#dml2012: (Not Accepted.)^3 But I Still Like It.

Last night, I got word that my proposal for the 2012 Digital Media and Learning Conference was not accepted. While I am a bit disappointed that the session wasn’t accepted, I know I’m in good company – according to my rejection notice ((Which I got three times, I’m guessing due to a glitch somewhere. That stung a bit.)), they have a 30% acceptance rate, so lots of good stuff got left behind. I suspect what made it in will be pretty interesting. But I liked the language of the proposal, and thought it might be of interest to others, so I’m posting it below exactly as I submitted it.

Practitioner Inquiry in the Digital Learning Collaborative: Teacher Research for Reform from Within

Educational reform efforts are often conducted on schools and teachers, rather than with and through them. Teachers are asked to conduct scripted lessons nested within scripted curriculum. Too often, genuine inquiry, an essential skill and mindset for students and teachers, is given lipservice rather than real attention and focus in the classroom.

In at attempt to change this dynamic while also creating a new way of thinking about teaching with technology, the St. Vrain Valley School District in northern Colorado created the Digital Learning Collaborative in the Fall of 2009. The DLC is an attempt to introduce intentional institutional subversion through a model that recenters teachers as both learners and researchers. With their students as partners, teachers in the DLC engage in a two-year professional development program. In year one, teachers are encouraged to explore, in small teams, technologies that they are curious about in an attempt to better understand them. In year two, they bring those technologies into their classrooms and use a teacher research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, _Inquiry as Stance_, 2009) model to explore the impact of that technology on student achievement. With students as partners in this inquiry, teachers in the DLC have explored the effects of computerized assessment, the use of iPods as visual vocabulary tools, and online networking and writing environments, among others. Through a partnership with the Colorado State University Writing Project, and informed by the teacher inquiry work of the National Writing Project, these teacher researchers in the DLC are emerging as experts in residence in their schools, not as outsiders, but as insiders invested in the schools and students they serve. The DLC by design allows for the research of its members to spread throughout the district and, through the use of the Web, beyond.

In this workshop, we will explore the DLC model, as well as engage participants in an exploration of the inquiry produced in projects like these. We will also explore the opportunities and challenges that such a model for professional development presents and consider the impact practitioner inquiry, and also intentional institutional subversion can have on an organization. Participants will leave with a better understanding of how teacher research, and teacher researchers, have much to offer conversations on education reform while they are working to improve their practice. Participants will also consider the implications of teacher research on a school through some scenario explorations, and explore how teachers in the DLC can become colleagues from a distance as the power of the Internet can bring us into each others’ inquiry work as partners and responders.

The democratization of education reform requires that teachers and students are engaged and informed voices for the practices, habits, and mindsets that are essential to an informed citizenry. Teacher research is a powerful force for institutional subversion that can lead to a better learning environment and experiences for all. Through the DLC, and groups like it, thoughtful and inquiry-grounded innovation can be nurtured through an organization and shared beyond.

7 thoughts on “#dml2012: (Not Accepted.)^3 But I Still Like It.

  1. Hi Bud,

    The proposal looks fascinating and I would like to know more about the 2 year process and what happens after that to the first cohort. Your proposal has me curious and I am wondering about the nuts and bolts of the work: How does one participate? Do teachers stay with the project? What is the level of commitment required? What about building admins? Are they also invited in? How do teachers and students actually collaborate? How are these various voices privileged in the design & display of the work?

    I also am wondering about the not so nuts and bolts: What are you learning about the intersections between hardware and pedagogy? Students and teachers? Admins and teachers? Among all three & community? Are teachers initially drawn to particular hardware and does this shape pedagogy in some ways? Has this experience given rise to specific ways of re/organizing labor? What about the students? As co-researchers what are they saying they are learning, wondering? How is their voice valued? How does one publish their inquiries, findings, new questions?

    There’s a lot to consider here–the least of which is the idea and practice of democratic education. What happens to voices of consent? Voices of dissent? How might your project scale across?

    Not asking you to respond to these queries, but did want to share that the proposal occasioned such thinking for me.

    BTW, love how you model the proactive response to a proposal rejection. That is inspiring.

    1. Mary Ann,

      Thanks for both the kind words and the questions – you’ve asked so many good ones that I’ll write my response up as a separate post – it’ll be lengthy, I suspect. More soon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.