Blame the Teachers?

From Changing the Odds for Student Success: What Matters Most, Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning(McRel}, by Brian Goodwin, 2010.

"When it comes to student learning, research points to the tremendous influence of a handful of variables as the root causes of their successes or struggles. MCREL research conducted by Robert Marzano in 2000, published as A New Era of School Reform: Going Where the Research Takes Us, analyzed multiple influences on student achievement and found that 80 percent of the variation in student achievement can be attributed to four student­-level variables:
"1. Home environment 2. Prior knowledge 3. Aptitude 4. Interest and motivation
"That leaves just 20 percent of the variance in student success related to teachers (13%) and schools (7%)."

Web 2.0 and Gpanion

As a user and teacher of Web 2.0 technologies and cloud computing, I find Gpanion very useful. Explore it. Especially look at the "More Apps" page to find little known but valuable gems. Set it to open automatically in a tab in your favorite browser.  I use it as a sort of online desktop.

Not Only Do They Walk Among Us and Vote but They Make Laws

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Kahn Academy

A great teacher resource, especially at the high school level, are the Kahn Academy videos. Salman Khan, the creator of these learning videos, focuses on math, science and finance with a little bit of history and economics thrown in on the side. Currently there are about 1,400 videos available that would serve well as homework assignments, homework helpers and possibly to accommodate different learning styles. The videos are discipline specific and not supportive of cross-curricular or project-based learning, nonetheless they are thorough over a broad range.

Ecology of Education

If you are not already subscribed to the Ecology of Education blog, you should be. It does a fantastic job of capturing the perspective of teachers as we traverse through the jumbled world of education reform.  From the home page: "Ecology of Education is a multi-author blog dedicated to issues, trends, and ideas in education. The authors represent a range of niches related to teaching and learning."

Building on Commitment 2

I introduced a Maslow-type pyramid about a year ago. Since then additional experience and reflection have produced an expanded model (see image). In future blogs the layers will be discussed in some detail. For this blog, the focus will be on "Board and Administration Commitment--Strategic Planning." Again, progression up through layers is dependent on each lower layer being substantially satisfied.  Beyond lip service, this is not something the instructional technologist can readily garner. The reasons are reasonable: most board members and administrators did not learn in a constructivist and technologically integrated environment; technology is expensive; additional staff are required; studies conducted so far are neutral; fear of the unknown; and the natural reluctance to change. Too often, in our enthusiasm, technologists jump in to levels above "Commitment..." prematurely. Most of us have experienced the resulting frustration.

So where does that leave the technology integration specialist, the instructional technologist, the technology director, facilitator, coordinator, manager? Not only do we need to possess content knowledge, at least at the basic level, across a large number of disciplines; to be expert in instructional design; to know all there is to know about technology grants and eRate; to be great teachers and trainers; to be superior communicators orally and in writing; to know everything about hardware, software, the Internet, and systems infrastructure from technician to director level; to be experienced and superior supervisors, leaders and managers; and to know how to successfully integrate technology into the most ridiculous instructional unit or lesson plan, but we also need be expert change theory practitioners.

Available to assist are two potentially influential stakeholder groups: students and parents/guardians. But even within the parent/guardian group a gap exists between what they want in the way of technology in the schools and what they are willing to pay for. Many schools and districts have moved beyond the commitment level to some extent simply due to the realization and acceptance that technology is now ubiquitous and that pressures and funds from state and the federal governments are dependent on technology integration progress. So be it. While not an ideal scenario, I am willing to run with it.

Teaching to the . . .

In another great blog,"Teaching to the App," Steve Taffe, who writes the Blog-Ed Indetermination blog, hit the nail on the head (mostly) regarding technology in education. And I am guilty! Oh, I've known better for a number of years, yet I have allowed myself to get caught up in teaching to the application.

In his blog, Steve relates teaching to the test, brought on by NCLB high stakes testing requirement, to teaching to the application. His criticism focuses on taking a too narrow a view of the education process. In the case of teaching to the test, test results are so critical to a public school's funding and reputation, that they are willing "to prepare students for these tests to the detriment of a broader education." Independent schools, e.g., Catholic schools like mine, while not required to take these tests, might be guilty of adopting a different kind of examination, that of "teaching to the app." The following is a list of examples Steve provides:
• how to set margins, create footnotes, track changes, add comments, and so on in Microsoft Word
• creating formulas and charts in Microsoft Excel
• creating an Apple iMovie
• creating a podcast in Apple GarageBand
• editing photos in Adobe Photoshop
• making presentations in Microsoft PowerPoint

In addition to being the school's Technology Director, I teach three courses in an inner-city high school, two of which are technology rich. The basic technology freshmen course focuses on four subject areas as stated in the syllabus: keyboarding, word processing, spreadsheets and presentation. The other course is all about Web 2.0 technologies, sharing and collaborating. However, and sadly, each course is taught as Steve describes above and is unrelated to other-courses content. I'm a tool teacher! I have made the process (the tool) more important than the outcome. He proposes framing the instructional content more broadly so that "Users are free to choose their own tool or tools, focusing more on the outcome than the process":
• word processing
• spreadsheets and graphing
• moviemaking
• podcasting
• photo editing
• presentations
I have done so in the syllabus, but not in practice. How can this be turned around?

Two reasonable approaches come to mind. The first has been shoved at us over and over, with limited success, and that is to integrate technology into the classroom and curriculum. This supposedly is the ideal solution, however, one not readily achievable in the short-term in many schools as it requires:
1) students who have progressed through ISTE's NETS at appropriate grade levels,
2) technology resources often beyond the schools' ability to purchase and sustain,
3) a long-term commitment to technology professional development (teachers and administrators), and
4) redesigning the core curriculum to include technology tools.
The second, more affordable and simpler to implement approach is to leave the old computer lab in-tact and to integrate core content into the "computer" teacher's lab and curriculum. Core subject teachers submit requirements/projects that compliment the technology curriculum, the computer teacher integrates them into her/his curriculum and upon completion they both assess results.