andrearankinsprofessionalportfolio.weebly.comandrearankinsprofessionalportfolio.weebly.com/uploads/… ·...

Running head: REFLECTION ON COLLEGIAL COACHING

Reflection on Integrating Technology Through Collegial Coaching

Andrea Coleman-Rankin

ETEC-5305 Technology Enhanced Instructional Design

Houston Baptist University

1

REFLECTION ON COLLEGIAL COACHING

Abstract

The purpose of the following study was to determine whether the use of collegial

coaching would positively impact the ability of participants to comprehend and

effectively use technological tools in their personal and professional lives. This study

was conducted using three participants with differing technological needs from various

professional fields. The researcher served as the collegial coach to the three participants

by providing services and support in person, through Face Time, and through email

communications. The results of the study were based on information obtained from

interviews, participant completed journal entries, and a final evaluation on the overall

coaching process. Data obtained from the above methods showed that collegial coaching

had a promising impact on participants’ ability to understand and apply applications

involving technology to their personal and professional lives.

2


Reflection on Integrating Technology Through Collegial Coaching

Over the past decade, education as we know it has changed at an alarming rate.

Teaching methodologies have shifted from teacher-centered to student-centered, with

increased emphasis on ensuring that students are tech savvy as they enter college or start

their careers. As a result, it is also essential that educators possess 21st century

instructional skills, which includes technological competence. The use of effective

professional development strategies to improve the quality of teaching has become

paramount. In traditional forms of professional development, educators are subjected to

training sessions that employ a one-size-fits all approach and outside experts, leaving the

individual needs and concerns of many teachers unaddressed (Alaniz & Wilson, 2015).

In addition, opportunities for potential collaboration among colleagues are also limited,

preventing teachers from critical learning activities such as developing content

knowledge, discussing strategies, and reflecting on practices (Scribner, 1999). Due to the

ineffectiveness of traditional professional development, many in the field of education

have moved toward implementing nontraditional strategies for professional development.

For example, collegial coaching is one strategy that focuses on the needs of the

individual, engages educators in reflection upon teaching practices, encourages

participants to produce their own relevant knowledge, and maximizes learning for both

teachers and students (Alaniz & Wilson, 2015). To further understand the positive

effects of collegial coaching and how it might promote the technological skills of

participants in their personal and professional lives, this paper examines and reflects upon

the coaching process as experienced through a five week Master Technology Teacher

3


(MTT) Collegial Coaching Internship conducted in the course titled Technology

Enhanced Instructional Design at Houston Baptist University.

Literature Review

Numerous studies have been conducted in relation to collegial coaching and its

positive effects on improving instructional practice, enhancing student learning, fostering

team effectiveness through collaboration, and technology integration. One study,

focusing on the use of collegial coaching and reflective dialog in a middle school setting

by Delany and Arredondo (1998) found that “changes may be evident in teachers’

practices when they become aware of incongruencies between their espoused theories

and their theories-in-use” (p. 7). In this study, six teachers were paired with three

collegial coaching teams and an administrative peer. Teachers were tasked with first

recording two sessions of classroom instruction, followed by the completion of reflective

journal entries and a narrative. Through the use of subsequent interviews, conferences,

and participants’ journal entries, the study revealed that teachers made changes to their

instructional practices when they discovered that their theories-in-use did not reflect their

espoused theories, resulting in poor student performance (Delany & Arredondo, 1998).

Another study by Styron and Styron (2014) compared the impact of student

learning of participants enrolled in courses where instructors participated in collegial

coaching and peer mentoring. Instructors in this study engaged in collegial coaching

through the use of the Learning Walk Method (preparation, classroom visits, team

debriefings, and closing conversations between coach and coachee). Analysis of pre- and

post-tests revealed a positive impact on student learning in those students who were

enrolled in courses where instructors participated in collegial coaching and mentoring.

4


Specifically, results showed higher mastery levels of student outcomes, higher levels of

perceived critical thinking and collaboration by students, higher levels of persistence, and

more A’s and B’s and fewer D’s and F’s compared to courses where faculty members

were not involved in collegial coaching (Styron & Styron, 2014).

Other studies, such as one conducted by Dimas, Rebelo, and Lourenco (2016),

examined the impact of peer coaching on team building and team effectiveness. In this

study, peers in an organization were placed in to teams and a peer coach (leader)

established. Peer coaches then led teams in specific tasks outlined by the organization

and provided mediation and support. Using diagnostic surveys, this study found that the

process of peer coaching acts as a powerful factor in promoting team effectiveness by

fostering a secure and supportive learning environment for coaches and coachees. In

addition, coaching also allowed team members to engage in meaningful reflective

practices that focus on the instructional processes and results achieved, stimulating

learning and development (Dimas et al., 2016).

Many studies concerning collegial coaching also focus on technology integration.

In a study by Tryon and Schwartz (2012), a peer coaching collaboration was observed

between graduate students in a Master’s program in Instructional Technology and

undergraduate pre-service teachers taking an elementary mathematics methods course. In

the implementation of this study, peer coaches guided pre-service teachers as they

planned and created an educational web site to communicate mathematics concepts

(grades 3-5) to parents and students. According to Tryon and Schwartz (2012), results of

the study found that the peer coaching experience “helped pre-service teachers learn

about integrating technology to communicate and provide at-home resources about

5


mathematics through the development of their elementary mathematics web sites” (p.

35). From this relationship, pre-service teachers not only gained a useable website for

use in their future profession, but valuable technology integration skills as well.

Finally, in an article by Glazer, Hannafin, and Song (2005), the promotion of

technology integration through the use of a collaborative apprenticeship was examined.

In the Collaborative Apprenticeship Model, teacher learning is supported through teacher

leaders. Teachers are paired with teacher-leaders and guided through the four phases of

collaborative apprenticeship (introduction, developmental, proficiency, and mastery) with

respect to integrating some form of new technology. The authors found that the

Collaborative Apprenticeship Model has implications in building communities of practice

for teachers at schools, developing strong leadership in technology integration, and

supporting teacher empowerment (Glazer et al., 2005). By providing authentic, teacher-

specific, and a theoretically grounded alternative to traditional professional development,

collaborative apprenticeships offer promising outcomes in today’s schools.

Methods

Participants

Participants in the MTT Collegial Coaching Internship were considered for

inclusion in the study if they expressed an interest in becoming more comfortable with

technological use, felt dissatisfied with their current level of technological expertise, or

exhibited a need for instructional support in their personal or professional life.

Participants were selected from a convenience sample by identifying individuals who fit

the above inclusion criteria. Identified participants were then approached and a detailed

description about the requirements of the internship was given. This included, what their

6


roles and responsibilities as participants would be and how the coach would fulfill their

part as a collegial coach.

Subjects consisted of one white male and two white females, ranging in age from

24 to 58. The male participant in the internship (Participant 1) holds a Masters in Public

Health and works as a Public Health Specialist with eight years of experience. The first

female participant (Participant 2) has a Bachelor’s in Computer Programming and works

as a Technical Architect with 16 years of experience, while the second female participant

(Participant 3) is a first year graduate student working on a Masters in Educational

Leadership and Policy Studies with a focus on higher education. In addition, all

participants expressed low confidence levels when it came to using technology in their

personal and professional lives.

Instruments

Instruments used to collect data in this study included the completion of four

journal entries and a final evaluation by each participant and a self-evaluation completed

by the coach. Journal entries of coached participants consisted of 4 sets of questions

corresponding to the weeks of January 23, January 30, February 6, and February 13,

2017. The first set of questions in the journal entries (Journal Entry 1) was an initial

questionnaire to gather information on participants’ profession, years of experience,

access to technology, technological goals, and any additional traits the coach should

know about the participant. Subsequent journal entries (Journal Entries 2-4) assessed

items such as the needs and concerns of participants, feedback on the implementation of

each technology integration piece (three total per participant), what could be improved

with the tool, any positive/negative concerns, and feedback on the coaching process in

7


general. Participants filled out journal entries each week using Google Forms. Answers

were then consolidated into a single Microsoft Word document for final analysis by the

coach.

The final evaluation was completed by participants during the week of February

20, 2017 and consisted of three parts: General Evaluation Comments, Technology

Integration, and Feedback. The first part contained eight general questions pertaining to

the peer coach such as whether or not the coach met with the participant on a regular

basis, listened to the needs of the participant, made helpful suggestions based on

participant needs, or engaged in open, comfortable, and clear communication with the

participant. Answers were given using a scale of 1-3 (1=poor, 2=adequate, 3=good).

The peer coach was also rated on technology integration. Participants listed the three

technology tools their coach introduced to them and rated each tool as poor, adequate, or

good by placing an “X” in the appropriate box. In the third and final part of the

evaluation, participants were given the opportunity to give any additional feedback

related to the overall coaching process.

The self-evaluation completed by the peer coach was completed during the week

of February 27, 2017 and addressed five criteria: Coaching Activities, Lesson Planning

Activities, Research and Development Activities, Other Activities, and Professional

Behavior and General Supervision. In each section, the peer coach listed the appropriate

activities and provided a rating (A=worked well, B=Worked fairly well/needs a few

changes, C=didn’t work well, NA=not applicable to this experience). The peer coach

was also asked to rate their overall performance by assigning a letter grade (A, A-, B+, B,

B-, C, C-, F, INC), where below C was considered failing.

8


Procedure

In the implementation of this study, the Collegial Coaching Model for Technology

Integration was followed to ensure that participants properly experienced each element of

collegial coaching. The Collegial Coaching Model for Technology Integration consists

of five phases. In Phases 1 and 2 or this model, the needs of the participants and the

creation of partnerships are established. This was achieved during an initial interview

and planning session with each participant. During initial interviews with Participants 1-

3, the needs and concerns of each individual were discussed along with time frames for

project integration and necessary resources. In each interview, careful attempts were

made by the coach to listen thoughtfully to participants’ needs, communicate effectively

during conversations, and maintain a flexible attitude, thus ensuring a strong partnership

between the coach and coachee. At the conclusion of each initial meeting, participants

provided further information by completing Journal Entry 1.

Data obtained from the initial interview and Journal Entry 1 was then utilized to

carry out Phase 3: Target Differentiated Projects. During this phase, personalized

technology integration pieces (one per week) were developed for each participant over

the course of three weeks (see Table 1). At the conclusion of each integration, journal

entries (one per integration piece) were completed by each participant. Progress was then

assessed after each project in Phase 4 by analyzing corresponding journal entry answers.

Finally, in Phase 5: Reflect on the Integration, the coach conducted an interview with

each participant to reflect on journal entry answers and the implementation of the

integration piece. All participant interviews and communication took place in person, via

Face Time, and through email correspondence. To conclude the project, participants

9


completed a final evaluation of the overall coaching process to be analyzed and used by

the coach as a reflective tool for future coaching projects.

Table 1

Summary of Participant Integration PiecesParticipant Integration Pieces Outcome

(Success/Failure)

Possible Future Changes Time Spent Researching/C

reating/Coaching (hours)

11. Investopedia Success -Find tutorial in addition to

resources used to present this tool.

5.25

2. Yahoo! Finance Success -Go into more detail on charts/graphs.

4.05

3. Google Forms Success -Research other avenues for presenting tool (creating slideshow was extremely time consuming)

8.49

21. Google Keep Success -Include information on

notifications via the web/app

3.25

2. PicMonkey Success -Turn off personal mail notifications when recording videos-Watch length of videos (maybe consolidate/shorten

3.5

3. Typeform Success -Research other avenues for presenting tool (creating slideshow was extremely time consuming)

7.08

31. Wunderlist Success -Include information on the

app and collaboration (must have the app to use this feature)

4

2. Popplet Lite Success -Include information in tutorial on limited number of “popplets” you are allowed to store (10).

4.55

3. Evernote Success -Research other avenues for presenting tool (creating slideshow with videos was extremely time consuming)

8.59

10


Results

The analysis of participant feedback given during interviews, journal entries, and

final evaluations showed that collegial coaching produces positive results on participant

learning, reflective practices, and collaboration. For example, after the integration of tool

3 (Google Forms), Participant 1 wrote, “The coaching process was very conducive to my

style of learning. The process used a methodical approach to walk me through the steps

of how to most effectively utilize the various tools” (J. Avery, personal communication,

February 13, 2017). Participant 3 also reported a positive learning experience after the

integration of tool 2 (Popplet Lite). In Journal Entry 3 she commented, “Andrea not only

showed me how to use the tool but gave several examples of ways to use it. i.e. She didn't

just show me the function but also the purpose and ways to integrate the tool into my

life” (M. Bean, personal communication, February 6, 2017). As a result of showing the

participant how to use the tool and providing examples through several instructional

handouts, she was able to gain a better understanding of its function and potential uses as

it relates to her personal needs.

Through the use of reflection, Participants 3 also realized a few shortcomings of

the integration pieces and how that would affect her usage. In Journal Entry 3 she wrote,

“There were a few disappointing elements of Popplet. One is that it is only free for up to

10 organizers” (M. Bean, personal communication, February 6, 2017). In the feedback

section of her final evaluation, Participant 3 also noted, “I would maybe liked to have

been told the downfalls of each tool” (M. Bean, personal communication, February 27,

2017). By reflecting on the tool after integration and on integration as a whole,

Participant 3 was able to identify some possible pitfalls of the tool and plan accordingly

11


for future use. Moreover, she was able to establish additional information needed to

improve her overall learning experience.

Lastly, participants recognized the importance of communication and

collaboration to the collegial coaching process. Participant 2 remarked on this

significance by stating, “Open communication and continuous feedback are key to this

process” (M. Spier, personal communication, February 13, 2017). Additionally,

participants also reported positive feelings toward the communicative and collaborative

aspects involved in collegial coaching. In the final evaluation, Participants 1-3 gave the

following statements related to collaboration a score of 3 (out of 3): Checked in with me

on a regular basis, Listened to my technology needs and concerns, Gave helpful

technology suggestions based on my needs and concerns, and Engaged in open,

comfortable, and clear communication. As a result of the coach’s focus on listening to

the needs and concerns of participants and continuously communicating with them, she

was able to form a strong collaboration with participants that overall produced successful

product integrations.

Coach’s Personal Reflections

In analyzing the results of the collegial coaching process on technology

integration, it is important to not only consider the reflections and feedback of the

participants, but the coach as well. According to the coach involved in this study,

“Engaging in the process of collegial coaching to assist individuals with technology

integration that enhances their personal and professional lives has brought to light a few

minor changes that need to be made in the future.” For example, in Journal Entry 3,

Participant 2 wrote, “Be sure to suppress pop-ups so that they do not distract from your

12


tutorial” (M. Spier, personal communication, February 6, 2017). In addition to this issue,

Google Slides presentations created for all participants to demonstrate the third

integration tool proved to be extremely time consuming. A total of 24 hours was spent

researching, creating and coaching for these pieces. To remedy these problems in the

future, the coach expressed the need “to be more mindful of details such as turning off

notifications on devices during video recording and the time requirements of various

types of presentation tools”.

Despite these small setbacks though, the coach felt that she “learned a great deal

from the coaching process”. For example, first-hand experience was gained by the coach

in how effective and meaningful focusing on the needs of the individual can be. It was

also evident that in order for the coaching process to be successful, it is imperative that

the coach and coachee form a solid partnership through careful communication and a

trusting environment. As a result of these insights, it was also clear that this this type of

professional development differs greatly from more traditional forms. Collegial coaching

is by no means a one size fits all approach to professional development as in traditional

methods. When reflecting upon the two processes, the coach noted, “Collegial coaching

offers many benefits versus traditional forms of professional development such as

personalized lessons tailored to the needs of the individual, continuous assessment of

progress and projects through reflection, and the use of collaboration to strengthen

overall learning.” Collegial coaching inevitably fills a void left by traditional

professional development and strives to ensure that participants feel valued and listened

to.

13


From these reflections, it is obvious that the benefits of collegial coaching do not

only pertain to the coachees themselves. In this process, coaches also personally

experience positive outcomes. These include the use of reflective practices to learn from

mistakes and improve coaching practices, acquiring the ability to transform participants’

needs into effective lessons, and the use of meaningful communication and collaboration

to solidify learning.

Final Reflections

Overall, the results of this study indicate that the utilization of the collegial coaching

process positively promotes participants’ ability to comprehend and effectively use

technological tools in their personal and professional lives. For example, in Journal

Entry 4, Participant 1 reiterates this statement by commenting, “Technology has opened

my eyes to the multitude of possibilities when it comes to learning various tools to make

my life more efficient and effective” (J. Avery, personal communication, February 13,

2017).

Furthermore, the coaching experience was seen as a beneficial process by both coach

and coachees. For instance, at the conclusion of the coaching internship, Participant 3

reported, “The coaching was very informative and thorough. It left me with no questions”

(M. Bean, personal communication, February 13, 2017). In addition, the coach also

remarked, “The best things about the coaching experience have been the ability to work

one on one with participants to develop lessons that meet their needs, the opportunity to

learn new technological tools, and the valuable information gained through reflection.”

When all participants view a process as positive, not only is an optimal learning

environment created, but also the potential for new learning possibilities in the future.

14


Lastly, it is important to note that the implementation of a collegial coaching program

is an advantageous, but time consuming endeavor. When designing or implementing a

peer-coaching program, it is imperative that educators and administrators take in to

account time considerations related to critical elements of the coaching process, such as

the creation of integration pieces and reflective practices. For example, in this study,

approximately 16 hours per week over the span of three weeks was needed to create a

total of nine technology integration pieces by the coach. Furthermore, in order to reap

the benefits of reflection, adequate time must be allotted for participants to fully

participate in interviews and complete journal entries and evaluations. The coach must

also be given time to reflect on his or hew own practices, as well as on feedback given by

coachees. The coach reinforced this concept by stating, “Reflection is a fundamental

element of the collegial coaching process. When sufficient time is not given for

reflection, both the coach and coachee are not afforded the opportunity to improve

instructional practices, which is the ultimate goal of this process”.

Despite the fact that implementing and applying the concepts of collegial coaching is

an extensive undertaking, educators and administrators cannot ignore its potential impact

on the integration of technology to enhance learning. This method not only demonstrates

positive results on participants’ ability to understand, integrate, and apply applications

using technology to their personal and professional lives, but also enriches personal

reflection and interpersonal relationships. When combined, these outcomes have the

ability to increase learning by all involved, which is the ultimate goal of collegial

coaching in the first place.

15


References

Alaniz, K. & Wilson, D. (2015). Naturalizing digital immigrants [Kindle Version

1.12.4] Retrieved from Amazon.com

Delany, J., & Arredondo, D. (1998). Using collegial coaching and reflection as

mechanisms for changing school cultures. Retrieved from http://

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED430903

Dimas, I., Rebelo, T., & Lourenço, P. (2016). Team coaching: One more clue for

fostering team effectiveness. European Review Of Applied Psychology, 66(5),

233. doi:10.1016/j.erap.2016.05.003

Glazer, E., Hannafin, M. J., & Song, L. (2005). Promoting technology integration through

collaborative apprenticeship. Educational Technology Research & Development,

53(4), 57-67.

Scribner, J. (1999). Professional development: Untangling the influence of work context

on teacher learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(2), 238.

Styron, R., & Styron, J. (2014). Fostering interdisciplinary collaboration to improve

student learning. Journal Of Systemics, Cybernetics And Informatics, Vol 12, Iss

5, Pp 10-15 (2014), (5), 10.

Tryon, P., & Schwartz, C. (2012). A pre-service teacher training model with instructional

technology graduate students as peer coaches to elementary pre-service teachers.

Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 56(6), 31-36.

16

andrearankinsprofessionalportfolio.weebly.comandrearankinsprofessionalportfolio.weebly.com/uploads/… ·...

Documents

Transcript of andrearankinsprofessionalportfolio.weebly.comandrearankinsprofessionalportfolio.weebly.com/uploads/… ·...