Reflections
I would like to start my critical reflection by revisiting my own definition of engaged scholar. As an educator, i define an engaged scholar as being actively involved in the development of knowledge and its application inside and outside of the school settings that can provides solutions to real life problems of the students and the community locally or globally. In this definition, there are some concepts that i need to underline: active involvement, development of knowledge, solutions to problems, and community. These concepts are the foundation of my mentored community engagement experience. My thoughts, actions, and attitudes are based on those concepts. Throughout my thinking process and action i make sure that those four elements have been and are in place.
Degree of Engagement
As an organization, LATTICE is governed by appointed board of directors who oversee LATTICE operations. The Board of Directors hire a LATTICE session director and a graduate coordinator to organize and run all the sessions throughout the academic year. In 2013/2014 academic year, Matinga Ragatz served as the session director whereas I served as the graduate coordinator. We work closely together with the help of a planning team. Our planning team consists of active members of LATTICE who volunteered their time to be in different committees such as: food and set up, promotion, after hour, fundraising, and content for learning. Throughout 18 years of its existence, LATTICE encounters different challenges every year. Our collaboration was started by identifying the factual problems that LATTICE had to deal with in 2013.
We adopted the asset mapping model (see Emery, M., Fey, S., & Flora, C. F. (2006); Kretzmann, J. & McKnight, J. (1993); and Best Practice Brief #4) to inventory resources, or lack thereof, that we could use to identify issues and find solutions for those issues. Based on the asset mapping, we identified that LATTICE has a very strong social and cultural capital and yet has a minimum financial capital. Being a non profit organization, LATTICE relies heavily on donation and support from the community. Thus LATTICE does not have a permanent on-going income/revenue. This made us, the planning team to be creative in budgeting for our sessions that included inviting guest speakers, providing refreshment, and new teachers recruitment to name a few. We identified several challenges that LATTICE faced in our term. They were: declining teachers participation, dwindling sense of ownership / organizational spirit, and the need to have a more technology related learning for educators. Those issues were identified by looking at the previous year's attendance and feedback from sessions and were discussed at the board meeting.
Based on the identified issues, Matinga and I developed a proposal that describe and explain all of our sessions planned for the 2013/2014 academic year and how we wanted to do it for board of director approval. Once approved, the planning team conducted a monthly meeting to plan for more technical details of each monthly session as well as evaluate the session from previous month. Matinga and I, however, met every Wednesday to plan and prepare in depth for every planning meeting and monthly session we had. As part of our media for learning, Matinga and I developed an interactive online newsletter that we created as a website so that our members can visit whenever and wherever they need/want to. This newsletter consists of our session agenda and all materials needed for and related to the sessions. Everything related to the on-going session is placed and highlighted in the home page whereas all the previous sessions are placed in archives to avoid confusion. We also sent out email reminders to members so that they could familiarize themselves with the newsletters.
Once everything's ready, Matinga and I co-led the session to implement everything that we planned for. In every session, we made sure that we went over the online interactive newsletter so that members were familiar with it and that they could navigate the website on their own with ease. It is important for us to make sure that our members can learn independently the resources that we have on the online newsletter. It is part of our effort to build their individual capacity. Matinga and I always positioned ourselves as facilitators or mediators in the learning process. By doing so, the learning activities were more organic and members centered. We consider that all of our LATTICE members are experts in their respective fields. At the end of every session, we conducted a-two-minute survey to collect feedback on what we did and suggestion for future sessions. It is called a two-minute survey because it is designed that members will be done with the survey in two minutes. All who attended the session are required to fill out the survey. The survey questioned focused on what they learned from the session, what helped or hindered their learning, and how we can do better in the future. All the collected surveys were then discussed at the planning team meeting as to inform us what needs to be improved. At the end of the year, we also produced an annual report to be submitted to the Board of Directors. The summary of our collaboration is shown on the diagram below.
Degree of Engagement
As an organization, LATTICE is governed by appointed board of directors who oversee LATTICE operations. The Board of Directors hire a LATTICE session director and a graduate coordinator to organize and run all the sessions throughout the academic year. In 2013/2014 academic year, Matinga Ragatz served as the session director whereas I served as the graduate coordinator. We work closely together with the help of a planning team. Our planning team consists of active members of LATTICE who volunteered their time to be in different committees such as: food and set up, promotion, after hour, fundraising, and content for learning. Throughout 18 years of its existence, LATTICE encounters different challenges every year. Our collaboration was started by identifying the factual problems that LATTICE had to deal with in 2013.
We adopted the asset mapping model (see Emery, M., Fey, S., & Flora, C. F. (2006); Kretzmann, J. & McKnight, J. (1993); and Best Practice Brief #4) to inventory resources, or lack thereof, that we could use to identify issues and find solutions for those issues. Based on the asset mapping, we identified that LATTICE has a very strong social and cultural capital and yet has a minimum financial capital. Being a non profit organization, LATTICE relies heavily on donation and support from the community. Thus LATTICE does not have a permanent on-going income/revenue. This made us, the planning team to be creative in budgeting for our sessions that included inviting guest speakers, providing refreshment, and new teachers recruitment to name a few. We identified several challenges that LATTICE faced in our term. They were: declining teachers participation, dwindling sense of ownership / organizational spirit, and the need to have a more technology related learning for educators. Those issues were identified by looking at the previous year's attendance and feedback from sessions and were discussed at the board meeting.
Based on the identified issues, Matinga and I developed a proposal that describe and explain all of our sessions planned for the 2013/2014 academic year and how we wanted to do it for board of director approval. Once approved, the planning team conducted a monthly meeting to plan for more technical details of each monthly session as well as evaluate the session from previous month. Matinga and I, however, met every Wednesday to plan and prepare in depth for every planning meeting and monthly session we had. As part of our media for learning, Matinga and I developed an interactive online newsletter that we created as a website so that our members can visit whenever and wherever they need/want to. This newsletter consists of our session agenda and all materials needed for and related to the sessions. Everything related to the on-going session is placed and highlighted in the home page whereas all the previous sessions are placed in archives to avoid confusion. We also sent out email reminders to members so that they could familiarize themselves with the newsletters.
Once everything's ready, Matinga and I co-led the session to implement everything that we planned for. In every session, we made sure that we went over the online interactive newsletter so that members were familiar with it and that they could navigate the website on their own with ease. It is important for us to make sure that our members can learn independently the resources that we have on the online newsletter. It is part of our effort to build their individual capacity. Matinga and I always positioned ourselves as facilitators or mediators in the learning process. By doing so, the learning activities were more organic and members centered. We consider that all of our LATTICE members are experts in their respective fields. At the end of every session, we conducted a-two-minute survey to collect feedback on what we did and suggestion for future sessions. It is called a two-minute survey because it is designed that members will be done with the survey in two minutes. All who attended the session are required to fill out the survey. The survey questioned focused on what they learned from the session, what helped or hindered their learning, and how we can do better in the future. All the collected surveys were then discussed at the planning team meeting as to inform us what needs to be improved. At the end of the year, we also produced an annual report to be submitted to the Board of Directors. The summary of our collaboration is shown on the diagram below.
Critical Reflections
I would like to reiterate the two theoretical frameworks that were used as the foundation of my mentored community engaged experience. First, it is the importance of professional learning community to build a strong school capacity proposed by Newmann et.al. (2000). Second, the concept of technological pedagogical knowledge introduced by Koehler and Mishra (2009). In this critical reflection, I will elaborate how these frameworks has been incorporated throughout my mentored experience: the ideas, the process, and the results. Our goal was: 1) to help develop capacity at the individual level in which each members will be more technology literate over time, and 2) to build institutional capacity in which any member of LATTICE can step up to take leadership in planning, organizing, and developing LATTICE even long after we are not working with LATTICE anymore.
Given that LATTICE was established in 1995, my role in this community partnership was to sustain the partnership and strengthen it by introducing a new model for the learning community. By new model, we meant the integration and infusion of technology into our designing, planning, and running the monthly session in order to reinstate LATTICE organizational spirit. We did this because we believe that technological pedagogical knowledge is important and needed by our members. Nowadays, they are required by the state to introduce and incorporate technology in their teaching. Not only did we help teachers with their technology related issue, but we also worked to increase the participation number by incorporating technology in LATTICE. In addition, the different committees that we have mentioned above was our effort to make a systemic change to the organization. We proposed that members voluntarily sign up to be part of a different committee. We both agreed that in order to increase the sense of ownership of LATTICE, we need to create a culture of collective responsibility and collaboration among members (Newmann et.al. (2000).
During the fall 2013, we put emphasis on incorporating the technology. We wanted to move away from LATTICE old tradition to always provide all of the materials in print and distributed to members in every session. By going paperless, we thought that we could model how we incorporate technology in everyday life as well as to build an awareness to be more environmentally friendly. At the end of the semester, however, we didn't see an increase in the use of technology among members. We even noticed there was a little reluctance from our members to use their devices for the session. We found the evidence on this from one simple thing: our two-minute survey. With a paperless online survey, not many members spent time to fill it out, even though we told them that they could do it at home in their leisure. We found out that many of our members were not comfortable with the use of technology. Some people expressed concern that we were technology heavy.
We didn't consider the reluctance of using technology as a tool for participation in the monthly session as a failure to our goals. We understood the complexity of technology integration in our professional learning community, especially among our older members because: a) they were required to move away from their comfort zone in which technology is not priority, b) they had a fear that they would do some damage to our online resources if they did something to it, and c) it took time for them to get used to the new technology. We understood that we couldn't change habit overnight. Thus, we decided to make some adjustment. In the Spring of 2014, we decided to develop a more hybrid session: 60% of it online and 40% of it paper based. We decided to accommodate members' reluctance to technology in things that matter to us and to the organization. We printed out the two minutes survey so that more members would fill it out before they left. In addition, we also printed out the guiding questions for small group discussion for members to choose from or to give them ideas where the conversation might go.
Although it is succinct, the two minute survey was very important because it was our way to conduct a community based participatory research. We developed the questions and analyzed the answers together so that we could continuously improve the quality of our learning. It was our way to hold ourselves accountable. The small group discussion was considered to be essence of our session. It was where the production of knowledge took place. It was the opportunity for members to go in depth with the conversation that could possibly produce solutions to problems they were facing in the school contexts. After each small group discussion, members were given the opportunity to share their conversation with the whole group. Often times, they provided reflection of their practices and what they could do to make it better. We, sometimes, could have an indirect feedback/evaluation from this as well. This practice of constructing knowledge that we did in LATTICE is in accordance with the cycle of knowledge creation proposed by Sonka et.al. (2000), that consists of: observation, documentation, implementation, and analysis.
Working with LATTICE members were not always easy and smoothly. LATTICE members came from very diverse background. They differ not only in term of nationality, gender, age, and belief system; they also differ in term of subject matter expertise, grade level they teach, years of teaching, as well as education background. All of these differences created their own complexity for us as facilitators to plan, organize and run the programs. Let alone our own individual differences (between Matinga and I) as co-facilitators. One thing that we do have in common was the understanding that as members of professional learning community, we attended LATTICE sessions to learn from each other and to support one another so that we could accomplish the learning goals in the most positive and productive way. As co-facilitators, we both subscribe to Freirean notion of learning in which knowledge is constructed through a dialogue between teachers and learners and the fact that learners come with their own sets of background and experiences. With this in mind, we were sensitive to how different member of LATTICE will do things differently and how they acquire knowledge will also vary. The fact that Matinga and I are both very well travelled and have been working with people from different background, have made it easier for us to partner in taking the leadership role in LATTICE.
Overall, my mentored community engagement experience with LATTICE has been successful. It has improved my leadership skill as well as my understanding of community engaged scholarship. Different members of LATTICE at a different occasions mentioned that 2013/2014 LATTICE sessions have been so exciting and enriching. Some of LATTICE board members who have been with LATTICE since its establishment stated that our sessions were among the best they have had in the last 15 years. Our sessions have clearly carried out the vision and mission of LATTICE as a professional learning community. This success, of course, cannot be separated from the learning and knowledge i gained through my participation in MSU Graduate Certification in Community Engagement.
I would like to reiterate the two theoretical frameworks that were used as the foundation of my mentored community engaged experience. First, it is the importance of professional learning community to build a strong school capacity proposed by Newmann et.al. (2000). Second, the concept of technological pedagogical knowledge introduced by Koehler and Mishra (2009). In this critical reflection, I will elaborate how these frameworks has been incorporated throughout my mentored experience: the ideas, the process, and the results. Our goal was: 1) to help develop capacity at the individual level in which each members will be more technology literate over time, and 2) to build institutional capacity in which any member of LATTICE can step up to take leadership in planning, organizing, and developing LATTICE even long after we are not working with LATTICE anymore.
Given that LATTICE was established in 1995, my role in this community partnership was to sustain the partnership and strengthen it by introducing a new model for the learning community. By new model, we meant the integration and infusion of technology into our designing, planning, and running the monthly session in order to reinstate LATTICE organizational spirit. We did this because we believe that technological pedagogical knowledge is important and needed by our members. Nowadays, they are required by the state to introduce and incorporate technology in their teaching. Not only did we help teachers with their technology related issue, but we also worked to increase the participation number by incorporating technology in LATTICE. In addition, the different committees that we have mentioned above was our effort to make a systemic change to the organization. We proposed that members voluntarily sign up to be part of a different committee. We both agreed that in order to increase the sense of ownership of LATTICE, we need to create a culture of collective responsibility and collaboration among members (Newmann et.al. (2000).
During the fall 2013, we put emphasis on incorporating the technology. We wanted to move away from LATTICE old tradition to always provide all of the materials in print and distributed to members in every session. By going paperless, we thought that we could model how we incorporate technology in everyday life as well as to build an awareness to be more environmentally friendly. At the end of the semester, however, we didn't see an increase in the use of technology among members. We even noticed there was a little reluctance from our members to use their devices for the session. We found the evidence on this from one simple thing: our two-minute survey. With a paperless online survey, not many members spent time to fill it out, even though we told them that they could do it at home in their leisure. We found out that many of our members were not comfortable with the use of technology. Some people expressed concern that we were technology heavy.
We didn't consider the reluctance of using technology as a tool for participation in the monthly session as a failure to our goals. We understood the complexity of technology integration in our professional learning community, especially among our older members because: a) they were required to move away from their comfort zone in which technology is not priority, b) they had a fear that they would do some damage to our online resources if they did something to it, and c) it took time for them to get used to the new technology. We understood that we couldn't change habit overnight. Thus, we decided to make some adjustment. In the Spring of 2014, we decided to develop a more hybrid session: 60% of it online and 40% of it paper based. We decided to accommodate members' reluctance to technology in things that matter to us and to the organization. We printed out the two minutes survey so that more members would fill it out before they left. In addition, we also printed out the guiding questions for small group discussion for members to choose from or to give them ideas where the conversation might go.
Although it is succinct, the two minute survey was very important because it was our way to conduct a community based participatory research. We developed the questions and analyzed the answers together so that we could continuously improve the quality of our learning. It was our way to hold ourselves accountable. The small group discussion was considered to be essence of our session. It was where the production of knowledge took place. It was the opportunity for members to go in depth with the conversation that could possibly produce solutions to problems they were facing in the school contexts. After each small group discussion, members were given the opportunity to share their conversation with the whole group. Often times, they provided reflection of their practices and what they could do to make it better. We, sometimes, could have an indirect feedback/evaluation from this as well. This practice of constructing knowledge that we did in LATTICE is in accordance with the cycle of knowledge creation proposed by Sonka et.al. (2000), that consists of: observation, documentation, implementation, and analysis.
Working with LATTICE members were not always easy and smoothly. LATTICE members came from very diverse background. They differ not only in term of nationality, gender, age, and belief system; they also differ in term of subject matter expertise, grade level they teach, years of teaching, as well as education background. All of these differences created their own complexity for us as facilitators to plan, organize and run the programs. Let alone our own individual differences (between Matinga and I) as co-facilitators. One thing that we do have in common was the understanding that as members of professional learning community, we attended LATTICE sessions to learn from each other and to support one another so that we could accomplish the learning goals in the most positive and productive way. As co-facilitators, we both subscribe to Freirean notion of learning in which knowledge is constructed through a dialogue between teachers and learners and the fact that learners come with their own sets of background and experiences. With this in mind, we were sensitive to how different member of LATTICE will do things differently and how they acquire knowledge will also vary. The fact that Matinga and I are both very well travelled and have been working with people from different background, have made it easier for us to partner in taking the leadership role in LATTICE.
Overall, my mentored community engagement experience with LATTICE has been successful. It has improved my leadership skill as well as my understanding of community engaged scholarship. Different members of LATTICE at a different occasions mentioned that 2013/2014 LATTICE sessions have been so exciting and enriching. Some of LATTICE board members who have been with LATTICE since its establishment stated that our sessions were among the best they have had in the last 15 years. Our sessions have clearly carried out the vision and mission of LATTICE as a professional learning community. This success, of course, cannot be separated from the learning and knowledge i gained through my participation in MSU Graduate Certification in Community Engagement.