As a Teacher-Librarian one of my roles is to “Collaborate
with colleagues to provide opportunities for students to engage in authentic
inquiries using existing and emerging information and communication technology
to deepen understanding, transform student thinking and develop critical
literacy skills” (Standards for Literacy, 2016). There has been an increasing
focus on inquiry in the classroom. There is a divisional or “top-down” (Gundy,
2016, 233) initiative to get more teachers using the inquiry models. As well, my
school division places a high value on collaboration. This assignment provided the perfect pairing
of fulfilling divisional goals and using reference resources to do so. For this
paper, I am using Riedling’s definition of reference resources. Riedling (2013)
says reference resources “can be defined as materials, from book to computer to
periodical to periodical to photograph, that can be found anywhere in the
library or online” (139).
One of the ways to effect change is to use a model such
as the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CMAB). This model is particularly helpful
in planning and implementing change in teacher practice through collaboration.
Using this model allows the TL to become a change agent that will lead to
better student success. The relationship between the Stage of Concern and The
Level of Use can help illustrate the process of change for my collaboration
with Teacher A.
 |
| Celmer, K. et al. Images retrieved from: https://www.slideshare.net/strentacoste/cbam-33690744 |
Template of Teacher A:
·
Has been teaching at the school for 18 years.
·
Focus on English Language Arts.
·
Teaches almost exclusively compulsory courses,
resulting in high numbers of students with diverse needs.
·
Not a consistent user of the Library Learning
Common other than for laptops for students to type work for submission.
·
Has not previously engaged in inquiry with her
students.
Teacher A was beginning a new unit for her grade 11 class
using Indian Horse by Richard
Wagamese and after a Languages Department meeting I asked if she would be
interested in collaborating on this unit. Teacher A indicated that she had been
wanting to collaborate and to use one of the inquiry models but didn’t know
where to start.
Our first meeting centered on the Stages of Concerns component of the model. Teacher A has begun this
process at the Awareness/Information
stages. She is aware of inquiry but is not sure what is involved in the
process. She had done some reading but was concerned that she needed more
information to be comfortable to continue with planning. To facilitate this
learning we were lucky enough to attend a workshop by Trevor MacKenzie on
“Inquiry Mindset.” As well, we purchased his book, Dive into Inquiry, and Kath Murdoch’s book The Power of Inquiry to help us understand.
With regard to the Level
of Use, Teacher A began at the Non-use level. So far we have progressed to the Mechanical use or maybe the beginning
of Routine stage.
Level of Use
|
Teacher A Path
|
Non-use
|
This is where Teacher A began. She was not using
inquiry in the classroom.
|
Orientation
|
Attended workshop and read books and articles on
Inquiry. At the workshop, both the TL and teacher acquired knowledge and
explored the topic of using Inquiry in the classroom.
|
Preparation
|
TL and Teacher A have met and continue to meet in order
to prepare inquiry unit. These meeting help us figure out how to teach the
skills
and become more comfortable with our new learning
before we introduced it to our students.
I have introduced Teacher A to LLC resource, fiction
and non-fiction books to support student learning. As well as graphic novels
and children’s’ books on indigenous themes.
|
Mechanical use
|
We have begun working with the students and because of
all that we had prepared, we were able to focus on using the new skills. Some
days it is more than apparent that our efforts are “disjointed and superficial”
(Gundy, 2016, 234). While we try to plan a week at a time, most of the effort
is on what has to be done each day.
|
Routine
|
As we move through the unit we are thinking about ways
in which we can improve the work we have done with students for next time.
For example, in teaching questioning techniques we will be using different
images as prompts. Our current ones did not solicit the number of questions
we had hoped they would. However, there is no time to really evaluate/change
our process.
|
Refinement
|
Teacher A is not yet flexible enough to vary “the use
of the innovation to increase the impact on the students” (Gundy, 2016,
234).
Teacher A is not
yet at this stage in the process.
|
Integration
|
Teacher A is not yet at this stage in the process.
|
Renewal
|
Teacher A is not yet at this stage in the process, but
we have determined we will collaborate again next year on an inquiry unit.
The second time, Teacher A will be starting at the Routine or Refinement
stage the collaboration.
|
Chart adapted from Huang, P.S. https://sites.google.com/site/ch7cbam/home/levels-of-use
As we work through the unit, Teacher A is also
progressing in the Stages of Concern
component of the model and has moved from Awareness
and Information to Management.
Template of Teacher B
·
Has been teaching at the school for 22 years.
·
Focus on Biology
·
Many years spent as the only Biology teacher in
the school, so avenues for collaborating within the department are limited.
·
High number of students which makes for very
little time to change already established procedures and projects.
Teacher B assigns an extensive semester long project each
year to the grade 12 Biology class involving scientific article reviews. Each
student is responsible for finding, and summarizing ten articles about Biology.
They must also print the articles and the summary in order to submit their work
for marks. Teacher B will not accept nor mark any assignment without the
attached article. This creates significant backups in the LLC. When an article is due, approximately 30
students descend on the library to print their articles and summaries claiming
that their printers at home have just broken. The articles are often many pages
long and the printer is slow. As well, the printing is costly and it is a
colossal waste of paper and resources. (Ironically, this teacher is also the
teacher in charge of the Environmental Awareness Club). The topic of paper
waste and cost is visited many times throughout the school year in staff
meetings however this information had not resulted in any changes.
I thought using the SAMR model would be best for changing
practice with Teacher B.
SAMR MODEL
 |
| Puentedura, R Image retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/11/28/SAMRLearningAssessment.pdf |
Since Teacher B almost never comes up to the library
learning commons I ended up talking to him in the hallway. The first time I
broached the topic of printing the articles, he insisted that the only way he
could verify that no plagiarism was involved was to have the article printed to
refer to while he was marking. I offered to show him how to use technology so
that students could submit their article summaries and provide a link to the
article that he could click on to view it. As well, I offered to show him how
to use the FIND function to search for suspected plagiarism within the article.
According to the SAMR model Teacher
B was at the Substitution Stage—students
printed all work and handed it in. “There was no functional change in teaching
and learning” (SAMR Model, paragraph 1).
Though reluctant, Teacher B agreed to let me teach the
students how to provide a link to the article they were using, and to email him
the summary with the link. He did insist that the summary needed to be printed
as well and submitted so that he could add comments and provide a mark on their
work. While Teacher B only moved to the Augmentation
level of the SAMR Model, I really felt that progress had been made. Talking to
him after the second article was due, Teacher B indicated he was frustrated at
times by using technology instead of pen and paper, he felt that it was overall
a positive change. I am looking forward to more opportunities to collaborate
with Teacher B. Next on my list—APA citations, the shortcomings of using Google
when searching for reliable sources.
To see how the SAMR model can be connect to Bloom’s
Taxonomy, visit Kathy Schrock’s page here: https://www.schrockguide.net/samr.html
After working through this change process, I recognized
just how difficult and time-consuming changing practice can be. Working with
Teacher A using the CBAM allowed us both to practice and learn new skills. It
forced me to evaluate resources in the library that we were using for
Indigenous research projects and to introduce Teacher A to those resources so
that she could use them with her students. Collaborating with Teacher B to
better use technology and move up levels in the SAMR model was a more difficult
process. Though I used the SAMR model to explain how technology could facilitate
a deep and rich experience for the students, we were only able to move up one
level.
References
Celmer, K., Moore, M., & Trentacoste, S. (April 18,
2014). The Intended Adopter (Slide Share).
Retrieved from: https://www.slideshare.net/strentacoste/cbam-33690744
Gundy, M.S. & Berger, M.J. (2016). Toward a model of
educational change. International Journal
of
Information and Educational
Technology, 6(3), 232-37.
Huang, P-S. (n.d.). Concerns-Based adoption model: Levels
of use. Retrieved from
Pembina Trails School Division. (2016). Standards for
Success in Literacy [Brochure]. Winnipeg: n.p.
Puentedura, R. (2014) SAMR: Learning and assessment
(Class Slides, PDF). Retrieved from:
Riedling,
A. (2013). Reference skills for the school library media specialist: Tools
and tips, (Third
Edition).Santa Barbara, CA:
Linworth.
