Testing became a more difficult process to implement than I had expected. My original testing plan included bringing copies of the handbook to my PLC: a group of seven teachers of varied experience levels, many who have been an itinerant before. I would give them time to review on their own and then come together to discuss for 15-20 minutes. With the changing policies and school closing, my plan had to shift dramatically. I e-mailed a group of music teachers who I’ve personally worked with to ask if any of them would be interested in providing feedback on the format/layout/information included in my handbook.
Three of my colleagues responded, and I was excited to have a varied experience group: a first-year teacher, a third year, and a veteran teacher. However, these were all teachers who were in one building, not itinerants. This is a helpful viewpoint but not the people this would be helping in the long run.
My plan at this point was to have them comment on a copy of the document, let me know when they finish, so I could plan a videoconference or phone call with them around it. Due to time zones and how long they took to complete the feedback portion, I was unable to complete the verbal feedback portion. The three performed different levels of feedback:
- First-year: did not respond after I sent them the document, did not make any comments/edits
- Third-year: thorough reflection throughout, edited, suggested, added more information
- Veteran: thankful someone was doing this, but provided no in-line feedback.
At the end of this unit, it was clear to me I was not specific enough in my instructions of what I wanted the feedback to look like from my peers. For future revisions, I would rewrite my introductory e-mail, be more specific with my follow-up email on how I would like to see edits, and include in that follow-up email that I would like to plan a call to further discuss their thoughts and opinions for the handbook.
