Usually, at this point, I should be looking in detail at a particularly interesting incident/video snippet from the morning session. However, due to some technical issues, we have no video data to review yet and we also don't have access to the field notes entered on ietherpad. In response, I will just spend some time reflecting on the doing videography for the first time and experiencing firsthand a professional development experience for elementary teachers that is very much unlike those in which I have personally been involved. Hopefully, this post will be useful for orienting other folks coming from similar backgrounds.
To be totally honest, I was overwhelmed (and still am, actually) by the large number of items (cameras, mics, receivers, headphone bases, headphones) that need to be functional, connected, and in place prior to data collection. A lot of stuff can go wrong... and does. I definitely now have a much greater appreciation for the level of technical expertise that is behind each short video clip presented in talks and papers. As I am writing this, it sounds as though the new video cameras are recording video in a format that has not yet been used and/or "heard of" (Thanks, Rachel!). I can also really see the benefit of having a special video-enabled instructional space to minimize some of the set-up and tear-down issues.
The participants in Understanding Energy 2 are returning elementary teachers who have participated in one of the two previous summer programs and, in some cases, evening sessions during the academic year. In an effort to facilitate more interactions between teachers and the EPSRI scholars, we sat with the teachers before the start of the session, chatting and getting to know them. Hunter started the course with having all of us (teachers and EPSRI scholars) respond to a few questions about learning/accomplishments in last summer's course, during the past academic year, and what we hoped to get out of participating in this year's course. We then discussed our writing with small groups of teachers and EPSRI folks. This really helped me gain more insight into just how much folks have gained from participation in this professional development experience in the past. The teachers were very upfront about what they felt worked and what they felt wasn't as helpful to them either personally or professionally (in their classrooms). There was some discussion about whether the value of the Energy Theater was more in the action or the choreography. One teacher mentioned that folks (particularly younger students) might shut down or tune out once they are, for example, chemical energy in a particular scenario. However, another teacher highlighted a personally transformative experience involving ET for light passing through acetates. I enjoyed having the opportunity to let the participants at my table know that this type of qualitative video research is all new to me.
During the whole class discussion, Rachel raised the fact that her goal was to foster more interaction between the participants and the videographers so that we could all learn from one another (and minimize the awkward barriers). This led to a very organic discussion in which there was quite a bit of conversation about the kind of research that was being done, the goals of that research, and how the teachers' contributions are so valuable to this effort and to pushing the PER community's thinking about these issues. I think this led to a very comfortable environment for both the teachers and the researchers.
Hunter made it clear from the start that he hoped to minimize, as much as possible, his role in setting the agenda for the week's program-- rather, it would be driven by the teachers. Even the timing of the lunch break was up for discussion. Hunter also started off by sharing some of the slides from his FFPER talk on the Energy Project and Energy Theater. I must confess that I was a bit surprised by this decision at first. Namely, it seemed like it would be easy to fall into a direct instruction mode and to perhaps disengage the teachers. However, Hunter kept things informal, encouraged discussion, gently reacquainted the participants with ET, and ultimately seemed to accomplish his goal (or at least what I think was his goal) of transparency (like Rogers). By providing the bigger picture about this professional development experience, he made it clear why the research was being conducted, how the (preliminary) findings were being used and shared, and just how instrumental the participants are in advancing the research and helping researchers and faculty gain insight into the learning and teaching of energy and professional development in general. I definitely feel that Hunter was bringing the teachers into the entire Energy Project (not just the professional development component) as partners-- not simply research subjects. By showing the participants firsthand the respectful manner in which the results are being disseminated and by fostering explicit discussion about the research component of the project, he helped set a tone in which the participants are excited to be a part of the effort and don't need to wonder how the data collected are used.
I have not yet had an opportunity to see the participants working through any energy scenario, so I think it is too early for me to reflect on the absence of printed worksheets and the impact of this choice on the learning experience. Thus far, though, I have been very impressed by the rich discussions I have witnessed about the transformative nature of the Energy Project professional development. I have also really appreciated the honesty of the teachers (which I would expect from returners) about how they thought ET was goofy at first but turned out to be extremely productive and rewarding for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment