PME 801 - Collaborative Inquiry
About me as a Collaborator - My Digital Artifact
Module 1: Collaboration, Inquiry, Problem-Solving and Design - My Reflection
As I read through the articles, I kept thinking about the changing ways in which individuals approach inquiry as they age, and how collaborative inquiry can also change over an individual's lifetime. Here are some of my thoughts:
I believe we all have a predisposition to engage in inquiry on a daily basis. The way in which we engage in inquiry is what evolves over time.
For example, young children begin to question their world very early on in the form of tactile engagement. Touching and feeling objects around them, tasting, smelling and eventually looking around are independent forms of inquiry that the human engages in. As the child develops the ability of speech, these inquiry investigations are voiced in a flood of questions that now involve the beginnings of collaboration since the parent, for example, is involved in the answering, explaining, and even the brainstorming of the solutions to their questions. There is a strong indication here that young individuals are naturally inquisitive and can operate better at finding solutions in a collaborative context. Young individuals also need the guidance from adults that comes in the form of teaching collaboration in problem solving. For example, a 3 year-old who is struggling to open their snack container can be guided in collaboration as the parent and child open the container together.
In adolescence, the aspect of inquiry can encompass both tendencies: independent investigation and collaborative inquiry. I have seen both manifested in the classroom; some students prefer to work independently on a question, whereas others prefer group work. An adolescent's emerging personality, social acceptance, academic ability or weakness, and their general mood are all factors that can influence an adolescent's willingness to engage in collaborative inquiry. I will go as far as to say that these factors extend into adulthood. However, the individual is more skilled at being able to conceal any particular area that they feel is a weakness and thus causing them to be uncomfortable when engaging in collaborative inquiry. Adults are better equipped to work through situations when collaborative inquiry may be something that they are not comfortable with. On the other hand, adults who thrive in the connectedness that is collaborative inquiry, reveal their personal qualities in a positive light that actively move the collaborative process along. Finally, an individual that is "in the middle", so to speak between independent inquiry and collaborative inquiry, can "learn" from all the players in a collaborative setting. This is a strong factor in the push for pursuing collaborative inquiry, since it can lead to personal growth and improvement.
As I look at my professional context, independent and collaborative inquiry have taken turns over the course of my career so far. When I was pursuing my undergraduate degree in Education, collaborative inquiry was the most frequented form of learning among my classmates. When I entered the teaching profession as a qualified teacher, collaborative inquiry took the back burner and I was often left to my own devices in regards to planning, implementation, differentiation, etc. and this felt overwhelming. As I became more comfortable in my career, collaborative inquiry made its reoccurrence. I believe that as I matured both in age and professional experience, I started to "grow" and "improve" as an individual, and I felt more confident in the fact that I could contribute in a positive way when collaborative inquiry found me.
*No references for this post. This was just a collection of my thoughts.
Module 1: Case Study - Learning Forward Ontario's Collaborative Inquiry: A Facilitator's Guide
After reading through Learning Forward Ontario's Collaborative Inquiry: A Facilitator's Guide, I am initially pleased with the fact that such a document exists. It is clear that collaborative inquiry is important in spearheading the necessary practical implementation changes and combating academic obstacles that could lead to success as stated in the article by Katz and Dack (2013); “Collaborative inquiry is one of the most powerful enablers of changes in practice that can influence student learning”. I appreciate how the Facilitator’s Guide emphasizes the importance of the collaborative inquiry process. When areas in need of improvement are identified, collaborative designing of an investigation with the aim to collectively solve the problem through the collection of usable data is put into action through the underlying theme of collaboration.
As the inquiry process unfolds, accurately “framing the problem” is of great importance since it allows for a clear vision as to what the issue is (Learning Forward Ontario, 2011 . Proactive and qualitative words help to set the stage for the inquiry process and the creation of the inquiry question has seemingly good participant buy-in since it was collaboratively created; everyone should have had their input in the creation of the inquiry question. I am really seeing the value in collaboration at this stage in the process. I believe that this method of encouraging and supporting professional improvement for the betterment of the students is at the forefront of successful professional learning communities as well. Once a clear inquiry question is established, the designing of a problem-solution can begin. My concern lies in whether the Facilitator’s Guide was written with sufficient knowledge of ill-structured and well-structured problems (Jonassen, 2000; Spiro, R. J., & DeSchryver, M. 2009). I realize, after reading about ill-structured and well-structures problems, that the designing of a problem-solving approach relies heavily on problem-solving strategies conducive for each type of problem. This needs to be taken into consideration. If the inquiry problem is ill-structured, which is more than likely the case, then the team can think outside the box for possible solutions and this may very well help in the push to help or even solve the inquiry problem (Spiro, R. J., & DeSchryver, M. 2009).
I support the information put forth by the Facilitator's Guide in terms of the need to collect a variety of data in order to make informed conclusions. The importance of triangulation is evident and emphasized in the Guide. Furthermore, making sure the data collected matches the needs of the inquiry question is important. I do question whether all the stakeholders involved in the collaborative process are fully aware of the investment of time that is required to collect a varied and representative amount of data? The development of the methods of data collection (surveys, observations, interviews, etc.) requires planning. Once time has been invested in developing the means to collect data, more time needs to be allocated to carry out the data collection. What I am hoping to get across here, is that this time will be well invested since, “data are tools that teachers and leaders can use to focus and challenge their thinking in ways that result in the understandings, which then have the potential to change their thinking and their practices” (Katz & Dack, 2013). From experience, I am concerned that schools rely too heavily on quantitative or "Student Learning Data" to formulate their conclusions (Learning Forward Ontario, 2011). In light of this, stressing the importance of using diverse data sources is a way to encourage the importance of qualitative data as well.
With a well-designed problem-solving strategy, that supports the inquiry question and that uses representative date, analysis can begin. The Facilitator's Guide provides information in terms of the process of analyzing the data, which is important. But I argue that one can go a step further insofar as to suggest methods of improvement based on the interpreted data. The interpretation of data could help the team come up with a list of strategies to address areas that the data yielded as a concern, as problematic, etc. This would then support the whole notion that learning took place because the stakeholders involved would propose concrete ways to better themselves and, in turn, their cause. Katz and Dack said it brilliantly; “learning is the process through which experience causes permanent change in knowledge and behavior” (2013). It is perfectly well and good for a team to put in intellectual thought, time and energy into the investigation of an inquiry question. However, if no plan of action stems from the investigation, then did permanent learning really happen? Personally, the enactment of positive and innovative professional change should be the focus here.
A document with the potential to foster and encourage collaborative inquiry through scaffolding is welcomed. Every school’s mission statement likely includes some form of striving for excellence and improvement. Therefore, the process outlined in the Guide can be front and center at all professional improvement meetings taking into consideration the points listed above.
References:
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a Design Theory of Problem Solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.
Katz, S., & Dack, L. A. (2014). Towards a culture of inquiry for data use in schools: Breaking down professional learning barriers through intentional interruption. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 42, 35-40.
Learning Forward Ontario. (2011). Collaborative Inquiry: A Facilitator’s Guide. Retrieved from http://misalondon.ca/PDF/collabpdfs/Collaborative_Inquiry_Guide_2011.pdf.
Spiro, R. J., & DeSchryver, M. (2009). Constructivism: When it’s the wrong idea and when it’s the only idea. In S. Tobias & T. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure (pp. 106-123). New York, NY: Routledge.
Module 1: Core Concept Map
Module 2: Updated Core Concept Map
Module 2: Technology Montage
Based on my research and my participation in the Knowledge Building activity in Module 2, I have learned that technology plays an important role in collaborative inquiry insofar as it is often a facilitator of this process. As a result, I have created a montage that aims to briefly outline some of the technologies in place to allow for collaborative inquiry in a classroom and among colleagues in a professional online setting. Please click on the link to the right to view this montage that was created by PowToon.
Module 3: Reading Reflections
Allow me to frame my reflection to this week’s readings with the following personal account:
In late June, I had an unsettling conversation with one of my teaching colleagues. We were discussing our plans for the summer and I disclosed that I was pursuing my Masters, and will be taking two graduate courses in lieu of travelling. He asked me why, and I replied that I felt like I have reached my professional plateau; that I needed to be inspired with new and current viewpoints on the art of teaching. The most unsettling part of this conversation, and I remember this so vividly, was when he said, “I reached my professional plateau the second I started teaching”. I silently processed his heavy statement, and resolved that I certainly will never be “OK” with staying at a plateau.
Therefore, with this interaction playing in my head, I am profoundly grateful to receive the clear message our readings are outlining which is, that professional improvement/learning is a consequence of collaborative inquiry and a part of this reflection will aim to prove that with collaborative inquiry in the driver seat, professional improvement absolutely works.
In the article entitled Collaborative inquiry as a professional learning structure for educators: a scoping view by Christopher DeLuca, et. al., collaborative inquiry is a cyclical process in which the catalyst is deep reflection (2015). They propose the interconnected importance of dialogue sharing, taking action, and reflection in collaborative inquiry. “Dialogical sharing, taking action and reflection are not stages unto themselves but, rather, three core components of CI that are inextricably linked by discretely articulated stages” (2015). Through constructive discourse, a genuine desire to change through actions, and diving into deep reflection about these proposed actions and their effectiveness, “educator growth and development” would occur for the benefit of the target population: the students (DeLuca, C., et. al., 2017). I would even go as far as incorporating evaluation back into the equation, since reflecting leads to making decisions to either modify, dismiss, or accept a proposed action. These decisions then, are of upmost importance since it demonstrates the desire for success on the part of the collaborative team. Valkenburg confirms this notion when she states that moving towards a solution after careful deliberation demonstrates “reflective conversation” (1998). Collaborators “work by naming the relevant factors in the situation, framing a problem in a certain way, making moves toward a solution and evaluating those moves”(1998).
Despite the perceived factors that inhibit collaborative inquiry, the benefits of such interaction significantly outweigh the bad. I see a shift in culture as the main issue needing attention. If members of an educational community value the importance of “shared [and recognized] leadership”, see efforts being made to provide “time and a [safe] space” to engage in thoughtful collaboration (DeLuca, et. al., 2015), and are surrounded by a common goal of striving for excellence, then collaborative inquiry and therefore, professional improvement/learning is possible.
In fact, I am proud to attest that collaborative inquiry works, and I fully support the efforts of professional learning communities as the method for fostering professional growth. Engineering is a difficult topic found in the grade 7-10 science curriculum. Students struggled greatly with this topic, and the results on the Ministry exams were abysmal. A PLC was created 5 years ago with the common goal of unpacking the reasons why students were struggling, and mobilizing a plan to rectify this. We discovered that the teachers felt they were not equipped with the knowledge base and the right tools to deliver this part of the curriculum effectively. As a result, we opted to create common teaching resources and supported each other’s teaching mechanisms through actually “observing” teaching in action. This resulted in a massive improvement on engineering questions as demonstrated by the results of the grade 10 Ministry exam. It is vital to note that the amount of time invested in such an inquiry project was a lot, for lack of a better word. However, the intellectual need to better ourselves and produce educational artifacts that demonstrated our new understanding of the content we were to teach, the support we received from our leadership team and board consultant, and our genuine concern for our students’ success, are what pushed us to continue.
I can absolutely understand that “to be convinced of CI’s effectiveness, teachers [need] to see the connection from teacher learning to student learning” (DeLuca, et. al., 2017). But why not simply trust it? We needed to take a leap of faith and go through the motions of the collaborative inquiry process. Working collaboratively in a safe environment with people you value, trust, and that share a common goal absolutely leads to professional improvement, learning and growth. I have experienced it firsthand. It is time well invested and, it most definitely works.
References:
DeLuca, C., Shulha, J., Luhanga, U., Shulha, L. M., Christou, T. M., & Klinger, D. A. (2015). Collaborative inquiry as a professional learning structure for educators: A scoping review. Professional Development in Education, 41(4), 640-670.
DeLuca, C., Bolden, B., & Chan, J. (2017). Systemic professional learning through collaborative inquiry: Examining teachers' perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 67-78.
Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The Reflective Practice of Design Teams. Design Studies 19(2), 263-274.
Module 4: Collaborative Inquiry Project
