2-28-10

Week Of: February 28, 2010

Team Characteristic: Lack of Commitment


Personal Characteristic: Working Hard


BRIEF Description of Activity/Situation:
This week we working on our literature review. We are back to getting the literature reviews and putting the ideas together to make a whole. I am actually happy with the progress we have made as a group. We all have our busy schedules, but the group has worked hard to get where we are. We are committed.

Reflections:
I have been working hard on the literature review and the data tables and charts. I have been doing lots of work on these charts. I have a new found respect for the Excel program. I am attempting to show the data in different tables to show frequency and distribution of goals. As I am working on the tables, I get see the data in different views and when I have to write the explanation of the data table and graph, I will be able to tell a complete story not just part of it. I am committed and so are my group members.

Fear of Conflict 2-21-10

Week Of: February 21, 2010

Team Characteristic: Fear of Conflict


Personal Characteristic: Task Master


BRIEF Description of Activity/Situation:
This week were should have gathered the bulk of our data. We want to send a survey to teachers at Bird High School to get the perceptions of the PGPP-T. We had to tweak the survey as the client Beth Teigen wants the data in a certain way. The only problem we had was just getting the survey back from her so we can go forward. This can create conflict between team members and client as deadlines have to be met.

Reflections:
As a task master it is easy to get frustrated at times when others are not meeting their deadlines. For this team we have worked very well together. We all are pulling our weight when it comes to the work. As the task master my role has shifted at times all of us are task masters. It has been good to have all the members of the group on the same page and doing their share of the work. We all have different personalities, but we have not clashed, and if we do as professionals we know how to handle it. This has come with maturity and working on various projects together. Fear of conflict, not a problem if anything conflict should fear us.

Accountability 2-14-10

Week Of: February 14, 2010

Team Characteristic: Accountability

Personal Characteristic: Feeling Responsible

BRIEF Description of Activity/Situation: Our group has been accountable for the gathering of data for this project. We all had separate tasks to complete within a week and I am proud to say I am impressed with the level of accountability each member has taken on. We all have busy days, but we find time to e-mail, text, or call one another to make sure no one is slacking. At first I really thought we would fall behind, but our progress has been consistent with each others assignments.

Reflections:
I started reflecting in the above section so I will finish my thoughts here. I truly appreciate the comments given to me by Dr. MaGill as I am writing this literary review. I was able to go back and use them and it has been a major resource. I don't feel like I am writing blind, the glass are on and I cans see the destination. I just want to make this a solid piece of writing. I always thought of myself as a good writer, now I want to be a better writer. Someday in the future get some things published in a few journals. Imagine me with a literary review in a journal. Sounds funny, but could be very true. As for the team, thanks guys for having each others backs. We have had a extremely stressful week, but we got the work done and the finished product will be great. The client, Beth Teigen will get lots of use out of this study.

PGPP-T Bird High School

Week Of: February 7, 2010

Team Characteristic: Teamwork

Personal Characteristic: Frustrated/Literary Writing/Researcher

BRIEF Description of Activity/Situation:
Chesterfield County Schools has piloted the PGPP-T for the past two years at select schools. Bird High School was fortunate to pilot this form of evaluation for their staff. I am working with Jim Glass and Thomas Ferrell Jr. on the following objectives:
(1) To Identify content of goals that teachers have set?
(2) Is there a difference in pass rates versus the content of goals?
(3) The amount of time spent per teacher: observing, conferencing, developing goals, etc.

Reflection:
We have collected data and were able to speak to Dr. Beth Teigen the principal of Bird High School, to see exactly what she wanted as the client. She state the objectives were in line with what she wanted and told us to concentrate our efforts on the two main subject areas for accreditation, English and Math. As we concentrate our efforts, it has become easy to focus our studies and the collection of data. The main issue for me at this time is the Literature Review. It is hard to take large pieces of literature and pick out the most important parts to focus on one objective to which each member of the group selected. Just like the legal writing the literary review will come to me, it just gets frustrating when you put effort into making a product as good as it can be, but you still miss the mark. I know this is what being a doctoral candidate is all about, frustration, long days and nights, constant editing and research, second guessing, collective bargaining with group members, and most of all believing that your work does have meaning and will stand for something when it is all said and done.

Field Experience II

We are studying the PGPP-T for Bird High School. The PGPP-T is an evaluation tool that is used for evaluation of teachers in Chesterfield County Public Schools. In FE II we are working with Bird High School who are in their second year of the program. The principal wanted to know the following objectives:

1. The goals setting and alignment to the county and state's standards?

2. The effectiveness of the program as it relates to teacher evaluation and accountability.

3. The efficiency of the overall program when it comes to time.

At this point we have interviewed administrators and we are using the feedback to complete the interim report.

Field Experience III

In Field Experience III, we visited an elementary school in a nearby county. The school is located in a rural area where industry and big business does not provide the schools with lots of revenue. In the recent years, change had occurred. More subdivisions have developed in the area bringing more tax money as well as children. These children are seeking a quality education. The leaders of county and schools wanted to assess the credibility of their leaders to see how effective they are in running these schools. We had a leader, 2 moderators and 2 scribes that switched at different intervals during the focus group session. (The leader never changed positions.) We traveled to the elementary school to conduct a focus group on the participants' perspectives on the extent to which the Six Core Components of Learning-Centered Leadership. Another facet to the focus group was the participants’ feelings on Professional Learning Circles initiative. The fifteen person focus groups were broken into two equally divided groups where each group met with a moderator and a scribe that facilitated the group. The focus group sessions took place for forty-five minutes. During this forty-five minute period the focus group participants were questioned on specific topics that relate to school accountability and performance as it related to the Six Core Components of Learning-Centered Leadership. Being the leader of the focus group was interesting. I was able to migrate from group to group to insure order and consistency occurred. I got a chance to hear the various responses from teachers and really see how some differed as others stayed the same. At times teachers became personal with the remarks and really stood up for their school and the core values they possessed. That was the most remarkable part, they truly believe in their school system, but did not mention how their leaders played a role in their school. Most of the responses related back to the teachers and what they do to attain success for the school. My team members did a wonderful job with controlling the focus groups. They asked probing questions and facilitated conversation even when the participants did not want to speak. They stayed on task. I truly thank them for their hard work and enjoyed the team dynamic we had for this assignment. Many thanks to them and I look forward to working with them on future projects.

Field Experience I

Going to a middle school in my county of employment was a wonderful experience to learn about the PGPP-T. The PGPP-T is defined as the Professional Growth Performance Plan for teachers. As an assistant principal it was eye opening to learn how teachers who piloted the program really felt. The stated how it was wonderful to have a tool that keeps both administrators and teachers accountable in the evaluation process. We had two perspective doctoral candidates as moderator and scribe for this focus group. The moderator and scribe had to switch positions during the focus group session. It gave each person a different role in the focus group. The experience was intense when we asked in depth questions. We probed deeper to get some teachers who were shy or did not want to speak an opportunity to express their concerns about the PGPP-T. We made sure that we did not ask any leading questions, but the questions we asked allowed us to gain the necessary data that we needed. I felt we both did great jobs as moderators and scribes. As for me, I wanted to get a feel for who these teachers were and was the information given genuine or fluff. The more we dialogued in the focus group the more I learned. It was a great experience and I enjoyed visiting this middle school in the county. The only mistake or glitch in this process was that we taped the focus group session, but we had no sound. We will do a voice over to provide audio. Just Kidding!!!