Say hello to the Free Agent Learner—that is, a typical middle school student!

May 11th, 2013 by Sandra Miller

Students are not waiting around for educators to provide a new type of environment for their learning. They are creating opportunities for themselves.

Middle school students, in particular, view learning in new ways, often very different even from today’s high school students, who tend to use technology for more “traditional” tasks such as checking grades, taking notes, accessing online texts, writing papers and doing homework.

Students using their own technology.

“Digitally Aided Education, Using the Students’ Own Electronic Gear” – click Todd Anerson’s great photo for related article in the New York Times.

Not so the middle school students in Project Tomorrow’s “Speak Up” survey, who use technology for a wide range of learning tasks.  These students use technology to:

  • Collaborate with classmates on problem solving
  • Tap into Facebook for schoolwork help
  • Text their teachers with questions
  • Solve real world problems
  • Find podcasts/videos to learn about something
  • Access online textbooks
  • Use mobile apps to self-organize
  • Access online tutors
  • Use online writing tools
  • Take online tests or assessments on their own

Teachers and administrators will need to work together to re-create learning environments for these “Free Agent” learners.  Many have smart phones and want to use them.  Their parents are supportive, using smart phones themselves and often using technology in their own jobs.

Understandably, administrators are hesitant to embrace the use of smartphones and other mobile technology at school due to concerns about internet safety and district liability, digital equity, network security, and teacher training.   Likewise, teachers hesitate with worries about distraction, digital equity, cheating, and knowing how to integrate new devices.  At the same time both recognize that  there are potential benefits to integrating new technologies:

  • Increasing student engagement
  • Personalizing instruction
  • Reviewing classroom material and extending the day
  • Providing access to online resources

Can we as educational leaders shift our thinking?  As Charles Darwin (English Naturalist 1809-1882) said,  “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”

The Free Agent Learner already incorporates technology into learning beyond the school walls; it is up to us as educational leaders to take advantage of these new new tools and approaches within our schools and classrooms.  Let’s get on with it!

Tags: ,
Posted in Integration | 5 Comments »

Same Song, Second Verse

April 29th, 2013 by Susan Brooks-Young

Image of The Prune Song sheet music 1928Do you remember The Prune Song? A camp classic, this silly ditty reviews the travails of life as a prune. The pleasure in singing the song comes from repeating over and over its first verse —“a little bit louder and a little bit worse!” A fun way for nine-year-olds to wile away the time perhaps, but not so amusing when adults persist in this same behavior.

Two decades ago Apple Inc. hired independent researchers to evaluate the impact of the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) project. One important outcome of this report was the recognition that when technology use is limited to supporting traditional instruction or increasing student productivity, any improvements in student performance cannot be attributed to the technology. Subsequent studies and models (e.g., the Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model) draw similar conclusions.

What kinds of technology-supported activities actually make a difference? The research is clear on this as well. When students engage in project-based learning experiences or solve authentic problems using technology as one of several available tools, increases in achievement can be attributed—at least in part—to technology use. How does this information impact classrooms today?

In their eagerness to incorporate use of mobile tablet devices into classrooms, some educators are taking the same-song-second-verse approach instead of taking time to think through how this technology could be used to significantly change classroom instruction. As has been the pattern with earlier technologies, it’s not uncommon to hear about schools and districts that have purchased equipment with minimal planning for actual classroom use. Or to run across teachers who envision primary use of tablets consisting of apps that cover discrete Common Core performance indicators. The upshot of this is teachers spending their time searching for and deploying stand-alone apps that have a limited shelf-life and use minimally effective instructional strategies to teach or review very basic concepts.

What can school leaders do to reverse this trend? Here are a few simple suggestions:

  1. Resist the temptation to deploy mobile tablet devices to ‘see what will happen.’ Take time to plan thoroughly. The College of William & Mary School of Education Learning Activity Types wiki offers a variety of technology-supported activities based on the TPACK model.
  2. Work with staff to revisit Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Several talented educators have posted work online designed to help teachers rethink classroom use of touch technology. Check out Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy and Bloomin’ Apps for ideas.
  3. Think beyond drill and practice or task automation. The most effective use of tablets is for content creation, not content consumption. Encourage teachers to explore ways students can use tablets for project-based learning and to solve authentic problems.

 

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Integration, Technology Planning | 2 Comments »

Education Technology Guidance

April 22nd, 2013 by Michael Simkins

GPS screenYesterday, I received an email from an aspiring administrator with the subject line “Education technology guidance.”  He wrote that as the “closest thing my school currently has to an Education Technologist,” he’s been tasked with writing a grant proposal for funding to help his school implement a blended learning environment.  He described his dilemma as follows:

As part of the application, I am being asked to forecast the annual costs for digital content licenses, learning management systems, and data management systems. I am unsure as to whether I understand the difference between all three, never mind how to estimate a cost. As I understand it, the digital content license would be for programs like Aleks’ math program. A learning management system would be something like Edmodo or Moodle, where a teacher could deliver other content and communicate with students. I am unclear as to what a data management system would be. Could you please help clarify these three terms or guide me in the right direction. Examples of each would help.

Bless his heart.  He’s been handed a task with the expectation, apparently, that he’ll do it alone when, in fact, it should be a team effort informed by thoughtful discussion with all stakeholders.  Of course, grant proposals are rarely developed methodically. Typically, one of two things happens.  Some money is dangled in front of us and we go after it, regardless of how it fits our strategic plan; or, we find money in the offing that actually matches our plan but the window for submitting a proposal is so short we have to slap something together in a huge rush and get it out the door.

Well, we have to work in the real world and this fellow wanted guidance now, so here is what I wrote.

You’re on the right track.  Content licenses are any fees you pay to make online content available to teachers and students (e.g. NBC Learn, Discovery Education, ProQuest K-12).  Moodle is one example of a learning management system; Blackboard is another.  A data management system would be something you use to collect, house and analyze information such as student demographics, tests scores, e-portfolios, etc. (e.g. TestingWerks).  Some, like SchoolNet or ObaWorld, are hybrids and combine features.

Before you can forecast costs, you need to determine what tools you need and what you are going to use them for.  What does your school already have?  How does it keep track of student information?  What curricular materials do you use already and will still use in this new program?  How does the school track student data now?  Do you need a different system because of this program or will the one in use serve the purpose?  Basically, you can’t work on a budget until you know what you want to do and what you’ll need to do it.

That’s how I responded; how would you?

Tags:
Posted in General, Technology Planning | No Comments »

Push to the core with “Teaching Channel.”

March 22nd, 2013 by Lisa Marie Gonzales

 

 

 

We seem to now live in a world abuzz with the “Common Core,” and the resources are plentiful. Great problem to have, right? Wrong! Too many resources and so many require time to sift through for quality, applicability to our differing student populations, and then finding them later when we realize the resource was good.  It’s exhausting.  That’s why, when Teaching Channel (Tch) was recommended by a colleague, I thought, “Finally!”

As part of a county office team, I work with many school districts.  We regularly run across superintendents or board members who want to know, “How will classrooms look different in the Common Core era?”  Tch can help answer that question.  To start with, Tch has introductory videos the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) with a toolbox and an ongoing series of video conversations that address the stages and challenges of implementation.

The next highlight is the depth of videos they have on every subject (currently 155 in ELA and 113 in Math) that are broken down by grade level and concept. For example, I previewed a 2nd-3rd grade video on “number sense.” When you click on the lesson, the standards are highlighted and when you scroll over each standard, it details each beyond the number and header. This particular lesson has an 8 minute long video that focuses on the teacher leading a group of students through the lesson.

The teacher models a couple of ways to count to a specific number using counters, with students attentively watching. She asks questions and students come up to model how they might record their answers.  A quick check for understanding leads students into a group activity that was rich with academic vocabulary and mathematical conversations. The teacher moves around the room, working with small groups and asking probing questions that require the students to defend their thinking and math processes.

Grade level ranges are broken down into preK-2, 3-5, 6-8 and 9-12. The videos are also delineated by topics, ranging from student engagement to differentiation to digital literacy. And although the actual lesson plans are not provided, there is enough solid modeling in the videos that a novice teacher can pick up the particular lesson and run with it.  Likewise, a superintendent or board member—or anyone—can get a good look at how classrooms implementing CCSS are different.

Since much of my work in CCSS also focuses on the arts, I had to check out some of the 41 videos already created for the arts. I was pleasantly surprised to find the art lessons were tied to other core subjects, especially the ever-so-popular STEM (science, technology, engineering and math). From high school vocal warm-up techniques to kindergarten science/math/art animal patterns, even the arts have a central place in Tch. More importantly, the videos on Tch are rich with student engagement, conversation, clear instructional objectives that students articulate, and strong examples of formative assessments.

I have been most impressed with the reach of Tch. Check it out.

Tags: ,
Posted in Integration, Models, Professional development | 1 Comment »

Principals in the Cross Hairs

March 6th, 2013 by Michael Simkins

These two headlines, both from Education Week, crossed my desk today.  It was a poignant and instructive juxtaposition.  I spent years studying (and experiencing) teacher burnout.  I found that lack of control (perceived, anyway) was closely associated with burnout.  The current research cited lack or control as a key factor in principal frustration.

After 15 years as a teacher, I became a principal.  ”Wow,” I thought, “now I’ve got the power to make things happen.”

No and yes.  I found that despite my new, elevated position, I had far less power than I thought I would have.   Principal’s can dictate, surely; that doesn’t mean anyone has to abide by the dictates.  A principal’s real power comes from sharing it, from persuasion, from setting an example, from inspiring people.

It doesn’t surprise me that today’s principals are feeling frustrated; given the context in which they work, why wouldn’t they be?

Assuming that it make sense to run education as though it were a business—a debatable assumption—then of course we need a metric for the bottom line.  Test scores alone, however, are a poor surrogate for net profit.

Tags: ,
Posted in Leadership, Pondering | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries