The Brute Thing

Icebery Theory of Educational Technology (Thanks Papa Heminway!)

2009-01-31T18:44:00.000-08:00

“People don’t want quarter-inch drill bits, they want quarter-inch holes”, quotes Pip Coburn in The Change Function.

In his famous "Iceberg Theory" explanation, Ernest Hemingway discusses the balance of words for effective prose. He places the responsibility on the writer to know their readers. He warns, however, that omissions from lack of knowing makes the writing "hollow". Likening writing to an iceberg, he illustrates that an iceberg shows only 1/8th of itself above the water while the rest is below the surface.

Much of the time, I feel the same about educational technology. As teachers we must know our students, their experiences (or at least let them be part of learning), and solid strategies for teaching. If we omit any of these for not knowing, the tool is "hollow" or has a great potential to be hollow. If a tool's experience is hollow, my belief is that the learning will be equally as hollow.

Looking below the surface of a tool, just as we are required to do in much of Hemingway's writing, we see meaning. In an educational technology tool, I believe beliefs/values, epistemology, pedagogy, learning, personal learning networks, history, culture, network, support (technical), and any school/district/local issues are the indicators that give the tool meaning.

Much like the iceberg, though, this meaning and these things are below the surface. They aren't visible to the naked eye; easily, they can be upstaged by what is apparent - the tool. Despite being below the surface (out of sight, out of mind maybe?), their impact is far greater than the technology tool itself.

So what does this mean? I think approaching educational technology from this perspective provides for more authentic, more resonating learning experiences, better selection of appropriate tools, and greater chances of technology adoption. VoiceThread comes to mind. VoiceThread can be a powerful and fun means to tell digital stories and construct meaning. But does the creation of a VoiceThread automatically constitute the depth and quality of learning our students need? Or is it what's below the tool--our beliefs/values of teaching and learning among the other factors--that ultimately frame our usage of it and the quality of learning?

Look out below...

Image Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/deadlyphoto/2171141760/in/set-72157600269940861/

Literacy: Back to the Basics?

2009-01-02T12:44:00.001-08:00

There's a bit of research that suggests teachers' views of learning and teaching are often complex and prone to revision. Today I find myself in this spot.

I attended Will Richardson's "What is Literacy?" Elluminate session with a group of outstanding, smart, and dynamic folks from around the country and world. While there was a stream of great ideas, thoughts, and comments both in the chat window and spoken, I still am feeling a bit empty albeit with a bunch of resonating questions. Talk about conficted. Maybe that's how I should feel.

This notion of literacy fascinates me and is important to me. Equally as intriguing is the intermix of skills and time-centric ones such as the 21st Century skills. I live, eat and breathe this stuff with 305 students on a weekly basis. I'm constantly assessing my content and student learning so that some day they may be able be thoughtful, curious, and good people.

So, what do I think is missing from this debate? More on that in a bit. First, just in case you were wondering, I think that literacy is a contextual understanding of some body of knowledge that evolves. For instance, being able to read, write, and communicate (and doing so critically) has mutliple measures of proficiency for most people. A pilot's fluency in reading, writing, and communication can be markedly different than a teacher, farmer, woodworker, machinist, or doctor. Skills including using technology enable people in each of these jobs to become proficient at what they do. Even at the base, there are levels of literacy such as reading blends, decoding words, and inferring meaning. Over a period of time, a career, or lifetime, I'd think our literacies evolve from experience, learning, and other factors. I also tend to think that literacies can and do merge with others and overlap. The interdisciplinary/cross-curricular movement comes to mind.

Even if we could all come to an consensus on a definition of literacy, pedagogy and learning are still at the most important root of what we do (after caring about students as people). Even the most eloquent, succint, or powerful definition of literacy will not make an impact if our pedagogy doesn't support it nor our views of student learning provide the foundation for students to achieve that literacy. I think this is akin to saying that elearning using precanned slide presentations and multiple choices tests is inherently better than classroom-based learning because it's using technology.

This has been a basic concern of mine for quite some time. And I was reminded of it when reading some conversations on AOPA's message forums. Time and time again, the basics bite us pilots. It's not that general aviation planes are scary things destined to fall out of the sky. Most GA accidents are caused by not attending the basics of flight: lift (you can't get too slow and low), fuel management (need enough), and flying into bad weather (man vs. nature). It's not programming the GPS, crosswind corrections, or traffic pattern management that's usually the culprit--it's inattention classic stick and rudder (basic flying skills) that stirs so much debate (and negative publicity). Similar metaphors of sports and medicine can be drawn too.

I would contend that education, and this debate, follows much of the same logic. It's the not the complex tasks that are daunting; rather, it's these stick and rudder skills that become obscurred. The proliferation of technology is a good example. Twitter, VoiceThread, wikis, blogs, and so many more cool and flashy tools are freely available at our browser's fingertips. In a matter of seconds and minutes we can publish to the world and have a global audience. But does the mere use of these tools equate to quality of teaching and learning that we would like to see? I don't believe they do.

I think a good look at the basics of pedagogy and learning sets the stage for literacy. Talking about how knowledge is constructed, the gatekeeper (teacher, student, network, etc) of that knowledge, and critically evaluating that knowledge lends itself to literacy discussions just as it would ensure that technology is not just used for its own sake. Learning and epistemology do much the same looking at how students are learning, learning modalities, and sources of that learning. Values of learning and knowledge are inherent, and really important, in these discussions.

Lastly a bit of an aside. A focus on teaching and learning will bring to light our fixation on "the evil standards". Standards themselves, I think, are good frames. It's how we teach (pedagogy), the quality of that teaching, how students learning and the quality of that learning, and a good look at epistemology that matters. Go ahead, take a look for yourselves and see if you think these standards can't be met using PBL, UbD, constructivism, connectivism, critical pedagogy, and lots of other high quality learning and teaching, with learning and teaching the very operative words in this sentence. And, I would argue, that's there is still a lot of room for fun and passion-based learning!

Thanks to Will Richardson for hosting a thoughtful conversation and all the attendees who pushed my thinking!

Photo Credit: Stick and Rudder, A1940 FairChild 24 http://www.flickr.com/photos/brraveheart/186951072/

K12 Online 2008 Conference: Anytime, Anywhere

2008-10-12T13:49:00.000-07:00

Beginning with a Pre-Conference presentation tomorrow October 13th from Stephen Heppell, the K12 Online 2008 Conference will officially kick-off!

This year I've had the pleasure of working on the Public Relations committee. While working with this committed group of folks, I was afforded the opportunity to take a deep look at the conference. The K12 Online 2008 Conference is nothing short of an amazing event. It's not only amazing because of the content of the presentations, the presenters, and keynote speakers. What makes the K12 Online 2008 conference such an unique event is the potential for educators around the world to improve student learning and their own learning anytime, anyplace from experts from across the globe.

Here are another 10 reasons why educators worldwide should attend the K12 Online 2008 Conference:

Top Ten Reasons to Attend K12Online
10. It's Free
9. Great opportunity to experience technology as a learning and teaching tool.
8. Keynote speakers are well respected in their fields.
7. Great chance to view presentations locally with colleagues.
6. 4 Strands of Presentations representing a wide variety of interests & experience levels.
5. Fireside Chats - Engage in Conversations with Presenters and Attendees.
4. Access 36 Presentations Anytime, Anywhere.
3. No Need to Travel & No Travel Costs.
2. Presentations from World Wide Experts & Practitioners in Educational Technology.
1. Improve Student Learning.

K12 Online 2008 Conference

2008-09-15T07:41:00.000-07:00

The K12 Online Conference this year promises to be an amazing forum for educators - worldwide - to engage in learning and conversations about 21st century learning. There is no cost for this conference. Also, the conference presentations and keynote addresses can be viewed anytime.

Be sure to check out the K12 Online website for details.

Also, please be sure to help spread the word.

Mavens, Connectors, or Anti-Social: How Should Our Schools Look?

2008-08-04T20:22:00.000-07:00

Denis Hancock wrote this interesting piece on the blog Wikinomics:

As I’ve navigated this remarkably inter-connected little world I’ve probably read several thousand blog posts on the topic, and most of these – predictably – seem to focus on the people Malcolm Gladwell would call the “mavens” and “connectors”.
For the six of you that may not have read his book, “mavens” are the intense gatherers of information and impressions that are most likely to pick up on new trends, and “connectors” are people with a broad network of acquaintances that trust their opinion. Whether the actual term used is “trend setter”, “nfluencer”, “bzzagent”, or any of the many of the others you are likely to come across in the social media blogosphere, the focus seems to primarily be on how these two types of people are using new social media tools.

Seeing this led me to ponder a simple question – what about everyone else? What about that staggeringly large group of people that are neither mavens nor connectors (and particularly those one might call anti–social) - are their social media appetites distinctly different, and if so what are the implications for companies pursuing a social media strategy? More pointedly, will this great mass of people slowly get in line with the adoption curve that mavens and connectors are setting in social media, or might they do something totally different – something that would put some of the prevailing theories regarding cohort behavior into question? To begin looking into this issue, I wanted to start with a particular application where I sense line is being drawn in the sand – Twitter.

In an educational/school context, here are some questions that I came up with:

Assuming teachers are part of a larger world and culture as humans, where do they fit?
Who should teachers be?
How is technology adoption affected by being a maven, connector, or anti-social?
Are teaching/pedagogical beliefs and values tied to being a maven, connector, or anti-social?
Do all teachers need to be mavens or connectors?
Can teachers be anti-social and still be effective by the above definition?
How does this apply to school leaders?
How does this apply to other school stakeholders (students, parents, and community members)?
Will anti-social people (school stakeholders in our context) as Denis asks in the closing of the blog post, avoid it, doing something different, or come around?
How does this/should this impact our thoughts on professional development?
Because we are a maven or connector, can we/do we expect our colleagues to be the same as we are?
How do we teach students to be mavens and connectors?
Do we expect all students (who are part of a larger world and community) to be mavens and connectors?
Who would students rather be?
Is either a maven or connector inherently better from an school/learning standpoint?
Are beliefs and values of learning impacted by a teacher's role as either a maven, connector, or anti-social?
Does the Lake Wobegon Effect apply to this?
How does this correlate to the Pew/Internet study that suggest similar usage/adoption patterns?
How can we use the blend of this framework and the Pew/Internet providing user patterns to develop our professional development?

Please feel free to add your own questions or thoughts.

Interesting stuff to think about!

What Are Students Really Saying?

2008-08-03T09:23:00.000-07:00

It was a seldom break from listening to Buck Howdy, Rebecca's favorite singer/songwriter these days. I was able catch a short segment of On the Media entitled "FAQ Check" on our local NPR station instead of humming along with "Baa, Neigh, Cock-a-Doodle-Doo". The segment was on asking questions and finding information on the Internet. I was all ears. Please feel free to be so too!

Towards the end of the segment Clay Shirky, author of Here Comes Everybody, was talking about the difference between humans and artificial intelligence (AI). After Mr. Shirky talked about AI's inability to make inferences I got to thinking about my teaching. The power of making inferences with students and seeing patterns is crucial to the craft of teaching (somewhere there's a blog post about being able to apply this to online learning). And viewing every moment an honor as a teacher understanding these inferences and patterns is important to me.

I teach students in K-8 Technology Literacy. I hear often how students look forward to their weekly "special" with me for 42 minutes. I work hard to make every class engaging, fun, and skill-building for students. Their time with me is precious making maximizing every moment important.

Despite my intentions and being in front of a computer, on any given day I can hear any or all of these 3 comments:

"This is boring!"
"This stinks!"
"Mr. Wargo can we have free time now?!?!"

As a young teacher, this kind of feedback would rattle me to the core. I'd even sometimes get a bit defensive. But then I began to realize there were some patterns in the inferences students were making. I realized two primary things about these top 3 comments:

A foundation to Technology Literacy is reading (literacy). If my lessons required reading levels (or even sometimes writing levels beyond that of my students), the technology can be branded as boring despite it's coolness factor.
My instruction, modeling, or sequence of engagement needed to be revisited big time. Often times, my expectations, goals, or just sheer explanation was murky to them.

I value students' feedback and want to hear more it. Through the feedback loop, I try to develop their articulation so they can clearly identify their thoughts and feelings: a cornerstone of K-8 schooling, I think.

Sometimes, it's admittedly hard to do in today's depth and breadth of covering curriculum where pacing charts regiment instruction and tests loom on the horizon. While data is important to instruction, so too are the patterns of inferences we see and hear from our students. I need to continue to understand students-to get into their heads as I point out here.

In thinking about my teaching, I realize how important is to teach students about reading inferences especially with the volume of content that is created our collaborative technologies. That is the topic of my forthcoming blog post. Patterns of inferences, or as Daniel Pink calls Symphony in A Whole New Mind, are also essential.

I can't wait for September to come!

**Now back to our regularly scheduled programming of Buck Howdy.**

[As a sidebar, there were lots of "stories" or "angles" that could have been taken with the On the Media piece "FAQ Check". One interesting piece are the listener comments to the segment. Analyzing the inferences and any patterns would be a fun, educational exercise.]

Who's Rip Van Winkle? Higher Ed, K-12, Both, or None of The Above

2008-08-01T20:42:00.000-07:00

Here's what got me thinking: One of my chores this summer is to organize our basement, garage, and virtually every other surface, closet, and room in the house (guess who's on summer break?). In my cleaning, I've been coming across some articles, research, notes, and binders from my undergraduate days at Penn State.

I've enjoyed reminiscing about my classes, friends, and the incredible ways my thinking was transformed about learning and teaching using technology circa the early 90's. One of the gems was this: "Constructing Community and Intertextuality in Electronic Mail" a chapter in a book written by Dr. Jamie Myers my former professor based on his research in 1991. In the chapter, Dr. Myers talks about conversations, intertextuality, and community that 38 of his preservice student teachers had during a semester in his class.

Here's a snippet from the article:

In addition to connecting personal and shared experiences, seeking responses to questions and ideas, and suggesting shared meanings and values for the community, students (g) shared quotes and paraphrased ideas from the professional literature they chose to read, (h) justified ideas through statements of belief, and (i) challenged each other's meanings, and (j) elaborated group meanings. (Myers, 1993).

After re-reading this article, I couldn't help but to think about the time frame in which these student participated. It was 1991! After they left college and went into the classrooms, did they have email, computers, and a culture conducive to technology adoption? And I wonder how many other students who were exposed to technology but were able to use it in their classrooms as practicing teachers?

But I also got thinking how that same excerpt could be written in an article describing social networking, blogging, or wikis now in 2008. I do know for some this may not seem like much of a revelation since educational technology and technology discussions certainly predated this article by numerous years. Have things really changed?

Walking Up Hill Both Ways in the Snow
From pretty much from day one in my Language and Literacy Education classes (English teaching methods) technology was part of it: email, world wide web, MOOs/MUDs, multimedia, list-servs, and discussion boards. Not only did we learn about critical literacy but we used technology as part of our own learning as teachers. We discussed the literary canon over email with preservice teachers at Bowling Green University, discussed textbooks, and teaching literature through email and the TELL feature on the VM system. Those courses were led by Dr. Myers.

Back in the Day
If you were a geek (but far, far from the smartest guy in the program like me) you could take elective Instructional Systems courses taught by Dr. Ali Carr-Chelman which pushed our thinking about the relationship between technology and education. We also had to create an interdisciplinary thematic unit using technology. And if you were a super-geek you could take a Instructional Design Course (in Hypercard) based on constructivism led by Dr. Kyle Peck and Dr. Dave Jonassen. But wait there's more. If you were an uber-geek as an undergrad you could take the hypertext multimedia software developed in Dr. Peck and Dr. Jonassen's class and present with Dr. Jamie Myers at an English teachers' conference in 1995.

When I graduated (with way more credits than I needed and loans to show for it) in 1996 technology, social construction of meaning, designing web pages, multimedia were just another way of talking about writing, literacy, Morrison, Naylor, Dickens, Thoreau, Angelou, or Shakespeare. While the technology was neat and promising, critical literacy and response-response were the frames to have students interpret their values and beliefs making thematic connections between texts and their lives, values, and beliefs. Pretty cool stuff but in some ways sounds eerily like 2008!

Changes
So what has changed since those days with my Macintosh Quadra 610 (you've got to love Wikipedia!) affectionately known as Mac Daddy (my roommate's laptop was Daddy Mac and we would network them using AppleTalk)? It's much easier to publish content now. Technology is much more prolific and lots faster. And adoption rates for basic tasks (email, web usage, etc.) have gone through the roof. Learning is changing. We are getting content at faster rates and from much varied sources. Finally, the skills needed for success in our world are changing.

What hasn't changed? The resonating idea of bring together communities of people through technology. Human nature is still at version 1.0 I believe. Many of the great principles of teaching haven't changed.

What is most striking to me? As others have pointed out before, many of the educational issues we talk about are extensions of what's been said before a long time ago. In the context of the sample article I mention, the tools may have changed but the learning hasn't.

Now
I love to see the excitement and traction that technology has been getting in K-12. The flattening of the world is awesome. And I'm loving the conversations about learning, teaching, and education that are on-going right now especially in the edublogosphere (which is a great point to ponder). Keep 'em coming!

But from my tiny vantage point, I'm not so sure higher ed, or at least the higher ed that I was very fortunate to be a part of, was asleep all these years as I'm hearing rumblings of recently. There were conversations and discussions about this stuff long before we in K-12 started having these broad conversations about it. Was it just falling on deaf K-12 ears all those years? Is it a sustainability or endurance issue of a small echo chamber in the academic community? I don't know but interesting food for thought!

Reference
Myers, J. (1993). Constructing Community and Intertextuality in Electronic Mail. In C.K. Kinzer & D.J. Leu (Eds.), Forty-second Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (1993). Chicago: National Reading Conference. p 251-262

Photo Credit
Rip Van Winkle photo is from Wikipedia's article about Rip Van Winkle.

Is History Predicting Us or Are We Predicting The Future?

2008-07-16T19:50:00.000-07:00

As an eager twenty-something with some technical skills and a degree in Secondary Education-English/Communications I was naive enough to march into New York for a job interview. It was with a start-up network consultancy in midtown Manhattan that serviced mostly financial institutions throughout the US.

The subway series was underway and so was the dot-com boom. Harry, the HR recruiter, projected that our company's stock would open at $45 during the IPO on the NASDAQ within a year. I left that morning with a job, good salary, inflated ego, and 4000 shares of stock as a signing bonus. Life was good. All I had to do so far was manage to get cross town in rush hour traffic.

I soon would hear stories of grandeur of how life would be in the future. In the present, I saw excess and lots of it. In the words of Alan Greenspan, I saw the "irrational exuberance". We know the rest of the story.

Maybe the phrase "once bitten, twice shy" is to blame but seeing Epic 2015 pointed out in Gary Stager's post reminds me somewhat of this "irrational exuberance". No doubt our world is seeing a cultural transformation never seen before that is shaking up how we do business, communicate, understand/learn, and collaborate thanks to technology. And no doubt our students are learning differently as members of this world. It's all very exciting!! But 7 year predictions to me seem like a crap shoot at best and somewhat misleading.

In the opening of school this year, I have two choices in the context of Epic2015:

I could show this video in my opening year conference. I could also talk to my teachers about the future of technology in hopes to teach students.
Or as Gary points out, I could talk about the things we can do now to help our students learn better to have a brighter future. A focus on teaching and learning behind the tools seems like a great place to start.

The question of balance seems to be in whose future do we want to talk about? Is it the future of our students or the future of technology and tools? And if it's our students, doesn't the future start now with teaching, learning, and technology? Should that be our starting point?

I know there are folks that are very adept at making projections and we need those people. From my tiny vantage point, though, it seems like we need to keep more focused on latter choice above. If our beliefs and values of teaching and learning haven't quite caught up with 2008 we are just going to be applying a tired paradigm to a concept that we're projecting in 2015. Already out of the gate, our perspective is murky. Trying to figure out our students, learning, and teaching in the 2008-2009 school year first seems like a good starting point for me.

Before I get into trouble, I'm not implying that we don't need to forecast and look at trends inside and outside of education. Nor I am trying to say that folks shouldn't do it or aren't capable. We need to plan by looking ahead without a doubt. But these types of videos-Orwell-like or Bradbury-like-make for fun "what-if" games but shouldn't be used at the expense of focusing on figuring out our current world of education. Trying to conceptualize these specifics into the future when we're still trying to figure out the present seems like the "irrational exuberance" we saw during those halcyon days of the dot-com boom.

My bonus shares and 4000 more that I was "awarded" throughout my tenure, by the way, never did open at $45 a share....they never materialized.

Is Online Learning Equal to 21st Century Skills?

2008-07-12T14:38:00.000-07:00

What a beautiful day to go to a music festival right on the Delaware River with Philadelphia's skyline and blue sky as a backdrop! Sure it was a little hot. But it was nothing water ice and a trip around the carousel couldn't cure.

An online school display piqued my interest so I stopped to by to chat with the very kind teachers manning the booth. From our conversation, I didn't get the sense that 21st century skills were part of their learning experiences. The school did make AYP.

But collaboration, creativity, problem-based learning were not central threads (or so it appeared) to learning. Overall, I just didn't get sense that students would be any more prepared for the 21st century learning through an online environment than in a traditional school. [ Please note: The was conversation was not extensive from a research standpoint and in no way am I try to be overly critical of this school. ]

Interestingly, I just blogged about this concept drawing on the history of educational technology. I go back to the questions from yesterday: Does online learning equate to better learning?

Put another 2 ways: Does the medium for delivering content make the difference? Or is the difference in how the students come to understand the content?

Alright, so maybe I'm still a bit parched.

History of Educational Technology::"Same Mistakes, Different Means"?

2008-07-11T21:45:00.000-07:00

"What's new? You don't know what's old." recounts Dr. Richard Schwier of the exchange between him and a professor during a chance encounter in the hallway as a doctoral student. Dr. Schwier explains during this 83 minute 11 second Elluminate session that conversation was the catalyst for studying the history of educational technology.

Thinking about the future is great. From the future, we can develop our vision. From our vision, we can help ensure our students are ready for what lies ahead. But, I think looking back is valuable too. It's provides a context for understanding how we came here. Dr. Schwier's session was really helpful. Here's a few key items that were of great interest to me:

11:25 - Greek Influence on Educational Technology
Dr. Schwier talks about the 4 questions of cause according to Grecian philosophy. They are: material, formal, efficient, and functional. He then compares them to modern day educational technology - interesting!

14:00 - 7 Cardinal Virtues and 7 Deadly Sins
Compares Greek 7 Cardinal Virtues and 7 Deadly Sins to modern day educational technology beliefs. Dr. Schwier points out that people either "vilify or promote" technology based on these 7 sins or virtues found in classical content.

44:22 - 20th Century History of Educational Technology
Here Dr. Schwier discusses educational technology according to decade such as film, TV, instructional design through to social web and web 2.0 of present day. The header for this slide is "Panaceas for schools".

47:12 - MPATI - Great Story (I won't spoil it).
Wow!! Double Wow! I had never heard of MPATI. MPATI was the Midwest Program on Airborne Instructional Television. A plane would literally send a signal cone. Schools within the cone could view instructional programming. Dr. Schwier tells a hilarious story about MPATI that I won't do justice...you must hear it for yourself.

57:30 - Movement of Knowledge
Dr. Schwier provides a context of educational technology. To paraphrase him, our current movement isn't from technology to technology - such as radio to film - it's epistemology to epistemology such as congnitivism to social learning. The biggest shift is individualism to social learning. "Collective constructionism" or how groups learn is taking center stage.

59:50 - History/Timeline of Educational Technology
Here Dr. Schwier provides an interesting overlay between the history of educational technology, epistemological phases (objectivism, cognitivism, constructivism, and social learning), and growth of individuals and groups.

71:00 - Common Mis-Speakings of Educational Technology
One of my favorite lines from this segment is how overheads were projected to transform learning and teaching. What happened? Teachers were just photocopying pages of books and reading the words from the screens. Most memorable quote: "We make the same mistakes today, we just use different means."

Lastly, I'll end with this story about educational technology and learning that hopefully tie this together:

I eagerly started my M.Ed in Educational Administration in a traditional university's online program. This university was ranked by US News and World Report as one of the top 50 in the country. Call me a snob, but I didn't want my graduate experience to be anything less than what I received at Penn State as an undergrad. The first round of courses came and went with even an offer to teach in a new instructional technology program. Flattering and super-cool!! Then came two classes in the second term complete with the following quotes. "Thanks for teaching me about this topic...I didn't know anything about it" and "When I took the course my instructor had us..." are not phrases I want to hear in a graduate school. We can all learn from our students as teachers...but not basic content knowledge. I ended up leaving and finishing at another university in their "traditional" program. Professors there were seasoned practitioners who knew their craft well. Come to think of it, I never got an adjunct position.

I know that all online programs aren't the same as the one I experienced. But it has made me question ever since: How do we keep the "bad habits" from inhabiting virtual spaces as it does a physical space? Just because my masters was in all accounts 21st century, the learning was not. Dr. Schwier saw it long ago too in his comical story of MPATI. I saw it recently. Will we see it again? What can be done to reduce these occurrences?

In response to Chris Lehmann's great post and Will Richardson's and Sylvia Martinez's reflections: How are, as Dr. Schwier puts it, the same mistakes, just using different means avoidable?

PowerPoint 2.0: A Visual Approach

2008-07-10T23:32:00.000-07:00

If you are a teacher, David Jakes and Dean Shareski's One Hour PowerPoint: A Strategy for Improving Presentations talk at NECC is a must see and read. I didn't go to NECC but fortunately these presentations were blogged by Wesley Fryer and Ewan Macintosh. Both are excellent write-ups.

Jakes and Shareski provide practical, simple advice for transforming PowerPoint presentations such as, "PowerPoint doesn't kill presentations bullet points do." As an alternative, they suggest using images to tell the story. This is all done by reviewing the basic biological fact that humans have far greater number of visual nerves than auditory nerves. [ Full disclosure - I'm using an Arial font for this post as a result of this presentation. ]

The pedagogy behind their PowerPoint strategy could be quite powerful. The sources of understanding are equally solid. Both design, story, and using metaphors (symphony) are three of the six senses Daniel Pink contends, in A Whole New Mind, that we will need to be successful in the Conceptual Age. How enriching is it to let students open their eyes and classmates' eyes to these 3 senses in the context of a story being read in Language Arts, a math problem, a scientific concept, or an historical event?

So here are some initial thoughts on using these strategies in my classes (September can't come soon enough).

I think a comparison-contrast would a great strategy tool for students: compare/contrast bullets vs. pictures, compare/contrast fonts and colors.
Having students create just 1 slide of text to sell something and then finding a picture to tell the same story could be a great introduction.
It would be cool to have students critique a published SlideShare Powerpoint presentation using the design principles here.
Metaphors are powerful on a bunch of levels: literacy, understanding, our own thinking; being able to find a visual metaphor for a textual one is even more so.
Student peer review and collaboration is a must for comparison-contrast and final products. It would be super cool to do this with a remote school. Seeing and then critiquing the collaborative responses and collaboration would be awesome!
Some teacher modeling would be helpful especially for younger students.
Finding images especially on Flickr Storm may be a bit problematic due to filtering but not an insurmountable obstacle.
Digital storytelling would fit nicely into this unit but 40 minute classes on once per week cycles can make continuity a bit rough; digitial storytelling may have to be it's own unit before we do this. Even better, powerpoint --> digital storytelling --> powerpoint could make for a helpful sequence.
Using Understanding By Design approach would really connect this to content.
Connecting this to classroom content is important since these would be taught in separate classes.
Showing not just telling about Creative Commons could be made into a mini-activity.
Crafting a messaging can have a thousand tie-ins to content areas.
Teaching Technology Literacy skills such as font, font size, font color, image insertion, embedding, new slide, and other mechanical stuff would be a snap. It all lends itself to it beautifully.

I'll be sure to post the results!

Leadership Day 2008::Connecting the Dots::

2008-07-10T22:35:00.000-07:00

Scott McLeod asked this of bloggers through his blog Dangerously Irrelevant:

On July 4, 2008, blog about whatever you like related to effective school technology leadership: successes, challenges, reflections, needs. Write a letter to the administrators in your area. Post a top ten list. Make a podcast or a video. Highlight a local success or challenge. Recommend some readings. Do an interview of a successful technology leader. Respond to some of the questions below or make up your own. Whatever strikes you.

School leaders have a lot on their plates. And then there's technology. When it comes to technology, I think of it as a game of connect the dots without always numbers and a definable shape. Where to start and where to finish (if there's such a thing) are often murky. Everyone usually has their own dots to add or order in which to connect them. That adds complexity. Finally, the reasons for connecting the dots surely can throw the monkey wrench into the spokes. Come to think of it - it's much like the act of understanding or knowing in our classrooms (but more on that later). Here's an attempt to connect at least some dots to define a possible shape of technology leadership.

[ I hope the sophomoric Sketchcast I made to map out this blog post isn't making you feel that you've lost 3 minutes 41 seconds of your life that you'll never get back. I included it to help visualize this concept. ]

1st Dot - Vision Vision may seem too M.Ed. 101-ish for some but I think it deserves the opening dot when talking about educational technology. Thompson and McKelvey (2007) described vision in schools as a "guidepost for decisions". This is a perspective that resonates with me for a number of reasons. It implies the vision is living and commonly embraced to be referred to on an regular basis. If it's commonly embraced, I have to assume that folks at all levels of the school have hopefully help set the vision or at least buy into it.

Vision is hard stuff. It's even a tougher question to answer when we throw technology into the mix. I think the one central question that a vision of technology should answer is: "what is technology's role in learning and teaching?" This question could help us answer, "what and how do we want students to understand?" which I think is the overarching question.

But one person - even the school leader - can't answer these questions by him/herself. They've got to be answered by everyone. It's all stakeholders' responsibility. We can't expect leaders to come up with them on their own. It's up to everyone to help craft the answers. The good news is that there really are no right answers. When it comes wrong answers, excuse the cliche, the only one is not answering them at all.

A lot can be written about vision but since I'm already 3:41 in the hole with you, I'll move on.

2nd Dot - Culture

Beneath the conscious awareness of everyday life in schools, there is a stream of thought and activity. This underground flow of feelings and folkways wends its way within schools, dragging people, programs, and ideas towards often-unstated purposes: This invisible, taken-for-granted flow of beliefs and assumptions gives meaning to what people say and do. It shapes how they interpret hundreds of daily transactions. This deeper structure of life in organizations is reflected and transmitted through symbolic language and expressive action. Culture consists of the stable, underlying social meanings that shape beliefs and behavior over time" (Deal and Peterson, 1990, p.7)

Like vision, I don't know if we always talk about culture in the same breath as technology. But we can't overlook it as it's such a quiet gale wind force in our schools. I'm sure we've all seen the whole gamut of school cultures: brilliant, mediocre, and toxic; student-focused, teacher-focused, curriculum focused, cynical, energetic, and flat. And since vision is on our minds, I believe a vision is as only strong as the culture of a school. Jerald (2007) notes a school’s strength of culture is about alignment between vision and actions. If the vision's spirit is to enhance teaching through technology, the culture has to be amiable to it. The "beliefs and assumptions" that Deal and Peterson talk about have to be grounded in things such as: learning can be enhanced using technology, the professional development is worth it, and personal time investment will be fruitful.

No matter how cool the technology tools, culture, I believe, will win the tug-of-war. There still may be a few trailblazers but systemic buy-in is likely to be minimal. I believe culture ensures the sustainability that Michael Fullan talks about. It's the culture to paraphrase Deal and Peterson that impacts everyday. The President of Southwest Airlines Colleen Barrett writes a similar sentiment about culture in the airline's magazine Spirit, "Their experiences confirm what I have always believed: Lip service can be a great danger. It’s easy to write columns like this bragging about our Culture; the hard work is living up to it every day." How does your school's culture live up to learning and using technology everyday?

3rd Dot - Ethnography - We all need to put on our ethnography hats and do a little listening to what kids are saying, thinking, and doing inside and outside of the classroom. Listen the same to teachers, parents, community members, practitioners, and experts on modern student learning/understanding, pedagogy, and educational technology. Listen for the patterns and stories that Daniel Pink talks about. Not to taint your research, but we do know our students are reading and writing ferociously. How does that impact our instructional decisions? The spirit of these enthnography questions asked about literacy by my former professor Dr. Jamie Myers can serve as a starting point:

How often have we focused our inquiry on what is going on inside students’ heads? Why do they read and write? What do they do with literacy to marginalize or expand consciousness? What do they want to know more about and how could literacy facilitate that learning? How do the lessons and literacy practices we sponsor serve the construction of their identities, relationships and values in their lives within and beyond our classroom community? (Myers, 2001)

4th Dot - Teaching - Teaching is a huge one to talk about with technology for 3 reasons: (1) technology use, I believe, is really about the learning and teaching, (2) teaching encompasses so much, and (3) there's a fine line between tools and teaching. So in trying to recoup the time you've lost watching the Sketchcast, I'll keep this simple and present 2 tools a la cart (I'd go with Chris Lehmann's talk personally).

Tool 1: What Research Says About Teachers and Technology Adoption
Teachers choices and beliefs about technology fascinates me. Maybe it's because it seems like a binary yes/no decision. Maybe it's a control issue. In either case, here are 7 themes that I found through my research looking at research about teachers and technology adoption that I think are important for school leaders to consider:

Teacher's beliefs of teaching (pedagogy) and student learning (epistemology) affect teacher technology adoption.
Teachers who engage in more teacher-led pedagogy adopt less technology.
Teachers who leverage constructivist-centric pedagogy have a tendency to use more technology.
Teacher's beliefs and values are not hardened systems; however, they are complex and prone to revision.
The richness of an environment (technology, support, quality, quantity) can change a teacher's beliefs and values in learners and pedagogy.
The manner in which technology is presented-teacher-centered or student-centered-impacts those teachers holding differing views.
Web 2.0 and 21st century skills are collaborative in nature; thus they are constructivist. This collaborative and constructivist nature of the technologies require teachers to adopt their beliefs which brings us back to theme #1.

Tool 2: Chris Lehmann's (Principal of the Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia) NECC Presentation: Schools 2.0: Combining Progressive Pedagogy and 21st Century Tools. Listening to this presentation recorded by Wesley Fryer via Ustream could very well be the best 44 or so minutes you spend all summer.

5th Dot - Learning - This is another biggie not just in importance but in scope. In fact, it's the core of every school and educator's mission. There's a lot that can be said about how students learn, what they should be learning, how learning should take place, teacher's role in learning, and technology's role in learning.

Despite this being the star of the show, I'm not sure if we spend enough time on it especially when we talk about technology. Back on the 3rd dot, I mentioned ethnography because it's a great tool for us to see really what's going with our students, to try to better understand them. A lot has changed since we were undergrads learning about learning theories, if they were even discussed. Even more has changed since our K-12 days. We all did well for ourselves learning the way we did. But that was then. Our students are here in the now. We need keep this our focus and connect it outward to the other aspects of our schools: teaching, technology, culture, vision, and assessment. That's my elevator pitch.

Now for the dim sum cart. First, here are some ways to experience 21st century learning outside of dot 3's ethnography (compare these references to what you find in your ethnography-how do they compare?). Secondly, are two diagrams I created to help present some of these concepts.

Dot 5 Books

Dot 5 Diagrams
The first diagram shows the sources of understanding in a "traditional" classroom. The second is in a "21st century classroom". I use standards since we are familiar with them as topic of understanding. The objective of including these is to help visual these sources of understanding and show how they can be used in learning.

Traditional Classroom

21st Century Classroom

6th Dot - Professional Development/Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) Professional Development has never been so easy and so hard at the same time. We can learn, connect, ask, talk, communicate, collaborate, share, teach, or just plain lurk 24 hours a days, 7 days a week, 365 days a year all without leaving the glow of our monitors. The hard part is: making it stick, sustaining it through vision and culture, and connecting it to learning and teaching. Welcome to Personal Learning Networks...and they're not just for teachers.

Personal Learning Networks are sources of conversations, information, experiences, thought, and guides that an educators can leverage thanks to technology. Specifically, they include blogs, wikis, social networking sites such as Classroom 2.0, Twitter, and Skype. Through the networks that are developed, other networks emerge since you and everyone else likely has 2 different networks. Through these networks the world is at your fingertips. Have a question? Twitter it or post it to Classroom 2.0. Want to explore something or reflect on a experience? Blog it yourself. Interested in some thoughts of colleagues (who are likely in similar situations as you), read a blog.

One of most enticing things of personal learning networks to me is that they're personalized. Most teachers from my experiences come into workshops with a range of expectations and needs. Trying to effectively meet them all is hard and really, really tough especially when managing different subject areas, grade levels, and experience levels. Using personal learning networks takes the N/A out of how does apply to my classroom column on evaluation sheets. It makes learning relevant, meaningful, and real. Just when we think we're islands with unique problems, we find that there's a bunch of folks around the world going through the same thing with the same thoughts. PLNs take a very isolated profession and turn it into a very connected one.

Here's a great resource from Lisa Nielson on developing your own Personal Learning Network.

7th Dot - Support/Access This is a subject near and dear to my heart and SEDTA's heart too. I wrote an article a couple of years ago on this topic. More recently I blogged about it. Since you most likely don't want to hear stories: I'll be direct: without support and adequate access, technology will not see appreciable rates of adoption. The technologies may be complex but the logic is simple: frustration with technology stinks for most people. And most users don't want to know, care to know, or even know how (that's not a criticism just an observation...how many people can replace their car's brakes?) to fix slow network connections, sluggish computers, or errant applications. And when things break or get slow, which they do, someone needs to help out quickly. Support and adequate access are the keystone to a 21st century school and something leaders need to keep in mind.

8th Dot - You/Your Dot! I reserved this one for you (us) school leaders since I think there's a lot of leaders and potential leaders in our schools. I really never feel comfortable with writing prescriptive lists. There's always something that's left out or doesn't apply. (These statement are in no way an admission of omission of not coming up with an 8th dot for U in the Sketchcast.). Seriously, every person brings to leadership experience, insight, and wisdom. And there's usually a nuance to every school. The challenge is to put something there about you or your school to complete the picture of leadership.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

References
Deal, T, & Peterson, K (1999). Shaping School Culture: The Heart of Leadership.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jerald, C.D (2006, December). School Culture:"The Hidden Curriculum". Retrieved March 1, 2008, from The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement Web site: http://www.centerforcsri.org/files/Center_IB_Dec06_C.pdf

Myers, J (2001, March 3). University of Pennsylvania Ethnography Forum: Quotes shared by Jamie Myers (jmm12@psu.edu). Retrieved July 6, 2008, from Various Quotations on Literacy and Inquiry Web site: http://www.ed.psu.edu/englishpds/inquiry/excerpts.htm

Thompson, S, & McKelvy, E (2007). Shared Vision, Team Learning and Professional Learning Communities. Middle Ground. 10, 12-14.

Photo Credits Connecting the Dots photo is from user mlsj from Flickr

From Brute Thing to Organic Learning: Time to Unplug Professional Development?

2008-06-24T12:15:00.000-07:00

We won’t learn a great deal of new material. My hope is for you to become more perceptive of every day school matters many of us take for granted but that can change our schools and the world for the better. A professor used this sentiment as the opening of one of my school leadership courses. I sometimes feel like that after spending time putting together a blog post like this one which doesn't feel especially earth shattering.

In Understanding by Design, Wiggins and McTighe cite a timeless John Dewey quote from How We Think *:

To grasp the meanings of a thing, an event, or a situation is to see it in its relations to other things: to see how it operates or function, what consequences follow from it, what causes it, what uses it can be put to. In contrast, what we have the called the brute thing, the thing without meaning to us, is something whose relations are not grasped...The relation of means-consequences is the center and heart of all understanding (pp. 137, 146) (p. 38)

Dewey's timelessness really shines in this quote. "The brute thing", which I bolded in the text, is a beautiful descriptor of how technology can be viewed in education even for those who use it. I've juxtaposed brute with organic since brute's definitions range from inhumane to crude to irrational. Organic for me anyway connotes something that is grown from within and the only word I could really come up with. In this case, technology need/adoption/selection is grown from within the need to use it.

This all comes as I reflect at this past year's success with professional development and take a look at next year's professional development within my school.

The Brute Thing Approach

Description: We provide training “Day 1” on technology tools (the brute things). You name it we show it, model it, and let teachers play with it. “Day 2” training is typically in the classroom environment. That’s when the onus is placed on teachers to make the “relations” between the technology and student learning often without immediate assistance or any connections to student learning. The classroom, as we teachers know, is a pretty isolated environment. (As a sidebar, the diagram mentions Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) here as a awesome tool to use to help make connections and further reduce the isolation.)

Organic Learning Approach

Description: In this model (please click for a larger version), the technologies are grown out of quite simply student learning. No matter what your beliefs, values, convictions, or politics of education, I think we can agree that schools are about learning. Shouldn't our training and conversations about technology be centered around this singular facet or at least someone connect to it? In fact, curriculum, instruction/pedagogy, standards, assessment, community, leadership, culture, vision, student voice are all about learning. As such, tools and subsequently our training models should grow from learning.

Hardly a novel concept, I know, but one that seems to be at the crux at technology adoption, change, providing better opportunities for our students and ultimately improving our schools. As an example of teacher technology adoption, please see my post about Teachers Beliefs of Technology. And I've discovered other research since then that supports these themes.

The core mission of our schools and education haven't changed: learning. I think the fuzziness comes from the fact that learning itself is changing. What needs to be learned and how we learn are changing. Since technology (as a whole) is one of those drivers behind that change, the technology itself become the focus of learning sometimes at the detriment the core mission of learning in our schools. Yes, tools in and of themselves need to be taught but I think a greater connection needs to be made.

That's what I love about standards: state standards, 21st century standards, and ISTE's NETS. When all is said and done, standards are at least one constant that we can keep us grounded in learning. And even more, I'm becoming more and more indifferent to the high-stakes testing environment (I'm not saying it's perfect and can't be improved). Why? Because tests are about the standards and standards aren't that much of an obstacle to new learning and new skills that must be learned. Why can't we achieve standards about main characters, plot, setting using blogs, wikis, Twitter, Second Life, or any other tool and still have learning and understanding that is deep, reflective, collaborative, and meaningful to students and yet meet standards?

In the realm of professional development, a learning approach just may make "The Brute Thing" and make it more meaningful with greater sustainability and resonance. When was the last time we held a professional development series on just student learning and all of the new great research available on student learning? Is it time to unplug our professional development offerings at least a little bit?

Reference:

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

*Interestingly, the quote referenced in UbD is from Dewey's 1933 edition of How to Think. I wasn't able to find it in the 1910 edition which I own.

Are Teaching Tools Enough?

2008-06-22T06:27:00.000-07:00

I'm excited to be participating in Scott McLeod's CASTLE book study group reading and discussing Influencer: The Power to Change Anything. I've always been a proponent of change. As educators, I believe one of our moral purposes is to adapt to change allowing our students the best preparation for their lives and the worlds they will face.

But in reflecting about the concept of change, I think sometimes we can get too focused on tools at the expense of the human nature, student learning, culture, vision, instruction, standards, and day-two implementation. We teach tools to groups of teachers in hopes that something that is said will transform their teaching, student learning, and ultimately our schools. I think we start with tools because they are neutral, keeping the focus away from intangible and sticky subjects of teaching and learning.

Teaching exclusively tools is essential. At some point, we must introduce how the technology works and let teachers use it during non-instructional time. But, I think, tools are inherently easier for us to present. After all, cool, new technology has a way of presenting itself. We give teachers enough time in our training to muck around the tools. While we work hard at these things and our approach may be an important first step, I wonder if we truly are seeing the results we expect. Do we know what we expect from our training? Is it just tool proficiency? Should our expectations go beyond tool proficiency?

If I look back at the training I've given starting 13 years ago, I wonder how much of my discretionary training has had a long-term, residual effect. My ego says one thing but reality speaks a different tune. From my early days of "One Computer Classroom" presentations to present day "Web 2.0 Tools" (yes, I'm just as guilty), I wonder how many teachers have transformed their teaching as a result of my workshops. Looking at a national level, I wonder about the adoption rates of technology training per training hour that occurs on a yearly basis. If I was a betting person, I'd suspect it's on the low side. Of those training hours, I wonder how much time is spent on having a conversation about human nature, student learning, culture, vision, instruction, standards, and day-two implementation?

One of most pervasive arguments I hear about technology is that ultimately it's the teacher's "fault" technology isn't adopted. But I can't help but to ask, "Do we blame students for low test scores?" Something tells me, there's a larger issue other than just willful non-compliance. And if it is just willful non-compliance, what can we do to change this behavior? After all, what is our role of trainers and teachers of teachers? Are we directly addressing new student learning theories, 21st century skills, and ways to work with the familiar standards. Also, are we providing a school culture conducive to technology adoption? Do teachers have a school vision to work with that includes an updated perspective of the world in which we live?

One of the early principles in Influencer is the notion that identifying and changing vital behaviors is the key to solving a problem. Have we defined the problem? Is our training addressing these few vital behaviors beyond the tools?

Lastly, I'll end with this question: Is it time for us to construct some sort of training guidelines or training best practices that addresses these questions and hopefully ultimately vital behaviors? Is this a realistic step that the educational technology community can take to begin addressing vital behaviors?

A Vital Part of the Learning and Technology Equation

2008-06-22T05:47:00.001-07:00

Our schools need passionate, caring, and visionary leaders - not JUST technology » Moving at the Speed of Creativity

A great blog post from Wesley Freyer about the need for leadership NOT just technology.

tags: technology, vision, leadership, teaching, web, 2.0

Classroom Instruction that Works and Web 2.0

2008-05-27T20:11:00.000-07:00

Next year, our district will be focusing on Summarizing and Note-Taking from Robert Marzono’s Classroom Instruction That Works.

In my research putting together resources for teachers on my school wiki, I came across a wiki – [Web 2.0] & Marzono’s [CITW] - focused on Marzono’s Classroom Instruction That Works.

What I really like about the wiki is it’s linking of web 2.0 tools to CITW concepts. The wiki also contains some great links to CITW and Web 2.0 resources. And in great wiki fashion, it allows registered users to contribute information, resources, or models to it.

I did learn from the wiki there is an ASCD book entitled Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works. It’s on my Amazon list and I’ll report back once I’ve had a chance to read it.

2008 Digital Schools Report & Bandwidth

2008-05-16T22:51:00.000-07:00

The 2008 America's Digital Schools Report just released contains some interesting, reassuring, and potentially problematic trends to technology adoption and student learning. eSchool News has a well-written, descriptive summary of the report.

The bandwidth trend is a bit concerning (and very interesting as a former network engineer) especially since much of our learning and understanding through tools depends on a crisp, robust network. Karen Greenwood Henke wrote a comprehensive article How Fast Is Fast Enough? in Tech Learning which cites the 2006 version of the Digital School's Report. (In full disclosure, I was quoted in the article) Bandwidth was mentioned in that report too with 40KBPS being the optimal throughput available to students according to Henke.

My fascination with this topic in part inspired me to write No Data Left Behind which was published in the February 2006 edition of Learning & Leading with Technology.

For a teacher new or just starting off adopting technology, I think bandwidth can cause some concern. Quite possibly, no matter how effective or powerful the tool, it can be perceived not as such with slow bandwidth really being the culprit. I'm sure many of us at one time or another excitedly wanted to show an application to a teacher or administrator only not have it work well because of network congestion. This is similar to a prospective car running rough in the dealer's lot when considering buying it.

Also to state the obvious, the content-rich world in which we live requires bandwidth to view it. Pictures, video, audio, and text - staples of 21st century learning and understanding - all require bandwidth. Global learning (and competing) on a global basis have bandwidth as a prerequisite.

Before going back into the classroom as a teacher, I spent time assessing and auditing schools' bandwidth (and technology) needs as an educational technology consultant. Most schools from my experiences can reclaim about 5-15% of their total bandwidth through "low-hanging fruit". These "low-hanging fruits" usually can be as simple as:

Removing unneeded protocols from the networks (a good protocol analysis will show this)
Simple routing adjustments
Simple access-list adjustments
Duplex settings on Ethernet ports
Properly configuring Frame Relay or ATM interfaces
Removing or adding needed policy-routes
Relocating a server
Proxy Server Adjustment/Tweak
Broadcast Domain Resize (VLANs or Subnet Masks)

Here are some things that can be done to assess, increase, or reclaim bandwidth:

Hire a knowledgeable consulting company to do an audit. A good consulting company will be able to perform detailed protocol analysis and network data collection. Also, they should understand the RFPs (technology standards) and also the unique needs of school networks. As a sidebar, be wary of "upselling" - some companies may use the audit to sell you gear and additional services.
Use tools such as PRTG and HostMonitor to collect network capacity and performance data. Having a baseline set of data is crucial.
Leverage logging on switches, routers, firewalls, proxy servers, and other devices to collect data at least initially (too much logging can actually decrease overall performance).
Use a Cymphonix appliance to help make sense of application-bandwidth and user traffic.

As we like to make data-driven decisions when it comes to learning, networks and bandwidth, I believe, should be approached using the same principle. There are many tools, many free or low-cost, that can collect and aggregate the data in easy to read reports. This data is not only vital in knowing but also planning, reacting, and communicating the state of the network to school folks who ultimately will approve additional bandwidth.

Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.

**Photo Credit** Photo retrieved from: http://www.ads2006.org/ads/order08

Economics of Teaching and STEM

2008-05-05T19:28:00.001-07:00

Think Globally, Act Locally

I can't but to help read eSchool News articles such as "Summit: Save STEM or Watch America Fail" with a mixture of patriotism and worry.

I don't usually write about such global, and possibly political, issues. But after reading this article and hearing these undertones for quite some time, I felt compelled at least to explore an issue that isn't as abstract and far removed I think as many folks may think.

I like most Americans want our country to thrive. Thriving in our today's age, we must be successful on a global stage. To do this, it is pretty clear, we as a country need to to make science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) a funded national priority among other things.

I don't think technology is the answer to all of our issues in education. But I'm amazed that with what is available today and the power and resources it brings to our collective tables that we haven't found a way to make math, science, technology, and engineering come alive for more of our students. And that's despite having many, dynamic, caring teachers working with students in these subject areas.

Aside from technical tools, Project-Based Learning and Understanding by Design models give us a whole set of tools that connect STEM to life and the world. No longer do students need to memorize only facts from a book, answer them on a test, and then move onto to another unit without much reflection, collaboration, or imagination. PBL and UbD give us powerful platforms of learning that can contextualize STEM for a wide range of learners.

The million dollar questions (54 trillion if you read the article) are:

How do we make STEM a priority and effectively achieve our goals within it?
Why isn't STEM already a priority?
How do we translate a national economic priority to the classroom teachers?
Should we be looking to STEM 2.0?
How can Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) help connect teachers with "global" issues?

Part of the answer lies, I think, in an interesting observation: there is a missing link between our global economic education priorities and those of the classroom teacher. That is, priorities of folks at different levels of education don't always coincide. The needs of classroom teachers are likely to be completely different than the needs felt at more global levels.

From my limited experience there seems to be two primary economic drivers in education: taxes and earning potential. The amount of money spent on schooling is historically a hot button topic. Earning potential, the second driver, is seen as an individual benefit of learning. A third driver can be very obscure - that's the collective benefit of having students who not only have an interest but excel in STEM. This is the missing link discussed above. For me anyway, this seems to be the common ground what is discussed in economic terms and what goes on in our schools.

Do we classroom teachers spend time talking about the economic impact our instructional, curricular, and learning choices are having on our students, our regions, states, and country? Why don't we?
Should we be having that conversation at the teacher/grassroots level?
Do we need to be having that conversation at the teacher/grassroots level?

Sometimes I think policy is akin to not connecting learning to a student's life...there's no resonance. While there may be a great need seen by some, unless that need is truly understood and seen (contextualized even) chances are it may not stick. The policy may be mandated but not implemented. My past school culture post comes to mind discussing the differences between policy and culture.

I began this post with the popular environment slogan, "Think Globally, Act Locally". There's no doubt we are working hard locally. But in doing so, are we thinking globally? Maybe we need to adopt this mission or vision statement into our daily practice...maybe it's time we think about the economics of teaching. What do you think?

Personal Learning Networks

2008-03-31T19:27:00.000-07:00

"You're always only the sharpest right after the test"

This old adage is how I feel as I conclude a pretty intensive semester to finish my M.Ed. in School Leadership. While I'm excited to be finishing my degree, I am not excited about being out of the weekly conversations and direct thinking about leadership. I really enjoyed learning from my professors and colleagues during class. And more than ever, I see how important leadership is in facilitating student learning, achievement, and understanding.

The good news is that Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) will help a great deal to stay engaged with leadership issues...anytime, anywhere. As a teacher and technology coordinator, I see its worth on almost a daily basis as many of my practices have been influenced by things I've learned and people with whom I met in my PLN. Now that I have some time to reengage in my PLN, I can see how even more important my it will be in keeping my mind in the game so to speak.

PLN (for those who may not know) is a fairly recent acronym to describe leveraging the vast internet-based resources to enhance our learning. With the advent of a mountain of tools from Twitter to social networks such as Classroom 2.0 to blogs, educators have a deep well of expertise and experience at their finger tips - really just for the taking. It truly is powerful.

One of my favorite aviation columnists, Rod Machado just wrote about the difference between a pilot's proficiency and currency. Currency in pilot-speak is the legal requirements necessary to fly in a given set of conditions. Proficiency is, according to Rod, a requirement for confidence. I think PLNs (can) build a great deal of confidence for teachers.

First, PLNs allow me to see and learn from others. I'm always amazed that whether in my classroom or in a classroom across the country many of the same issues exist about teaching and technology. These issues transcend classrooms, borders, operating systems, teachers, students, curriculum, and instructional techniques. Despite teaching's isolating nature, PLNs can build a great network of folks who can enter your classroom in a few keystrokes.

Second, PLNs can build confidence by having a worldwide audience to whom questions can be asked anytime, anywhere. Whether the question be technical, educational, or mix of both, input can be sought almost immediately from a wide range of knowledgeable folks. I think this is especially important with teachers adopting technology. A teacher may not be in a situation where there are resources that are readily available. PLNs can serve as a virtual mentor, help desk, and/or sound board.

"We are not helpless" was a resonating quote of a professor who taught in my school leadership program. PLN supports this idea that as educators we aren't in fact helpless. We do have the ability to reach beyond our classroom walls. In fact, we have the world at our finger tips. So while I'll miss my graduate classes, it's good to know that I have a viable and reliable Personal Learning Network.

On a pragmatic level, the questions in our schools are:

How do we encourage teachers to develop and adopt their own Personal Learning Networks?
Do many teachers know that such powerful networks exist?
Are many educators aware of how accessible Personal Learning Networks are to them?

Technology Plans: A Parallel Conversation?

2008-02-06T16:43:00.001-08:00

In reviewing a technology plan recently, two things stuck out:

1. A great deal of work goes into creating a technology plan.
2. The benchmarks were really interesting.

The benchmarks listed teacher adoption rates by application, percentage, and time frame.

For example, one of the goals in the plan was:

80% of teachers by 2008-09 will integrate multimedia projects into lessons.

I like standards and goals since I think they give us a framework and something to strive towards. They, in a sense, give us a vision. And I realize we need to satisfy requirements through writing goals into technology plans. Ultimately, technology plans can be powerful, amazing tools especially when created by all school stakeholders.

As I mentioned, a great deal of time and work goes into creating these goals but I have to ask in the context of this specific plan:

Is there a plan to connect multimedia to curriculum and student learning?
Should the focus be on student learning rather than teacher utilization?
Are there plans for teacher learning networks (personal and professional)?
Are these goals part of the school's vision?
Do these goals mesh with the school's culture?
Is there a link to 21st century skills?
Are these goals collectively developed?
Is there a plan/conversation about teacher technology adoption?
Should our goals be learner (student focused)? An example: 80% of students will engage in projects where multimedia is used a tool for better content understanding.

I'll return to a theme that I've discussed before: parallel conversations. Sometimes, I think good things get lost through parallel conversations especially thinking technology is a separate entity from everything else. Sometimes, I think this "parallel-ness" gives rise to technology being someone else's problem. And inadvertently, I think teacher technology adoption is adversely affected. Teachers don't see a culture of merging technology with learning, teaching, and students.

Should we be thinking about a Student Learning Plan of sorts that is a combination of a technology plan, instruction plan, and improvement plan? Technology can be planned, discussed, and prioritized but it would be in the context of student learning - the focus of our schools. There could be even a section dedicated to the technical details but connecting the technology to the overall culture, mission, and vision of the school can only help ensure the common ground between learning and instruction is forged.

Right of Refusal, Change, and Teacher Technology Adoption

2008-01-09T04:40:00.000-08:00

I really enjoy reading Scott McLeod's Dangerously Irrelevant blog. His insight and thought provoking topics are always appreciated and are great source of perspective for me. There's no doubt why he's so highly regarded. But...

In his Right of Refusal post, he compares teachers adoption of technology to that of grocery clerks, stock brokers, and architects. For me, this is where his comparison doesn't quite cut the mustard. Here's an excerpt:

For example, a grocery store checker doesn't get to say 'No thanks, I don't think I'll use a register.' A stockbroker doesn't get to say, 'No thanks, I don't think I'll use a computer.' An architect doesn't get to say, 'No thanks, I don't think I'll use AutoCAD.' But in education, we plead and implore and incentivize but we never seem to require.

It's an apples to orange comparison. First, the above mentioned folks (for as hard as they work and their respective technologies are complex) don't have to teach using these tools or teach other to use these tools. Secondly, their use is typically highly scripted and regimented. If something goes awry, a manager can be called, the IT person, or self-troubleshooting can commence. There isn't 23 faces peering at them getting fidgety (ok, maybe adults in line watching their ice cream getting soft but try having technology fail with 2nd graders in class...I'd take the melting ice cream). Having been on both sides, it's different...completely different.

I've written my last couple of posts about the value of culture in comparison to policy. A school's culture can be a powerful force in teacher technology adoption since it becomes part of the underlying fabric. This is where I believe teachers are technology consumers. Much of my thinking about this came from Pip Coburn's The Change Function.

Coburn makes the case about use technology adoption ultimately coming down to 2 areas: current pain (need/crisis) and Total Perceived Pain of Adoption (TPPA). He maintains that technologies that have done well in the consumer market have a low TPPA. Those technologies that have a high TPPA have done historically poorly. He states his case about technology adoption and change much more eloquently than I.

Connecting this back to teacher technology adoption, teachers have a choice. Also, the TPPA (which can many things, I believe) has to be low enough for adoption in classroom practice. If a teacher's TPPA is perceived as being high and the current pain is low, technology adoption, from my perspective and experience) won't occur.

So, do teachers have the Right of Refusal when it comes to technology adoption? Yes. Is it best choice? Probably not, especially with growing body of knowledge about the economic, career, vocation, and democratic implications in the 21st century of not using technology as a learning and teaching tool. But I don't think we can boil this down to a simple issue of requiring it or not. Leadership can help but policy may not be the most sustainable way. That's not to say I think it should be a overly complex situation - it's not. But there's multiple dynamics and forces at work beyond a simple Right of Refusal.

Teachers as Chief Technology Adopters

2008-01-07T16:47:00.000-08:00

A teacher can be new or seasoned, extremely effective or marginally effective. They can use lecture/teacher-led instruction or constructivist-based instruction. They can be innovative or lack creativity. No matter the profile of the teacher, they assume and share an awesome responsibility in preparing students for the 21st century. They have a role that is pretty unique to their profession: they are Chief Technology Adopters.

I use this term Chief Technology Adopters for a few reasons. First, teachers, while interacting with content, ultimately will be the folks who teach the skills necessary for students to thrive in the 21st century. Secondly, the technology adoption buck stops with the teacher. For they are the ones, albeit assuming a great deal of responsibility, who decide when, where, how, why, and what technology is adopted. The logic seems clear; the action is complex. Lastly, teachers wield a pretty good amount of power. Maybe it's informal power, but they are chiefly the ones who decide on technology adoption. I've talked about policy and referenced Larry Cuban's work with policy in earlier posts. Yet again, I see a quote about teachers and policy. This is from January 2008's Kappan:

Even in a system that is tightly controlled, teachers have enormous power to mediate policy and bring about results that policy makers never envisioned.

As Chief Technology Adopters, teachers have the following roles:

Consumers of technology - Teachers directly influence and decide what technology is used, when, how, why, and what is used. They make choices - good, bad, and indifferent.

Consumers of policy - It's not just technology, but teachers are consumers of policy. As referenced from past posts, Kappan, and Cuban's work, teachers decide the policies they adopt in the classroom including technology adoption.

Technologists - Technology, while making strides, can still be complex for even a savvy user. Teachers as a Chief Technology Adopters need to understand the tools they use for instruction at least on an Advanced User Level. They may need to troubleshoot, or explain a tool in addition to teaching content. This is somewhat akin to a doctor knowing how to program their ultrasound units.

Curriculum Implementors - Teachers make decisions about what curriculum to implement, how, to what extent, and to what level of mastery. They also need to know the curriculum well enough to adopt technology to interact with goals, objectives, and standards on many levels.

Instructional Strategists - They need to size up a goal and decide how to best achieve it. Technology can or cannot be an instrumental tool in meeting the goal. Teachers need to understand their values and beliefs in learning and teaching.

Researchers/Visionaries - It's not just about being on the "forefront" or "ahead of the curve", it is responding and adapting to the needs of learners. It understanding the needs of learners today, tomorrow, and also in 5 -10 years. A skills determination is needed. They need to understand not just facts but how to problem solve using language arts/English, math, social studies, science, or other subject area. Understanding and leveraging research, trends, and patterns for Teachers as Chief Technology Adopters is a crucial element to really working towards 21st century skills.

Participants in Culture - Chief Technology Adopters participate in a culture of some form in their respective schools. It may foster the use of technology through learning communities, professional development, or coaching. The culture may not support technology all together - the teacher may be an island. But culture has a strong influence nonetheless.

Teachers, People, and Chief Technology Adopters: Can There Be a Balance?

2008-01-02T19:30:00.000-08:00

There's no doubt they work hard...I'm just not sure they're working hard on the right things.

This quote was said by an administrator I respect a great deal. I often keep it in mind when I'm trying to prioritize tasks, my thinking, and my work.

In thinking about EduCon 2.0, I am very excited about participating in all the great conversations, meeting folks, and learning from others. In reflecting and refining my conversation on teacher technology adoption, I keep going back to these questions:

What does teacher technology adoption look like?
What are our expectations? Are they realistic?
Are some teachers overwhelmed by choices?
Are we technologists clear in articulating what a 21st century, technology adopted class looks like?
Do we sometimes loose focus of the goal of student learning with technology's "oh-wow" factor?
Do we loose sight that teachers are people with families, outside commitments, non-school responsibilities, hobbies, and non-technology professional development?
Is there such thing as an over-saturation of technology?

I find we collectively don't address this side of teacher technology adoption. For me these questions emerge from looking at teachers - our current, future, and potential chief adopters of technology, 21st century skills, web 2.0 tools, and the read/write web - from a human perspective. Some of what initiated this thought process is the fact that I just at 10:15 PM was able to have "me" time.

Prior to 10:51PM, I got up early to do some baby proofing around our house before I left for school. I had some coffee, did some morning routine chores, checked email and drove my 1 hour 10 minute commute to school. While it was great to get back to school after our long break, it became a busy day very quickly and didn't stop until I left at 5:20. I drove home in an hour and six minutes. As soon as I got home, I hugged my daughter, asked how her day was, and grabbed the pork chops to start cooking. My wife came home around 7:20PM from work and we finally ate around 7:30PM. After a fun dinner full of laughs, we did some playing and it was off the tub where my daughter learned the word "monkey". Then it was time for a snack, reading a book, and off to bed at 9:30PM. After some more chores and some quiet dad time, I got started on some work...work that led me to this work. It's now 10:57 and I still have work to do but not technology work. And this isn't a night when my wife has a late meeting, I have a graduate school class, or that we need to run an errand to the store. Tomorrow night promises to be different as my wife has a late meeting.

I share my schedule not because I think it's interesting or compelling at all. I share it because I wonder how many teachers - our chief technology adopters - our 21st century architects and builders - have similar days? How many teachers are there that maybe aren't night owls who can exist on my usual 5-6 hours a sleep per night? How many teachers don't have a great deal of time during the school day for professional development?

But how many hours exist in 1 day to tinker with a new technology to learn a new (something)cast, to really engage in technology to feel comfortable with using it in front of the classroom? How many hours does it take to register for these great tools and just keep track of username and password combinations?

I'm new enough to marriage and family life to know that I sure don't have the blocks of discretionary time as when I entered into my current phase of life (for which I wouldn't trade the world). And this is all personal time. I'm not talking about the current list of professional responsibilities that teachers have. At the risk of sounding Todd Oppenheimer-ish, I'm not downplaying technology's role. Nor am I'm trying to making excuses. What I'm trying to be is realistic with my thinking about teacher technology adoption. Yes, I still dream and think big but there's a practical reality...even I as a technologist there's limits to what I can adopt.

There are five tiers of teacher technology adopters that seem to have existed throughout my 12 years in technology:

jump-in with both feet
migratory wading area to deep end travelers
stay in the wading pool
one toe in
stay on the beach

What are the differences between the teachers in the same school who jump-in with both feet and those who stay on the beach? Do the jump-in with both feet teachers have more time and less personal commitments than the stay on the beach teachers? Do they engage in different teaching approaches - constructivism, constructionism, and hybrid? Do they work harder on the right things? Do they have a higher tolerance for complexity and possible failure? Do they build and leverage their own capacity or find capacity somewhere? Are they more savvy consumers of technology? Is somehow their total perceived pain of adoption (TPPA) lower than than their current pain. Put another way, is their current pain greater than their current TPPA?
Do they see something in the culture that others don't? Are they privy to a vision others aren't?

Is it necessarily bad to stay in the wading pool and not use every web 2.0 widget available but rather focus and maybe dabble with one technology?

How do we facilitate and encourage teachers - as chief technology adopters - to get into the wading pool and possibly into the deeper end? Is this where capacity, professional learning communities, and competent systems become vital?

Or does this come down to working hard not on the right things?

Policy and Culture: Friends or Foes for Teacher Technology Adoption & 21st Century Skills?

2007-12-27T07:24:00.000-08:00

When thinking about 21st century skills and more specifically teacher technology adoption, what are the roles of culture and policy? Are they friends or foes? Does and can policy influence culture?

I really got to thinking about this while writing my last post. The culture of a school is such a powerful factor in how, when, and why things are done. Teacher technology adoption is especially prone to culture, albeit still like any other practice, since it's still not a commonly practiced norm in many classrooms, learning, and instructional routines. Interestingly, I would suspect in spite of many great cultures of learning and student achievement, teacher technology adoption and 21st century skills are void.

Larry Cuban has written quite a bit about the influence of policy on actual classroom practices. Deal and Peterson discuss policy as one of the lenses used in educational initiatives. The conclusion I've drawn from from reading these scholars is that policy doesn't have a large, lasting impact on classroom practices.

The old adage "give a man to fish, he'll eat for a day...teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime" comes to mind. It seems like policy, in a sole effort to drive teacher technology adoption, will really just sustain short-term adoption like giving a man a fish. Culture of a school, or "the way we do things around here", will sustain a greater adoption of technology like teaching a man to fish.

If this is true, what effect will it have on teacher technology adoption? Here are some more interesting questions that I think could be asked:

Will policy be a true catalyst for engaging educators in developing 21st century skills?
Does a strong, culture filled with capacity have to be in place first for policy to have a sustainable effect?
How can culture become inclusive of 21st century skills?
How can culture embrace teacher technology adoption?
What cultural traits need to be shaped for 21st century skills to be inclusive?
What cultural traits need to be shaped to provide for greater teacher technology adoption?

Culture of Teacher Technology Adoption

2007-12-14T21:47:00.000-08:00

Beneath the conscious awareness of everyday life in schools, there is a stream of of thought and activity. This underground flow of feelings and folkways wends its way within schools, dragging people, programs, and ideas towards often-unstated purposes: "This invisible, taken-for-granted flow of beliefs and assumptions gives meaning to what people say and do. It shapes how they interpret hundreds of daily transactions. This deeper structure of life in organizations is reflected and transmitted through symbolic language and expressive action. Culture consists of the stable, underlying social meanings that shape beliefs and behavior over time" (Deal and Peterson, 1990, p.7)

This is a quote from Deal and Peterson's Shaping School Culture describing culture. For me, it underscores how powerful a force culture can be with teacher technology adoption. No matter how great the tool appears, how easy it is to use, or the "oh-wow" factor, if technology is not part of the "underground flow of feelings and folkways" or "beliefs and assumptions" in the school, chances are technology will not see widespread sustained (a la Fullan) adoption. Moreover, if these "unstated purposes" do not include "new literacy" skills or 21st century skills, chances for technology adoption or work strive towards it won't be occurring.

There is an interesting phenomenon or pattern (I'm not sure which) I see with new technology. We focus a great deal of time discussing and convincing others of how effective the tool is for a set of learning activities. At this point we either try to "oh-wow" the audience or we are preaching to the choir so to speak. But I'm not sure how much we spend on looking at the root issues with adopting the technology. Moreover, I'm not sure how much we merge our conversations trying to find relationships between these traditionally non-technical facets with these progressive technologies. The "google it" test doesn't reveal much...

School culture among areas such as teacher beliefs, total perceived pain of adoption, consumerism, teaching style, and policy are layers on this complex onion could seem to appeal to a larger audience. Just with school culture alone, the notion of competent systems, shared vision, professional learning communities, sustainability, capacity, collaboration can also have a large impact on teacher technology adoption.

Here are some questions that I think would interesting to discuss:

To what extent are teacher's beliefs and values shaped by their school's culture (values and beliefs) when it comes to teacher technology adoption?
Is it just technology as a learning tool that must be valued for teacher technology adoption? Or is part of a larger belief in learning the "new literacy"?
How can school culture be adapted to value technology adoption?
Is it technology (and adoption) that will drive school culture? Is it school culture that drives technology adoption? Or are they symbiotic in nature?
In what ways does shared vision interplay with teacher technology adoption?
How can professional learning communities leveraging web 2.0 tools affect culture?

"Now, Please": Expectations of Teacher Technology Adoption

2007-11-23T06:36:00.000-08:00

I was just reading something that made me think of this.

The comment was to effect that students and teachers both were given hardware at the same time...and it took a couple of years to really get teachers moving beyond just word processing, to truly move to adopt the technology. The comment wasn't in a negative tone.

The comment got me questioning whether our expectations of teacher technology adoption especially in the context of web 2.0 (or other emerging technologies) sometimes maybe too focused on immediacy? That is, do we expect instant technology adoption? Can that do more harm than good? Is it necessarily bad or unnatural for technology adoption to take time?

In education, we typically plan an inservice, deliver the inservice, and then expect teachers to adopt the technology on a pretty short time frame.

From my experiences working on projects as a network engineer in corporate online banking, products were methodically implemented in sequential stages:

1. the development environment/testing
2. the testing environment/testing
3. the customer acceptable testing environment/testing
4. the beta environment/testing

All of the stages were designed to fix problems and enhance services. It was expected that there would be problems to resolve and features to enhance. Each stage was usually a carefully orchestrated series of steps many different specialities coming together to make the product work and offer the customer a valued service. Production, as it was called, wasn't instantaneous.

This is in stark contrast to us in education where when a new technology is delivered we want it operational and used the next day. The only time something was really rushed in the "corporate side", save meeting a deadline, was when it was broken and impacting users...then it was really was a situation to drop everything and fix the problem.

Getting our heads around a new tool takes time. The replacement cell phone I just got had a learning curve. Twitter that I'm using now takes a bit of time to shake out. Even the relative simplicity of web 2.0 tools takes some time to investigate and feel comfortable using.

Anytime, something new is used, operationally (technically) it has to be figured out before adoption occurs. And sometimes, we discover features that may be absent that don't make a certain tool useful now. So we go back to the drawing board putting the tool on the shelf.

For me, technology adoption doesn't happen in a linear fashion. I may download and check out a new tool or view it online very briefly. During my brief visit I begin learning about it and thinking of its usefulness as a learning tool. But I may not revisit that tool for quite some time. The 2nd visit may be as quick as the first or I might dive into it. I may go back to it a 3rd or 4th time. Or it may take seeing it modeled from an awesome social network like Classroom 2.0 that spurs on my adoption. It depends. But I usually need to have some thinking and tinkering time before I adopt technology.

Here's a general flow of technology adoption as I see it and experience it:

1. Introduction to Tool
2. Tool Orientation (buttons, features, mouse/keyboard inputs)
3. Getting the Tool to work and produce results - 1st time
4. Getting the Tool to work again - 2nd and subsequent times
5. Thinking about how to use the tool in the classroom
6. Having an idea of how to use the tool in the classroom
7. Trying to get the tool to achieve instructional/learning goal
8. Readjusting expectations of the tool
9. Try the tool out in the classroom

So I return to my original question, "Do we expect too much immediacy when it comes to technology adoption?"

Merging Conversations for 21st Century Learning

2007-11-17T13:43:00.000-08:00

We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.

This quote is delivered by John Keating (Robin Williams) in Dead Poet's Society, one my favorite films. When it comes to educational technology I feel the same way but for a different reason. We don't use educational technology and strive for 21st century learning because its cute. We use educational technology and strive for 21st century learning because of the mounting dialog and evidence that learning traditional reading, writing, and math skills have to include - at the core - new literacy skills and 21st century learning.

While I believe in not using technology for technology's sake, I am intrigued at the latest edition (November 2007) of ASCD's Educational Leadership. There are 13 articles about math in this issue. There are three mentions of technology: (1) a reference to a spreadsheet in which testing companies can provide containing test data, (2) a resource website for teachers, (3) suggestion of a gaming technology club. Interestingly, 21st century skills and Thomas Friedman are mentioned but not in relation to technology. What makes me so curious?

These well-written and thought-provoking articles, that are clearly the result of hard work, are void of educational technology and 21st century skills. I'm not mentioning this because my field of study isn't included or the mathematical content or ideas presented aren't important. They are! The topics are crucial. Furthermore, the articles, such as the ones focusing on the achievement gap and minorities, provide some really important data that needs to be discussed. In fact, I'd say we need more of these articles.

What really fascinates me is that we have multiple engaging, parallel conversations that aren't intersecting. We have dialog about math, digital natives, educational technology, 21st century skills/learning but there is no confluence among them. Some where, some way, some how there is a symbiotic misfire that keeps these conversations apart.

When we talk about the economy, we can't just focus on one market or sector. Interest rates have an impact on stock markets, housing, and the job market. Housing can have an effect on the stock market and the job market. And the job market can have an effect on the stock and housing markets. We have to consider the parts that comprise the whole of the sum. Preparing students for life, citizenry, democracy, and work after compulsory school needs to be the result of a unifying these conversations; not a set of competing priorities with the prevailing one a result of winning the public relations battle.

When there is some merging of these conversations, layering on top of the current situation is likely the approach. When what really should be happening is an organic cultivation of 21st century learning and some form of technology (since by all indications it is essential for the new literacy). These things, I believe, have to come from within, from inside out - not an outside imposition in...at least not for sustainability.

Let's talk specifics. Blogs and wikis are great tools that can enhance reflection, real-world writing, and collaboration of problems. Google Earth can be a great tool for measuring lines and geometrical shapes in a tangible, practical way. Sketchcasting can be used to capture solving problems that can be later viewed and listened too (they make also great anticipatory sets for the next lesson). Spreadsheets, notably Google's, are great tools for working with graphs, even collaboratively. Online surveys can be conducted to understand percentages and proportions. At the onset these tools may seem cute but looking deeper yields their importance in preparing our students for our "flat world".

I think that it's important to point out that these tools aren't proposed to replace instructional techniques but to enhance them and the learning experiences for our students. They needn't take center stage. In fact, the real value is in their transparency as a tool just as calculators are now in our classrooms. But for this to happen the conversations have to come together.

21st Century Skills: Working Out the Details

2007-11-16T17:08:00.000-08:00

Larry Cuban wrote a number of years ago that systemic policy can stop when the classroom door closes. I think in some form or another many educators have experienced this. Something comes down from "above" that may not be agreeable, practical, coincide with their beliefs and values about teaching and learning, or demonstrate that it will result in learning. It's not direct opposition or intentional defiance; rather it's a matter of the degree to which immediacy is felt.

How well does this bode for 21st century skills?

I truly believe in 21st century skills. As a result, I spend a great deal of time reading and thinking about them on a global perspective, school perspective, teacher-adoption perspective, and how I can implement them in my K-8 technology literacy classes. Despite this, 21st century skills are still a bit fuzzy to me as a classroom teacher. While many great folks are working hard on this conversation, I still sometimes come up with the question of, "What are 21st century skills exactly?".

I think, a few things needs to be addressed to make sure this "policy" is carried out even once the classroom door is closed:

Discussion of 21st century skills in the context of subject matter (concrete details)
Consideration of teacher technology adoption (no adoption means less 21st century skills)
Demonstrate results of 21st century skills for teachers to show enhanced learning
Find systemic harmony/synergy between NCLB and 21st century skills
Provide models of how 21st century skills look for teachers
Assess the assessment of 21st century skills

We often rely on traditional teaching teaching since we know the results...most of us are a products of it. The results of educational technology and 21st century skills are a great unknown for many educators. What's even more unknown is the direct connection between 21st century skills and content areas.

How can a teacher teach genres, main ideas, polynomials, fractions, health, or art incorporating 21st century skills? Moreover, how are these areas to be taught knowing that students are expected to have a certain level of proficiency? Will schools risk test scores for 21st century skills?

Teachers are great practitioners. I think often times they are viewed too generally as someone who takes only takes the abstraction of curriculum, goals, and objective to guide learning and understanding. But there's so much more that goes on to make learning take place. Students have to read, they have to pick up pencils, talk, reflect, write, ask questions, build, type, watch, hear, and see to learn. Teachers need to not only offer these activities but also assess them too. This is the detailed level that 21st century skills need to get to, I believe, to be most effective and welcomed into the classroom. The conversations need to get to a level or granularity that is this specific. At this point in my thinking 21st century skills (like educational technology adoption as a tool) have to come from within the detailed activities not layered on top of teaching practices. The further something is away from the core of pragmatics, the easier it is not to be adopted.

I don't think we can expect the details of 21st century skills will work themselves out in the classroom at the adoption level without first considering all the details of the environment in which they need to be implemented. Said another way, we need to work out the details on the onset, not afterwards. 21st century skills are far too important to not be implemented once the door closes. I think we need to decide whether we want to pay now or pay later.

Technology Adoption in B Flat

2007-11-06T15:01:00.000-08:00

Have you sat down in someone's car with music playing that you've never heard? Or maybe bought new music from an artist you like? At first, the response can be tepid. But after you listen a little while to it, the music begins to take shape and grow on you. And before you know it, you are singing along anticipating tempos, beats, choruses, and harmonies...even if a little out of tune as I do. I think technology adoption for teachers is a bit the same.

I think in our preparations for technology inservicing, the fabric of the technology tools - web 2.0 tools or otherwise - becomes so ingrained into our thoughts and beliefs. We study software, perhaps prepare a slide presentation, a wiki, or blog, or do some reading. We think about the myriad curricular connections these tools can make and possibly (and hopefully) effective teaching strategies for adoption. By the time we get to the inservice, we know the technology inside and out that we've just spent time mastering...we believe in it.

But what about the teachers who are learning about these tools for the very first time? And not only learning how to work the software but also thinking connections to curriculum and teaching?

They're just hearing "this music" for the very first time without the luxury of the back or repeat button (if your like me trying to analyze a song). The song like technology, possibly a little rough sounding at first, may not have a chance to develop personal resonance. And a personal resonance, or ownership, I think, has to be present for sustained technology adoption. That is why I think time, coaching, and support are so crucial to technology adoption.

A b-side song that I've come to love doesn't always equate to a smash hit for others (mentioned from my experience). The same holds true for technological tools. Not every teacher will see the value in the tool. That is why I've come to like the cafeteria-plan style inservice. If I present 10 web 2.0 tools to teachers in a cafeteria-style inservice, they have choices. And I think choices are important since teachers are consumers of technology who make choices about the technology they adopt. As I have written previously, these choices are often rooted in their beliefs of teaching and learning.

Standards: Taking the Messiness Out of Web 2.0

2007-11-04T17:44:00.000-08:00

I like state academic standards. Why do they have such a bad reputation? I think it’s because too often they are lumped together with assessments. As a result, many educators feel that standards are the reason “we teach to the test” and we don’t have much room for creativity in our classrooms. When it comes to creativity in the classroom, I actually think the opposite is true. Standards provide a great deal of room for creativity. It seems like our approach to the standards is the limiting factor, not the standards themselves.

In the world of teacher technology adoption and 21st century skills, I like standards even more. They can take the “messiness” of web 2.0 and 21st century learning providing it with structure and a starting point for teachers. This structure can enhance overall technology adoption and ultimately 21st century learning.

I call web 2.0 tools “messy” since they really don’t have a defined, scripted beginning and end. They also lack structure. The structure is up to the teacher to develop. In terms of adoption, I think this structure becomes a large roadblock especially if the tool is different from the teacher’s beliefs in teaching and learning. That is why tools such as Study Island and Criterion, I think, are so readily adopted. The tools themselves provide the structure and pedagogy (and yield good results), not the teacher.

Standards can help inject structure into the “messiness” of web 2.0 tools. That is, linking standards to web 2.0 tools can build structure into web 2.0 tools making them very task focused. They usually provide a goal of knowledge or skill that the student should achieve. How students get there is usually up to the teacher, curriculum, and district. This is where I think creativity can abound and a razor sharp focus can coexist while teachers adopt web 2.0 tools.

Teacher Beliefs of Technology

2007-10-28T12:23:00.000-07:00

When doing some research while writing an article and for a series of graduate school papers, the following themes seemed to jump out at me:

1. Teacher's beliefs of teaching (pedagogy) and student learning (epistemology) affect teacher technology adoption.
2. Teachers who engage in more teacher-led pedagogy adopt less technology.
3. Teachers who leverage constructivist-centric pedagogy have a tendency to use more technology.
4. Teacher's beliefs and values are not hardened systems; however, they are complex and prone to revision.
5. The richness of an environment (technology, support, quality, quantity) can change a teacher's beliefs and values in learners and pedagogy.
6. The manner in which technology is presented-teacher-centered or student-centered-impacts those teachers holding differing views.
7. Web 2.0 and 21st century skills are collaborative in nature; thus they are constructivist. This collaborative and constructivist nature of the technologies require teachers to adopt their beliefs which brings us back to theme #1.

The focus of my research has been on teacher technology adoption, its influencers, and detractors. This is fascinating to me since as I have remarked in much of my other writing, this research can shed light on why there can be such differences in technology adoption just in the same hallway of a school. Secondly, this for me is the "root issue" at hand with 21st century skills and web 2.0. We can show the coolest tools, in the coolest ways, to teachers espousing the need for students to learn these skills but it takes a teacher to believe that the technology they are using is better than the way they are using to teach the content.

In the 12 years I have been giving and around technology inservicing, the "oh, wows" are common when showing a new tool. But I don't think we can judge the effectiveness of our training on that response alone. While it gives me optimism and excitement, to this day, to hear these responses, day-two adoption doesn't always correspond.

What surprises me is that our dialogs don't involve teacher's beliefs or the human nature surrounding technology adoption. And when it does, it involves a great deal of negativity - teacher apathy, not willing to do the work, or not smart enough to get the technicalities. This isn't to say there aren't many dedicated people doing many great things; there are! Just look at sites like Classroom 2.0 where dedication, dialog, and creativity abound among in this amazing community.

Literacy today as defined web 2.0:new tools, new schools by Solomon and Schrum is

"acquiring new skills, including those using technology, understanding science, having global awareness, and most important, having the ability to keep learning, which involves gathering, analyzing, synthesizing, and presenting information as well as communication and collaborating"

The mechanics of implementing such literacy is approaching teachers as technology consumers with choices and complex, fluid beliefs that drive their technology adoption. Also, key to this discussion is the fact that for many teachers, including me, comprehension in web 2.0, collaboration, and constructivism requires participation in web 2.0, collaboration, and constructivism.

A new way of learning, teaching takes time to get our heads around and that doesn't even include learning the technology that is instrumental in this new way of learning and teaching.

Learning the Tool and Using the Tool: Driven by a Teacher's Belief

2007-10-23T21:21:00.000-07:00

After spending a lot of time the last few weeks researching influencing factors of teacher technology adoption for a grad school course, I've come across lots of fascinating research. Also, I've tried to synthesis the major research themes (teacher beliefs of teaching, learning, inservicing, major influencers) into web 2.0 tools and 21st century skills.

It occurred to me after reading scores of research that highlight how powerful teacher's beliefs of teaching and learning are on technology adoption, that we can't just dump web 2.0 and 21st century skills on the laps of teachers. Why? Most web 2.0 tools and 21st century skills are constructivist in nature. The research is quite convincing in my opinion that teachers who use a teacher-led format of instruction generally stay away from technology while those who already gravitate towards student-centered/created classrooms adopt technology more readily.

As promising, needed, and powerful web 2.0 tools and the 21st century skills framework are, they virtually command a non-teacher led approach. While web 2.0 tools can be presented in a teacher-led format, their inherent collaborative (and thus constructivist) nature is squelched. They are almost cancelled out not living to their full potential.

Saying to our teachers, you need to use a web 2.0 tool, or dropping a bunch of tools during an inservice may help learn the technicalities of the software. But the belief in learning and pedagogical will decide whether it gets used in the classroom no matter how cool the tool or important the 21st century skill. Wikis are a great example. They're quite easy to get setup and going. Teachers can be taught the technical skills in a little bit a time. The difficult part is utilizing the wiki to take advantage of it's collaborative, problem-solving, and constructivist knowledge presentation/creation potential. That is because beliefs of learning and teaching ultimately need to change commensurate with this tool to include collaboration, problem-solving, and constructivist knowledge presentation/creation potential.

Ed Tech: It's All About the Right Fit

2007-10-20T08:26:00.000-07:00

In setting up this new blog, it occurred to me that it's important to remember that there's an element of finding a tool that has the "right fit". I personally have found some blog interfaces unintuitive and difficult to navigate. Additionally, some I found that I was spending way too much time on the technology and not enough on the content. A tool, for me, in and out of the classroom is something that I can use to quickly and efficiently accomplish my goal. With time at such a premium most days between work, family, and graduate school, I don't want to have to "futz" around trying to get something to work.

That is what I love about many Web 2.0 tools but especially Wikis. Wikis require navigating to the page to be edited, clicking edit, updating content, and finally clicking save. As an indicator of their ease of use, I have successfully used wikis with my 1st grade classes. Also, my teachers have created them many commenting on their ease of use.

Back to the "right fit" theme. What may be an easy-to-use tool for me, may not be for others. This particular blog interface I find easier to use than most, I find the links, navigation, and descriptions fit me well. For others, it may be different - they may find this particular interface more difficult. I think this is an important point to remember when offering inservicing on ed tech tools. While we can educate and instruct our teachers how to use the technology, I think there has to be an intrinsic level of comfort with the technology especially if we want to build towards sustainable technology adoption. I think this is an an important concept to remember while planning or delivering teacher inservicing - the tool doesn't fit everyone the same.

2007-10-20T08:17:00.001-07:00