EAPRIL SLOA-VO workshop totaal


Published on

Presentation of researchers and practitioners supported by the Dutch Council for Secondary Education

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

EAPRIL SLOA-VO workshop totaal

  1. 1. Collaboration betweenschool practitioners and researchers in R&D-projects Implications for theory and practice EAPRIL 2012 - Jyväskylä, Finland
  2. 2. Presenters• Femke GeijselProfessor of Applied SciencesWindesheim, University of Applied SciencesSenior researcherUniversity of Amsterdam• Henk SligteSenior researcherKohnstamm Institute, University of Amsterdam EAPRIL 2012 - Jyväskylä, Finland
  3. 3. PresentersTwo R&D projects:• Collegial consultation between teachersFrank Dost: Teacher researcher at Stad and Esch, MeppelHennie Brandsma: Professor of Applied Sciences at ECNO, Groningen• Integrating digital learning methods in lessonsChristiaan de Regt: Teacher researcher at Maerlant Lyceum, The HagueDaniëlle de Laat: Advisor at AO Consult, Tilburg EAPRIL 2012 - Jyväskylä, Finland
  4. 4. VO-raad=Dutch council for secondary education• The VO-raad represents 334 school governing boards and over 600 schools in secondary education.• As a sector organisation VO-raad aims at quality, development and innovation of the secondary education sector with 1 million students, age 12-18, and 120,000 staff members• Supports R&D projects + us here@EAPRIL….
  5. 5. Your roles? ResearchersTeacher educators Teachers Advisors Others
  6. 6. Outline• Introduction: role of research in schools• Presentation of two R&D projects• Presentation overarching research• Discussion EAPRIL 2012 - Jyväskylä, Finland
  7. 7. Introduction:role of research in schools EAPRIL 2012 - Jyväskylä, Finland
  8. 8. R&D-projects• Research & Development-projects in secondary schools, so-called SLOA-projects• 32 projects in total in period 2010-2013• Funding of VO-raad meant for the research part, the schools cater for the development part• Collaboration between: school practitioners (teachers, school leaders) and external parties (researchers, advisors, supervisors) EAPRIL 2012 - Jyväskylä, Finland
  9. 9. R&D-projects• R&D themes, for example: – evaluating reading lessons – interventions in numeracy – integrating games into lessons – creating a school for pupils aged 10-14 – developing didactic methods for gifted students EAPRIL 2012 - Jyväskylä, Finland
  10. 10. To the Cases• Two R&D-projects: – Collegial consultation between teachers – Integrating digital learning methods in lessons EAPRIL 2012 - Jyväskylä, Finland
  11. 11. Collegial consultation on RSG Stad & EschA research project on the process and effectsFrank Dost (teacher-researcher) and Hennie Brandsma (university of Leeuwarden) EAPRIL Finland November 28 2012
  12. 12. A DUTCH CLASSROOM. ˆ
  13. 13. Collaborative processes• The university of Groningen provided the observational instrument (V/d Grift, icalt-instrument)• The university of Leeuwarden provided the training- sessions• The researcher from the university of Leeuwarden trained the teacher-researchers and supervised the research-project• A group of teacher-researchers from the school carried out the research• The results of the research were shared with the teachers of Stad & Esch and other participating schools
  14. 14. Background information• In 2009/2010: school received a negative inspection report on the pedagogical and didactical quality of teachers• Goal: to improve these qualities• Means: using an observational instrument for mutual observation and feedback sessions• Subsidized by SLOA VO-council
  15. 15. INTERVENTIONS• Teachers are trained in using the observational instrument• Teachers are trained in giving and receiving effective feedback• Each and every teacher is being observed and observes one or two colleagues• After the observation there is mutual consultation on the observed teacher-behaviour• Plans for improvement are being made
  17. 17. IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION• It’s all on the basis of improvement, not from an accountability-perspective!
  18. 18. THE UNDERLYING RESEARCHTwo questions:The process: ‘What are the experiences within theschool with collegial consultation and theobservational instrument?’The effects:‘To what extent do the teaching behavioursimprove by using collegial consultation.’• The data needed to answer the question on the effects are still being analysed.
  19. 19. THE RESEARCH PROCESS (1)The object is a description of the process ofimplementationMethod: We interviewed ±20 teachers and schoolleaders on the following topics• Their initial expectations• The implementation• Self efficacy• Motivation• Plans for the future
  20. 20. RESULTS OF THE INTERVIEWS• Initial enthusiasm and motivation were reasonably high for collegial consultation• The use of the instrument for improvement- purposes was widely supported• The use of the instrument for assessment- purposes was widely criticized• The practical use of the instrument was also criticized• Most teachers want to continue with collegial consultation, but they want to adapt the instrument
  21. 21. THE RESEARCH PROCESS (2)The object is an inventory of topics with respectto further professionalizationMethod: An online questionnaire for all teachersTopics:- Activating the pupils (5 questions)- Within group differentiation (4 questions)- Development of learning strategies (6questions)- learning behavior of pupils (3 questions)
  22. 22. NEED FOR PROFESSIONALIZATION Learning behavior of pupils 2.4 Within group differtiation 2.2 1-1.66 (no need) 1.67-2.33 (maybe) Learning strategies 2.1 2.34 -3.00 (certainly)Didactics for activating pupils 2.3 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
  23. 23. CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE NEED FOR PROFESSIONALIZATION1. There is a high desire to improve teaching skillswithin the teaching community of the school2. Teachers are interested in improving their skillswith respect to activating pupils and improvingthe learning behaviour of pupils3. There are no differences in the need forprofessionalization between sexes, age-groupsand level of experience
  24. 24. DISSEMINATION OF THE RESULTS• Within the broader school community• Presented to all teachers• Results are discussed in small groups• Conclusions were widely accepted and sharedWhat to do in the future?• Collegial consultation will be continued as a standard way of teacher professionalization and improvement• The observational instrument will be adapted to specific school and teacher needs
  25. 25. One or two questions?
  26. 26. Integrating digital learning tools in lessons Christiaan de Regt and Daniëlle de Laat 26
  27. 27. THIS PRESENTATION(1) Introduction• Project goals• Activities• Collaboration(2) Demonstration of a digital lesson(3) Outcomes • Design impact research • Findings • Conclusions 27
  28. 28. PROJECT GOALS• By using digital learning tools in ‘problem courses’ in the regular course program and at cancelled classes: – Providing a solution for cancelled classes; – Exploiting teacher’s teaching time more efficient and effective; – Reducing teacher’s workload; – Increasing education quality. • Experiment with digital lessons for three subjects • Integrate research and development 28
  29. 29. ACTIVITIES• Step 1: Inventory research Which digital learning tools are available and effective?• Step 2: Development teaching program Development of a teaching program with digital lessons, based on macro- to meso- and micro-design• Step 3: Implementation of the teaching program Implementation of the teaching programs on the three participating schools• Step 4: Impact research Research on the effects of digital learning tools on: teaching time, workload and education quality• Step 5: Reports and dissemination Share experiences and knowledge 29
  30. 30. COLLABORATIONCollaboration on three levels:1. Within the school(s)• Between teachers, education support staff and headmasters2. Between the schools and the external party (AOC)• Five meetings with headmasters and AOC• Collaboration in development (support of teachers and education support staff by AOC)• Collaboration in research (involvement of teachers and education support staff)3. Within the external party (AOC)• Researcher and educational expert 30
  31. 31. (2) DEMONSTRATION OF A DIGITAL LESSON• General experiences• What obstacles are experienced?• An example of a digital lesson 31
  32. 32. GENERAL EXPERIENCES• Clarity comes first: prepair the students well• Students often respond positive on digital lessons• Variation is fun• Working independently on the computer is very nice for some individualistic students• Several small assignments are received more pleasant compared to a few large assignments• Students scroll through the digital lesson back and forth• Humor is important• ‘Personal’ contribution of teachers is appreciated 32
  33. 33. WHAT OBSTACLES ARE EXPERIENCED?• First lesson hour of the day is inconvenient• Technical problems• Ignorance colleagues• Lesson outcome not always clear• Students want to ask questions ánd get an answer• Unclarity provides problems quickly• Lack of ready made digital learning material• It is difficult to make a lesson far in advance• It takes much time to make a digital lesson 33
  34. 34. 34
  35. 35. Avete pueri puellaeque! Welcome to your sixth digital lesson Latin.In this lesson we complete the dativus. We will prepare us for the written test of Friday the 13th. 35
  36. 36. IntroductionThis lesson consists of seven parts:A. Shows the homework for the next lesson.B. Is the Latin translation of Text 6A that you have made. This will be checked by yourself!C. Shows what pupils of other schools have done with the hero Aeneas.D. Some little assignments, including the dativusE. Shows a video with two really critical parents. Recognizable? Try to understand the meaning of the Latin expressions.F. Consists of little exercises for the written testG. The evaluation of this lesson 36
  37. 37. A. HomeworkFor the next regular lesson Latin, youmust have done the things below.When you are finished with the assignments ofthís lesson, you can start with them.• Learning the Latin words lesson 6 (2x)• Getting familiar with the rows of the noun and pronoun (with the dativus)Good luck with your preparations! 37
  38. 38. B. Translation Tekst 6A. Check yourself1. Venus prepares a trick/ devises a list.2. She calls Amor, her son and tells him:3. ‘Son, I beg you, help me!4. I am planning to deceive queen Dido.5. The boy Ascanius is getting ready to go to Carthago6. and brings gifts to the queen.7. I dedicate this to you now:8. You, take the appearance of Ascanius and go to town.9. Go to the queen and awake love for Aeneas10. in her heart.11. I will take care of the boy Ascanius.’12. Amor obeys the goddess.13. He puts his wings of, takes the appearance of Ascanius and goes to town.14. Already he approaches the palace.15. Meanwhile, Venus puts Ascanius to a deep sleep.16. Then she lifts the boy out of bed and carries him to the mountains.17. There, he dreams between/ among fragrant flowers 38
  39. 39. C. Aeneas Troianus estThe main character Aeneas who we are reading about now, is a well known historic / mythical figure. That is why we will see him in many different stories and artworks.The pupils CKV (cultural art forming) on the Stedelijk Gymnasium in Den Bosch have imitated his flight from Troy in a very original way. They took Text 3A from Vivat Roma! as a starting point.The title of their video is ‘Aeneas Troianus est’, since this is in the Latin text. However, the pupils have made a huge language error. Do you recognize the error?Click the link below to start the video:klik hier 39
  40. 40. D. Two little assignments with the dativusAttention: the next two sheets contain the noun-schedules1. Translate and put into plural:a. Mihi cenam parat. d. Filius excipit me.b. Femina tibi donum dat. e. Te saluto.c. Servus ei non paret. f. Eum relinquis.2. Fill in the correct form of the personal pronoun:a. Anchises ..... (eis, eas) amat.b. Patres quaero, sed ..... (eas, eos) invenire non possum.c. Aeneas hospitem videt et ..... (eae, eam, eum) recognoscit.d. Didonem Aeneas amat et ..... (eam, ei, eis) flores dat.e. Servae ..... (eis, ea) mensas tegunt. 40
  41. 41. D.1 Appendix I The nounIn the schedule below, you will find the noun that you already had tolearn. All case endings are in bold.Case Group 1 Group 2 Group 3nom ev puella servus bellum pater mater nomendat ev puellae servo bello patri matri nominiacc ev puellam servum bellum patrem matrem nomennom mv puellae servi bella patres matres nominadat mv puellis servis bellis patribus matribus nominibusacc mv puellas servos bella patres matres nomina 41
  42. 42. D.2 Appendix II The personal pronounBelow you can find a schedule with the personal pronouns, including thetranslations. case 1st person 2nd person 3th person nom ev ego = me tu = you is = he ea = she id = it dat ev mihi = (to) me tibi = (to) you ei = (to) him/ her/ it acc ev me = me te = you eum = him eam = her id = it nom mv nos = we vos = you ei = they eae = they ea =they dat mv nobis = (to) us vobis = (to) you eis = (to) them acc mv nos = us vos = you eos = them eas = them ea = them 42
  43. 43. E. KoefnoenYou may know them. Those people that per se want their child to go togymnasium. Two well known actors from the satiric program Koefnoen playsuch a married couple that at all costs wants to place their beloved‘offspring’ on gymnasium.The rector, yet classical trained, is quite overwhelmed. By citing Latinspells, he tries to respond the parents as good as possible.A. Watch the video and give a definition of the following statements:1. pro forma2. nolens volens3. cum laudeB. The parents made at least two errors in Latin. Which?Click hier for the video 43
  44. 44. F. Practice question for the written test about lesson 6I Translate the words below and give what is asked for:1. paulatim = 5. sidus (+pl) =2. distribuere = 6. adire =3. lectus = 7. postremo =4. flos (+pl +sex) = 8. ubique =II Translate the verb forms below correctly:1. convenit =2. mandate =3. pares =4. expellunt =5. incipio = 44
  45. 45. F. ContinuationIII Complete the schedule below: nom ev nox dat ev animo acc ev lumen nom mv dat mv acc mv regiastranslation night light 45
  46. 46. F. Answers practice-written test1.: little by little, distribute, bed, flower(flores, m), star (sidera), go to, finally, everywhere2.: he comes together, dedicate(s)!, you obey, they expel, I start3.: nox regia animus lumen nocti regiae animo lumini noctem regiam animum lumen noctes regiae animi lumina noctibus regiis animis luminibus noctes regias animos lumina night palace heart, soul light 46
  47. 47. G. Evaluation• Write your evaluation of this lesson on the separate sheet that you will get from the supervisor• Do you have questions about the (teaching-) material, write them in your notebook! So long! 47
  48. 48. (New Year 2011 in the Via del Corso, Roma) >end< 48
  49. 49. Spring, here we come ! 49
  50. 50. (3) OUTCOMES• Impact research• Design impact research• Findings• Conclusions 50
  51. 51. DESIGN IMPACT RESEARCHThe research consists of three moments of measurement:• First measurement -> Impact measurement – Depth interviews and extensive questionnaire students• Intermediate measurement (after lessons) – Short questionnaires after each lesson – Observations by teachers 51
  52. 52. OVERALL FINDINGS• Average report marks – Digital lessons: 6,5 – Regular lessons: 7,1This difference is significant*• How can this be explained?Compared to the regular lessons, the students stated about the digital lessons significant less often that: – the lesson was prepared well by the teacher; – they had learned new things; – the assignments were clear; – the lesson was interesting. 52
  53. 53. FINDINGS BY SCHOOL• Opinion about digital lessons – All students were in advance positive about digital lessons – Afterwards only at one school were the students more positive about digital lessons. • Computers more fun then books • Variety in different kind of assignments and tools was appreciated • Ability to work at your own pace • Silence during the lessons • Discussion about digital lessons during regular lessons -> adaptation of next lesson – Ict can make a lesson more fun, but not if all lessons are digital• Teacher appears indispensable factor• Ict-facilities not always okay  Irritation and lost time 53
  54. 54. CONCLUSIONS• The expected effects are limited realized. The use of digital learning tools does not automatically lead to: – efficient and effective use of teaching time; – replacement of cancelled lessons; – lower pressure and higher job satisfaction among teachers.• The successful use of digital learning tools is strongly dependent on the parameters of the Four in Balance model (Kennisnet): – Vision – Expertise – Digital learning materials – Ict infrastructure. 54
  55. 55. Overarching Research Wouter Schenkewschenke@kohnstamm.uva.nl
  56. 56. Overarching researchResearch question:What is the nature of cross-professional collaboration between teachers, school leaders, educational researchers/advisors in R&D-projects in terms of:• reasons to collaborate• division of tasks• communication: structure and cultureSchenke, Volman, Van Driel, Geijsel, & Sligte (2012). De aard van cross-professionelesamenwerking in O&O-projecten in het voortgezet onderwijs. Pedagogische Studiën EAPRIL 2012 - Jyväskylä, Finland
  57. 57. Theoretical background• Cross-professional collaboration: A situation in which participants of different backgrounds work together to reach their goals• R&D-projects provide a way to connect their corresponding worldsAkkerman & Bakker (2011), Coburn & Stein (2010) EAPRIL 2012 - Jyväskylä, Finland
  58. 58. Cross-professional collaboration School leader Educational researcher/ advisor Teacher researcher EAPRIL 2012 - Jyväskylä, Finland
  59. 59. Theoretical background• R&D-projects offer opportunities to: – ... bridge the gap between theory and practice – ... have a better use of research results – ... perform research in an ecological valid setting• Reasons to collaborate in R&D-projects – Legitimating an innovation at school – Stimulating professional development of teachers – Agreement on reasons to collaborate?Broekkamp & Van Hout-Wolters (2007), Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1999), Geijsel (2010),Hora & Millar (2011), Volman (2008)
  60. 60. Theoretical background• Division of tasks – Who is project leader? – Researchers share their research expertise – Researchers become supervisors and/or advisors as well – Teachers become teacher researchers by training and performing research – School leaders become data-driven and stimulate a research culture – Who is in control in research at school?Coburn & Stein (2010), Van de Ven (2007), Wagner (1997)
  61. 61. Theoretical background• Communication – Structure: meeting structure, time investment, means of communication – Culture: open-ended conversationEdwards (2012), Engle (2010), Geijsel & Van Eck (2011) EAPRIL 2012 - Jyväskylä, Finland
  62. 62. Method• Interviews with participants of 12 case studies• Collection of documents, such as reports• Within-site analysis• Cross-site analysis• AuditMiles & Huberman (1994) EAPRIL 2012 - Jyväskylä, Finland
  63. 63. ResultsReasons to collaborate:• 9 out of 12 projects have congruent goals: same interests of internal and external parties• 3 out of 12 projects have additional goals of researchers. For example: selling information of a new instrument EAPRIL 2012 - Jyväskylä, Finland
  64. 64. Results Division of tasksNumber of Development tasks: Research tasks: Teacher researchers School leader activeprojects who is in control? who is in control? present? in research tasks? I School School Yes Yes III School School and Yes Yes external party III School and School and Yes Yes external party external party II School and School and No Yes external party external party II School and External party Yes No external party I School External party No No EAPRIL 2012 - Jyväskylä, Finland
  65. 65. Results Communication structureNumber of Meetings Time investmentprojects Internal External School leader Teacher External party V Overall project group with internal High High High and external participants III Internal project Researcher High High High or low group I Internal project Researcher Average Low Average leader III Overall steering group with internal Low Low High and external participants High = > 200h. Average = 100-200h. Low = < 100 h. on a yearly basis EAPRIL 2012 - Jyväskylä, Finland
  66. 66. Stad and Esch Results In control:Four types of collaboration: SchoolA. Ownership of project lies with the school and researcher supports the schoolB. Interests and tasks of school practitioner and researcher are intertwinedC. Researcher advises steering group; no teacher researchers at schoolD. Researcher has additional interests in Researcher project and controls research Maerlant Lyceum
  67. 67. Results Types of collaborationTypes Number of Reasons to collaborate Division of tasks Communicati projects on Congruent Additional Development Research Time invest- reasons reasons tasks: in tasks: in ment school control control A IV + - School School and High external party B III + - School and School and High external party external party C II + - School and School and Low external party external party D III - + School and External party Average external party
  68. 68. Discussions• The practical and scientific value of cross-professional collaboration: – On project-bound collaboration – On the level of the school organisation – On the professional sector as a whole EAPRIL 2012 - Jyväskylä, Finland