Classroom Instruction that Works and Web 2.0

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

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:

1. 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.
   
2. Use tools such as PRTG and HostMonitor to collect network capacity and performance data. Having a baseline set of data is crucial.
3. 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).
4. 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

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

"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?

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

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

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.