The one aspect of this course that resonated with me the most was hearing from the principal, director of research, and the superintendent that are actively involved in action research during the week 2 videos. So many times, ideas or ways of doing things come and go in education. But, hearing from educators who are making action research a prominent part of their practice helped me to realize that this isn’t a fad or phase in education. I really think that because it’s not specific way of doing things, but a way of investigating and evaluating your way of doing things, it’s really a practice that is valuable and here to stay.
The area of action research where I am hoping to learn more is the Implications for Practice piece. Because we’re at the start of the process and haven’t gone through this piece, I wonder if I’ll be able to see the data clearly and determine exactly what the implications for practice are.
I will definitely rely on my site-supervisor to help me see what the data shows and how to illustrate that to all of the stakeholders in the project. I will also rely on the questions outlined by Dana (2009, pgs. 183-184) for principal-researchers regarding Quality Indicator 5: Implications for Learning.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
Approval from my Site-Supervisor
Today I got final approval from my site-supervisor for my action research project. The action steps remained the same, but a rationale statement was added to the plan. I'm posting the introductory section below:
Rational: My action research will focus on individual 2nd grade teachers at Becker Elementary School. Over the last ____ years, _____% of 2nd grade students at Becker Elementary have ended the year reading below grade level in their native language. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, the Becker Elementary School Principal, the reading specialist, and I (working as a language arts curriculum specialist) reviewed an accelerated reading program that is designed for 2nd grade students and is based on addressing the 5 components of reading (phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension). After reviewing the program we agreed on two adjustments that needed to be made in order to fully address the needs of the incoming 1st graders. The reading specialist did a trial run of the program for 1 week with a small group of incoming 1st graders and this resulted in one more adjustment to the amount of time scheduled for comprehension instruction and practice. There are, of course, many factors that have led to this recurring problem at Becker. Among the issues that are within our control is the level of content and pedagogical knowledge of the 2nd grade teacher(s). This scripted program that will be used as the core reading program for 36 days of school by the 2nd grade teacher(s), relies on daily recursive instructional practices that are soundly based on research in each of the five components of reading. My inquiry will examine whether the implementation of this program has an impact on the teacher’s content and pedagogical knowledge to the extent that they are able to plan and facilitate effective lessons in reading around the 5 components beyond the 36 day program.
Goal: To determine whether a primary teacher’s content and pedagogical knowledge in reading is increased to the extent that they are able to independently plan effective reading instruction based on the five components of reading (phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension) by using a scripted accelerated reading program based on the five components of reading during the first 36 days of reading instruction in 2nd grade.
Outcome: If the teacher’s content and pedagogical knowledge is positively impacted, then students will have the benefit of receiving rigorous research based instruction in reading for the remainder of the year and should complete 2nd grade reading on or above grade-level.
Inquiry Question: How does the use of the recursive practices in the Region 4 Accelerated Reading materials by the 2nd grade teacher(s) at Becker Elementary as the core reading instruction for 36 days of school impact their level of content and pedagogical knowledge in the area of reading?
Rational: My action research will focus on individual 2nd grade teachers at Becker Elementary School. Over the last ____ years, _____% of 2nd grade students at Becker Elementary have ended the year reading below grade level in their native language. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, the Becker Elementary School Principal, the reading specialist, and I (working as a language arts curriculum specialist) reviewed an accelerated reading program that is designed for 2nd grade students and is based on addressing the 5 components of reading (phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension). After reviewing the program we agreed on two adjustments that needed to be made in order to fully address the needs of the incoming 1st graders. The reading specialist did a trial run of the program for 1 week with a small group of incoming 1st graders and this resulted in one more adjustment to the amount of time scheduled for comprehension instruction and practice. There are, of course, many factors that have led to this recurring problem at Becker. Among the issues that are within our control is the level of content and pedagogical knowledge of the 2nd grade teacher(s). This scripted program that will be used as the core reading program for 36 days of school by the 2nd grade teacher(s), relies on daily recursive instructional practices that are soundly based on research in each of the five components of reading. My inquiry will examine whether the implementation of this program has an impact on the teacher’s content and pedagogical knowledge to the extent that they are able to plan and facilitate effective lessons in reading around the 5 components beyond the 36 day program.
Goal: To determine whether a primary teacher’s content and pedagogical knowledge in reading is increased to the extent that they are able to independently plan effective reading instruction based on the five components of reading (phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension) by using a scripted accelerated reading program based on the five components of reading during the first 36 days of reading instruction in 2nd grade.
Outcome: If the teacher’s content and pedagogical knowledge is positively impacted, then students will have the benefit of receiving rigorous research based instruction in reading for the remainder of the year and should complete 2nd grade reading on or above grade-level.
Inquiry Question: How does the use of the recursive practices in the Region 4 Accelerated Reading materials by the 2nd grade teacher(s) at Becker Elementary as the core reading instruction for 36 days of school impact their level of content and pedagogical knowledge in the area of reading?
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Proposed Action Plan for Action Research
Goal: To determine whether a teacher’s content and pedagogical knowledge in reading is increased to the extent that they are able to independently plan effective reading instruction based on the 5 components of reading (phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension) by using a scripted accelerated reading program based on the 5 components of reading during the first 36 days of reading instruction in 2nd grade.
Outcome: If the teacher’s content and pedagogical knowledge is positively impacted, students will have the benefit of receiving rigorous research based instruction in reading for the remainder of the year.
Inquiry Question: How does the use of the recursive practices in the Region 4 Accelerated Reading materials by the 2nd grade teachers at Becker Elementary as the core reading instruction for the first 36 days of school impact their level of content and pedagogical knowledge in the area of reading?
Action Step 1: Determine need by examining data on reading levels from target elementary school for 2nd grade students at MOY and EOY.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez
Timeline: June – July, 2010
Needed Resources: AIMS (Data management system)
Evaluation: Complete 2 year cumulative data chart. If data shows students exiting the 1st and 2nd semesters of 2nd grade reading below grade level, the proposed action research is needed.
Action Step 2: Complete a literature review on job-imbedded professional development.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez
Timeline: August, 2010
Needed Resources: Internet access, Suggested websites
Evaluation: Look for reported trends and patterns in literature review on the impact of job-imbedded professional development.
Action Step 3: Develop a survey to assess knowledge of the 5 components of reading and effective instructional methods for each component.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez
Timeline: August 2 – 6, 2010
Needed Resources: Survey Monkey
Evaluation: Share survey with site-supervisor and Language Arts Supervisor and request feedback.
Action Step 4: Develop a rubric to rate teacher(s) level of content and pedagogical knowledge in reading based on the above mentioned survey.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez
Timeline: August 2 – 6, 2010
Needed Resources: Example rubrics
Evaluation: Share rubric with site-supervisor and Language Arts Supervisor and request feedback.
Action Step 5: Conduct survey with 2nd grade reading teacher(s) to assess knowledge of the 5 components of reading and effective instructional methods of each component.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez
Timeline: August 16 – 23, 2010
Needed Resources: Survey Monkey
Evaluation: Use rubric to rate teacher(s) level of content and pedagogical knowledge in reading.
Action Step 6: Develop observational tool to use when observing teacher(s) facilitating the accelerated reading program in the classroom.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez
Timeline: August 23 – September 7, 2010
Needed Resources: Previously used observational tools as a reference
Evaluation: Share observational tool with site-supervisor and Language Arts Supervisor and request feedback.
Action Step 7: Observe teacher(s) facilitating instruction using the accelerated reading program.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez, Betty Jenkins, Principal, Rosalinda Castanon, Reading Specialist
Timeline: September 7 – October 15, 2010
Needed Resources: Observation tool
Evaluation: Use rubric to rate teacher(s) level of content and pedagogical knowledge in reading (from above) to rate their fluency with the program based on observations.
Action Step 8: Observe teacher(s) facilitating instruction during reading after the accelerated reading program has been completed.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez, Betty Jenkins, Principal, Rosalinda Castanon, Reading Specialist
Timeline: October 18 – November 22, 2010
Needed Resources: Observation tool
Evaluation: Use rubric to rate teacher(s) level of content and pedagogical knowledge in reading (from above) to rate their ability to plan for an implement instruction in reading based on the 5 components of reading.
Action Step 9: Conduct survey with 2nd grade reading teacher(s) to assess knowledge of the 5 components of reading and effective instructional methods of each component.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez
Timeline: October 18 – November 22, 2010
Needed Resources: Survey Monkey
Evaluation: Use rubric to rate teacher(s) level of content and pedagogical knowledge in reading.
Action Step 10: Compare teacher’s content and pedagogical knowledge before and after implementation and completion of the program.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez
Timeline: November 29 – December 16, 2010
Needed Resources: Completed rubrics and observational data.
Evaluation: Prepared report comparing levels of content and pedagogical knowledge and evidence of both in planning and implementation of lessons in reading.
Action Step 11: Share results with site-supervisor, campus principal, reading specialist, teacher(s).
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez
Timeline: January, 2011
Resources Needed: Data charts and trends and patterns observed during observation of instruction.
Evaluation: Review by site-supervisor, campus principal, reading specialist, teacher(s).
Outcome: If the teacher’s content and pedagogical knowledge is positively impacted, students will have the benefit of receiving rigorous research based instruction in reading for the remainder of the year.
Inquiry Question: How does the use of the recursive practices in the Region 4 Accelerated Reading materials by the 2nd grade teachers at Becker Elementary as the core reading instruction for the first 36 days of school impact their level of content and pedagogical knowledge in the area of reading?
Action Step 1: Determine need by examining data on reading levels from target elementary school for 2nd grade students at MOY and EOY.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez
Timeline: June – July, 2010
Needed Resources: AIMS (Data management system)
Evaluation: Complete 2 year cumulative data chart. If data shows students exiting the 1st and 2nd semesters of 2nd grade reading below grade level, the proposed action research is needed.
Action Step 2: Complete a literature review on job-imbedded professional development.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez
Timeline: August, 2010
Needed Resources: Internet access, Suggested websites
Evaluation: Look for reported trends and patterns in literature review on the impact of job-imbedded professional development.
Action Step 3: Develop a survey to assess knowledge of the 5 components of reading and effective instructional methods for each component.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez
Timeline: August 2 – 6, 2010
Needed Resources: Survey Monkey
Evaluation: Share survey with site-supervisor and Language Arts Supervisor and request feedback.
Action Step 4: Develop a rubric to rate teacher(s) level of content and pedagogical knowledge in reading based on the above mentioned survey.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez
Timeline: August 2 – 6, 2010
Needed Resources: Example rubrics
Evaluation: Share rubric with site-supervisor and Language Arts Supervisor and request feedback.
Action Step 5: Conduct survey with 2nd grade reading teacher(s) to assess knowledge of the 5 components of reading and effective instructional methods of each component.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez
Timeline: August 16 – 23, 2010
Needed Resources: Survey Monkey
Evaluation: Use rubric to rate teacher(s) level of content and pedagogical knowledge in reading.
Action Step 6: Develop observational tool to use when observing teacher(s) facilitating the accelerated reading program in the classroom.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez
Timeline: August 23 – September 7, 2010
Needed Resources: Previously used observational tools as a reference
Evaluation: Share observational tool with site-supervisor and Language Arts Supervisor and request feedback.
Action Step 7: Observe teacher(s) facilitating instruction using the accelerated reading program.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez, Betty Jenkins, Principal, Rosalinda Castanon, Reading Specialist
Timeline: September 7 – October 15, 2010
Needed Resources: Observation tool
Evaluation: Use rubric to rate teacher(s) level of content and pedagogical knowledge in reading (from above) to rate their fluency with the program based on observations.
Action Step 8: Observe teacher(s) facilitating instruction during reading after the accelerated reading program has been completed.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez, Betty Jenkins, Principal, Rosalinda Castanon, Reading Specialist
Timeline: October 18 – November 22, 2010
Needed Resources: Observation tool
Evaluation: Use rubric to rate teacher(s) level of content and pedagogical knowledge in reading (from above) to rate their ability to plan for an implement instruction in reading based on the 5 components of reading.
Action Step 9: Conduct survey with 2nd grade reading teacher(s) to assess knowledge of the 5 components of reading and effective instructional methods of each component.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez
Timeline: October 18 – November 22, 2010
Needed Resources: Survey Monkey
Evaluation: Use rubric to rate teacher(s) level of content and pedagogical knowledge in reading.
Action Step 10: Compare teacher’s content and pedagogical knowledge before and after implementation and completion of the program.
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez
Timeline: November 29 – December 16, 2010
Needed Resources: Completed rubrics and observational data.
Evaluation: Prepared report comparing levels of content and pedagogical knowledge and evidence of both in planning and implementation of lessons in reading.
Action Step 11: Share results with site-supervisor, campus principal, reading specialist, teacher(s).
Person Responsible: Monica E. Gonzalez
Timeline: January, 2011
Resources Needed: Data charts and trends and patterns observed during observation of instruction.
Evaluation: Review by site-supervisor, campus principal, reading specialist, teacher(s).
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Great Meeting!
Today, I experienced the benefit of having an amazing site supervisor! We met to discuss my ideas for my action research program and she was so helpful in helping me hone in on an inquiry question that was both measurable and valuable. As a coach myself, I recognized that she was coaching me as she questioned and listened to and challenged me, but she was so so good at it - the whole meeting was such a learning experience. We decided that I would focus on the area of individual teachers at one of our south elementary schools in our district. I will be the assigned adminstrative supervisor working on that campus and working on this research will have the added benefit of helping me to establish a positive professional relationship with the relatively new principal on that campus.
Today was also exciting for me because my site supervisor, who is one of the Associate Superintendents in our district, will be my official supervisor beginning August 2nd when I move into my new position. It's been a long time since I've felt as engaged and challenged as I did today during our meeting - I'm really looking forward to the year!
Today was also exciting for me because my site supervisor, who is one of the Associate Superintendents in our district, will be my official supervisor beginning August 2nd when I move into my new position. It's been a long time since I've felt as engaged and challenged as I did today during our meeting - I'm really looking forward to the year!
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Using Blogs
Blogs can be an administrators way of creating a professional learning community with their peers. Because principals, in particular, don't have other principals on-site to collaborate with, blogs can be there way of sustaining a professional conversation with a group of their peers. This can be a place to voice frustrations, brainstorm, celebrate success, learn from the way other adminstrators address issue or even how they think through an issue. I think too, that having this sustained interaction with other administrators can motivate you to always keep moving forward because your peers are and also because you have a support system.
Admittedly, creating my own blog is the first time I've ever visited a blogging site. I'm an old dog, but luckily have two 20 year olds that showed me the ropes a bit. I'm looking forward to seeing where this takes me.
Admittedly, creating my own blog is the first time I've ever visited a blogging site. I'm an old dog, but luckily have two 20 year olds that showed me the ropes a bit. I'm looking forward to seeing where this takes me.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Action research sounds like such a technical and elusive process, but in truth it is what should be at the center of every administrator's practice. When action research defines the way an administrator does their work it can lead to improved student achievement campus wide. I really like the idea of working on investigating, learning, and improving practice on an issue that is relevant to your campus and your day to day interactions with teachers and students. This kind of ongoing professional development is so different from the typical "sit and get" professional development that for so long was standard practice. You'd attend a workshop, sit quietely, take tons of notes, and leave thinking you couldn't wait to put it in place in your classroom or in your leadership practices. But, once you got back to work, it was so difficult to incorporate something new into your bag of tricks. With action research, it's not about taking notes to learn, it's about actively engaging in trial and error, in reflection, in adjustment, in trying again, and continue down this path until you see growth in your own knowledge and practice and the achievement of your students or as an administrator - growth in your teachers and students. I find it exciting to be able to identify a real issue and design a research plan to student and address the issue and not have this defined for me and I can't wait to get started!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)