AERA 2013, San Francisco, CA

Developing a professional learning network for effective ICT-supported teaching and learning

April 30, 2013

Gyeong Mi Heo, Ph.D. (CEFRIO, Canada)Alain Breuleux, Ph.D. (McGill University, Canada)

Building Community through Telecollaboration

Abstract

This paper introduces Building Community through

Telecollaboration (BCT) Network that consists of two

school-board professional learning networks (PLNs) for

teachers, describes the key features and development

processes of the PLNs based on the conceptual

framework of communities of practice (CoPs) (Wenger,

1998), and discusses considerations and implications for

developing PLNs for teachers, particularly at the school

board level.

Conceptual Framework

Communities of Practice • “Groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a

passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interaction on an ongoing basis.” (Wenger et al., 2002, p.4)

Professional Learning Networks• “Shared beliefs, values, and vision; Shared and supportive

leadership; Supportive structural conditions; Supportive relational conditions; Collective learning; and Peer sharing.” (Bausmith & Barry, 2011)

Teacher Knowledge• Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Mishra

& Koehler, 2006)

Research Questions

a) What are the characteristics of the BCT Network in each school board-based on the conceptual framework of CoP ?

b) What are the differences in the key features and development processes between two school boards?

c) What are some of the successful factors, challenges and implications for developing a PLN at the school board level?

Building Community through Telecollaboration (BCTN)

40-50 teachers from 9 School boards

Design research(Iterative process)

ResearchersConsultants

40-50 teachers from9 School boards

2 school boards

25-30 teachers/SB

ResearchersConsultants

Cycle lead teachers

Participatory design Research

(Lead teachers)

Participatory design Research

(Two school board-based PLNs)

ResearchersConsultants

SB1 Lead TeamSB2 Lead Team

Phase 1 (2007-2009)

Phase 2 (2009-2011)

Phase 3 (2011-2013)

ListservLive ClassroomBCT Blog & Wiki

BCT SAKAI portalLive ClassroomBCT Website

E-Mail

BCT Website & E-MailSB1: SB portal & Wiki

SB2: SB WebsiteZenlive

Participants

Characteristics

Leadership team

ICT tools

Leadership team in each school board PLN

BCT-SB1(1) BCT-SB2

Participants 25 teachers from 6 schools

(including 10 BCT teachers)

29 teachers from 9 schools

(including 9 BCT teachers)

Leadership team

A SB1 Technology-Pedagogical consultant (Former lead teacher)Two lead teachers

A principalA SB2 Technology-Pedagogical consultantA IT Coordinator

Pedagogy (Process) - driven approach

Technology (Tools) - driven approach

(1) SB is the acronym for School Board.

Methods

Participatory design research approach (Heo & Breuleux, 2011). Data collection

a) Semi-structured Individual interviews: Six individual leaders of both school board leadership teams.

b) Appreciative inquiry survey: At the end of each F2F session, participating teachers' feedback was collected in terms of three topics, such as Benefits, Even better if, and Suggestions & Questions.

c) An online focus group interview: The leaders from both school board leadership teams.

d) Field notes: BCT F2F meetings, activities of BCT Leadership team members, and student classroom activities in both school boards.

Results: Emerging conceptions from interview data

The concerns on the teacher's part. Not knowing where to start, how to fit it in and see it as something else added on to already busy schedule, probably in isolation, not having the other teachers there to be a mentor to guide her, not knowing about what tools to use to fit her purpose. I think often teachers are unclear on how to integrate them, they just don't know what they could do or taking that step that becomes part of the whole lesson planning process. (SB1 consultant)

The biggest problem we address is staying with the teacher until they feel comfortable with their technological device of choice. Teachers are scared of technology as much as they are scared of the technology not working in critical moments or they reach a point they don't understand in front of the class. and what we do is simply leave out those fears (SB2 consultant)

[Example] Vignette 3. Jane, a cycle-2 teacher, wants to do a collaborative project with Blabberize in her class. She is not experienced enough to facilitate student group activities with ICT. What issues/challenges should be considered as she designs and implements her project?

The first thing she would want to do is to talk to somebody who has already done the project before, perhaps that teacher or the Technology-Pedagogy consultant in the board would come in and model the lesson and look at examples with the students…

It would be important to have her aware of what the tools would be chosen for the project, I think the process during the project is also important. Understanding that the technology is a final step, having to do all of the reading and writing with the students, before they get the time in front of a computer, that's a key with any technology (SB1 consultant).

First I will tell her not to use Blabberize. I love Web 2.0 but we have one big problem with it that is bandwidth......... Let’s look at something even more simple, let’s look at Moviemaker, which almost can do everything Blabberize can do, but you can have children create media artifact of good quality and perhaps better quality than Blabberize because it is inside the computer. So we are not going to worry about bandwidth there............... Let’s say they want to create a CD of all their children’s efforts, Blabberize is impossible while with movie maker you’ll get a nice CD (SB2 consultant).

Results: Highlighted features in two SB Networks (1/2)

Depending on the vision and mission, infrastructure, and available resources, however, the SBs have taken different approaches to developing the PLNs.

First, the members of the SB Leadership teams were different. SB1 Leadership team consisted of teachers who have had extensive teaching experiences and were BCT lead teachers in Phase 2 while SB2 Leadership team members came from different backgrounds and experiences.

In terms of the domain of practice, hence, for teachers' effective integration of the ICT into classroom, SB1 emphasized more a "pedagogy first, then technology" in relation to teachers’ classroom practice while SB2 gave priority to the teacher's comfort level with ICT (e.g., ICT hands-on session).

Results: Highlighted features in two SB Networks (2/2)

For the development of community, SB1 has encouraged the teachers to interact and collaborate with others through mentoring and modeling of classroom practice by the lead teachers, whereas SB2 has tried to identify and train potential Go-To teachers for facilitating collegial support.

Each SB Network produced Resource Binders and distributed them to participating BCT schools and teachers. The Resource Binder of SB1 consisted of the working sheets related to Internet safety & privacy activity, research & information literacy activity, and digital citizenship activity while that of SB2 included tutorials of various ICT tools. In addition, the BCT Network at large also developed an E-booklet as a guidebook for effective ICT-supported learning that was built through the iterative processes of "participation" and "reification" (Wenger, 1998) of the practice.

Further issues for developing a PLN(1) Which knowledge should come first,

technology or pedagogy? Or is it rather that they are mutually constituted in a dialectic manner? If it is indeed the case, what are the practical implications for the design of learning activities in the PLNs?

(2) For facilitating online interaction, which one should come first, either building trust and social relationship or increasing teachers' technical proficiency?

* Please scan the QR code to leave your responses.

Conclusions (1/2)

Based on the findings from the BCT Network, some key considerations for implementing a PLN for teacher professional development are suggested along the following factors proposed by Zhao and Rop (2001):

a) Technology. Infrastructure and technology issues (e.g., reliable Internet access and IT support) should be dealt with at the school board level. Teachers' technological proficiency is required but it must be subsumed under pedagogical competency.

b) Motivation. The roles of lead teachers/Go-To teachers foster enhanced levels of teacher leadership and teacher ownership of the BCT Network. The lead teachers/Go-To teachers can represent the teachers’ actual needs and expectations and reflect their practical situations. The authentic participation and leadership and design of the PLN are crucial.

Conclusions (2/2)

c) Project time frames. To ensure sustainability of the PLN, effective ways of transferring ownership and accountability to the school boards should be accomplished by maintaining intimate relationships with the school board administrators and staffs and applying available resources at the school board.

d) Time to participate. Time constraints are a major concern for teachers to engage in a PLN. This issue is related to teacher motivation. To encourage teachers' voluntary interaction and engagement, a PLN needs to build collegial trust, create a safe, respectful, and supportive group environment among members and develop Group Guidelines in relation to their own participation through group consensus.

e) Project goals. As a CoP for teachers, the shared visions and goals among members are crucial. The teachers also need to set individuals’ personal goals depending on their levels of competency and commitment.

Related Links• BCTN website: http://

bctcollaboration.wikispaces.com/

Contacts• Gyeong Mi Heo (gyeongmi.heo@gmail.com) CEFRIO, QC, Canada

• Alain Breuleux (alain.breuleux@mcgill.ca) McGill University, QC, Canada

Online Survey• https://docs.google.com/forms/d/16zDMD1Hc9aQXhe2G-YE

yI4HyRbbiam_HHxJA_rT0dSM/viewform