Liz B's Blog

First Interviews

lizberquist — Thu, 12 May 2011 12:03:19 +0000

I had three interviews yesterday!
I learned a few very important things….
First, after the first interview, I realized that two of my questions could be interpreted in two different ways…for example, I asked about variability being the norm in today’s classrooms– the first administrator answer was based on teacher varaibility and teaching methods–I was interested in student variability. I realized that adding or deleting one word can solicit a more targeted answer. I also learned that some interviewees have their own agenda! One adminstrator wanted to share thoughts on the county PD and went off on a tagent that did not really relate to my question…I think he wanted the school rep that was with me to hear what he had to say. The same administrator had many questions about IRB, which I will share in person…. I also learned that interviewing is a looong process! Traveling to the sites, waiting for busy school leaders, then writing interview notes and beginning to transcribe…it is time consuming. However, I truly feel that this is the best way to get to the “why” of your questions. Finallly, I learned that random selection is not always the best. I had on interviewee who really did not have a firm grasp on the subject.

The greatest challenge for me was only asking questions and not providing responses. Two of my interviewees asked me direct questions…I had steer them back to the interview, but after turning off the recorder, I addressed their questions. It is also tough not to correct or clarify.

I am looking forward the next set of interviews. I enjoy meeting new people who are excited about their schools, and clearly passionate and energetic! Most of my interviewees fit this description and I feel fortunate to have had the chance to learn from their perspective!

Two questions: I know the IRB forms need to be kept in your office, but how about the recordings? I told them I would be deleting after I transcribe….do you keep the transcriptions?

Another Update

lizberquist — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:45:22 +0000

Things are finally moving along….. BS, you were correct about working with a system…lots of hoops to jump through, but, I think this will work out. This week, I met with the director of research and the asst. to the sup for C and I. We met for two hours…. the first hour was a review of the IRB and a review and critique of the intended interview questions. I received very helpful and valuable feedback and I am happy to report that the questions and structure we created remained intact–they were pleased with everything. Then, we determined which groups to solicit for interviews– we decided to look for two elementary, two middle, two high and two C and I leadership staff. An email will be sent to all admins and the director will match their responses and avaiability with dates that we are both available… he would like to attend the interviews (I am assuming this is ok). He will send the email that I drafted (included in my irb) to the admins and then we wait~ the goal is to start interviews the week of May 9.

I also received the data from the two trainings that I led…. I reviewed this information last week. I think this information will also be useful in answering my research questions…I am just unsure of how to include it in this project. I can show you the data and maybe we can talk about how I can combine it with the interviews??

Bi -weekly Update

lizberquist — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 19:30:39 +0000

Recent progress on internship requirements has included:

article summary of Schelly, Davis and Spooner: Student Perceptions of Faculty Implementation of Universal Design for Leanring
article summary of Nelson, L, Arthur, E, Jensen, W and Van Horn, G.: Trading Textbooks for Technology: New Opportunities for Learning.
summary of Delaware Dept of Education’s : UDL: Universal Design for Learning: Reaching, Teaching All
revisions to interview questions
email to Debi Gartland about IRB…..

New Learning

lizberquist — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:55:48 +0000

The past two weeks have been full of new learning… SITE conference was great…lots of new ideas and inspiration, super conversations with the TU crew and many opportunities to meet people interested in similiar topics. Possible new SIG, kind of scary, but we will see. Hopefully this won’t be too time consuming–but at the same time, it will be fun to work with a diverse group of people, all interested in advancing UDL. Drafted a proposal for the SIG with faculty members from RIC and Roosevelt, we will see if the group is approved. Also finished my first comp for ISTC 711 and finished a draft of a portfolio artifact for specialization. Read four useful articles that I am going to add to my literature review:

Cutting Edge Educators: Preservice Teachers’ use of Technology within universal Design for learning Framework (Pace and Blue)

Access to Science for ALL Students (Anderson and Anderson) **had no idea until just now that I met the author at SITE and she is the one who came up with the idea for the UDL SIG….crazy!

UD and UDL: Paving the way toward inclusion and independence in the school library (another Pace and Blue)

Using video games as an alternative science assessment for students with disabilities and at-risk learners (Beecher, Basham and Marino) **Basham is one of the founders of the UDL-IRN network

I found connections between these articles in the areas of conceptions about UDL and issues with implementation….

In other news, I did make some progress with the IRB. I got my letter from HCPSS (not totally what I thought, but we think it will be sufficient), and I was able to turn in the IRB packet. Now, we wait for approval. I did get an email from the person in charge of assessment. As soon as I have aprroval from TU, he wants to meet with me to discuss contacting possible interviewees….

IRB!

lizberquist — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 20:32:37 +0000

As indicated in my internship “schedule,” I should have submitted my IRB this week. Clearly that has not happened! This is a process. I did work on making the suggested revisions (many thanks) and I also drafted a letter for HCPSS to sign. On Tuesday, I had the opportunity to present to all of the principals in HC. The meeting was organized by the Chief Academic Officer, and I was able to ask her permission to interview administrators who have attendedthe UDL trainings…she was happy to support this project. The director of assessment attended the meeting so I had the change to meet him face to face and discuss my interviews with him. He wasvery helpful and indicated that he would provide me with documentation. I followed up with an email last night, but I have not heard anything…. this is also a second follow-up, I had a similar conversation last week. I am learning that things happen slowly when it comes to IRB. I have a learned a lesson– if you want approval, start three months earlier than you think you need to start. I have also learned that it is easier (i think) to get people to talk to you and consider your project if you do it face to face. So now….fingers crossed that I hear back!

Spring 2011…Internship Time

lizberquist — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:53:14 +0000

Based on my 2-14 conversation with my trusty and wise (and patient!) advisor, I have attempted to outline my internship experience here: Internship guidelines and outline_BERQUIST. I added a column that outlines my comp schedule on the right– and then, I freaked out (for lack of a better term)! I am wondering, what if I can ‘t make that comp schedule? Can I push some of them into the summer? I am thinking I can do it now, but that is hoping that all of my interns are successful and do not require extra hours of observations and support.

Second question- I initially thought that I would use the three interview structure. I do not think that this timeline will fit into one semester. I am wondering if I can answer the same research questions in one interview?

Research Question 1: How do pre-service teachers believe that educators should respond to the increasing amount of diversity that exists in 21^st century classrooms?

Research Question 2: What do pre-service teachers believe about the role of technology in supporting all learners?

Final question– IRB… I hear that they are pretty quick with turn around time. I am a bit nervous about this, so I am working on the documents now and I am planning to meet with Kati next week…. what do I do if I don’t get approved?!

Voki

lizberquist — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:41:37 +0000

http://vhss-d.oddcast.com/vhss_editors/voki_player.swf?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fvhss-d.oddcast.com%2Fphp%2Fvhss_editors%2Fgetvoki%2Fchsm%3De5a5fe4ad4ea3d8416de69b49086a843%26sc%3D3141858″> NAME=”BASE” VALUE=”http://vhss-d.oddcast.com/vhss_editors/”>>

http://ahref=>

Get” _mce_href=”http://www.voki.com/”>Get”>http://www.voki.com/”>Get a Voki now!

CBA in Pre-service teacher ed….

lizberquist — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 19:55:43 +0000

I like the idea of designing a learning environment using case based reasoning….it fits well for some topics- teachers should surely be able to reason by drawing on past experiences. I think that any type of teaching seminar would be an ideal setting for this type of instructional design. Behavior interventions or classroom management are topics that could lend themselves well to CBR. In my opinion, the reflective component of this design is most important– this is where the “aha” moments occur for pre-service teachers….. they do not always make the connections in the moment, but when they are asked to stop and think, to analyze new learning from a situation and to determine what they could change in the future, they often come to see what is obvious to the experienced educator.

Learning about child development and especially the development of those with disabilities would not be appropriate for this type of design. The example of finding the milk in the grocery store brought this “caution” to my attention. My fear is that students could be lumped into categories…..for example– if a teacher learns from a case about student with autism and they have an experience with a student with autism in the future, they would certainly reflect back on the past case. However, students with autism (and all other disabilities as well) are not similar. They may share a few characteristics, or they may share no characteristics. In this sense, CBR would actually do a dis-service to the teachers ability to meet the needs of a particular child.

Situated Cognition in Pre-Service Teacher Education

lizberquist — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:13:32 +0000

Have to start with my favorite quote from this Chapter: “The very premise that schools constitute some neutral ground apart from the real world, in which things are learned that are later applied in the real world, is fundamentally misguided.” Yes, I am aware that this is not new, however, when considering technology use and the field of pre-service teacher education, I would say that this statement has current implications…when we design environments for our students, we need to be quite sure that student “activities” are not isolated events… connection is essential. Two examples from our program– we ask that students administer the WJIII educational assessment during their undergrad experience– however, only some instructors require the students to use the compuscore computer program to evaluate results–when we evaluate our first year teachers, many cite their lack of prepardness in the area of formal ed assessments– many comments reveal that those who actually went through the process of assessing, scoring and analyzing with their mentor during their field experience had the most “gains.”

I also had an “a-ha” moment when I read the summary section–considering SitCog as an opportunity to define the designers role in new ways. For example, when designing courses for pre-service educators, it would be wise to design the environment in such a way that models the environment that we wish to see in classrooms–using grounded design. I think we are trying to do this by using UDL as the instructional design for a course? We present using the principles and applying the guidelines. Similarly, students show knowledge in the same manner.

Practice Fields in Special Ed Pre-service Teacher Ed?

lizberquist — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:19:20 +0000

Considering the blog assignment for this week…..
Yes, practice fields are applicable in the area of pre-service teacher education and special education.
An interesting connection….my husband is a behavior interventionist who often works with new teachers who have difficulty with classroom management. They always tell him that they were not prepared for “this.” “This” means serious student behavior issues that are not addressed in pre-service teacher programs. Just the other night, he talked about creating a series of video scenarios that would set the stage for discussion about a behavior challenge. Although this could never replicate the pressure of an actual situation, it could provide teachers time to talk over and brainstorm solutions before a similar situation occurs. This is a real world case that encourages problem solving– there is no one correct answer. I believe that this is an example of a problem based approach that occurs separate from the actual field, but in an appropriate context for authentic learning.

Anchored instruction is also an approach to creating practice fields that is useful in special education. We actually use this method when we practice IEP team meetings and SETT frameworks. We clearly indicate that the video and text that we are sharing with undergraduates is in no way a “real” situation, but rather a fictional problem. For example, we have video of students at work and we have developed background information on a fictional student. The students watch a clip and read the background and discuss the environment where the student must learn. Then, we watch clips of teachers discussing the students and read excerpts that would be shared a team. In small groups, students use chart paper to determine student strengths and needs. Then, students are challenged to list the tools that are already in place for that student. They go back to their resources and in small groups, determine assistive technology tools to try out. This is an example of the SETT process used to make decisions about assistive tech tools. This activity took time to create, but it is engaging and authentic. A goal that is shared by my colleagues is to create additional similar activities.