Personalized Learning; Competency-based Education; Distance (On-line) Education

The buzzwords Personalized Learning, Competency-based Education, Distance (On-line) Education have become increasingly popular since the 1990's. In some circles, these are pejorative terms which when enacted to an extreme through the conduit of technology are perceived to threaten teachers and the teaching profession. Technology is often seen as the cause and by reference, technologists are therefore at fault. Here is an excellent article by Jennifer Carolan that rehashes the history of Personalized Learning and adds some reasonable perspective regarding the role of technology. Her last paragraph capsulizes the theme.

But personalization does not mean isolation, and it doesn't mean sitting our students down in front of laptops all day. Personalization is a strategy that allows us to adapt to the needs of all children, preferably after giving them a powerful, shared learning experience that motivates them to dive deeper. The best schools and ed-tech companies understand that technology and personalization are not the ends of education, but that they are merely means to help achieve higher goals—goals on which the health of our society and democracy depend.

We Work Together, But Test Alone

I am currently enrolled in a combined technology certifications course. Upon completion of a number of certification-targeted classroom instruction hours and after taking multiple practice tests, we, isolated from any and all digital and human resources (even our wallets and purses are not allowed), are subjected to an intense, time-regulated multiple choice test for each certification. To be fair, the tests include a few "simulations" which are little more than drag and drop exercises. The test questions are determined by the certification authority, proctored by an employee of the instructional organization, and administered remotely by Pearson VUE.

Two points:

• technology certification instruction. Think about that for a minute then visualize a standard 1980's classroom configuration. Add a computer on each desk. The instructor's desk is to the right front of the room so as not to block the information being projected from the overhead projector onto the screen at the front of the room. For the most part the instructor projects and reads from the certification authority's text interrupting only to address questions that are thankfully allowed at any point. Students may observe what is being read on the screen at the front of the room or follow along on their personal computers. The text does contain many reinforcing graphical representations. Periodically within the test are computer-based practical exercises that attempt to replicate the real thing using an artificial user interface that in itself requires familiarization. Infrequently (two in a two-month period) a half-day "lab" is conducted. The labs represent limited reality, e.g., setting up a network switch that is not connected to a network. Somehow what we've learned in the past 30 years about pedagogies, instructional technologies, and integrating technology into classrooms and curriculums have bypassed the exulted organizations that control technology certifications and those that instruct toward certification achievement.


• isolated from any and all digital and human resources. The work world is all about sharing, communicating, and collaborating. In a very long and varied career, I have only experienced one job wherein I was unable to correspond with or seek help from others in a timely manner. It was when I was a high school teacher. Not that help wasn't available overtime, just when most needed. Anyway, for the most part, the work world now expects, even demands, teamwork. Recently I read an article that in a sentence capsulized the way work success has evolved. "We all know who invented the light bulb but who invented the iPhone?" Yet we continue to test knowledge in isolation rather than performance within a group. The future lies in developing and administering team performance tests that also measure individual knowledge and collaborative acuity.

Educational Theories

Question: Why is teaching that relies solely on conventional didactic instructional strategies considered ineffective teaching? I was taught that way and achieved a Masters degree and consider myself to be at a somewhat higher than at an intermediate level of technological expertise.

Exactly what are we searching for? I wonder if is there is no there, there. Just seems as though every paradigm, theory and model proposed between then and now has had little if any positive influence on learning.

The Common Core and How to Teach

From the Illinois Board of Education website: The Common Core determines what educators should teach, not how they should teach. Teachers will continue to have the freedom to tailor lesson plans to the individual needs of their students. And from the Common Core Standards for Mathematics: These Standards do not dictate curriculum or teaching methods. (The example given is a permission to reorder topics!)

As we know, this is the mantra around which the non-educator-written Common Core was sold pushed. Most experienced educators know after a cursory review of but a few standards that this is the result of either a complete misunderstanding of pedagogy or a deliberate lie.

How is this not how?

Operations and Algebraic Thinking 1.OA

Represent and solve problems involving addition and subtraction.
1. Use addition and subtraction within 20 to solve word problems involving situations of adding to, taking from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all positions, e.g., by using objects, drawings, and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem.2

2. Solve word problems that call for addition of three whole numbers whose sum is less than or equal to 20, e.g., by using objects, drawings, and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem.

Understand and apply properties of operations and the relationship between addition and subtraction.
3. Apply properties of operations as strategies to add and subtract.3 Examples: If 8 + 3 = 11 is known, then 3 + 8 = 11 is also known. (Commutative property of addition.) To add 2 + 6 + 4, the second two numbers can be added to make a ten, so 2 + 6 + 4 = 2 + 10 = 12. (Associative property of addition.)

4. Understand subtraction as an unknown-addend problem. For example, subtract 10 – 8 by finding the number that makes 10 when added to 8.

Add and subtract within 20.
5. Relate counting to addition and subtraction (e.g., by counting on 2 to add 2).

6. Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 – 4 = 13 – 3 – 1 = 10 – 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 – 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).

Work with addition and subtraction equations.
7. Understand the meaning of the equal sign, and determine if equations involving addition and subtraction are true or false. For example, which of the following equations are true and which are false? 6 = 6, 7 = 8 – 1, 5 + 2 = 2 + 5, 4 + 1 = 5 + 2.

8. Determine the unknown whole number in an addition or subtraction equation relating three whole numbers. For example, determine the unknown number that makes the equation true in each of the equations 8 + ? = 11, 5 = � – 3, 6 + 6 = �.

How about this instead?
SLO: TASK: Add and subtract within 20; STANDARD: 100% accuracy; special needs TBD teacher.
SLO: TASK: Understand the meaning of the equal, plus and minus signs. STANDARD: 100%; special needs TBD teacher.

Terminator: Gynesis

Chart and verbiage from The Emerging Future.

"Eighteen to twenty years out, technological advancements will be hundreds of thousands to a million times more advanced. That makes our first 14 years of exponential growth seem flat-lined (no progress), when, in fact, it will be 4,000 times more advanced than today. We currently have regenerative medicine in clinical trials and consumer wireless computer-brain interfaces for $300. What will it be like in 20 years when technology is a million times better?"

Many serious and respected scientist and futurists predict that continuing technological advancements at the current rate will result in a technological singularity.

"The technological singularity is the hypothetical advent of artificial general intelligence (also known as "strong AI"). Such a computer, computer network, or robot would theoretically be capable of recursive self-improvement (redesigning itself), or of designing and building computers or robots better than itself. Repetitions of this cycle would likely result in a runaway effect — an intelligence explosion^[1][2] — where smart machines design successive generations of increasingly powerful machines, creating intelligence far exceeding human intellectual capacity and control. Because the capabilities of such a superintelligence may be impossible for a humans to comprehend, the technological singularity is an occurrence beyond which events may become unpredictable, unfavorable, or even unfathomable."

Scary and as of now at least, hypothetical and movie fodder, however, let's look out a mere five years:



What will be the impact on education? Technologies have already been created to give us the ability to:

• Regenerate our sick and aging bodies giving us healthy radical longevity


• Personal guidance


• Free energy


• Desktop fabricators


• An interactive intelligent environment


• Accident free autonomous transportation


• Embedded nano and micro intelligent systems in our body and environment


• Advanced cybernetic and bionic senses, organs, and limbs that are superior to our biological ones


• Poverty reduction tools to create worldwide abundance and then radical abundance


• Computer brain interfaces allowing for our intelligence to multiply millions of times


• Manipulate molecules and atoms


• The ability to live in space

And the following technologies are here today:  Sensors, nanotechnology medicine, quantum computing, bioinformatics, synthetic biology, robotics, nanobots, artificial organs and senses, ubiquitous knowledge, smart materials, open source software, IBM's Watson, Google search, Siri, Google assistant, computer-brain interfaces, telepresence robots, self-aware robots,3D printing, longevity escape velocity biotech, server farms (the cloud), microelectromechanical systems, smart phones, tablets, cybernetic limbs, medical tricorders, personal genome, genetic analysis, genomic engineering, proteomics, exoskeletons, autonomous machines (cars, planes, insects, rats, birds, weapons, etc.), gene therapy, desktop sequencers, regenerative medicine (regenerating, growing, and printing human body organs), computer made synthetic life, interactive surfaces, Google's Project Glass, Google Fiber, augmented reality, cryogenics, repurposed drugs, nanotubes, nano-shells, nanoviricides, and smart, interactive, and energy producing walls, floors, countertops, mirrors, doors, and windows.

What this last graph means is that your eighth-grade student, by the time she graduates from high school will be facing a higher education technological world that is 32 times more advanced than the one she knows today. Exactly how are educators expected to predict and educate students to such a world? And by the time our eighth-grader graduates college and is expected to perform in the real world, she will be in a world of technology that is 500 times more advanced than today's. How does one prepare a student to compete in a global marketplace that has been so dramatically changed by technology?

4 Questions to Ask about Your Lesson, Unit or Activity

From the dangerously!irrelevant blog:

1. Deeper learning. Did it allow students to go beyond factual recall and procedural regurgitation and be creative, collaborative, critical thinkers and problem-solvers? Did it really? [If not, why not? Our graduates need to be deeper learners and doers so that they can add value beyond what search engines, Siri, and YouTube already can do.]


2. Student agency. Did it allow students to drive their own learning rather than being heavily teacher-directed? Did it really? [If not, why not? Our graduates need to be autonomous, self-directed, lifelong learners so that they can reskill and adapt in a rapidly changing world.]


3. Authentic work. Did it allow students to be engaged with and/or make a contribution to the world outside the school walls? Did it really? [If not, why not? Our graduates need to be locally- and globally-active so that they can be positive citizens and contributors to both their community and the larger world.]


4. Digital tools. Did it allow students to use digital learning tools to enhance their learning beyond traditional analog affordances? Did it really? [If not, why not? Our graduates need to be digitally fluent so that they can effectively navigate our technology-suffused information, economic, and learning landscapes.]

What percentage of the learning occurring in your school system would simultaneously satisfy at least two of the above (2Q)? At least three of the above (3Q) for a triple win? All four (4Q) for the quadruple win?

Blended Learning: Is Rhode Island's Future the Future in Education?

An excellent discussion of blended learning in Rhode Island here.

Highlights:

To be successful, experts agree, a blended learning program needs to have a clearly articulated vision from its educational leadership, the right technological tools and an in-depth professional development program for teachers.

...a growing need for more and better “curation” of the best ed-tech tools, programs and approaches. That way, teachers wouldn’t have to spend hours experimenting and trying to keep up with the exploding marketplace for blended learning, and could focus more on their students.

Blended learning can provide teachers with crucial feedback that enables them to intervene with greater precision and effectiveness and customize learning for their students.

Technology is just a tool for teaching and learning, not an end unto itself. Learning can be messy. Not all learning is linear and students have different needs and ways of communicating what they can do and what they don’t know. There is no technological substitute for the judgment of a good teacher.

Technology also can’t replace an educational vision. What are your goals? Are you trying to close achievement gaps? Are you emphasizing project-based learning? Are you trying to develop entrepreneurs? How are you using technology to help achieve those goals?

Right now, any teacher who is running blended learning well is managing a huge workload. The work is not sustainable for all, and many of our current classroom teachers can’t or won’t put in the hours necessary to run their classroom this way, especially if they don’t see tangible benefits to doing so.

State and district leaders must figure out ways to mobilize and organize collaboratively so that we can source both content and assessments with and for classroom teachers. Ed-tech products can be partners in this work, but ultimately the system must have local buy-in and local ownership if it’s going to stick.

It’s not enough to promote the expansion of blended classrooms; we must also equip teachers with the proper tools to make their systems manageable.

We need our building leaders to be driving blended learning change, which requires that superintendents take time-consuming administrative tasks off their plates so that principals can devote more energy to the shift to blended learning.

We also have to do a better job gathering data on how well these technologies are actually working.

Problem-Based Learning (PBL)

Problem-Based Learning Explained for Teachers

I consider articles like the above to be insulting--like we didn't know. Like technology, PBL will be used by teachers when appropriate. Those who don't consider its use are just lazy, not unknowing. Personally, I prefer "Project-based Learning" as being more inclusive. The book references, however, are good for in-depth looks into PBL.

3rd Graders Spend 75% of Day on iPads--Good or Bad?

Glued to the Screen: Inside a 3rd Grade Classroom Where Kids Spend 75% of the Day on iPads

What digital learning looks like when third-graders use it all day in one suburban district.

By Gail Robinson / The Hechinger Report

June 23, 2015

[Many interesting comments at below site.]

31 COMMENTS

 INEOLA, N.Y. — When the 24 third-graders in Morgan Mercaldi’s class arrive at the Jackson Avenue School every morning, they take their iPads out of their backpacks and put them on their desks. The tablets will remain there, or in hands and laps, until the children put them in their packs to take them home.

Last year Mercaldi had her students stash the iPads away when they weren’t using them. But she has abandoned that. “Putting them away serves no purpose. We use them constantly,” Mercaldi says.

Mercaldi’s class in Mineola, N.Y., is in the fifth year of a district initiative that now provides iPads to all students in grades three through nine. At Jackson Avenue, which houses the third and fourth grades, all 417 children, including those in special education, have their own tablets, and they spend about 75 percent of their instructional day on the devices, more than many other schools that have embraced digital learning.

Despite a lack of hard data on how digital learning affects student achievement, Mineola, a fairly affluent New York City suburb, is betting heavily on technology to help children meet an array of tough Common Core standards. By embracing iPads while keeping the traditional model of one teacher working with 20-some children, the small school district offers a vision of what the future of digital learning might be.

Here’s a typical day in a third-grade classroom.

10 – 11:20 a.m.

At around 10 a.m. on a late-winter day, Mercaldi’s students sit scattered around the sunny classroom, some at their desks, some perched on a shelf running along one wall and some on the bright blue rug. All the children have their iPads out as they read and do English language arts exercises. Many use eSpark, which creates a “playlist” of education apps geared to each student’s needs.

After about 25 minutes, Mercaldi calls the students together to revise the first-person pieces about frogs that they each researched and wrote. Like so much in the class, the assignment has had digital and paper elements. Mercaldi’s students received their iPads in October, and now move smoothly from pencil to touch screen and from paper to tablet. The children did their frog research both online and in books, organized the materials on their iPads, and did their writing on paper.

Now, Mercaldi tells the students to begin revising their narratives. “I want you to work on communication skills with a partner,” she says. The children leave their iPads on their desks and sit on the floor in two concentric circles. Working in pairs, they alter words in their texts. One suggests changing “scary” to “frightening”; another, “animal” to “creature.”

At 10:45 a.m., after a short snack break, the students take out their iPads for the first of several math lessons that Mercaldi will sprinkle throughout the day. Today, the main topic is finding the area of rectangles and the multiplication needed to do that.

As Mercaldi stands at a large interactive whiteboard, the children follow along on their tablets, trying to figure out the area of a 7-by-13 rectangle. “Do we know 7 times 13 just like that?” she asks the students. Most agree they do not, and so break the number down, eventually coming up with 3 times 7 plus 10 times 7.

Staying with math, the students then use their iPads to answer questions Mercaldi has posted on Edmodo, which helps students and teachers communicate electronically and lets Mercaldi see the children’s answers. (Last year Mercaldi used regular email and was bombarded with messages. She finds Edmodo “more efficient … a little more teacher-student.”) Reviewing the students’ work, Mercaldi says, lets her assess whether every child is meeting the standards and, if not, where he or she needs help.

Now in her second year with the iPads and her seventh year as a teacher, Mercaldi seems unfazed by the technology. “I kind of grew up with technology. It’s the future,” she says.

Most children also seem comfortable with the devices. “I have one at home but I was excited to get it at school because I thought it would be an interesting experience,” Brianna DiVirgilio says.

11:20 a.m. – 12:55 p.m.

When students finish their math questions, they can move on — to reading on eSpark, working on an app or watching a video. Then, at around 11:20, the class divides again, this time into four groups, each designated by a color. The group assignments are geared to the students’ individual levels and what they need to know. One group reads with Mercaldi. The other three do lessons on their iPads: one on eSpark, one answering language arts questions on Edmodo and the third on MobyMax, a provider of electronic curricula.

The students seem to like MobyMax the best because it begins every day’s task with a joke. While the technology may be new, the gags aren’t (“What has four wheels and flies?”). The children also like the badges — usually a nature photograph — that they get when they answer a set of questions correctly.

At Mercaldi’s prompting, three girls explain how they made videos about the imaginary organizations all the students created: Clothes Court, Rockin’ Socks and Shoes and Books for Reading. The videos are accessible by scanning a QR code with a mobile device.

A couple of boys are big fans of a drawing app. Demonstrating how it creates various visual effects, Brendan Ludwig observes, “You can do all the basics. You can make a perfect house, and if you want to make changes, you don’t have to delete it.”

With two dozen third-graders using all these apps and programs, technical glitches are inevitable. One girl discovers that the camera on her device is not activated, something Mercaldi promises to fix.

Working on MobyMax, Angelica Moreira cannot call up the math quiz she wants. Other children try to help her, something the school encourages. “We teach the kids how to troubleshoot,” Jackson Avenue principal Janet Gonzalez says. “Some of the kids are teaching the teacher.”

In the meantime, Angelica selects new backgrounds for her tablet. “I do this a lot while I wait around,” she says. But even after her new wallpaper is in place, the quiz will not load. Eventually someone realizes that MobyMax is preventing Angelica from trying a second quiz too soon after taking the first.

Despite being so-called digital natives, the students vary in how expert they are on the iPads and how much they like them. “Some people know more than other people on the iPad and they get jealous,” says Joshua Parr. Joseph Parrino has had trouble with the iPad’s flat electronic keyboard — “my fingers slip,” he explains — and so has brought a plug-in keyboard from home. And several children say they prefer old-fashioned books to the digital alternative.

By 11:40 it’s time for the second of the day’s math lessons, a drill — Mercaldi calls it a “sprint” — in which the students use paper and pencils to rapidly solve a series of problems, this time involving number patterns. After that, they will break for lunch.

12:55 – 2:30 p.m.

Shortly before 1 p.m., the children return from lunch for another math lesson and open their paper workbooks to exercises on finding the area of a rectangle. At Mercaldi’s urging, the students offer various strategies for the same problem. “Use what works,” she says.

After several students depart for music class, those left behind alternate between iPads and paper to solve problems about rectangles and the properties of multiplication.

The tablet has one advantage with the children. “They’re engaged and they like it; it doesn’t seem like a job,” Mercaldi says. But the device also can be too much of a good thing. “It can’t consume their every day,” she says, adding, “The hardest thing was finding the balance.” In general, she tries to take the students off an app after 20 minutes. With several hours during the school day on the iPads, plus homework time and other afterschool use, it’s not hard to imagine that some Jackson Avenue students may look at their tablets for six hours or more a day.

The day’s math lessons end with a problem set, to be done on the iPads. Most students come to the rug to work on the questions with Mercaldi and the other children. A few, though, go it alone. Mercaldi tells the children to list all possible rectangles with an area of 48 square centimeters and to consider what the various shapes might look like.

“When the numbers are closer, don’t they kind of look like squares?” Brianna proposes.

Once they have completed their work and submitted it to Mercaldi, the children can read on eSpark. One boy, though, finds something more enticing to call up on his screen: “Road Crossing.” Some students quickly call him out — “Isn’t that a game?” one asks. Mercaldi picks up on the buzz and asks the boy what he’s doing. Caught, he answers, “I’m playing a game.”

While some parents may have had qualms about giving young children access to the web, Gonzalez says there have been surprisingly few difficulties. The students clearly know the situation: “If you do stuff that’s bad on it, you can have it taken away,” they say.

The day’s final lesson has the children gathered on or around the rug with their iPads for a science class on climate and seasons. Mineola is in the midst of a severe cold spell, and the students chatter with the teacher about this. As that dies out, Mercaldi takes up a reading that is posted on the whiteboard, and the children follow along on their tablets. The text has lots of information and complicated vocabulary, so Mercaldi offers tips. “I would definitely use highlighter to mark something interesting or something you learned,” she advises.

Once they have completed reading the passage, Mercaldi challenges the children to write down something interesting from the reading and to post on Edmodo a picture of the climate zone where they would like to live. She advises anyone who’s not certain of the assignment to take a picture of the whiteboard.

“Can I send you back to your seats? Can you do this without talking? Then you’ll earn three marbles,” she tells them. Students can cash in the marbles for purchases at a classroom store or for a class prize (the children have chosen unstructured tablet time).

The posting of the pictures is a bit slow, and they overlap one another when Mercaldi tries to put them on the whiteboard. She pledges to return to the project the next day. Now it is 2:40, and the children pack up their iPads. It’s time for a hockey game in the gym, and, for now at least, there is no app for that.

Gail Robinson is a Brooklyn-based writer specializing in education and other public policy issues. She is the former editor in chief of Gotham Gazette.

The Advance of Technology

After reading the paragraph below, read the entire article, then, assuming Ray to be correct, try to envision and describe education in 2030.

"The Law of Accelerating Returns

"March 7, 2001 by Ray Kurzweil

"An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential to the common-sense 'intuitive linear' view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21sst century--it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The 'returns,' such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity--technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light."

From <http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns>

Too Much or Not Enough High-Tech in Classrooms

NOTE: I use the term "high technology" to recognize the many non-digital forms of technology, e.g., the printed word, ball-point pens, etc.

This raging debate has been pretty much overshadowed by Common Core and high-stakes testing, but I believe we should revisit it periodically rather than just going with the flow which appears to be the status quo. Lacking definitive research we still forge ahead spending big bucks. "Just what if technology really does enhance learning?" "Do I, the teacher, the administrator, the board member, want to be responsible for denying students opportunities to achieve, gain a college degree, get a good job, succeed in the future digital world?" The answer: "We can't take the chance, we must spend the money." Or as is in many one-to-one schools, "We will dictate a BYOD policy and let the parents/guardians spend the money." Maybe we don't need to speed up, slow or stop the momentum, maybe we need allow the direction of the technology momentum to be guided by the practitioners, the teachers.

SmithSystem.com does a fairly good job of capturing the more common valid reasons behind too much or too little (http://smithsystem.com/smithfiles/2014/10/20/classroom-technology-much-enough/). Reasoning for more: eBooks, post-school tech use, gaming develops spatial skills and inductive reasoning, collaboration/communication, deeper engagement/broader learning, teacher tools, and support for PLEs. Reasoning for less: meaningful engagement comes from people, too much too soon, distracting, cost and obsolescence, taxes teachers' expertise, and classroom management. I can agree with both sides.

So my answer (too much, too little?) is both. We are all aware of the technology resource "gap" between wealthy and poor community schools. (A short aside: this gap also exists within Catholic schools systems, particularly in urban areas where many schools are dependent on donors for the majority of their technology resources.) This is without doubt a too little situation. I don't pretend to have an answer regarding how to close this gap without spreading the wealth which would mean lowering the amount of technology available to wealthier schools in order to raise the amount of technology available to poorer schools. Or without increasing taxes. Either solution requires more big government involvement, ala Common Core and high-stakes testing and I'm a firm believer in locally controlled schools, among most other things.

We are also aware, although we seldom admit, that gaps exist among teachers within even the better-resourced schools. Recent research points out that the teacher gap is not so much due to age and the digital native/digital immigrant thing but more to the pedagogical maturity and content adeptness of teachers. And that the gap is not so much regarding how much technology is in play but more so about how successful it is employed whatever the level of integration. In short, well-grounded teachers, if allowed, do their homework, select and implement the technology that works best for them. That's not an easy chore. There are many hardware choices and tens of thousands of educational apps and applications. Each teacher can't vet them all and obviously a certain amount of standardization is necessary. The standardization should occur at the lowest possible economically viable level but no higher than school level. Full collaboration among all stakeholders is essential. Technology budgets should be built from the bottom up beginning with individual teachers. Teachers should have full reign over the software applied within their classrooms. Again, not easy decisions, however, help is available through PLCs; individualized, non-workshop-based PD (please!); the Internet; mentorship; and the technology department.

The Changed Roles of the School/District Tech Director/Manager

Ten years ago, the guy in charge of IT had a relatively non-collaborative and straightforward job. Broadly we were responsible for the traditional management functions of planning, organizing, leading and controlling. Specifically we oversaw the procurement, installation and repair of hardware and software, the network and servers. We seldom interfaced with faculty and staff other than to take direction, respond to service requests or request funding. Given the hundreds of tasks involved in successfully performing those functions, we were busy and, if we were lucky enough to have them, our staffs were busy.

The truth has changed. What we do less of and what we do more of, more or less cancels each other out. We still are very, very busy. In most institutions, we are well beyond integrating technology into our classrooms (provisioning with operable computers and interactive whiteboards). A major change, the main goal of the modern IT director/manager, is to facilitate (read "manage") the successful integration of technology into the curriculum, instructional units, lesson plans and learning activities. The ideal approach is through coaching/mentoring, professional development and learning communities. A great discussion about these approaches is at the Center for Public Education website. I couldn't say it better but I will emphasize that we're not talking about traditional workshop-based professional development, which as been shown by numerous studies to be ineffective. Please read the article.

Other affective truths are the changes (I hesitate to use "advancements"--I'll wait for validated results) in educational technology, the students, and pedagogies including:  the shift toward mobile technologies; cloud computing (SaaS -software as a service; PaaS-platform as a service; and IaaS-infrastructure as a service); all students are now "digital natives", many being technologically sophisticated; open source software; the need to ensure that students remain familiar with technologies that they might be using after school; learning management systems (LMS) (e.g. Moodle); online courses (MOOC); staying ahead of the available apps and software to support each content area; one-on-one computing in the classroom; bring your own device (BYOD); the flipped classroom; blended learning; learning partnerships; game enhanced learning; project-based learning; peer teaching; brain-based learning; differentiated instruction; just-in-time teaching; deep learning (whatever that is); etc.

Educational technology changes are accompanied by fear and operational and resource problems: privacy, security, safety, available band width, available funding, qualified technicians, committed administrators and board members, and push back to name a few. The technology manager/director must become an expert in change management and an integral part of the change planning and execution team. As technology becomes more infused into administrative and management functions, the curriculum, instructional units, lesson plans and learning activities, the more involved the educational technologist should be.

instaGrok - a better search/research tool

I've not been a big fan of introducing apps into education that are not readily transferable to life after school. There are exceptions when the apps promote age appropriateness and significantly facilitate the learning process. After an initial review, I believe instaGrok does both especially in a 1:1 program coupled with a partial flipped classroom environment.

www.instagrok.com

What is instaGrok?

instaGrok is an educational Internet search engine and research tool that provides a visual mind map of  themes related to search keywords wherein users can:

• customize the map by drilling down into the mind map and virtually pin web sites, facts, videos and more


• take notes in a  journal and create an instant bibliography (EasyBib)


• self-assess


• share work

Why instaGrok?

Self-discovery & self-learning = skills

• Search becomes research


• Facilitates critical thinking (concept synthesis)


• Enhances writing & vocabulary


• Promotes academic language


• Systems perspective (see the connections)


• Safe – age-appropriate academic web orientation

 



 

 

Tech Integration - A Step-By-Step Process

SAMR



A Google search yields more than a hundred graphical interpretations of SAMR, some as simple as Dr. Puentedura's original concept depicted above to those that appear overwhelmingly complicated.  There are models combining SAMR with TPACK, TPAC with Bloom's Taxonomy and here's one combining SAMR with Bloom's Taxonomy and iPad apps.



Many of these expanded models lend guidance regarding why integration is essential and provide broad nebulous outcome expectations: critical thinking; communications; collaboration; 21st Century skills; problem solving; systems thinking; creativity; innovation; literacy in a multitude of subjects; analyzing, etc.   Is it possible that integrating technology is so complex as to defy a logical procedure? Maybe, but I'd like to give it a shot.

The process described below assumes adequate to superior teacher pedagogical, content, technological, student and curricular knowledge; that the teacher is ready to cross from Enhancement to Transformation; the availability of sufficient hardware, software and technical support staff to support a robust integration program; and that the teacher possesses the abilities to convert knowledge into practice and a desire that students achieve to an identified standard. Could it be that achieving a state as describe by the assumptions is complex and not the process?

1. Is there a need, a shortcoming that needs to be addressed? Examples might include students aren't getting it, students are bored, discussions wane quickly or are captured by a select few or changes in policies or curriculum.


2. Review learning goals and activities in consideration of the available technologies (if class is in session, this is a good student collaborative exercise) relating the advantages and disadvantages of each technology to each of the learning goals and activities. Scaling works well for this analysis. Identify any cross-curricular opportunities. The results of this analysis will facilitate the designing or redesigning of course and lesson instructional strategies.


3. Prepare the classroom: hardware, software, classroom furniture and arrangement.


4. Execute and continually evaluate and revise. Adjustments may be needed in any one or more of the ingredients: pedagogy, learning goals or technology. Beware the Hawthorne effect. Oft times initially the subjects perceive increased attention being paid to them thus producing a significant (maybe unrealistic) enhancement to transformation of performance. Persistent and consistent use will yield real long-term student and teacher change.

Do We Need to Revisit Why Once in a While

The following is the introductory paragraph to Steve Wheeler's 2/28/15 blog (http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com/2015/02/talking-tech.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FcYWZ+%28Learning+with+%27e%27s%29)"

"Do teachers have a choice about whether to engage with technology? Technology is already so embedded in the fabric of schools, it's probably unavoidable now. Whether it's teacher technology, including wordprocessors, electronic record keeping or databases, or student technology, such as laptops, educational software or personal devices, technology should now be viewed as a set of tools that can be harnessed to extend, enhance and enrich the learning experience. Add the exponential power of the Web into the mix, and the argument becomes compelling. Technology offers us unprecedented opportunities to transform education. The question is not whether teachers should engage with technology, but how."

I believe we may be so far into technology integration (infusion?) that most in education no longer question "whether" or why. As with any program, plan or procedure, technology integration needs a periodic is this worth the time, expense and effort? review. Dr. Puentedura's SAMR model, for example, seems to assume that before student learning is significantly positively impacted the teacher must redesign, or better, create new learning tasks using technology. Is the corollary to that assumption that deep student learning cannot be achieved without technology? Do all courses and classes need to be transformed through technology integration? Would it be possible for students to become successful in the 21st Century and develop a life-long love of learning if, say, only 60% of the their classes were infused with technology and 40% were taught by experienced, determined and engaging teachers who loved their students and subject areas? What about a 20:80 or an 80:20 split? Would any of those be more or less successful than 100% and how would we know?

I would venture to say that the majority of K-12 professional development programs focus on technology integration rather than pedagogy in general and that most are of the workshop model, a method shown repeatedly to produce poor results. As with the multitude of teaching strategies, methods, and skills technology is just one tool. PD programs need to be planned and orchestrated through learning communities, teacher facilitated, focused on method implementation and targeted toward individual teacher needs. This means one-to-one or very small group sessions and whole lot of classroom coaching and mentoring.

TPACK

I became interested in the TPACK model before it became popular outside the elevated level of "higher education". It was then called TCPK but the acronym opened into the same terms rearranged, Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge. with, what is obvious now-a-days, the center of the "framework" representing the intersection of the three knowledges as the ideal. The founding professors derived the framework from their work with faculty in higher education with the intent to broaden teacher preparation curricula. The concept naturally lends itself to teaching and learning at all levels and some would say has placed a significant burden on the already practicing K-12 bunch.

The question that keeps coming to mind is one regarding what pedagogical knowledge is. According to Koehler (one of the architects of the framework), pedagogical knowledge can be defined as "a generic form of knowledge that is involved in all issues of student learning, classroom management, lesson plan development and implementation, and student evaluation. It includes knowledge about techniques or methods to be used in the classroom; the nature of the target audience; and strategies for evaluating student understanding. A teacher with deep pedagogical knowledge understands how students construct knowledge and acquire skills; develop habits of mind and positive dispositions towards learning." Does it not seem then that an educator with some depth of pedagogical knowledge would inherently possess sufficient technological and content knowledge? Why the need to remove technological and content knowledge from pedagogical knowledge? I can only surmise that framework assumes a less broad definition of pedagogical knowledge than that defined by Koehler. I find other definitions to be even broader to the point of nebulousness but none narrower.

I conclude that then the essence and value of the TPACK is that teachers need to know how to teach, know about what they are teaching and know about technologies applicable to the subject matter being taught. But knowledge is passive. What is missing is instruction and guidance as to how to put it all together to the benefit of the learning experience. Since the first letter in the framework represents technological knowledge one would think that teachers should start with the available technologies and work these then into the subject matter and pedagogy. This is how we integrated technology into the classroom during 2000's and it proved not to be very successful. Execution must begin with planning and the planning must begin with the learning goals and activities in the content area and then the teacher selects the digital tools from available resources consistent with her/his methods and style that will best help the teacher and students meet the learning goals.

Just One Philosophy of Teaching...

or is it more a philosophy of learning?

I guess I am philosophically a constructivist or constructionist if you will. As pedagogy, constructivism appeals to me intellectually and practically and I make every effort to facilitate the learning experience according to those broad tenets. That is how I learn and that is how I prefer to be taught but I also respect the need for others to learn differently. I strive to develop a positive and open learning environment, to guide students toward understanding and developing their own learning styles and philosophies and to help them realize their potential as active, reflective, and evolving critical thinkers. However, on occasion, hopefully only when the situation dictates, I tend to revert to a more didactic approach, the result of my military experience, I am sure, wherein understanding often took a backseat to rote process memorization and practice. I find that this approach has its benefits, especially when teaching technology applications and processes which frequently involve sequential exactness.

My mantra when facilitating technology professional development sessions is that the key to enhancing student achievement lies at the confluence of curricular content, differential pedagogies and technology integration--that the interoperability of these three elements will foster engaged learning, encourage students to accept accountability and responsibility for their own education and consequently prepare them for success in the 21st Century. I believe that and I believe that my enthusiasm for learning, developing authentic, engaging curricula, customizing my teaching style to fit the situation and student and integrating appropriate technological tools has allowed me to have a long-term positive effect on students. It has taken me a while to figure out how to combine these. As a technology teacher, initially I naturally began by focusing on the technology (the tool) and proceeded to integrate the content into the technology. When I was teaching word processing, for example, the focus would be on the application--"click here," "click there"--and not on purposeful output. The tool (technology) was driving my teaching. I have long since learned that the focus belongs on communicating through writing and that the learning process should provide students with opportunities to express themselves by way of various technology tools. The results are exciting and rewarding. I am a firm believer in project-based learning. I experience great satisfaction from facilitating and encouraging students as they experience realistic self-discovery successes yet I remain aware of my obligation to guide them in their journey toward discovery of self.

More broadly, my extra-curricular goals as a teacher include helping students learn to be authentic, to accept who they are, to find the right career, to hold life, learning and their faith as precious, and to make the right choices. Students bring varying and rich cultures and experiences to the classroom. As a teacher, I believe that not only I am obligated to celebrate and build upon these cultural and experiential platforms but to help students to go beyond in order to develop a multicultural word view. As St. John Bosco wrote, "Instruction is but an accessory, like a game; knowledge never makes a man because it does not directly touch the heart. It gives more power in the exercise of good or evil; but alone it is an indifferent weapon, wanting guidance."