Evidence: Artifacts for Cycle 2:
Cycle 2 Reflection
What happened? Understanding that action research is a continuous iterative process is helpful for me here due to the "new tool" status of the Google Group and minimal participation in the first discussion. Some teachers were eager to be a part of the online group but the short time frame from implementation to analysis doesn't give me enough time to see how the group will form and develop over time. Teachers responses to the original post were mostly superficial, except for one teacher who did provide an example of what was being taught in the classroom with a photo.
Successes? I was able to create, manage, and invite users to a group for collaboration. The Google Group seemed a logical choice because we already use the gmail system. The Google Group easily communicates the messages to the participating teachers through email. Some Tech Munch teachers were receptive and responsive to the group and first discussion.
Frustrations? I assumed that teachers would post during a time more convenient to them, but due to a minimal sign up rate and small number of participants, further discussion was not the same as in person discussion during Tech Munch. There was really no questioning and delving deeper into activities being shared. I provided choice for the members of the group on how to respond to the introductory post by either sharing another of their own tools or activities or responding about the document I posted. The way I asked the question may be the reason for the types of answers / responses that were sent. I will need to think further about what I want to see as a response from the teachers to make better posts.
Another frustration was the small response rate on the survey. I sent the survey out to every teacher I had invited to tech munch (over 25 teachers) and only 10 responded. Truly, this was the number of active contributors in the Tech Meetup. I had hoped to hear from more.
Next Steps: The survey results were mostly encouraging. Participants who took the survey were unanimously interested in pursuing further discussion via the online discussion group. It also gave some insight into what teachers want from Tech Munch. For example, some teachers want more formal trainings - short but informative. Others stated that lunch time was a difficult time to get away. Another suggested having hands-on work time. These responses have given me much to work on in the future. More posts and discussion in further cycles and next school year will contribute to further growth. I would like to invite more teachers to join a Tech Munch group and also the Google Group. If the Tech Munch gets too large, we could break off into smaller groups based on interests. I think one online Tech Google Group could benefit all so that everyone can see what others are doing with tech in their classrooms.
I would also like to provide the group with an opportunity to formulate their own guidelines for discussion and collaboration. The facilitator's role will be to provide the organizational features such as managing the site, providing topics, distributing the latest in research findings and tech tools, as well as organizing meetups. It will be imperative to get participating teachers to take ownership of the group to sustain its work in the future. In addition, further group meetings will need to be more topic focused with opportunities to practice and create together.