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.

What are the desirable personal and professional characteristics of a good manager/supervisor?

A good manager is a manager in the traditional sense:  performs the planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling functions in an acceptable and safe manner.  However, an “excellent” manager is a manager and an excellent leader.  Successful leaders are creative visionaries who develop and pursue goals, objectives and values in a collaborative, communicative, transparent, motivational and cooperative manner while demonstrating that they sincerely care about and respect the stakeholders.  An excellent leader realizes that mission accomplishment and valuing and taking care of people are not a zero sum game but are interdependent.  Leaders can readily extrapolate operational objectives from strategic missions and goals and facilitate accomplishment.  Being visionaries, leaders are not afraid to take calculated risks.  A good manager is reactive; an excellent manager is proactive.  Manager-leaders are experts in their field, lead by example, are team players as well as team leaders and are capable of applying differing leadership styles depending on the nature and urgency of the situation.

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."