Repost: America's High School Graduates Look Like Other Countries High School Dropouts

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/03/10/469831485/americas-high-school-graduates-look-like-other-countries-high-school-dropouts

Wi-Fi Troubleshooting

Most of the time Wi-Fi works and it's wonderful! A bit slower than cable all-around yet, wonderful! However, frustratingly, at one time or another we all have Wi-Fi issues: can't turn on Wi-Fi no matter how hard or fast you press that wireless key; maybe not being able to connect to the Internet; showing only a partial connection and not being able to reach a particular site; etc. It can be mysterious. Over at Wirednot, Lee Bradman has posted a wonderful little schematic that not only depicts what all is involved with Wi-Fi but lays out the considerations that need to be taken into account during troubleshooting what appears to be a Wi-Fi problem.  It also makes very clear that once you reach the access point you're out of the wireless environment, at least locally. This is not intended to bypass standard troubleshooting steps: 1) identify the problem; 2) establish a theory of probable cause; 3) test the theory to determine cause; 4) establish a plan of action to resolve the problem and identify potential effects; 5) implement the solution or escalate as necessary; 6) verify full system functionality and if applicable implement preventive measures; and 7) document findings, actions, and outcomes. The process is fairly standard regardless of occupation or profession. Lee's little graphic puts it into a technology networking framework. As you step through the standard troubleshooting process, here's most of the stuff you need to consider.

Too Much Ed Tech Too Frequently?

The following is an RSS Feed Reader snip from the Educational Technology and Mobile Learning (http://www.educatorstechnology.com/) site encompassing but the past six days.

Your school just might be well enough funded to have implemented 1 to 1 classrooms or maybe just a legacy computer lab or two, or maybe tablet carts or four or five static tablets assigned to each classroom. Many might still be saddled with ancient slow and cumbersome desktops. (Aside note: I remember a time [the late 80's] when I lugged my "portable" 30-pound computer with two 5-1/4" floppy disk drives back and forth to work daily using a luggage carrier.) Surely whatever devices on campus, all have access to the Internet and every faculty member has a laptop, notebook or tablet device. No? Whatever the case someone or someones has the explicit, or worse, the implicit task of vetting new educational apps, websites, browser add-ons, templates, ed tech tools, hardware, and all  stuff ed tech. Considering that these 60 some educational technology "things" above are from only one website, we can be assured that every six days produces many, many more, probably thousands. Who vets, recommends, budgets and buys ed tech stuff at your institution? Is it the administrators, the teachers, the IT guys, the education-technology integrator/coordinator, the cleaning crew? Who or what group would ever even have the time to visit each website and blog then look up and read a summary about each new thing. Does anyone even care that new and fabulous ed tech stuff, eminently capable of propelling students forward by at least two grades, goes on the market every day? What criteria is used? Do the teacher-users and student-user have input to decisions?ed tech tools, hardware, and all stuff ed tech. Considering that these 60 some educational technology "things" above are from only one website, we can be assured that every six days produces many, many more, probably thousands. Who vets, recommends, budgets and buys ed tech stuff at your institution? Is it the administrators, the teachers, the IT guys, the education-technology integrator/coordinator, the cleaning crew? Who or what group would ever even have the time to visit each website and blog then look up and read a summary about each new thing. Does anyone even care that new and fabulous ed tech stuff, eminently capable of propelling students forward by at least two grades, goes on the market every day? What criteria is used? Do the teacher-users and student-user have input to decisions?

Change Management and Technology

Two environments: 1) organization leadership is satisfied with the technology status quo; 2) organization leadership desires to update technology.

In the former environment, there is little the technology manager can do other than to promote the need for updating by relating the advances the competition is making and demonstrating the advantages of updating. In the later environment, senior management, having made the decision to update, often gives the tech manager very little time to execute and "incremental" is seldom not part of the discussion. The tech manager can alleviate the time crunch issue over time by continual planning (strategic and tactical) and frequently collaborating, communicating and presenting. Salesmanship is definitely a plus. In any case, you can be sure that there will be end user resistance and that some degree of change management will be required to implement the update(s).

As we all know, changes in technology tend to reverberate throughout entire organizations. Most, if not all, departmental processes are affected. Many policies and procedures may need to be rewritten. Of course, training to some or more extent will be required. Technology changes are seldom silent and invisible. New or significantly updated technologies tend to create fear. Okay, maybe mostly just apprehension but some will literally be scared. Change is stressful especially when it has the potential of affecting livelihoods. Leadership early on must do it best belay the fears and apprehension. Will I lose my job? Will my position be downgraded with less pay? Will my hours be reduced? Will I be able to learn to use the technology? The IT manager gives guidance to leadership and encouragement to employees as possible during this phase.

The IT manager has his/her own apprehensions revolving around whether the new technology will work and whether she/he can pull off a smooth implementation. It is best to follow a change management process of your choosing, one that fits your leadership style and organizational culture. There are many available. I am a proponent of the eight-step change process developed by John P. Kotter, the Konosuke Matsushita Professor of Leadership, Emeritus at the Harvard Business School. Here is a general outline of the process. More and deeper information can be found at the Kotter International website.

1. ESTABLISHING A SENSE OF URGENCY
   
   
   
   • Top leaders must describe an opportunity that will appeal to individuals’ heads and hearts and use this statement to raise a large, urgent army of volunteers.
   
   
   
   


2. CREATING THE GUIDING COALITION
   
   
   
   • Putting together a group with enough power to lead the change. A volunteer army needs a coalition of effective people — coming from its own ranks — to guide it, coordinate it and communicate its activities.
   
   
   
   


3. FORM A STRATEGIC VISION AND INITIATIVES
   
   
   
   • Creating a vision to help direct the change effort and developing strategies for achieving that vision. Dr. Kotter defines strategic initiatives as targeted and coordinated "activities that, if designed and executed fast enough and well enough, will make your vision a reality."
   
   
   
   


4. ENLIST A VOLUNTEER ARMY
   
   
   
   • Using every vehicle possible to constantly communicate the new vision and strategies. Having the guiding coalition role model the behavior expected of employees. Large-scale change can only occur when very significant numbers
     of employees amass under a common opportunity and drive in the same direction.
   
   
   
   


5. ENABLE ACTION BY REMOVING BARRIERS (empowering people to effect change) By removing barriers such as inefficient processes or hierarchies, leaders provide the freedom necessary for employees to work across boundaries.
   
   
   
   
   • Getting rid of obstacles (training, training, training)
   
   
   • Changing systems or structures that undermine the change vision
   
   
   • Encouraging risk taking and non-traditional ideas, activities & actions
   
   
   • Engage employees as partners
   
   
   • Provide people with the opportunity to plan for and take action
   
   
   
   


6. GENERATING SHORT-TERM WINS - Wins are the molecules of results. They must be collected, categorized,
   and communicated — early and often — to track progress and energize your volunteers to drive change.
   
   
   
   • Planning for visible improvements in performance, or “wins”
   
   
   • Creating those wins
   
   
   • Visibly recognizing and rewarding people who made wins possible
   
   
   
   


7. SUSTAIN ACCELERATION
   
   
   
   • Change leaders must adapt quickly in order to maintain their speed. Whether it's a new way of finding talent or removing misaligned processes, they must determine what can be done — every day — to stay the course towards the vision.
   
   
   • Using increased credibility to change systems, structures, and policies that don’t fit together and don’t fit the vision
   
   
   • Hiring, promoting and developing people who can implement the change vision
   
   
   • Develop people and projects to carry on the change vision throughout the organization
   
   
   
   


8. INSTITUTE CHANGE
   
   
   
   • To ensure new behaviors are repeated over the long-term, it's important that you define and communicate the connections between these behaviors and the organization's success.
   
   
   • Creating better performance through customer- and productivity-oriented behavior, more and better leadership, & more effective leadership.
   
   
   • Articulating the connections between new behaviors and organizational success.
   
   
   • Developing means to ensure leadership development and succession.
   
   
   
   

Of course, before initiating these steps the tech manager has to have performed her/his due diligence: selecting the right technology (maybe more than one initially); networking with other users in similar organizations; and, her/his due diligence: selecting the right technology (maybe more than one initially); networking with other users in similar organizations; and, probably most important, collaborating with key employees; key operational supervisors, senior management, maintenance personnel, and cross-departmental staff.

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.

The Various Aspects of Educational Technology Support & Integration

There was a time when performing as a Director of Information Technology I realized that educational technology support demands could and should be categorized so as to better prioritize, organize and focus technology staff and efforts. I came up with four distinct categories and a subcategory: 1-the interactive education learning process; 2-the unilateral learning process; 3-technology as a separate content area; and 4-school administration and management. Faculty/staff technology profession development is a subcategory integral of the four categories. These can be readily integrated into the ITIL framework. Note that the focus, while on the institution, does not address the constant back room support required to keep the systems running smoothly.

Faculty/staff technology professional development. I believe that if anything has held back classroom/curriculum technology integration, student self-directed learning and efficient use of school administration and learning management software, it is the insufficiency of technology professional development.  I would encourage establishment of a technology professional development program that took into account the personal situations, learning styles and instructional needs of each teacher/staff member and one that included a teacher/staff/administrator individual learning plan agreement consistent with the school’s mission, goals, objectives and budgetary constraints while maximizing use of internal expertise (technologists and teacher/staff-technology leaders from within teacher learning communities and staff offices). Though research has shown that traditional, workshop-based professional development is ineffective, I would not hesitate to lobby the administration, board and community for additional funding to take advantage of select commercial programs that have a proven track record. A bit of aside gripe coming. Remember when Microsoft Office switched from the traditional menu interface to the "ribbon"? Or when your administrators pushed to change out the teachers' desktops for laptops? Or when the Board decided to implement a one-to-one computing program in the next school year? Yep, the techies were expected to develop change management skills overnight, design appropriate instructional sessions and execute.

Given finite technology resources, the interactive learning process should be the highest priority. Basically, it's all about integrating (infusing, if you must) technology into the teaching-learning dynamic within the classroom. Enough has been written and said by others and me in previous blogs. For now, let's just say that success in this category lies at the confluence of curricular content, constructivist pedagogies, and technology—that the interoperability of these three elements will foster engaged learning and encourage students to accept accountability and responsibility for their own education. Technology support in this category is on ensuring that classroom hardware is available when needed and operates reliably, that required software and apps are installed and functioning properly and that each classroom has reliable access to the network and the Internet. Each classroom should have a primary and alternate method of rapidly reporting issues to the technology department.

More and more emphasis is being placed on the unilateral learning process. This learning process can be defined as one wherein students without the supervision or oversite of, or immediate interaction with, a teacher, school staff member or another student use a digital device while performing learning tasks. Homework is the most common, traditional example. The flipped classroom, one-to-one computing programs and BYOD efforts are placing more emphasis on student self-learning. Whether or not these initiatives are enhancing or will enhance student learning, the tech department is obligated to ensure that the system fully supports the process 24/7. Coming into play here are various compartmentalized servers, interoperative operating system platforms, security and backups, remote access, acceptable use agreements and policies, safety, policies and procedures and I'm sure many more that do not come to mind readily. If students are expected to perform online research, analysis, synthesis, etc. from their own or family computers and the computer or their Internet is not functioning, what then? What if they don't even have access to a computer outside of school? How does the institution accommodate them? If the school provides them, how does a tech department maintain as many as 2,000 tablets? The questions of expense and support are many and complex. If such programs are effective, I believe that the educational gap between the haves and have-nots will continue to grow.

The third category and priority, technology as a separate subject area, seems to have declined in popularity in K-12 schools. The decline in great part is due to perceived student familiarity with common use hardware and software from early ages. At the same time, STEM is being pushed at all levels. And surprisingly, the following is from the Business Insider, September 11, 2014: "This semester, a record-breaking 818 Harvard students — nearly 12% of the entire college — enrolled in one popular class, reports The Crimson. The course, Computer Science 50: "Introduction to Computer Science I" (CS50), pulled in 100 more students than the 700 that signed up last fall, making it the single largest class in the course's 30-year history, as well as the biggest class at Harvard College this semester." Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-course-at-harvard-2014-9#ixzz3YMjsSDCt The course has little to do about hardware, instead focusing on such topics as algorithms, software engineering, and web development.  A reasonable prediction is that the success at the higher education level will shortly begin filtering down to at least the high school level. Support for technology courses is very similar to that for the interactive learning process, with the important exception of the addition of a highly technologically proficient teachers. Teacher content expertise and hands-on, project-based learning rules!

Lastly, on the priority scale is school administration and management support. Why last? Simply, it is not as close to the learning process nor nearly as time-sensitive. However, support is more complex involving uncommon software applications such as Blackbaud's suite of applications, one or more of the hundreds of school management, bookkeeping/accounting, curriculum management and mapping, lesson planning, grade book, report card and assessment software packages. Keeping these applications repaired and up-to-date along with the incumbent database and database server administration and management  (both back room and user) takes a huge slice of time, efforts, and budget from the tech department's resources. Not to mention the training required that needs to be scheduled and performed. Sure to take a big chunk out of the tech budget.

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."

Building on Commitment 4 -Technology Integration

As is typical with building-block pyramid style graphics, the idea is that each lower level block provides the base for higher level blocks.  Each block need not be 100% complete before the next higher block can be begun, only that a commitment be made and efforts begun to realize completion. And some levels might need to addressed at all. For example, "Teachers Possess Content Knowledge & Practice Constructivist Pedagogy" and "Technologically Proficient and Confident Teachers" could be well ensconced before the integration program is even envisioned. In these cases these levels might be more conditions of progress than tasks to be executed.

Starting from the bottom:

Board and Administrative Commitment-Strategic Planning  (see Building on Commitment 2 and 3). (ISTE Standards for Administrators [http://www.iste.org/standards/standards-for-administrators]). This is where we all were a good 15-20 years ago. We knew technology would be a major ubiquitous factor.  As with the introduction of any change in any organization senior management (administration) must be committed, preferably the catalyst, to the desired outcomes. Developing a shared consensual strategic visionary technology plan is the first step: define where we are; define a ideal future state (the vision) at a specified future time; and define a broad path that is intended to get us from where we are to where we want to be. As with all plans, they must be realistic and readily modifiable to accommodate a continually changing environment. The key to developing an executable plan is the achievement of a shared consensus that includes teachers and support staff, school board members, school and district administrators, teacher educators, students, parents, and the community.

Teachers Possess Content Knowledge and Practice Constructivist Pedagogy. The content knowledge expectation is pretty much a given and widely accepted as a teaching requirement. The "knowledge v. skills" debate has pretty much been passed over with the advent of the Common Core, states acceptance of the Common Core or development of their own standards, teacher content area certification requirements, state and/or district mandatory curricula and standardized testing. Wrong or right the push toward standardization is real. Time will tell. Constructivism, or more accurately, contructionism, as a pedagogy continues to gain momentum and is most frequently expressed as sharing, collaboration, learning centered (as opposed to teaching centered), engage students. Such should be viewed as but one pedagogical tool, albeit an essential one.

20% - Infrastructure (Hardware/S0ftware) Beyond Administrative Needs. Your school is at this level if your administrators and teachers have computers and you have a few computers in the library and one or two student computers in many classrooms for general research. Most of the computers are desktop computers, either Windows or Apple OS, each computer has broadband access to the Internet and access to a file server, each computer has installed or online access to a work processing, spreadsheet and presentation software applications. You might have a smattering of tablet computers but they are probably privately owned. Administrators and teachers use online email clients and have one or more administrative/academic software applications installed on their computers. Obviously there are a myriad of variations to this scenario.

Additional blogs will be written to expand on the other four levels time permitting. Modifications to the graphic will occur as I continue to develop the concept.

Where Are You On The Pencil Metaphor

The following graphic is applicable as well to business and not-for-profits organizations as well as the educational environments for which it was created.



 

 

“1. The Hangers-On
Hangers-on know all the right lingo, attend all the right seminars, but just don’t do anything.

2. The Erasers
These people endeavour to undo much, if not all, of the work done by the leaders.

3. The Ferrules
These people hang on tightly to what they know. They keep a strong grip on their traditional practices, and feel that there is not a place for technology in their classroom.

4. The Wood
These people would (get it?) technology if someone would just get them the gear, set it up, train them, and keep it running. All they need is help from some sharp person, and they would be doing it too.

5. The Sharp Ones
These are the people that see what the early adopters have done, willingly grab the best of it, learn from the mistakes of others, and do great stuff with their students.

6. The Leaders
These people are the first to take on the technology, the early adopters would.

Not sure who first created the graphic but here are a few links where it might have begun:

• ICTeD Services


• Steve Wheeler


• NCS Tech

 

Net Bias

Net Bias

If you label a concept you support as "neutral", by definition then, an opposing concept would be "bias" and anyone supporting the opposing concept by attachment is thought to be bias as well. Biasness, no matter how justified, in our PC world is a pejorative word. So be it. I am proudly bias against Obama's push toward net neutrality. The following article says it all.

Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality?

From <http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/>

If you watch the news, it seems just about everyone is in favor of “Net Neutrality” legislation. Despite being a tech-addicted entrepreneur, I am not. No, I am not a paid shill for the cable industry. I am no fan of Comcast or any other ISP I’ve ever had the “pleasure” of dealing with. I’m skeptical of large corporations generally and dislike the fact that in this debate I appear to be on their side. While I have no problem with net neutrality as a principle or concept, I have serious concerns about Net Neutrality as legislation or public policy. And since a false dichotomy is being perpetuated by the media in regards to this matter, I feel an obligation to put forth a third point of view. In taking this stand, I realize I may be the only techie, if I can aspire to that label, opposed to Net Neutrality and that I open myself to accusations of killing the dreams of young entrepreneurs, wrecking free speech, and destroying the Internet. Nevertheless, here are three reasons I’m against Net Neutrality legislation.

I Want More Competition

Proponents of Net Neutrality say the telecoms have too much power. I agree. Everyone seems to agree that monopolies are bad and competition is good, and just like you, I would like to see more competition. But if monopolies are bad, why should we trust the U.S. government, the largest monopoly of all? We’re talking about the same organization that spent an amount equal to Facebook’s first six years of operating costs to build a health care website that doesn’t work, the same organization that can’t keep the country’s bridges from falling down, and the same organization that spends 320 times what private industry spends to send a rocket into space. Let’s try a thought experiment–think of an industry that has major problems. Public schools? Health care? How about higher education, student loans, housing, banking, physical infrastructure, immigration, the space program, the military, the police, and the post office? What do all these industries and/or organizations have in common? They are all heavily regulated or controlled by the government. On the other hand we see that where deregulation has occurred, innovation has bloomed, such as with telephony services. Do you think we’d all be walking around with smartphones today if the government still ran the phone system?

The U.S. government has shown time after time that it is ineffective at managing much of anything. This is by design. The Founders intentionally created a government that was slow, inefficient, and plagued by gridlock, because they knew the greatest danger to individual freedom came from a government that could move quickly–too quickly for the people to react in time to protect themselves. If we value our freedom, we need government to be slow. But if government is slow, we shouldn’t rely on it to provide us with products and services we want in a timely manner at a high level of quality. The telecoms may be bad, but everything that makes them bad is what the government is by definition. Can we put “bad” and “worse” together and end up with “better”?

I don’t like how much power the telecoms have. But the reason they’re big and powerful isn’t because there is a lack of government regulation, but because of it. Government regulations are written by large corporate interests which collude with officials in government. The image of government being full of people on a mission to protect the little guy from predatory corporate behemoths is an illusion fostered by politicians and corporate interests alike. Many, if not most, government regulations are the product of crony capitalism designed to prevent small entrepreneurs from becoming real threats to large corporations. If Net Neutrality comes to pass how can we trust it will not be written in a way that will make it harder for new companies to offer Internet services? If anything, we’re likely to end up even more beholden to the large telecoms than before. Of course at this point the politicians will tell us if they hadn’t stepped in that things would be even worse.

If the telecoms are forced to compete in a truly free market, Comcast and Time Warner won’t exist 10 years from now. They’ll be replaced by options that give us better service at a lower price. Some of these new options may depend on being able to take advantage of the very freedom to charge more for certain types of Internet traffic that Net Neutrality seeks to eliminate. If we want to break up the large telecoms through increased competition we need to eliminate regulations that act as barriers to entry in the space, rather than create more of them.

I Want More Privacy

Free speech cannot exist without privacy, and the U.S. government has been shown to be unworthy of guarding the privacy of its citizens. Only the latest revelation of many, Glenn Greenwald’s new book No Place To Hide reveals thatthe U.S. government tampers with Internet routers during the manufacturing process to aid it’s spying programs. Is this the organization we trust to take even more control of the Internet? Should we believe that under Net Neutrality the government will trust the telecoms to police themselves? The government will need to verify, at a technical level, whether the telecoms are treating data as they should. Don’t be surprised if that means the government says it needs to be able to install its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic. Once installed, can we trust this government, or anygovernment, to use that access in a benign manner?

While privacy and freedom of speech may not be foremost on your mind today because you like who is running the government right now, remember that government control tends to swing back and forth. How will you feel about the government having increased control of the Internet when Republicans own the House and Senate and Jeb Bush is elected President, all at the same time?

I Want More Freedom

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. – James Madison, The Federalist No. 51

Many of us see the U.S. government as a benevolent and all-knowing parent with the best interests of you and me, its children, at heart. I see the U.S. government as a dangerous tyrant, influenced by large corporate interests, seeking to control everyone and everything. Perhaps these diverging perspectives on the nature of the U.S. government are what account for a majority of the debate between proponents and opponents of Net Neutrality. If I believed the U.S. government was omniscient, had only good intentions, and that those intentions would never change, I would be in favor of Net Neutrality and more. But it wasn’t all that long ago that FDR was locking up U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps and Woodrow Wilson was outlawing political dissent. More recently we’ve seen the U.S. government fight unjust wars, topple elected democracies, and otherwise interfere in world affairs. We’ve seen the same government execute its own citizens in violation of Fifth Amendment rightsguaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Simply put–I don’t trust the U.S. government. Nor do I trust any other government, even if “my team” wins the election. I see any increase in regulation, however well-intentioned, however beneficial to me today, as leading to less freedom for me and society in the long term. For this reason those who rose up against SOPA and PIPA a few years ago should be equally opposed to Net Neutrality.

What Instead?

Internet bandwidth is, at least currently, a finite resource and has to be allocated somehow. We can let politicians decide, or we can let you and me decide by leaving it up to the free market. If we choose politicians, we will see the Internet become another mismanaged public monopoly, subject to political whims and increased scrutiny from our friends at the NSA. If we leave it up to the free market we will, in time, receive more of what we want at a lower price. It may not be a perfect process, but it will be better than the alternative.

Free markets deal exceptionally well in the process of “creative destruction” economist Joseph Shumpeter championed as the mode by which society raises its standard of living. Although any progress is not without its impediments and free markets aren’t an instant panacea, even U2’s Bono embraced the fact entrepreneurial capitalism does more to eradicate poverty than foreign aid. Especially in the area of technology, government regulation has little, if any place. Governments cannot move fast enough to effectively regulate technology companies because by the time they move, the technology has changed and the debate is irrelevant. Does anyone remember the antitrust cases against Microsoft because of the Internet Explorer browser? The worse services provided by the large telecoms are, the more incentive there will be for entrepreneurs to create new technologies. Five years from now a new satellite technology may emerge that makes fiber obsolete, and we’ll all be getting wireless terabit downloads from space directly to our smartphones, anywhere in the world, for $5/month. Unrealistic? Just think what someone would have said in 1994 if you had tried to explain to them everything you can do today on an iPhone, and at what price.

Joshua Steimle is an entrepreneur and U. S. citizen currently residing in Hong Kong. 

From <http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/2/>

Didn't Get the Job

What made the difference? I was afraid to ask. Was I afraid of the answer? Of the two finalists for a K8 school district technology director position, I was the one notified today that the other candidate was selected. "It was an extremely difficult decision to make, as both candidates possess..." blah, blah, blah. Never able to accept rejection well, I didn't hear anything after "possess."

Having been laid off as of the end of last July from a director of information technology position (eight years) for a upscale independent school, I wasn't just looking forward to employment, I was getting (am) desperate. I need the money! Why was I laid off? A department reorganization and job description redesign left me in philosophical opposition to the reigning administration. Really though, I was being asked to accept more responsibility for less money.

So, again, why wasn't I the chosen one? Age? Possibly. The demands of the online application make it impossible to avoid indirectly admitting age. I'm 67 now and that, coupled with my 20+ years of technology executive and manager experience, would surely have given the search team reason to expect that I would accept the position only if compensated at the upper end of the range or beyond. Should I have made it clear during the interviews that I would be satisfied at the mid-range?

Could it be because I am white? Maybe, but probably not. Although, the district is 60% Hispanic and 25% African American with the rest being white and a small percentage of Asians, the four members of the search team were white so.... I wonder if the other candidate was Hispanic. I would feel better if he/she were.

Ah ha, it was because I am a male. Right? After all, three of the four members of the search team were female. Could be but I don't know that other candidate was female.

I would like to think that any of the aforementioned reasons, or combinations thereof, would be beneath the search team members. So, I've come to the elevated conclusion that I was overqualified for the position. My resume cover letter reads, in part, "I believe that the key to enhancing student achievement lies in the confluence of curricular content, construtivist 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." Was that too much education jargon for a technology director? Yea, I'm competent in the technical aspects of being a managing technologist, but, as most of us have come to realize over the past two decades, infrastructure, hardware and software, no matter how abundant, will do little to promote enhanced anything, much less, learning. And during the interviews I repeatedly emphasized my interest in technology integration, developing new and supporting curricular content, technology professional development, advanced pedagogies, eLearning, acceptance and promotion of Web 2.0 and the need for schools to revisit post-industrial place, space and time constraints to teacher and student collaboration and communication. Could I have gone so far as to suggest that students might be allowed to use certain personal collaboration tools--in school? I suspect that I should not have strayed so far from my technology roots. Hell, I even mentioned multi-discipline, vertical and horizontal co-learning, co-teaching, mentoring and broader external community learning environments.

Of course, this last may not have been the reason I wasn't selected, but I don't want to hear it. I do not want to believe that the other candidate was simply more qualified than I or even that she/he was a "better fit." Don't you love that phrase--don't rock the boat!

I'm changing my cover letter and my resume and if I ever get another interview opportunity I will stick to topologies, servers, help desks, database management, E-rate, hardware and software installations and troubleshooting/fixing, telephony, operating systems, web design/development, and other stuff like that.