10/28/2017 2 Comments Final thoughts...After spending eight weeks reading, analyzing, and synthesizing a plethora of sources on the topic of technology in education, I find myself rejuvenated and excited to bring my new found knowledge to my colleagues. There are several takeaways I am grateful to have gained, but I am also still left with several ponderings. Although I considered myself a technology enthusiast at the beginning of this course, I have since found that I am a skeptic of some things still, such as adaptive learning technologies.
2 Comments
10/13/2017 1 Comment Is adaptive learning the ideal?After considering several sources of research, I am able to acknowledge both the pros and cons of both adaptive learning and personalized learning, and I could still be swayed to see both sides of either argument. I can see how some may view adaptive learning and personalized learning as mutually exclusive, but I also understand how they are similar. In fact, one source refers to adaptive learning as a technique for providing personalized learning.
You can see some of the main differences, as well as some similarities, in the chart below: Now, I am certainly not one to speak against individualizing instruction or utilizing technology in the classroom. I do, however, believe there is a time and place for everything and do not believe that an entire class should be focused around any one specific software. Teachers spend at least four years being specially trained in their field of expertise, and I think bringing in a software such as Knewton, discredits the role of the instructor. Knewton also emphasizes the fact that no two students are. I don’t think many people would disagree with this idea, but I also don’t think many people would agree that each student needs his or her own, highly unique instruction and assessments. In my experience, students learn best when they co-construct meaning together. Students enjoy learning when it is presented as a social process rather than an isolated one. Some people are concerned about students who struggle with learning concepts at a quick pace, but adaptive learning technologies make it so the student can earn at his or her own pace. Adaptive learning technologies also offer interactive problem solving support. This feature allows students to see the reasoning behind their mistakes and offers explanations to increase understanding. A question that remains is: how does the computer know if the student is simply having an “off” day and is in need of a five minute break rather than to be shown solutions to the problem in front of him or her? A teacher, after building a relationship with the student, is able to know when a student just isn’t in the headspace to learn and needs a break. A computer program cannot afford such a connection and can therefore, end up imposing more stress on the already stressed student. Knewton also explains that their software allows for the “rote” learning to be completed at home, but what about the students who do not have the necessary technology or internet access at home? What about the students who do not have the home support necessary to complete their lessons? We have all had students who would not do homework regardless of the amount of home-school communication provided by the teacher. Are these students now missing out on the instruction? Or, if they are simply “catching up” during the school day, what are they missing out on then? There is research to demonstrate improvements on test scores, which offers anecdotal notes from professors, but I would love to read some anecdotes from students who have used adaptive learning technologies in their educational career. Adaptive learning technologies, while they may have some positive aspects to them, seem to take the fun out of learning and teaching. Sure lesson planning takes time, but it is part of the career I chose and I enjoy the process. My lessons are never the same from year to year because as John Dewey said, “If we teach today’s students as we taught yesterday’s, we rob them of tomorrow.” I fully understand that adaptive technology is uniquely teaching each student with a variety of methods, but who is to say that the student can take that knowledge and apply it to a broader context? Strong teachers incorporate the Bloom’s taxonomy hierarchy into their lesson objectives. How can an adaptive technology learning software encourage or assess a student’s ability to create, design, assemble, or construct something with the knowledge he or she has just remembered and possibly analyzed? Additionally, today’s Common Core State Standards mandate real-world application of skills. Having lessons and assessments be mainly computer based, would hinder the ability of achieving these national standards in all classrooms. The presentational standards would also be hard to achieve. Personalized learning would allow for the Common Core State Standards to be met because teachers could incorporate presentations and real-world applications into their objectives. However, teachers who utilized personalized learning reported major challenges, such as not having enough time to craft customized lessons for each student. Rather than investing in an adaptive learning software, or spending hours a day creating a completely individualized lesson for every child, every day, I would rather engage my class in project based learning. Project based learning would ensure that students are working together to co-construct meaning and then use real-world application of their skills. It would also accommodate the opportunity for students to present their work, achieving part of the purpose of the Common Core State Standards. My question for supporters of adaptive learning is: Do you think their are students who try to beat the system by underperforming just to have easier problems, rather than challenging themselves? If so, what do you suggest teachers do to motivate this group? 10/8/2017 1 Comment Summary of the critiquesThe Wordle below was created using input from Twitter users as well as published critiques about the book Learning Transformed: 8 Keys to Designing Tomorrow’s Schools, Today by Eric Sheninger and Thomas Murray. The words opportunity and evidence are the largest on the Wordle because they were personally contributed by the two co-authors of the book, Eric Sheninger and Thomas Murray. You can read my critique of the book here. To see my thoughts on the authors' next steps, click here.
10/8/2017 0 Comments Prediction of Future plansIf the authors of Learning Transformed: 8 Keys to Designing Tomorrow’s Schools, Today were to take their book further, I predict they would work with schools to implement specific innovative changes into their districts. I have created a sample Professional Learning advertisement that they might use to showcase Key #6 for schools. The acronym DISC represents Design, Implementation, Safety, and Connection. These are the four main areas Sheninger and Murray will use in this specific learning series.
To read my critique of the book, click here. To see a summary of critiques, click here. 10/8/2017 0 Comments Critique of Learning Transformed: 8 keys to designing tomorrow's schools, todayTom Murray and Eric Sheninger’s new book Learning Transformed: 8 Keys to Designing Tomorrow’s Schools, Today published by ASCD on June 6, 2017 is a must-read not only for school administrators, but teachers too. Murray and Sheninger recognize the flaws in current practices of public schools today. They aim to help school leaders shift their thinking to be more mindful of the times in order to innovate schools and move away from the “cells and bells” mindset. The authors successfully identify weak areas in public schooling, provide research to confirm their assumptions, supply case studies to demonstrate successful changes, and offer ideas for future improvements. Among the many areas of education highlighted throughout the text is the detriment of a one size fits all approach in education for both the students and the teachers. Teachers constantly encourage their students to “show, not tell” when writing descriptive stories. Murray and Sheninger apply this strategy to their own writing. Readers are not merely told what is flawed in public schools and how to fix it. They are shown specific examples and strategies that have worked for other districts in various parts of the United States from Massachusetts to Washington. The case studies throughout the book not only provide qualitative and quantitative data to support their strategies, they are also engaging and encouraging to read. Sheninger and Murray recognize that teachers should have a voice and a choice when it comes to their professional learning opportunities, their classroom structure, and their daily schedules; and throughout this text, they offer ways to implement that idealism into schools. The book is strategically divided into eight chapters, one for each of the eight keys. Each chapter includes strategies for success as well as vignettes from various districts to illustrate the strategies in action. The case studies examined in the text are uplifting and empowering, but still demonstrate the need for growth in some schools. This realistic view makes it easy to relate to the districts who are trying new approaches, and makes it seem possible to make a change. Chapter one, Creating a Culture of Innovation, explains that many teachers teach the way they were taught. This chapter emphasizes that teaching should be about making a difference in the life of each child in the building to prepare them for their futures. Chapter two, Redesigning the Learning Experience, offers a thought provoking quote from Weston Kieschnick which reads “There are two types of schools: Those that prepare kids for the future, and those that allow adults to live comfortably in the past.” This chapter provides ways to create more student centered learning which would create more engaged students who have more ownership of their learning, ultimately resulting in more learning. The case study in chapter two is important because while it highlights the amazing benefit of redesigning the learning it experience, it recognizes that change is a process. Chapter three, Ensuring a Return on Instruction, discusses how to get our students to “enjoy learning for the sake of learning.” The case study in this chapter illuminates the potential benefit of a 1:1 environment, when implemented correctly. Sheninger and Murray reiterate the fact that it is not just technology that is improving learning; it is the intentionally designed pedagogy with purposeful use of technology which increases return on instruction. Chapter three also details innovative practices such as portfolios, teacher evaluations, and collaborative leadership. Chapter four, Designing Learner-Centered Spaces, correlates research on flexible seating and other innovative learner centered strategies such as movement breaks with student achievement rates. Chapter five, Making Professional Learning Personal, differentiates between professional development and professional learning. The authors provide research to highlight the correlation between the amount of professional learning for teachers with the increase of student learning. This chapter also describes the importance of involving teachers in the learning process. Chapter six, Leveraging Technology, begins with a quote from Seymour Papert which reads, “Nothing could be more absurd than an experiment in which computers are placed in a classroom where nothing else is changed.” From selecting the appropriate devices to ensuring the cyber safety of all students, Murray and Sheninger use this chapter to guide school leaders in effective ways to properly introduce technology into schools. Chapter seven, Collaborating and Engaging with the Community, includes reasons to and strategies for collaborating with the families of students as well as members of the community. This chapter reminds readers of one of the initial purposes for schools--a center for the local community to come together. Chapter eight, Leading the Charge, informs leaders how to take the research and strategies throughout the book and apply them to their districts. Readers are reassured that the authors understand change is an uncomfortable process. Readers are also assured that the authors don’t expect, nor encourage, leaders to take all of the strategies from the book at once. In fact, they assert that leaders must “be careful not to immerse themselves, their teams, and their students in an alphabet soup of initiatives.” Learning Transformed: 8 Keys to Designing Tomorrow’s Schools, Today makes for an excellent PLC book study read. Whether reading independently or as part of a group, readers of Learning Transformed: 8 Keys to Designing Tomorrow’s Schools, Today are encouraged to utilize the free study guide to facilitate their reading and to use the hashtag #LT8Keys to continue the conversation on Twitter. Changes to public schooling can, and should, be made. And as Murray and Sheninger repeatedly remind readers throughout the book: “You are part of the solution.” To see a summary of other critiques, click here. To see where I think the authors will take their ideas next, click here. 9/23/2017 3 Comments Is disrupting education possible?
When considering both the TPCK and SAMR models, it is difficult to choose which one fits me best. It is actually difficult for me to distinguish how these two models are used in isolation of one another. First, let’s discuss the TPCK model TPCK considers technology, pedagogy, and content as knowledges intertwined with each other rather than individual units. Let me take a step back to detail a few definitions provided by Punya Mirsha and Matthew Koehler in their article “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge,” or-- if you’d prefer-- watch this short video from Common Sense Media for an Introduction to the TPACK Model. The first thing a teacher typically considers when planning any lesson is what they need to teach. This is their CK… Content Knowledge (CK) is knowledge about the actual subject matter that is to be learned or taught. A teacher can’t deliver their CK without… Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) which is deep knowledge about the processes and practices or methods of teaching and learning and how it encompasses, among other things, overall educational purposes, values, and aims. It is important to note here that teachers must consider their students’ prior knowledge when determining the best pedagogy. A strong teacher needs to consider their PK when planning the delivery of their CK. That is where PCK comes into play… Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) includes knowing what teaching approaches fit the content, and likewise, knowing how elements of the content can be arranged for better teaching. A teacher also considers his or her TK which is… Technology Knowledge (TK) is knowledge about standard technologies, such as the Internet and digital video. (I would argue that there is a need here for clarification of the term standard. Although word processors, spreadsheets, and e-mail are “standard” in most US classrooms today, they are not in other countries. Thus, incorporating our “standard” software tools into classrooms may pose difficulties for students coming to us from different countries.) When thinking about lesson delivery, the teacher must consider how their content can be delivered with the use of technology… Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) is knowledge about the manner in which technology and content are reciprocally related. An effective teacher is able to tie together their existing PK with the use of technology which is how we get TPK… Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) is knowledge of the existence, components, and capabilities of various technologies as they are used in teaching and learning settings, and conversely, knowing how teaching might change as a result of using particular technologies. (As with PK alone, it is important to consider the individual students when combining PK with TK.) An expert teacher considers all three aspects and is able to create a lesson with the CK, PK, and TK all in mind… Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) is an emergent form of knowledge that goes beyond all three components (content, pedagogy, and technology). When implementing the TPCK model, teachers need to be mindful of how the three knowledge sets intertwine with each. Viewing them in isolation causes a disservice to students (p. 1030). Not every lesson may be suited for a socratic seminar, whereas not every lesson may call for the use of an ipad or laptop. Now, let’s look at the SAMR model Teachers can view the SAMR model as a continuum for technology integration. SAMR stands for substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition. In his video on applying the SAMR Model, creator Ruben Puentedura, explains that this model is designed for teachers to go at their own pace. When researching learning technology, Sue Bennett and Martin Oliver discovered Mary Thorpe’s research on the pedagogic shift from materials and instruction to social competence and collaboration. They use this to explain how “some changes may not always be seen as improvements” (p. 181). This directly ties into Sue Cusack’s point in Susan Patterson’s podcast titled TPACK & SAMR about the dangers of using technology just for the sake of using technology. She describes a classroom teacher who implemented a handwriting without tiers program on iPads. This substitutional change may not have been the most effective use of technology in a classroom. Puentedura mentions that teachers should have a “continual re-examination of practice to make the best possible use of technology.” Some lessons may call for a substitutional technology to be included in the lesson, while others may be better enhanced by a redefinition technology. Why I believe TPCK and SAMR overlap As Valerie Shinas said in Susan Patterson’s podcast, I too can “see the value in both models.” As you’ve learned, TPCK is a framework used to guide teachers into considering content, pedagogy, and technology when planning and delivering lessons. The SAMR model is a framework for considering how different uses of technology are being used in specific lessons. Why then, can SAMR not be implemented into TPCK? Some teachers are apprehensive to embracing or acquiring TK because they may have a fear of change or do not have the time needed to learn the skills necessary. These teachers, while apprehensive, would be best encouraged at using basic technologies as substitutions in their lessons. This may open up their minds to other possibilities. Common Sense Media’s introduction video suggests using a technology coordinator to better integrate your TK into your PCK. A technology coordinator can also help teachers move beyond the substitution phase of technology integration into the augmentation phase. When considering my own TK, and more importantly my TCK, I find it imperative to realize how this technology is being used. It is great to have the TK to design a webquest and incorporate it into your lesson plan, but you also have to keep in mind if it is enhancing your lesson, or just substituting a research paper. Sue Cusack pointed out how Google Docs used to be considered a redefinition of a lesson, but is merely a substitution now. This connects beautifully with Mirsha and Koehler’s assertion that technology is always changing and that teachers’ TK needs to change as well (pgs. 1027-8). Even though technologies may disappear, it is important for teachers to remember that their willingness and ability to adapt to new technologies is the key to successful teaching whether it be through the TPCK or SAMR model. At the end of their article. Mirsha and Koehler maintain that “no single framework can provide all the answers. The TPCK framework is no exception” (p. 1047). This furthers my belief that the SAMR model can be applied within the TPCK framework. The most important point drawn from all of my research on this topic is to refrain from designing lessons around technology but rather to find ways to effectively incorporate different technologies that fit well with the content you are teaching; otherwise, you may be causing a disservice to students. This week I have two questions for readers, unrelated to each other:
References:
9/9/2017 3 Comments Enthusiast or skeptic??Am I a "technology enthusiast" or a "technology skeptic?" I think the answer to this question is more complex than a simple either-or response.
I decided to take this question to a friend of mine who is an application developer. I hoped he could provide me better insight into this topic than I could give myself. His initial response was that I am "technology illiterate." He semi-jokingly explained that he knows I want to use technology, but just can't. He also described me as a "technology outsourcer" adding that I am successful in finding others to set up, maintain, and fix my technology needs. He was impressed, however, with my DonorsChoose initiative of trying to secure 10 laptops for my classroom. After reading literature on the topic of technology in 21st century education, I have come to the conclusion that I definitely lean toward the realm of "technology enthusiast," but don't fully have the means or desire to embrace it completely. This by no means fully refutes my friend's assertion that I am technology illiterate though because as J. Voogt and O. Erstad explain, "digital literacy is a broad concept that has different aspects." My relationship with different technology varies. The ten or so articles I read leading up to this blog post could have very well been read online, however I still printed every one and read the paper versions. And even though I have a MacBook Air in the other room, I find myself typing this entry on my iPhone. (I should add that it required a laptop to setup the blog platform itself.) I think the reason to these two actions is because it's what I am used to doing. I didn't have a laptop throughout my Master's program, so I became accustomed to printing readings at the library to take them home to read. I also grew to be a fast iPhone typist for the same reason. My habits haven't changed now that I have a Mac, but does that make me a technology skeptic? No. It makes me a person used to doing the same thing. Technology skeptics argue that technology in the classroom isolates small groups of students and causes classroom management issues because many classrooms aren't 1:1 yet. This, however, should not be seen as a challenge. If a teacher has strong classroom management skills, he or she should be able to run a computer center while working with another group just as easily as if he or she was running a dictionary center. Students, when left to their own devices, will misbehave. A well prepared teacher, however, will have a solid lesson in place where the students on the computers are just as engaged as the students working with the teacher. If a teacher just recreates a worksheet to be filled out on the computer, he/she is bound to have bored students. Worksheets glorified by a computer screen are still worksheets. This is why it is important to realize that even 1:1 classrooms may not be the most beneficial. When discussing the billions of dollars spent on technology in schools, Will Richardson wrote: "it's not about the tools," and I couldn’t agree more. It is one thing to have the tools in the classroom, it’s another to know how to properly instruct a classroom filled with them. Possessions such as these are nothing without proper professional development. My district is not a 1:1 to district. In fact we only have roughly 60 Chromebooks for a district of nearly 1,500 students (which is less than the American average of one per every five students.) As a budding technology enthusiast myself, I was sure to reserve a class set several times a week last year for my senior English class. I felt it necessary for today’s seniors to learn how to work on an online platform both independently and collaboratively. I also wanted to teach them research skills necessary for college coursework. After slowly integrating Edmodo, Google Docs/Forms, and Remind 101 into my senior English class last year, I saw a tremendous rise in student work engagement and completion. (I only wish I were in a PhD program back then so I would have tracked the exact data!) I do believe a lot of the engagement comes down to the fact that "change motivates and challenges" (Embracing Change). Teachers need to be the first to embrace this change because as Peggy A. Ertmer asserted, "We are not going to be able to ignore technology in our teaching." My question to you is: Assuming your school provides you the "tools," what type of training do they provide you to effectively incorporate the tools into your daily plans? |
Amanda GOddardESL Department Head ArchivesCategories |