Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
EDUX 441 Presentation Megan Gallagher
Transcript of EDUX 441 Presentation Megan Gallagher
How can I enhance the adoption of programme development initiatives in Life Education Trust NZ through the use of Professional Learning Communities
1. How can we improve these
structures to support programme
2. Are PLC's worth
pursuing as a learning
Action Research Model:
I have selected this model as
it will allow me to investigate
one element in depth as I
develop a new professional
Modification and Moving on:
1. How can this be more effective?
2. If the model works, how can we use it in other initiatives?
3. Can PLCs be used in any others ways?
4. If the model doesn't work, what other solutions can we generate to solve the variability in implementing programme development?
Impact on participants is complex due to the nature of the exercise. Participation in implementing changes to delivery are not optional. Withdrawal during the project could be a potential risk to the fidelity of the findings.
Permission from Life Education NZ required to conduct the research.
Clarity around purpose, benefit and risk and distribution of findings required to obtain this
1. What is and is not
working with our
2. What are the
A definition of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)
"social groupings of new and experienced educators who come together over time for the purpose of gaining new information, reconsidering previous knowledge and beliefs, and building on their own and others' ideas and experiences in order to work on a specific agenda intended to improve practice and enhance students' learning.” (Microsoft Partners in Learning, 2010, p. 2)
1. We are a nationwide organisation where our educators (trained, experienced classroom teachers) work in isolation for much of the year.
2. Implementation of programme development initiatives can be variable (40% of educators are not using a resource updated 9 months ago)
3. Life Education NZ is shifting it's practice with new tools, resources and technology- there is a lot of change currently and this will grow in the next two years
Effective mode of professional learning?:
PLCs need to be
on improving student outcomes.
Literature supports collaborative and collegial approaches to professional learning to enhance student learning outcomes BUT when the status quo is maintained and the only outcome is increased collegiality then the PLC has been ineffective.
(Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fung, 2007)
To ensure effectiveness:
DuFour (2004) suggests the follows three principles underpin effective PLCs
1. ensuring the students learn through asking the hard questions of what do we want our students to learn, how will we know when they have learned it and what will we do if they don’t?
2. having a culture of collaboration is vital, it is about having rich conversations that challenge our practice and prompt change.
3. focus on results, and in education it is about student achievement. Using data to set goals and measure our effectiveness
The role of the educational leader is pivotal to the success of PLCs. They have the ability to set the tone, clarify the purpose and provide administrative support. Working alongside staff rather than from above empowers staff to be part of the decision making process. (Angelle & Teague, 2011)
Virtual PLCs- pros and cons:
technology barriers- limited access to tools or skills to engage online
disconnect through lack of non-verbal communication
potential interpersonal conflict may escalate unless carefully managed
anywhere, anytime learning
greater potential for critical reflection and immediate feedback
We already have network groups
and a variety of computer mediated
operating in Life Education NZ and
this research will enable us to
understand what works, what doesn't
and see if we can find a better way
through focussing on PLCs
Research Design Features:
Reciprocity- educators input will drive the
direction of the research, I will provide feedback.
Development of direction is through dialogue
Reflection- time will need to be allowed within
the process for educators to reflect on the
structures used and their contribution to
professional development and it's impact on
Reflexivity- assumptions are challenged,
critical reflection on how the research
process has changed our thinking
1. Will the planned
2. What adaptations or
changes might occur
as we put this into
1. Was the intervention effective?
2. What were the outcomes?
Intended and unintended?
3. What lessons have we learned?
An informed consent process could help mitigate some of the
issues that arise through the nature of this research.
Educators are key participants in the research and their
empowerment is important to the process so the research
design needs to be transparent.
Collaboration is part of the project, it is inherent in PLCs as well as within the social constructionist theoretical perspective. Collaboration can be an asset in addressing some potential social injustice through power dynamics between participants.
This research will actively
engage educators in the reflection,
design and evaluation of interventions.
They are working in an environment
of rapid change and an opportunity
to be agents of change within the
action research process has the
potential to be empowering.
Social constructionism focusses on meaning making as a social phenomenon rather than a purely individual pursuit. (Loftus & Higgs, 2010)
It is a post modern perspective that underpins communities of practice theory which is closely linked to PLCs.
Educators working together to develop new understandings through a social construct fits neatly within social constructionism.
What are the risks involved in undertaking this research from a management position?
How would this research look differently through another theoretical lens?
What role do learners play in this research? Should they have a voice? Are there any other voices that are not heard that should be?
How is the educator voice able to remain authentic when the research is conducted by someone in a leadership position?
What questions are remaining? What has not been considered that should have been?
Angelle, P. S., & Teague, G. M. (2011, November 18). Differences in the implementation of learning communities: An examination of the elements of collaborative work groups in two districts. Elements of Collaborative Work Groups, 1-50. Pittsburgh, PA: The University of Tennessee.
Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research? Action Research, 1(1), 9-28.
Chamberlain, M. (2013, 2013). Review of Life Education Trust’s Programme For Schools (Draft) . Auckland. New Zealand : Evaluation Associates.
Cochrane, T., Black, B., Lee, M., Narayan, V., & Verswijvelen, M. (2013). Rethinking e-learning support strategies. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(3), 276-293.
DuFour, R. (2004, May 1 ). What is a "Professional Learning Community"? Educational Leadership, 6-11.
DuFour, R., & Mattos, M. (2013, April). Do Principals Really Improve Schools? The Princpalship, 70(7), 34-40.
Groundwater‐Smith, S. &. (2007). Ethics in practitioner research: an issue of quality. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 199-211.
Hargreaves, A. (2009). The Fourth Way of Leadership and Change. NZEALS 2009 Workshop Series, (pp. 1-48). Dunedin, New Zealand.
Lai, M., & McNaughton, S. (2010). Evidence Informed Discussions: The Role of Pedagogical Content Knowledge. In H. Timperley, & J. Parr, Weaving Evidence, Inquiry adn Standards to Build Better Schools (pp. 157-172). Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Lock, J. (2006). A New Image: Online Communities to Facilitate Teacher Professional Development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 663-678.
Loftus, S., & Higgs, J. (2010). Researching the individual in workplace. Journal of Education and Work, 23(4), 377-388.
Long, J. (2012). Changing Teachers’ Practice through Critical Reflection. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 6(4), 145-159.
McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2006). What is action research? In J. McNiff, & J. Whitehead, All you need to know about action research (pp. 5-15). London: Sage.
Microsoft Partners in Learning. (2010). Professional Learning Communities: A Guide. Retrieved September 17, 2013, from The innovative schools toolkit: http://www.is-toolkit.com/knowledge_library/kl_files/ProfessionalLearningCommunity_A%20Brief%20Guide.pdf
Robertson, J. (2000, December). The three Rs of action research methodology: reciprocity, reflexivity and reflection-on-reality. Educational Action Research, 8(2), 307-326.
Sandretto, S. (2007). Action Research For Social Justice. Wellington, New Zealand: Teaching and Learning Research Initiative.
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher Professional Learning and Development Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Trinidad, S., & Broadley, T. (2008). Using Web 2.0 Applications to Close the Digital Divide in Western Australia. Education in Rural Australia, 18(1), 3-11.
Yang, S.-H. (2009). Using Blogs to Enhance Critical Reflection and Community of Practice. Educational Technology and Society, 12(2), 11-21.
Yoon, S. W., & Johnson, S. D. (2008, December). Phases and Patterns of Group Development in Virtual Learning Teams. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5/6), 595-618.
Zeni, J. (1998). A guide to Ethical Issues and Action Research. Educatiional Action Research, 6(1), 9-19.