1. How did your CBR project turn out for you? Did the challenge exceed your overall expectations? I have heard Dr. Deleon say numerous times that “the research, is the research” but I have at time expected it to be more than what it was. I many times expected the benefits to outweigh the time invested enough to “sell” the participant on his/her participation in the CBR, but time seem to be a major hurdle that many of my potential educators could not get over.
My research stated that many educators needed to be introduced to technology and training during its initial implementation to feel confident. This seemed to be confirmed by the fact that the most significant assistance in my research has been from those who are already regularly looking to incorporate technology into their environment, which is why my ending target educators were EMDT students/alumni who are educators.
2. Is there a connection between the data produced from your Phases and the research reported in your Literature Review? Honestly, I felt from the outset that the problem(s) was identifying appropriate “low cost resources and having appropriate training support to move toward implementation, but the majority of my research tends to support making time to engage in PD as the most significant factor with my target educators. Even those who were actively involved in EMDT and understood the commitment to the CBR participation were very difficult to catch up throughout the phases.
3. During your Phase implementation what learning objectives has your target audience met? Be specific.
– I provided research on selecting a Web 2.0 technology for a Spanish educator who wanted to use different Methods of increasing her student literacy in Spanish. She and her class were using creazaeducation.com for phase II
-I provided the Challenge of introducing Blogging to her classroom as an ongoing way to increase literacy in class.
– I -I provided research for a member of Caledonia Community Schools District Technical Support in MI on selecting different Methods of Group Online Communication where she could interface with 3-6 Teachers at a Time, interact face to face if necessary and collect the information/observations from communication
– I was unsuccessful in acquiring the research by the time of this writing for phase for the fourth CBR educator, despite numerous attempts to contact him to do so. He was accessible, yet not as it related to the CBR participation when I inquired of him.
I worked within the technology interest level of the professional and suggested that he utilize Google Docs platform to establish “Challenge” yourself by create class syllabus for your subject matter using Google Docs resources as the medium to strengthen himself on the platform and prepare for return to the school system as an educator.
4. Is a personal learning environment or an LMO something that could be part of your CBR project in the future? Why or why not.
I honestly believe that for the purposes of strengthening my skill sets and salability to a potential employer in Instructional technology, an LMO is on the horizon. At present, my Church ministry is reaping most of the EMDT fruits, as my role in education technology there is significant. I am presently trying to work on a LMO for the IT ministry to expand the conferences and training that we already provide.
As I finalize my Literature Review draft, I start to see a trend toward many of my sources to speak of the benefits of LMOs, Professional Learning communities, Communities of Practice in Information Technology & Cohort Based online learning; all of which are the equivalent to LMO and other similar e-learning “communities”. This leads me to believe that there may be a significant benefit to further research into its role into Professional Development. Whether this will overcome the hurdle of time constraints, and the usual constraints of finances and training support, remains to be seen.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011