of programmed meetings.
When asked about the issues they themselves might have, earlier references to time and technical skills again dominated the thinking but they added concerns about how to get teacher participation and engagement. “Lack of excitement may make the wiki unsustainable” and “spending a lot of time encouraging teachers” hinted at possible foci for the research in pedagogical terms for example.
Section 3 – Technical confidence
There was a clear lack of confidence in using wikis by all Isteam. On a six point scale with level 1 being no confidence, the confidence rating average was 2.75. The range was between 1 and 4.
When Isteam were asked whether they could do key tasks such as retrieving lost material or posting documents, on a 4 point scale, 5 of the 6 identified tasks had rating averages of between 1 and 2. At least half of the responses were at level 1 in all categories.
Their comments suggested they would need to have repeated opportunities to practice if they were to become significantly more confident but all said they were keen to learn.
Section 4 – ISTE support
Traditionally Isteam had made use of the researcher’s computer expertise to fix technical issues and learn how to use new tools that could be useful in their practice.
When Isteam were asked what they expected from the researcher this year through this project, their suggestions indicated they were open to changing this structure. Responses asked for practical support: ideas, planning, using new programmes, etc., however they couched these requests pedagogically. Comments such as “warm demanding for me to give things a go”, “supporting me in my work with teachers”, “questioning us about our practice”, “motivating people to participate”, “the how to – why/why not – what next – when” told the researcher the way they wanted help as well as what they wanted her to give them.
Summary
The results of this initial survey showed that Isteam were knowledgeable about the role of professional learning communities and the ways these would benefit teacher learning. Their comments reflect current research findings and show a keenness to learn how to develop such mechanisms to improve both their teachers’ and their own practice. There was a definite gap in understanding of how these were practised in online environments, reflecting the relative newness of such communities and of appropriate technologies that can support them.
The technical confidence section showed that although their computer knowledge and skills were good, their knowledge and confidence in Web 2.0 was not broad. Although their enthusiasm was strongly evident, their current levels of confidence were not high enough for them to have the wide-ranging capacity for this project to succeed, considering the tools we originally planned to use. As a result, an initial focus on building technical confidence and capability was required and instead of attempting to use a range of tools to develop their online communities, the focus shifted to just using wikis.
Isteam had not made use of the researcher before even though she was a colleague working alongside them in the same building. This was attributable to the way advisers worked within this institution, the focus had been on the specific outcomes each adviser was contracted for and there was no time or expectation that this would involve collegial support from each other. However, having the title of ‘e-learning adviser’ tended to make that person be seen as the local ‘help desk’, so some technical help had been asked for in the past.
The clear and strong requests from this group shown in the questionnaire responses went beyond the need for technical help, emerging as a need to understand best practice when working with professional learning communities, regardless of their location. This need would lead to another phase of the research project around pedagogical practice online.
In conclusion, Isteam are confident about the definition and role of professional learning communities but need to investigate what these look like in an online environment. They have limited technical confidence and skill, but were keen to embrace the changes they would require. Isteam have recognised that the pedagogical requirements of managing an online professional learning community will differ from their own existing practice and see that this could be an opportunity to co-construct new knowledge. In the following chapter, these aspects will be discussed and it will be shown how these influenced the direction of the research and the decisions that were made by the team.
4.3 Meeting Analysis
Introduction
The Isteam met face to face twelve times during the year for meetings of approximately two hours. The meetings were a chance to develop new technical skills and build our knowledge of the topic. They were also a vehicle to share and discuss what had happened in our online learning communities since we had last met face to face, and to reflect on the implications so we could map out our next steps.
Apart from two instances, all Isteam attended each meeting. The meetings were digitally recorded and written up as minutes and placed on the Isteam wiki once completed. Three examples; at establishment, midpoint and closing phases of the project, were analysed to help triangulate themes emerging from other data.
During one of the final face to face meetings Isteam identified three phases or cycles emerging from the way we had worked within the overall project: technical, social and pedagogical (see below), and analysis of the meeting notes aligned with this thinking. Face to face meetings allowed us to build our technical and research knowledge and confidence and develop our social and pedagogical understanding.
For the purposes of the meetings analysis, these terms are defined as follows:
· Knowledge discussion has three parts to it:
o Talk about technical (computer-related) knowledge: up-skilling in use of programmes, managing the online environments, etc.
o Talk that develops Isteam’s knowledge about building professional learning communities
o Talk that develops Isteam’s research capability.
· Social discussion is about getting teachers to engage through building relationships, trust and technical confidence in the online environment.
· Pedagogical discussion is us thinking about our practice. This talk was reflective thinking about what we did or could do that would lead to teachers talking about their practice and ultimately move them towards critically reflecting about their learning online.
Although the three themes are reported on separately for convenience, they were in fact interwoven through the meetings and many discussion threads could easily have fitted into other themes.
Establishment meeting (April)
This early meeting was specifically to frame up the Isteam’s teacher questionnaire so they could identify their teachers’ needs and expectations of online learning communities. 61% of the time was spent on this aspect. 17% of the time was spent on increasing Isteam’s technical capability, less than 1% of the time was spent on social discussion and 21% of the time was spent on pedagogical discussion around the best ways to engage teachers in the project.
· Theme one: Knowledge development
Knowledge and understanding of ‘being a researcher’ was developed within this context as generating the questionnaire required Isteam to understand what they needed to know, what questions to ask, how these were structured to give useful and unbiased responses, and how to analyse the responses to provide useful information.
Isteam were also shown how to use the online survey tool ‘Survey Monkey’ (www.surveymonkey.com) as well as building up tools in their e-learning kete: hyperlinking, wijits, embedding surveys and putting other material onto the wiki pages.
· Theme Two: Social Development
Apart from one “we could run a treasure hunt” comment referring to how we could introduce teachers to the wikis, there were no direct references to ways of building confidence and relationships in the online environment.
· Theme Three: Pedagogical development
(N.B. The term pedagogical development at this point refers to the questionnaire, not the wiki as these were not yet really active.)
During the process of generating the questionnaire, Isteam talked about ensuring the questions were user-friendly so teachers would feel comfortable completing the questionnaire. Isteam also clarified how the questions needed to be worded so they would get information that would help us to provide the support they wanted. Isteam realised that teachers would need to have considerable scaffolding to be able to complete the survey online at this point. As they were identifying their attitudes to online learning communities at this time not their technical abilities, it was agreed that hard copies would be given out instead.