Stakeholder engagement and Assignment 2 of CISC8030
Recently we completed a presentation on Stakeholder engagement to my masters colleagues and tutors. During the formative process, we gained some feedback on the flowing presentation for our proposed stakeholders. At the bottom of this post is assignment 2, which outlines how I will engage our key stakeholders in more detail.Our Stakeholders include:
Teachers at Wesley Intermediate School
Principal at Wesley Intermediate School
Development team working with teachers to create an application
Lou's CISC8030 Stakeholder engagement: Via Piktochart Infographic Editor
Assessment 2: Methodology
Course: CISC8030 (DCL) Customised
Negotiated Study Extended (30 Credits)
Introduction:
As part of Assessment 2, we were
asked to present to our colleagues the Stakeholder Engagement Strategy and we
were given formative feedback and advice on what we could do to improve our
strategy. The following presentation link shares the stakeholder engagement
presentation, may be needed for evidence for the formative aspect of this
assignment.
Formatively assessd stakeholder engagement presentation:
The adaptations to the final
stakeholder plan below has links to various references, resources and tools
that will be used for implementing the engagement plan.
Stakeholder Engagement Plan
Project rationale:
Applications and online digital games are currently
being used in New Zealand schools for the teaching of reading, writing and
maths regularly. However, the teaching of behaviour has been heavily reliant on
paper based and traditional forms of reinforcement as shown by the Positive
Behaviour for Learning–School Wide (PB4L-SW) pedagogy (Ministry of Education, 2017). We will be working
with teachers to learn what improvements could be made for the integration of
PB4L systems at our school. We will collaborate and consult with teachers to
create a brief, for developers who will create a schoolwide app to meet the
challenges that the teachers identify.
Stakeholders:
In the process of creating this plan, I have identified the following
stakeholders and listed their engagement under three sections –
1.
Teachers at Wesley Intermediate (WIS)
2.
Principal of WIS
3.
Development team who will develop the proposed
application
We have created the following grid to map out the stakeholder engagement
– see link attached for my previous overview and was adapted based on formative
feedback during collaborative sessions with colleagues and course coordinators.
Stake holder
grid (version 1):
1. Teachers at WIS:
This group of stake hodlers include all the classroom teaching staff and
also comprises of Workshop and Physical Education teachers of Wesley
Intermediate School, in 2017.
Potential
benefits for teachers –
· Opportunity to apply their current PB4L practices into the digital and
gamified ways of teaching and learning, similarly to class dojo
· Grow relationships with students, whilst using effective and engaging
forms of reinforcement
· By collaborating in the a research project there is a potential outcome
of an application that meets the challenging aspects of PB4L at WIS as
identified by the teachers.
Potential risks
for teachers –
· Teachers have limited time to learn new tools and strategies and
therefore may not participate fully in the research due to other commitments
for example some already attend two admin meetings and one PB4L meeting a week.
· Teachers may experience less autonomy for creating individual PB4L
programmes within the classroom and may not want to do want I am researching
· Some teachers may find digital or gamified learning idealogically challenging
to their own personal beliefs or pedagogy and may struggle to adapt with new
material due to power imbalance, self perceptions i.e self efficacy or concerns
around appraisal
Mitigating Risks –
· Where possible we are limiting the extra
meetings as our staff already attend two admin meetings a week. We will also be increasing the release time
for face to face sessions for the study and research should that be needed, and
this has been approved by the Board of Trustees and supported by the principal.
· Engage teachers in the brief development
and testing of prototypes to have more onus of the final application that is
created
· Value their current best practice
and build on their strengths for using PB4L as observed in previous SET surveys
and classroom observations.
· Create a ethically safe research
environment, as we have already outlines with staff that this study /research
is not related to appraisal or attestation.
Type of
Engagement from Teachers –
· Participant – the teachers will give their feedback
for the duration of the workbased project bothin formal and informal settings
and will be included in the action based research (Koshy, Valsa, &
Waterman, 2010)
· Helping in formulating the research
question – some of the questions will be validated by teachers within the focus
group sessions
· Helping to publicise the project –
teachers will also feedback on the engagement for other stakeholders.
· Helping to carry out tasks for the development team
(contribution to the development team is optional)
Objectives for
engaging teachers –
· To work out the
importance or relevance of the project for the teachers
· Find out how
might we engage with them as a key stakeholder and help engage them in the
digital integration of PB4L
· Shape the
proposed research methodology and the questions to guide the work based project
Level of Engagement from Teachers-
We expect high levels of engagement based on the
previous EBS data (Wesley Intermediate School, 2017). All teaching
staff at the school will have the opportunity to give feedback on the research
project and specifically their engagement of the PB4L application. We aim to
have all classroom teachers to be able to test prototypes for the app, however
not all teachers will be engaged to take part at a developmental level.
Method of Engagement from Teachers -
We have agreed as a school to use focus group sessions
on a Thursday morning between 8.00 am to 8.30 am on fortnightly to monthly
basis. The sessions will use questions with feedback documented on PADLET link
- https://padlet.com/lreddy/y5ttkqkjgs0t
The meetings will be held during the normal PB4L staff
meeting as to avoid further engagement sessions needed. There is also scope for
planned feedback sessions, which will provide an opportunity to share the
findings. Also throughout the workbased project, we will be able to collect
their individual data via online tools like Padlet and staff will have small
group and whole staff discussions eg TPS type prior to sharing online and
annonymously if they wish. I will also be emailing teachers regularly of
updates for meetings and any changes to the research methodology.
Questions
to be asked during focus group sessions for teachers–
a)
What do you know about the workbased
project in place at WIS?
b)
Do you think this is relevant to your
practice and why?
c)
Do you want to be involved in the
research and how?
d)
How would you like to be kept
informed?
e)
What method of giving feedback do you
prefer eg surveys, focus groups or other (list your alternatives)?
f)
What is the most challenging aspect
of PB4L that you have experienced and therefore worth further research?
g)
What would you want to change about
the current digital intergration of PB4L and how?
h)
What parts of the current
acknowledgement system do you want to see changed and why?
Documentation
and analysis for feedback –
Most feedback will be given feedback in
focus groups, and so their feedback will be framed under question headings in PADLET,
during the meetings and will be analysed based on commonalities and
differences. We will also be collecting their preferences for research
methodology and whether collect user metrics and their feedback on the testing
of prototypes is to be monitored, for example some teachers may suggest that surveys
once the app starts being tested. We have reduced the avenues for documenting
to PADLET only, as previously we had included surveys and interviews but have
made the change based on formative feedback and simplifying the data collection
(Kothari, 2012).
The teacher’s feedback in particular
will be interpreted in into key majority groups as to ascertain the direction
of the research approach and methodology i.e if teachers prefer regular surveys
after testing the application than we will probably reduce the number of face
to face sessions needed in focus groups.
2. Principal of
Wesley WIS:
The principal will be one of the stakeholders who has fair amount of
decision making power within the school and will have the ability to advise and
promote the research project. The principal implements the strategy of the
school and is the operational leader and therefore key to the success of all
pedagogical changes within a school (Robinson, 2007).
Objectives
for engaging the principal-
By engaging and seeking the approval of the principal, for the various parts of the
project, will allow for a smoother research study. The Principal also works at
a board level, so should policies, funding or resourcing be needed that
engagement is already in place. The Principal controls much of the strategic
leadership and will want to align the workbased project to the outcomes of the
strategic and annual plans – see attached strategic plan.
Link
to strategice Plan:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uN9A5naLnzpDv1cga_P6pyvaUJa_XN0OgK4wwpXcnZk/edit
Lastly the final objective for engaging the principal
is to leverage the principal’s mana or leadership value, to provide impetus for
the inteventions proposed and also to help secure support for the study.
Risks
for the Principal-
· Staff
may be overloaded by the workload of the research study and could complain to the principal which creates more
work load for them to organise release or mediate conflict.
· Should
the engagement or interventions introduced in the study cause harm to the
participants, than ultimately the Principal could be liable under health and
safety legilsation Health and Safety in the Work Place Act, 2016 - HSWA). For
example some staff could be stressed, and the engagement or research study seen
as an appraisal process or performance measure.
· The principal is one of the fund holders and the
possible outcomes of the application prototype may not yield in an acutal
product. The financial backing for partnering with UNITEC voucher scheme could
result on a bad Return on Investment (ROI).
Mitigating
Risks for the Principal-
· Principal
and researchers could set up the release times and workload carefully and work
within the current work hours i.e no added staff meetings
· The
principal could inform the ethics approval and help evaluate with board to
align with school policy for HSWA. Researchers and the principal could clearly
state that the research is not linked to performance or appraisal and all
feedback could be annoymous if required.
· The
ROI could be regularly reviewed with development team and maintained over the
course of the study.
Benefits
for the Principal-
· As
stated in the strategic plan, the goals of the schools include improving
outcomes for a target group of Maori students. By applying PB4L practice, the
ROI for the principal would be to shift learning outcomes and beahivoural data for
the cohort of Maori learners. (Hawk, K., Tumama-Cowley, E., Hill, J., &
Sutherland, 2002).
· The
teachers could also benefit from having more positive relationships with their
students which has a flow on effect to wellbeing schoolwide, which is reviewed
by ERO, which could effectively give the school a positive 5 year review (Education Review Office, 2016).
· The
research and applications created at the school could help increase the staff
competency and implementation of PB4L (Boyd & Felgate, 2015; Dhaliwal, 2013).
· Students
also are able grow in their key competencies which as benefits for life long
learning (school’s vision) and is fostered in the values of the school (Falloon, 2010).
Level
of engagement for Principal-
· High
levels of engagement based on the need for sign off eg. minutes of BOT meetings
· Contribute
to development team financially from the school’s budget and support the
resourcing and timetable changes to accomadate
· Feedback
on the Applications features at a strategic level
Method of
Engagement:
· Due
to the principals times commitments, they may attend focus group sessions as
this will be held during a staff meeting.
· Principal
will have also have separate face to face, semi structured interviews/meetings
as needed to provide regular checkins on the research.
· The
face to face meetings will concide with the normal leadership level meetings on
a Friday morning.
Questions to be
used for the Principal:
a)
How does the work based proect relate to the school
goals or charter?
b)
Why do you thnk this an important area of study for
the education sector?
c)
Do you think this is relevant to your work based
practice and how?
d)
What risks do you think we should mitigate in the
project and how?
e)
How do you want to be informed or kept in the loop?
f)
Do you want the findings shared with staff, students,
board and parents and how?
g)
What is the most challening part of implementing PB4L
as a leader?
h)
What parts of the current acknowledgement system do
you want to see changed and why?
i)
Who else do you think sould be engaged and why?
j)
What suggestions do you have on how to engage others
about this project?
Documentation
and analysis of Principals feedback –
We will document the answers to the principals feedback as stated in an
interview and collate common themes in their feedback. We will create a brief
outline report and present this back to the principal for approval before using
it to form my research methodology. The report will use the heading of the
questions and have some conlusions based on the feedback.
3. Development
Team:
This stakeholder group is made up of myself, my business partner –
Gerhard Vermeulen (co-creator of the PB4L behaviour management application),
Masters Colleagues and mentors such as Maru Nihoniho, Gregor Steinhorm, Craig
Stilton and lastly my supervisior Nilufar Baghaei who will be helping to source
two developer students from her undergraduate programme. Within the scope of
this project, there is a need to create and test a digital PB4L application and
study the engagement of staff with digital tools. The development team will
need to be enaged quickly and meet the requriements fo the METRO ITP voucher
scheme (http://metros.ac.nz/about-innovate-itp/).
The objectives
of the deevelopment team–
· Creating
communication and planning pathways
· Using evidence
from the research to inform our practice within an action based research
project (Ozanne & Saatcioglu, 2008)
· Engage a range
of experts and create solutions for problems stated by teachers for an
effectivePB4L digital application
Benefits for
the development team –
· Be part of a
team to create an application that meets the PB4L needs of the teachers that is
gamified and engaging for learners (Muntean, 2011).
· Be recognised
for the relavant work experience and contributed with the project.
· Create future
enterprise opportunities, partnerships and studies to show how cross sector
organisations can work together to solve a work based problem (Domínguez et al., 2013).
Risks for Development
Team-
· Communication breakdowns and time wastage when coordinating
with a large group of people and time loss should the project not continue on
its agreement plan.
· Conflict of interest in the applications ownership of IP and
ownership withing various stakeholders
· Loss/benefit ratio for partnering with the METRO ITP voucher
scheme to make a school app could be
financial a risk for both school and development team members.
Mitigating risks for Development Team-
· Create a clear action plan and document meetins and minutes
to be shared regularly
· Share a learning agreement with
relevant stakeholders in the development team as stated in the Draft Learning
agreement attached –
· Setting up a budget with agreed quotes for work based
projects and development costs, labour and additional resourcing i.e teacher
release, domain and platform subscriptions.
Level of engagement with Development team-
The team will have varied levels of engagement, as it
will depend on the stage of the research i.e whether we are in testing or data
collection phase. We will be meeting face to face monthly and most of the
engagement will be done online. Some developer led sessions will need to be
face to face with staff as we introduce the scope of the project. Whole group
meetings will only be needed once a term and will be part of the normal staff
meeting time with WIS staff on Thursday mornings.
Method of Engagement with Development team-
Small group sessions will ne needed initially to gain
a consistent starting conversation however should members of the team be
missing or unavailable than consideration will be made to collect feedback via
emailed survey. We will also collaborate online via the App blog (already
shared under teacher engagement) should findings or data need to be shared
online .
Questions for Development team-
a)
What do you
know about this work based project and what information is missing?
b)
How does this
work based project relate to your current work and is it relevant?
c)
What types of
feedback information do you need to make changes to applications?
d)
What risks do you think we should mitigate in the
projects?
e)
How do you want to be involved in the project?
f)
What is your preferred method of engagement?
g)
What data do you think we need to collect?
h)
What is the most challenging aspects of the is
project?
i)
Who else needs
to be involved and why?
Documentation and Analysis of the development team
engagement-
The minutes of the meetings will be recording under
the question headings and groups under similarities and commonalities will be
outlined. Should their be a contradictory result in the engagement feedback
than further comprise and collaboration will be requried within the action
plan. The Analysis of the feedback will be shared via the blog and allow for
the team to be transparent in our approach to creating solutions.
Keeping
all stakeholders informed –
In the last two years of post graduate studies, I have been using a blog
to share my research and learning journey. The workbased project will continue
to be a central feature of the following blog and will also keep all
stakeholders informed.
Behaviour management and learning blog (Reddy & Vermeulen, 2015):
The stakeholders will also have the opportunity to help change their
feedback method based on the outcomes of the engagement strategy being tested.
Some possible avenues for keeping all stakeholders informed include the use of
social media, a website or forum. However due to the short time period and
immense scope of work within this Masters study and based on formative
feedback, we aim to use only one main method of keeping all stakeholders informed.
References
Boyd, S., & Felgate, R. (2015). “
A positive culture of support ” Final report from the evaluation of evaluation
of PB4L School-Wide. New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Report for the Ministry of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/168687/A-Positive-Culture-of-Support-PB4L-School-Wide.pdf
Dhaliwal, M. (2013). TEACHER
PERCEPTIONS AND MANAGEMENT OF CHALLENGING STUDENT BEHAVIOURS IN PRIMARY SCHOOL
CLASSROOMS. Unitec Research Bank. Retrieved from
http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/2371
Domínguez, A., Saenz-De-Navarrete,
J., De-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-Herráiz, J. J.
(2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers
and Education, 63, 380–392.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020
Education Review Office. (2016). Wellbeing
for success: a resource for schools. Retrieved from
http://www.ero.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Wellbeing-resource-WEB.pdf
Falloon, G. (2010). Learning objects
and the development of students’ key competencies: A New Zealand school
experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(5),
626–642.
Hawk, K., Tumama-Cowley, E., Hill,
J., & Sutherland, S. (2002). (2002). The importance of the teacher/student
relationship for Māori and Pasifika students | New Zealand Council for
Educational Research. Retrieved from http://www.nzcer.org.nz/nzcerpress/set/articles/importance-teacherstudent-relationship-maori-and-pasifika-students
Koshy, E., Valsa, K., & Waterman,
H. (2010). What is action research? Action Research in Healthcare,
(2009), 1–24.
Kothari, C. R. (2012). Research
Methodology: An introduction. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques,
IX, 418. https://doi.org/Goddard, W. & Melville, S.
Ministry of Education. (2017). PB4L
School-wide. Retrieved April 21, 2017, from
http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/System-of-support-incl.-PLD/School-initiated-supports/PB4L-School-wide
Muntean, C. C. I. (2011). Raising
engagement in e-learning through gamification. The 6th International
Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL 2011, (1), 323–329. Retrieved from http://icvl.eu/2011/disc/icvl/documente/pdf/met/ICVL_ModelsAndMethodologies_paper42.pdf
Ozanne, J. L., & Saatcioglu, B.
(2008). Participatory Action Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3),
423–439. https://doi.org/10.1086/586911
Reddy, L., & Vermeulen, G. (2015,
May 27). Behaviour Management and digital learning. Retrieved April 20, 2017,
from http://louandgerhardsapp.blogspot.co.nz/
Robinson, V. M. J. (2007). School
leadership and student outcomes - Identifying what works and why: Best evidence
synthesis iteration. William Walker Oration, 28. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0017/001791/179161e.pdf
Wesley Intermediate School. (2017).
Wesley Int 2016 EBS Survey School Wide 1-3 Northern.xlsx - Google Sheets.
Retrieved April 26, 2017, from
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16hwrf7RskgcbFOrdyNS5TYl5OlOsPJuJfjq2BRweBwc/edit#gid=1475234406
No comments:
Post a Comment