Hi David,

Thank you for your questions. There are two ways in which the user can restrict the viewing of artifacts. First, for each group of teachers that is working together - let's say there are three university teacher ed programs using the app or three different research projects - each would have their own instance and would not be able to see the teachers and artifacts in the other instance. That is the first layer of separation.

Within each instance, then, there are levels of permissions. A teacher can only see their individual portfolio in an instance and only their instructional coach or the PD facilitator would have access to see and provide feedback for their artifacts. The nice part about the shared portfolio is that the individual teachers can then contribute artifacts of their choice - those that they want to share and get feedback on - to the rest of their PLC in that shared space.

As of right now, anyone who has access to the artifact (like all of those in the PLC) can see the feedback from other responders, creating a community conversation. Your point about hesitancy is important and we recognize that the tool is just that - it must be paired with what we know works for PLCs in that this shouldn't be used until there is trust and community built between team members and norms about what type of non-evaluative feedback is useful.

Thank you so much for your questions! (feel free to add anything I missed, Felipe),

Matt

Thank you Nancy. Those are very important questions that we grappled with in designing this study, because the work involves both a technology/software innovation (the new portfolio app and portal), and a substantive innovation (vertical PLC teams collaborating online).  Ultimately we decided that at this stage it would be better to focus first on examining key development and usability questions in depth, as an important (indeed required) step leading to  a subsequent closer assessment of impact.

Thus, we explicitly conceived of an exploratory study involving multiple rounds of technological, and substantive development, piloting and refinement. We included extensive qualitative data collection to allow us to examine how the tool is used by teachers individually, and also collectively in learning communities. In addition to the technology use question, in the substantive side of the project we also examine the nature of the interactions and collaboration around teaching and learning of NGSS topics across grades.

Our data collection plan includes multiple rounds of in depth interviews with teachers, along with video of PLC meetings, both within grade, and vertical, and qualitative examination of classroom artifacts and teachers  conceptual grids two science units or storylines (Water and Forces).

While we are not attempting a rigorous evaluation of impact at this stage, we will examine this qualitative data for teachers' evolving understandings of both their teaching and student learning along these trajectories, and NGSS aligned topics more generally. In addition, we are also collecting student surveys to descriptively  monitor quantitative changes in student learning experiences and conceptions around science.

Yes - thank you for your question, Nancy. And to provide a bit of nuance in terms of our priorities, we are particularly interested in how teachers engage in vertical PLCs (e.g. the types of conversations that occur, the collective understanding that is created, the power dynamics among grade levels, etc.) as many standards and curricula spiral, but there is little research on how teachers across these levels support the teaching and learning that is supposed to iteratively occur across grade levels.

Secondarily (but still important to us) is whether, when, and how the app provides opportunities for teachers who aren't in each others' classrooms to react to artifacts of student thinking during the PLC meetings.

Hi Alex. The short answer is that we are right now in the process of collecting our first round of data to investigate and start answering precisely the (critical) questions you are asking. 

Our project was scheduled to start in Fall of 2020, but any/all work involving teachers, meetings, contact with students was obviously postponed due to the pandemic. As you may imagine 2021-22 has not been business as usual either, and continued school closures and staffing pressures in our partner district required again postponing in person meetings and data collection until the winter/spring.   

While the delay in our research plans was unfortunate, one silver lining was the ability to spend a full year working on software development and produce a more robust suite of software tools. With the added time the team at UCLA's Office of Instructional Technology decided to pivot from our original plan of extending existing portfolio tools from a previous NSF project, to an entirely new software platform better suited to handle complex data in modern devices and operating systems. One feature in particular you may be interested in is the ability to efficiently collect and share short video artifacts that we see as potentially better able to reflect student classroom discourse.

We are thrilled with the enhanced power and flexibility of the new software platform, and we are now in the middle of our first semester of data collection to learn about their potential value for supporting teacher professional learning around science teaching (including barriers, challenges, and limitations, and potential areas of strength to tap in subsequent work). Ask us next year!!

Hi Jessica,

Thank you for your interest. We currently are working with 26 teachers in a school district how are part of vertical teams. They are all using the app right now for collecting artifacts on a unit of the same topic (waves or water distribution) across the three grade levels in the vertical team. (They are all teaching different standards related to the topic). They are partners with us so this is advanced beta testing and some field testing.

In terms of public release, we have been talking with some other groups who are interested in trying out their own instance with a group of teachers. We are still developing how to create these unique instances for different groups, but that should be in place fairly soon.

If you have interest in testing it out with a group in the near future, I can't promise anything, but it would be worth a conversation amongst us to see if that could happen/is a good fit. Feel free to email (mkloser@nd.edu) if you want to talk more.

Hi Rebecca,

Please email me at mkloser@nd.edu and we can set up a call. We are using it right now with a group of teachers and piloting with a different group as well. So as of today it is not ready for use, but very soon. Happy to chat about the possibilities and timeline.

Matt

Thanks for your comments Patina. Yes, one of our conjectures/hopes is that this type of software tool AND collaboration structure can help make PD more engaging and "alive" for groups of teachers.

Short answers: 

1) Yes, we are working on options for teachers to export/retain a copy of their portfolios for subsequent review and use. There are a variety of options and formats and so this turns out to be a more complex issue than it could seem, but at a minimum they will be able to download and keep a local copy of their portfolio.

2) As of right now no, we are only running our initial pilot with k-8 teachers in one district. We are in talks with groups interested in trying it out in other districts and contexts, all k-12. But obviously the tool can be used in any other contexts including Higher Ed.

We generally would LOVE for other groups to try it and let us know what they think. As we pilot this first instantiation of our portfolio, the software team is working to enable the tool to accommodate other groups with their own (different) portfolio structures. If you are interested in using SPIRAL with a group please email me at jfmtz@ucla.edu and we can discuss your needs and a timeline. 

My best and thanks again for your interest!