EDLD 5397 Week 3 Web Conference Reflection

This web conference really helped me a great deal, particularly with some of the trickier aspects of APA formatting.  What was especially nice about this web conference is that most of the questions posed by students were more focused and less “random”.  We clarified issues with our TK20 postings, some of our tasks left to do in the last two weeks, and practiced our APA citations.  I had been concerned that the TK20 binder only had one artifact for us to upload six different assignments into.  Dr. Borel told us to wait until the issue was fixed to post our artifacts as they should have six different places to post each one.  The conference was less frenetic than previous web conferences I have attended in other classes where the questions are fired rapidly at the professor and focus on random issues that are usually pertinent to the individual and not the class.  I even felt that I learned something as Dr. Borel gave us direct feedback on our APA exercises and explained how to do them correctly.  All in all, it was probably the most helpful web conference I have attended so far.

EDLD 5397 Week 1 Web Conference Reflection

After participating in tonight’s weekly web conference, Dr. Borel was able to shed some light on several things for me.  I think I was making too much of an issue of the reflections and making them seem like a big ordeal when they were really designed to help me take stock in what I have accomplished so far in this course.  I was giving myself an anxiety attack over nothing. 

The web conference also helped me organize my to-do list so that I can tackle my tasks in a systematic manner.  I’m glad I already have 2 of my meetings with my field supervisor finished.  I’ve already started going over my notes and e-mails with Dr. Harvey to submit for this portion of the exercise.

I’m really glad that we have this class so that I can organize all of the things I need to get done for my internship.  While I have been completing several of my tasks in my internship, I’ve fallen a little bit behind in my action research.  I have a ton of raw data that I need to work on synthesizing, so I’m getting ready to get that done this class, too.  Dr. Borel mentioned that this was a matter of going over everything we have already done, so that is a relief!

Reflections on What I Learned in Action Research

I learned many things from this course, especially in the beginning when I learned what action research WAS and WAS NOT.  From the Dana text, I learned that that action research differed from traditional educational research in that action research empowers principal-researchers to pose problems and then formulate inquiries intended to problem solve those issues whereas traditional research is something that educational leaders would implement from outside sources to solve an issue (Dana 2009).  The role of a principal has changed so much from that of a rather detached manager to that of a truly integrated and involved instructional leader.  Action research allows school staff to seek out answers to their wonderings and inquiries and utilize a wide variety of data, both qualitative and quantitative, to apply to the inquiry. 

Action research also does not stop with one inquiry.  It is something that is ongoing and ever-changing.  I realized from my own assignment in week 3, as I posted my inquiry on my blog, that coming to the end of this initial action research cycle would more than likely lead me to another and then another.  As I collaborated with my colleagues in my cohort and discussion group, I found that they were learning the same thing—essentially coming to the same realization about the continuous nature of action research.  When you find that one thing works, you continue trying to improve it or move onto another area of need.  When you find that something did not work in your action research, you take another path and try to improve it or find something better to apply to an area of need.

From the web conferences, I was able to dismiss my initial idea for an action research topic which was to investigate our school configuration (elementary, intermediate, middle, and high school) and compare it to schools with similar demographics that had a more traditional configuration (elementary, middle, and high school).  Through Dr. Abshire’s clarifications, I knew that my topic lent itself to a more traditional research model because once our district made the decision to change models or stay the same, I had nothing but data and no action to take.  Meetings with my site supervisor helped solidify this conclusion.  He guided me to conduct my action research on something that had more immediate implications for our school improvement plan and our student population.  Because of these things, I changed my action research inquiry to finding out if our district-purchased online reading intervention program significantly helped improve our LEP students’ reading scores.  This will provide a more natural path in action research that will lead to more inquiries and wonderings.

This course was incredibly challenging for me, but I felt that I really benefited from all of the collaboration required with my colleagues.  I never thought I would ever forge such great professional relationships with people in an online course!  However, we started a Facebook page in our last class (EDLD 5311) and my colleagues have been an invaluable resource in feedback through that page, our blogs, and our discussion boards.  We really utilized the technology we had learned to create and use in EDLD 5311 for this class and it has shown me how many ways school leaders can create multiple avenues of communication for all stakeholders . 

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I learned numerous techniques for improving my action research plan as well as for evaluating my research.  The Harris text provided me with clear diagrams that helped me understand everything from the action research cycle to clear methods for sustaining school improvement such as the Nominal Group Technique, the Delphi Method, and Force Field Analysis (Harris 2010).  These techniques provided multiple opportunities for collaborative decision-making and reflective processes in a thoughtful, well planned way that I think would be simple to implement with PLC time.  These truly had an impact on my action research itself as well as how I see myself as a future principal-researcher.

References

Dana, N. F. (2009). Leading with passion and knowledge: The principal as action researcher. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press, a Joint Publication with the American Association of School Administrators.

Harris, S., Edmonson, S., & Combs, J. P. (2010). Examining what we do to improve our schools: 8 steps from analysis to action. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

REVISED Action Research Plan Template

REVISED Action Research Planning Template

(*****Please note all changes to plan are made in bold and italics*****)

Goal:  What are the passing rates of our LEP population on district assessments and the STAAR test over one year after instituting an online reading intervention program and do the results show a significant  close in achievement gaps between our LEP population and our “all students” category?

Action Step(s)	Person(s) Responsible	Timeline: Start/End	Needed Resources	Evaluation
1.  Setting the Foundation: Meet with site supervisor to determine possible action research topics and narrow them down per the discussion.  Focus on a campus need with the idea of improvement and refinement in mind.	Site Supervisor:  James Hallamek, principal CCMS Action Researcher: Linda Autrey	October 2012	1st meeting to narrow action research topics:  10/12/2012 2nd meeting to decide topic:  10/18/2012 3rd meeting to present action research draft plan:  10/26/2012	Tracking meetings and journaling about them through weekly assignments in EDLD 5301 Site mentor feedback and approval on action research draft plan
2.  Analyzing Data: Collect data from spring 2012 state assessment scores for LEP student and all student categories. Compare lexile scores of LEP students with all students for spring 2012. Collect data on district assessments and benchmarks to compare any progress or closing of gaps between LEP student and all student categories. Interview language arts and reading teachers (7th-8th) about what they think the needs of the LEP students are in terms of state assessments and district assessments.  Ask them what impact they think the Classworks reading intervention program might have on the learning of our LEP students. Compare those interviews to an interview with the campus principal (my site supervisor). Survey 8th grade ESL students about their preferred learning styles, their feelings about the Classworks program’s implementation, and have them predict whether or not they think this will help them in their reading comprehension. Survey 8th grade ESL students after the STAAR reading test to see if and how they felt Classworks helped them in their reading comprehension.  Compare their responses to the state results in June.	Site supervisor:  James Hallamek, principal of CCMS Action researcher:  Linda Autrey  CCMS ELA teams: Amanda Richason Amber Davis Naomi Kramer Rebecca Ramirez Kirsten Laskowski Karla Sonnek Cristine Pogue Daniel Gutierrez Mariel Early Action Researcher:  Linda Autrey  Action Researcher:  Linda Autrey	October 2012 October 2012 October 2012/ December 2012/ February 2013/ June 2013 November 2012 December 2012 April and June 2013	Eduphoria reports on STAAR performance for CCMS 7th graders for last year Student lexiles from Eduphoria and Skyward in report form Ongoing Eduphoria reports on district assessments to compare LEP Student performance to All Students  Survey and interviews in place during common PLC time to get feedback on what teachers think LEP students need to raise their lexile scores. Time to interview my site supervisor to compare his answers to our language arts / ESL departments’ answers Compile survey responses into a data report to share with ESL and ELA teachers as well as site supervisor  Compile survey responses into a data report to share with ESL and ELA teachers as well as site supervisor	Site mentor and ELA team feedback on data presentation and lexile scores (include ESL teachers in this data meeting)  Post ongoing data collection in blog to track progress and share results  Site mentor feedback on interviews and posting/journaling on interviews with ELA and ESL teachers and site mentor about needs of our LEP student population in terms of reading  Determine possible additional needs of students based on surveys Determine what changes need to be made next year in the program to improve student performance.
3.  Develop a Deeper Understanding: Examine qualitative data from teacher and site supervisor interviews and quantitative data from Eduphoria, Skyward, and Classworks to determine whether LEP students are progressing in the program and improving their lexiles and reading assessment performance. Reflect on whether tweaks to the implementation of Classworks and/or My Virtual Reading Coach are needed (additional resources, changes in implementation method, data collection, etc.). Review of all data current up to each checkpoint for evaluation	Action Researcher: Linda Autrey	December 2012	Eduphoria data charts, Surveymonkey.com data charts, Classworks and Skyward data reports Written reflections  Data charts that show progression of LEP students from last year’s STAAR through each district assessment this year	Present findings current up to now to site supervisor Post journal reflections on blog  Revise action research plan or implementation program as needed
4.  Engaging in Self-Reflection: Journals and reflections about the process of the action research, the data of the project, and analysis of data and findings thus far Gather feedback from ELA teachers and site supervisor on my performance.	Action Researcher:  Linda Autrey	December 2012	Written journals and reflections Go over action research timeline and measure whether timeline goals are being met See if any new data is needed to measure program success Surveymonkey.com for departmental and site supervisor feedback on the ongoing evaluation of the reading program	Journals posted on blog; data breakdown and survey data posted on blog Evaluation by peers and site supervisor via surveymonkey.com
5.  Exploring Programmatic patterns: Interview site supervisor, secondary curriculum director, and  assistant principal about programmatic patterns in our school and district. Analyze the efficiency of the reading intervention program in improving student scores and lexiles. Determine our needs in meeting AYP in reading at our school for this year.	Site supervisor:  James Hallamek, principal of CCMS Secondary Curriculum Director:  Nancy Roll Assistant Principal over ELA:  Alan Laurent Action Researcher: Linda Autrey	January 2013 March 2013	Interviews with Hallamek, Roll, and Laurent Eduphoria data	Identify programmatic patterns and share them on blog Post interview responses on blog
6.  Determining Direction: Meet with site supervisor and secondary curriculum director to determine the effectiveness of the online reading intervention programs and perhaps decide if or how it should be used next year. Examine possibilities for integrating Classworks or My Virtual Reading Coach as more of a supplement to language arts curriculum for all students and at other grade levels beyond grades 5-8.	Site supervisor:  James Hallamek, principal of CCMS Secondary Curriculum Director:  Nancy Roll Action Researcher:  Linda Autrey	May 2013	Charts that graph the progression of the LEP Students through district assessments and the reading program throughout the year. Information about program budgets in instructional materials for 2013-2014 school year.	Present information over the course of the year to secondary curriculum director and site supervisor for evaluation.  Budget feasibility and forthcoming STAAR scores will determine whether the program continues.  Journal about this presentation’s outcomes on blog.
7.  Taking Action Steps for School Improvement: Make recommendations about how this or future online reading intervention programs. Create a month-by-month reading intervention plan for the following school year utilizing the reading intervention classes with the reading intervention online programs with early data for all 7th and 8th graders before the 2013-2014 school year.	Site supervisor:  James Hallamek, principal of CCMS Action researcher:  Linda Autrey	June-July 2013	Compilation of all data in reading scores for the 2012-2013 school year with the spring 2012 reading scores for this year’s 8th grade (their 7th grade scores) to present to CCMS ELA teachers and administration in presentation format (Prezi or PowerPoint) The proposed plan for reading intervention laid out month by month with student data for the 2013-2014 school year	Journal about the recommendations made based on the action research on my blog. Teacher and administrative input on the proposed action plan for reading intervention for the 2013-2014 school year
8.  Sustaining Improvement: Final presentation of action research findings and recommendations to site supervisor, director of secondary curriculum, assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction Site supervisor’s final evaluation of the action research plan	Site supervisor:  James Hallamek, principal of CCMS Secondary Curriculum Director:  Nancy Roll Asst. Sup. C&I:  Jane Pollard Action Researcher: Linda Autrey	July 2013	Compilation of all data in reading scores for the 2012-2013 school year with the spring 2012 reading scores for this year’s 8th grade (their 7th grade scores) to present to CCMS ELA teachers and administration in presentation format (Prezi or PowerPoint) with the proposed plan for reading intervention laid out month by month with student data for the 2013-2014 school year	Share all presentation materials and reflections on blog. Share all presentation materials at a district-wide principal’s meeting and perhaps the school board.