Author archive

mwallaceonline

Recently, I attended the Southside Virginia Regional Technology Consortium Annual Banquet.  The Keynote speaker was Dr. Pam Moran, Superintendent of Albemarle County Public Schools.  This was the second time that I heard Dr. Moran speak.  She is an inspiring leader who “practices what she preaches” in regard to teaching 21^st Century Learning skills.  She shared many great stories about how her school division is utilizing technology to help students learn in the 21^st Century.  It was very apparent that she was passionate about the students in her school division and the many great things that this rural has been able to accomplish.  While her message was inspiring to me, I could not help but concentrate on how her presentation was put together since I had just completed my Zen presentation in EDLP 717.

As we began EDLP 717, I thought that my presentations were already on the right track.  However, as we watched the TED talks, read about Zen presentations, and held class discussions about the better presentations, I realized that my presentations could still use improvements.  Less is more…especially when it comes to Zen-like presentations.  As I reflect on where I have come since I began the doctoral program, I cannot believe how much I have changed in my presentation style.  This includes presentations for class, as well as presentations that I deliver to staff, at School Board meetings, and at conferences.   I have gone from creating wordy, yet precise Power Point presentations to creating presentations which tell a story.  I am sure my classmates cannot recall the first time I presented to the class—I am not sure I could tell you what the presentation was about without looking back at my class files.  However, very likely, few of my classmates will forget the Zen presentation I delivered on my leadership analysis.  Our topics may have been the same, yet our presentations were individualized to our own stories, successes, failures, and inspirations.

mwallaceonline

This year’s focus for class has been on completing our mock Capstone project.  This experience was beneficial in more ways than probably anticipated.  The project that my partner and I selected was based on the effectiveness of a phonics program being implemented at the Kindergarten level.  Not only did we learn about the process for research, but we also learned about how we are implementing a particular program in our own division.

Through the coursework this semester and last, we focused on learning the research process.  My partner and I selected the responsive model to use for our program evaluation of Saxon Phonics and Spelling K being implemented at one of our schools.  The responsive model provided us the flexibility to be responsive to our client’s needs.  We utilized focus groups, interviews, documents reviews, and observations to conduct the study.  Since we did not use control groups, we were able to collect data from each of the four classrooms in the school where the study was being completed.  We had originally thought we could review more student data as part of the research.  However, the student data which was available to us was inconclusive as to whether or not the Saxon program has impacted student achievement due to a number of other variables which may also impact their achievement.

The mock Capstone project allowed us to practice research on a non-controversial topic of interest to our school division.  We selected Saxon Phonics and Spelling K since it has been implemented for less than five years division-wide.  As we learned the research process, we also learned some valuable things about our program implementation.  As a result of this process, we will be making changes to the implementation of this program, including training and program component usage.

mwallaceonline

This school year our school division has been reading The Global Achievement Gap by Tony Wagner.  Administrative staff read the book last year and discussed it at our Administrative Retreat last summer.  The administrative team developed a year-long plan for a book discussion in each school.  During the course of the year, division staff members have also been attending training on Project Based Learning.  Next school year, we plan to offer classes which focus on PBL as the primary method to deliver instruction.  Although I believe that PBL is a great way to teach, I find myself asking many questions about the entire process and how much emphasis should put on it.

As an administrator, we must consider every student…not the smartest, not the slowest, and not the one in the middle…but EVERY learner.  We must consider their learning styles and our teaching styles.  And most importantly, we must realize that just as one size does not fit all, one teaching method does not suit all.  PBL seems like it may be great for students who can learn with little guidance from the teacher.  It also seems like it might work for students who struggle to learn through traditional lecture methods.  Teaching with PBL methods is vastly different from how our teachers have been teaching since the inception of high stakes testing and NCLB.  Teachers who have always taught under NCLB may find PBL difficult to grasp, whereas teachers who taught pre-NCLB will understand that you can cover multiple standards while enhancing the learning experience through the use of PBL.

Question which still race through my mind…how will teachers adjust their pacing, what projects will be completed, will we still complete formal benchmark assessments, if we use formal benchmark assessments will they be the same as those used in traditional classrooms, how will we measure progress for students as well as for teachers? And there are many more questions too revolving around time, space, materials, schedules, student selection process, teacher selection process, training, supervision, communication with parents, collaboration with teachers, and on and on… Do we risk it?  How will we know it is not beneficial if we don’t try it?

mwallaceonline

Last week, I attended the STEM Summit at Longwood University.  It has been a while since I have been inspired by anything in education…I mean, really, truly, inspired.  However, when I left the STEM Summit, I was inspired.  This year’s theme was “Nurturing Inventive Thinking.”  All of the speakers were engaging and spoke about how to inspire learning in our students.  Yet the speaker who inspired me the most when considering my current position was Dr. Padmanabhan Seshaiyer, Professor of Mathematical Sciences and Director of the COMPLETE Center at George Mason University.

With the role of Director of Instruction, Technology, and Grants, I oversee all instruction, all subjects, Kindergarten through Graduation.  Like most schools divisions around the state, my school division was disappointed with the data reflected by the new Math SOL Assessments.  We attended all of the trainings sponsored by the Department of Education and have made sure that our teachers are using the latest and greatest strategies to address the new standards.  Yet, our scores did not reflect the hard work that our staff had put into teaching the new standards.  Dr. Seshaiyer shared his work with school divisions to provide dynamic hands-on learning strategies for teachers to use with students.  His tips and tricks “wowed” me so much, that I shared one strategy at a high school math department meeting the same afternoon as I heard his inspiring words.

Do you ever have a student who just cannot comprehend how multiplication works?  Or they have a hard time remembering the “facts.”  Try using the Japanese Multiplication method shown in this image:   Japanese Multiplication.  And if that doesn’t make sense to you, read this mom’s blog site about the strategy: Mom’s Blog Site.  Try it yourself, wow your teachers with it, and most importantly, share it with a student who is struggling to understand multiplication.

The STEM Summit was inspiring for me.  The speakers each reminded me what it is that we do to inspire our students and staff.  I will definitely be sharing the Japanese Multiplication strategy as well as other strategies with our teachers.  Kudos to the STEM Summit for securing Dr. Seshaiyer who shared the most amazing math tips!

mwallaceonline

The experience of using focus groups for research is a good way to glean information about almost any program being implemented in a school.  Focus groups can give insight to the researcher.   “Focus groups are effective when it is possible to get people together to discuss a topic or when individual interviews are not possible” (Mertens & Wilson, 2012, p. 383).  In the educational setting, I have utilized focus groups for a variety of reasons.  Mostly, I have used focus groups when working with schools for the school improvement or academic review process.  I have learned that for focus groups to be effective, a few factors must be in place:  (a) purpose, (b) trust, (c) respect, and (d) assimilation of facts.

First and foremost, focus groups will be ineffective if there is not a legitimate purpose.  The purpose must be explained ahead of time so that the group understands what the intent of the interview will be.  Giving interviewees information ahead of time helps them to begin their own reflection process.  This is not to say that you give them all of the questions or detailed information about the pending interview.  I feel that most of the focus groups in which I have been involved have gone much smoother when the interviewees had some idea of why they were there.

Next, trust is essential for a focus group to be effective in providing data and qualitative information.  Without trust, focus group members are likely to not provide information during the discussions.  They also may not provide truthful information if trust is absent.  Trust takes time to build so this can be difficult.  Trust is also complex.  Perhaps the audience trusts the interviewers because they understand the purpose of the focus group questions.  However, the audience may not trust where or how the results will be reported and they may not trust that the information will be kept confidential.  Interviewees may fear the consequences for their answers if their responses/discussions got back to their leader (principal, superintendent).  This is why it is important for the interviewers to build trust and assure the focus group participants of how the information provided will be used or shared.  This leads to the next factor of respect.

Interviewers must respect the focus group members.  Verbal and non-verbal communication can be used to symbolize the respect that an interviewer has for a group.  If the interviewees get negative vibes, such as being rushed through the interview, from the interviewers, then they are not likely to provide quality data during the process.  Interviewers must become comfortable with listening and speaking skills which demonstrate respect for the speaker, as well as efficiency to keep the interview moving along at a desired pace.  Eye contact and facial expressions will help demonstrate regard for the answers provided by the interviewees.  Having guidelines for time will help keep things moving in the interview.

Finally, it is important that the interviewers of a focus group be able to assimilate the facts collected during the interview.  It is important to pick out themes that come up during the focus groups and then assemble the facts according to those themes.  No information should be disclosed which might identify one of the focus team members.  For example, if there were only one reading teacher being interviewed, those who are disseminating the data should not make a statement where that reading teacher’s response could be identified.  This goes back to the trust and respect factors discussed earlier.

I recently conducted two focus group meetings because we have two schools in “Focus” status by the Virginia Department of Education.  I conducted “needs sensing interviews” for these two schools.  During the same week, I was also conducted the focus group meetings for our assignment in EDLP 711.  There were stark similarities in how the meetings were arranged, how the meeting guidelines were set ahead of time, and how the meetings were conducted.  Interestingly enough, I feel that those being interviewed for the needs sensing interview were more open and freely discussing their ideas, concerns, and probably solutions as compared to the groups being interviewed for the class assignment.  I feel this goes back to first factor discussed earlier.  Those being interviewed for the needs sensing interview knew the exact purpose and intent of the interview.  The results of those interviews would drive the next steps for their school to take for improvement efforts.  However, the interviews we were conducting for class were just that…an assignment.  The focus group members knew we were practicing our technique for data collection and they were willing to participate and help out.  Even though good information was discussed in the interview, there was still an uncertainty with the sole intent and purpose which would be a benefit to the stakeholders.