Ertmer & Leftwich, 2010

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher Technology Change: How Knowledge, Confidence, Beliefs, and Culture Intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.

Summary

            Ertmer and Leftwich (2010) suggest a shift in the definition of good teaching to include appropriate use of pedagogy. They encourage teachers to use technology as an essential tool of the trade rather than supplemental to traditional pedagogy.  Ertmer and Leftwich (2010) also recognize however, four areas where challenges may arise to effective technology integration for both preservice and inservice teachers.  These include technological knowledge and skill, self-efficacy regarding technology as an instructional tool, pedagogical beliefs, and school culture.  To overcome these challenges, the authors suggest giving teachers hands-on and vicarious experience with technology in small doses along with appropriate training in its use.  This training should also be specific to integrating technology into the classroom using higher-order thinking skills, pointing out gains in student learning with these techniques.  Finally, administrators need to support teachers in their use of technology by providing adequate resources and encouraging teachers as scholars, researchers, and lifelong learners.

Reflection

           

            I honestly don’t know what to say about this one.  Right now I’m stuck on the idea that we may soon lose a number of teachers across the nation, thanks to what seems to be a stuck society.

When considering that we aren’t spending enough to pay our teachers, making sure that technology is put to use in each and every classroom the way that Ertmer and Leftwich (2010) advocate seems trivial.  I agree with their general sentiment and ideas – in fact, the patterns and solutions the authors describe really seem associated with implementing any change, not just technology integration.

            Where I can’t go with Ertmer and Leftwich (2010) is their proposed change in the definition of good teaching to include appropriate use of higher-order technology.  I think that good teaching is timeless and separate from the context of the age.  If they would have said we should change the definition of best practices, I would likely agree; we’ve made significant advances in technology and should teach our students how to use that technology for something other than shopping.  But to say that good teaching depends on the use of technology, well…

One thing that did catch my attention was the specific application of technology, especially when encouraging teacher buy-in.  It definitely gave me a new perspective on our use of technology in class.  Being able to create audio, video, and wiki pages really doesn’t mean a lot if you can’t figure out how to actually use them to promote student learning.

Chapter 5: Teaching with Technology

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Redefining student and teacher roles (p. 76-88). Teaching with technology: creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Summary

            In a technology based classroom, the authors find that the roles of student and teacher begin to blur.  As students quickly become experts with the technology, they lead their classmates and even teachers in one-on-one instruction.  This expertise does not correlate with academic achievement however, as typically low achieving students often become classroom leaders.  Many teachers begin to shift their teaching styles to encourage this classroom partnership and even districts and businesses begin to realize the resource in older students.  The challenge comes however, in assessment.  There is a growing recognition that assessing student knowledge must change to accommodate collaborative learning and classroom leadership, rather than lower order content knowledge.

Reflection

           

            Adjusting to a collaborative classroom is difficult.  A few years ago, I co-designed and taught a science writing course.  Much of our time in class was about giving students time to engage with each other and work through class activities.  To be honest, it made me feel like I wasn't doing my job.  On the other hand, I wouldn't run the class any other way.  The same is true for workshops that I teach now – I really do try to give things over to the students instead of just telling.

            What are often also difficult in my classrooms are student expectations.  In the chapter, teachers identified new students as needing to adjust to a collaborative classroom.  In reality, most students are not accustomed to such a high level of partnership.  With standardized testing, they have learned to be really good listeners and test takers.  Many of my students are often uncomfortable with the level of freedom they are given; their preference is to have very clear and precise expectations.  While this is a challenge, it shouldn't be a roadblock.  As a college instructor, I am expected to prepare them for their career, which will not usually depend on them being a good student, but rather a good creator.

            One of the most amazing active learning classrooms I've seen is at the University of Minnesota.  I had the opportunity to meet with Robin Wright, a biology professor at Minnesota, and what she told me was dumbfounding.  The freshman biology course she teaches in this classroom has over 100 students in it.  Dr. Wright has stopped lecturing on things students can read in their book, instead relying on them to actually do the reading (there are quizzes as an incentive).  In the classroom of over 100 students learning is almost entirely project based, where the instructor presents questions or challenges and the students learn concepts by solving them.  This is revolutionary and the kind of classroom the authors talked about in this chapter.  In my mind, this is what most classrooms should start looking like.  That would be awesome!

This video was originally posted on vimeo by the University of Minnesota, College of Biological Sciences. 

Chapter 4: Teaching with Technology

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Managing a technology-rich classroom (p. 55-75). Teaching with technology: creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Summary

            As part of technology integration, there are several stages of technology concern within the classroom setting.  During entry, teachers cannot anticipate and thus are unprepared for student misbehavior with technology.  Additionally, many schools are not built to incorporate technology into the classroom and as such, managing physical space and software becomes difficult.  In the adoption phase, teachers integrate these experiences into their cognitive framework and can now anticipate and address problems.  This paves the way for technology to aid in other tasks during adaptation.  Given a new comfort level with technology, teachers begin to use it to increase efficiency in other areas of their classrooms and lives.  The authors indicate that movement through these phases is supported via professional development.  Given the new classroom context of multidimensionality, simultaneity, immediacy, and unpredictability, guiding teachers into a new type of classroom management is critical.

Reflection

           

            What grabbed my attention in this chapter was the paragraph linking classroom management and learning at the top of page 74.  Essentially, classroom management is a top predictor of student learning and if teachers cannot keep students engaged in learning because of a lack of classroom management, technology is useless. 

            It was this phrase that underscored the relevance of this chapter in today’s classroom.  The examples of floppies, laser disks, and 20 megabyte hard drives made me chuckle, but the concerns surrounding student attention, time on task, and cheating with technology are ever present in my current classroom.  More than ever, our classrooms are multidimensional, simultaneous, immediate, and unpredictable and  as one teacher pointed out, students remain students, regardless of the technology they use.  It is still our job to guide them into becoming responsible for their own learning.

            Technology has done wonders for discussion in my writing workshops this semester.  In classrooms where students won't speak, I can use tools that immediately (or almost so) allow me to know what everyone in the class is thinking and understanding.  I use Socrative on a regular basis so that students can contribute using their mobile devices.  Otherwise, I can’t even get a head nod out of them… “Does this follow an inductive structure?” I ask.  Silence and stillness… I often joke with them saying, “I guess I’m going to have to start a new open-ended question to get you guys to answer.  At least nod or shake your head!”

            At the same time, this wonderful technology often makes me feel like my students are distracted or not paying attention, especially when they choose to make my classroom include shopping or social interaction part of its multidimensionality.  I see them out of the corner of my eye, posting to Facebook or texting.  It makes me crazy, but at this point I ignore it figuring that the time it will take to call out that one student will disrupt the flow of the class more than the actual technology does.

            I may have to rethink this policy now that I realize how critical classroom management is for learning.  Of course, a better solution may be to rethink some of my teaching.  The more I put them to work with their technology, the less they are using it for off-task purposes.

Chapter 3: Teaching with Technology

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). The evolution of instruction in technology-rich classrooms (p. 33-54). Teaching with technology: creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Summary

            Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer (1997) outline the hopes for technology in the classroom while pointing out the complex nature of belief and instruction in K-12 education.  Taking into account the power of belief in moderating change, the authors describe a five-stage model of technology use.  Perhaps the largest hurdle to integrating new technology is entry.  This stage is rife with challenges and concerns, which as they are overcome, lead to adoption.  Now that technology has made it into the classrooms, teachers begin to learn how to use it and integrate it into their lesson plans.  This also is a stage filled with concerns and challenges as the technology is put into use and explained to outside parties.  Overcoming these somewhat rocky stages leads to adaptation, in which the technology becomes a normal part of everyday life in the classroom as a support for productivity rather than a hindrance.  As this normalcy extends to the teacher, the technology is appropriated and becomes part of personal life and new habits.  Finally, teachers and students enter invention, where the new technology is used to push the limits, creating new collaborations and partnerships within the classroom.

Reflection

           

            While this model was built to describe technology adoption, it can clearly be extended into other areas, like adoption of new standards (e.g., Common Core).  The power of belief is what stuck out to me most; its corollary being fear of the unknown.  Just like increasing self-efficacy, most of the support towards changing belief seems to be internal, focused on repeated positive interaction with the new technology.  However, training and verbal persuasion also seemed helpful, especially when that persuasion and encouragement came from university researchers (outside experts).

           

            What is discouraging is an apparent lack of change, even with technology.  It has been over 15 years since this book was written and partnering classrooms are still not the norm.  Nearly 10 years after the book was written, Mr. Winkle Wakes made its internet debut, decrying this lack of change.  Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer’s (1997) point that education lacks specification (learning, teaching, standards) is perhaps still the drag on cultural inertia.  It takes a lot of force to make changes and we have a lot of baggage attached to our education system, whether K-12 or university.

            Still, there are many districts, schools, and teachers who are making great strides in creating partnering classrooms and integrating technology.  I look forward to their continued inventions that will further new belief systems within education.

Tweet Response: Free Professional Development

Given the ever-changing face of technology, self-teaching is a major adaptive skill.  Fortunately, the interwebs themselves have made this possible to an extent that I feel like Monica Dawson from Heroes.

(Relevant reference starts at 1:03.  Blogger is thwarting my efforts.)

Adaptive muscle memory aside, this is my sequence for learning how to use new technology, how to repair drywall, caulk bathtubs, replace gear shifters on bicycles, and fix washing machines.

STEP 1: Did it come with instructions?  In the case of technology, things like user manuals can be quickly downloaded from the company website, eradicating the need to figure out where you conveniently stored them.  Finding and reading through the manual is always a good idea.

STEP 2: Play with it.  Technology these days is pretty user-friendly and will prompt you several times if you are about to destroy your file/program/computer/the world.  Trust these failsafes and yourself.  Chances are, you’re not going to break it – just don’t choose something like your taxes, baby pictures, or dissertation to use as a sandbox.

STEP 3: Does it have a help button?  The help button, FAQ section, and similar is like a searchable user manual for your product.  If you can’t find what you’re looking for there, many help menus these days will provide a link to a message board or tech contact.

STEP 4: Ask the internet.  With the zillions of people creating e-content, chances are good that A) someone else has had the exact same problem/question as you and B) someone else has already fixed/answered it.  Be very precise with your Google searches – copy and paste your error message or refer to your exact model number.  Use quotes to zero in on what you’re looking for.  Just don’t be suckered into paying for or downloading something you don’t need.

STEP 5: Ask YouTube.  This is where the muscle memory thing comes in to play.  Just as there are people continually checking the pulse of multiple tech-related message boards, there are a myriad of people with webcams and screen capture software anticipating your needs.  YouTube has saved me literally hundreds of dollars because I could watch someone do something and then copy their expertise.  It hasn’t failed me yet.

STEP 6: Ask a live person.  Whether this is a student or a neighbor, sometimes the complexity of a task requires hands-on help.  There is no shame in this and most people are very happy to lend their expertise.  Just make sure they teach you and don’t just do for you.  For some technology, a live person is standing by to speak with you over the phone, in online chat, or by email.  Again, make use of these poor souls making minimum wage.  They are generally a kind and patient lot.

STEP 7: Take a class.  Believe it or not, this does not always require money.  Public libraries are great at offering computer training at no cost.  Norman Public Library currently offers everything from Really Basic PC to Finding Your Civil War Ancestors.  See their calendar for more details.

Bullying

A couple of weeks ago, I posted my reflections on a chapter about cyberbullying.  Fortunately, awareness and anti-bullying campaigns seem to have increased since my husband and I were children.  One of my cousins posted the following video to facebook, and I thought I'd share.

Video Editing Software

At the request of my professor, the version of video editing software I will be using is Windows Movie Maker version 5.1 (2007).

Woot.

Tweet Response: Common Core State Standards

                Common Core State Standards are a set of expectations for K-12 students in reading/writing and math.  The intent of CCSS is to integrate literacy and math into all subjects, since these are skills that are not inherently separate from other disciplines.  Rather, they are tools that students will need for learning in college classrooms, efficiency in their careers, and contributing to society as citizens.

                These expectations were not created nor mandated by the federal government.  Rather, they were developed by a coalition of states and adoption of the standards is up to each individual state.  Adoption of the standards are encouraged by the federal government, and incentive is offered through increased funding for schools.  To date, 48 states and several territories have adopted the CCSS.

                I know most about the writing/reading standards in the CCSS as my dissertation research focuses on science instructor self-efficacy (similar to confidence) in teaching science writing.  I have high hopes for the CCSS, but am concerned that science teachers will not implement science communication effectively.  At this point, many teachers express concern in two areas: lack of time and lack of expertise.  College professors express the same concerns and find students lacking in writing ability throughout their college career, typically blaming high school preparation for their inadequacies.

                The best place to learn more about the standards is the CCSS website.  The standards are very readable, although many teachers feel that they are not very specific.  What I appreciate most about the standards are the integration of technology and publication of student work.  Through Web 2.0 tools, these aspects of the standards open the door for increased partnering within schools, especially since the CCSS is focused on knowledge integration rather than knowledge retention.

Chapter 11: Educational Technology for School Leaders

Myers, J. J., McCaw, D. S., & Hemphill, L. S. (2011). Top ten rules that govern school authority over student cyber expressions. In Schrum, L. (Ed.), The best of Corwin: Educational technology for school leaders (201-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Summary

            Student speech is protected by the First Amendment, just as is all other public speech.  There are certain instances however, where schools may censor student speech, particularly if the speech is disruptive, interferes with learning, or is offensive.  Schools may also regulate when and where students express themselves when linked to school activities, especially if the speech is endorsed by the school or is of pedagogical concern.   Schools may also restrict student speech to educate students in social graces. The only time off-campus speech can be regulated by the school is if it is linked to the school or if a true threat has been made. 

Reflection

            The lines between on- and off-campus are increasingly blurred with internet access in classrooms and student accessibility to the web through their personal internet-ready devices.  The problem of cyberbullying and its reach into the sanctuaries of students apart from the schoolyard only adds to this blurring.  While seeking a balance between protection and panic, how do schools refrain from treading on student free speech rights?  We’ve come a long way from the original Tinker case, where students were suspended for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War.

I am reminded for instance, of JazReynolds, an OU football player who was suspended for an insensitive tweet.  At the time of the incident, it likely seemed that the indefinite suspension was perhaps an overreaction.  However, this example falls under rules 6 and 9 – as a player for a well-known college football team, Mr. Reynolds is likely to be viewed as an ambassador (and thus representing) the university.  Additionally, the nature of his tweet was definitely “inconsistent with the ‘shared values of a civilized social order’” (Myers, McCaw, & Hemphill, 2011, p. 202).

            Much of today’s student speech is less about politics, seeming to fall primarily under the auspices of civilized social order in the arena of social relationships.  This can lead to mistakes in communication that educators will often need to step in on.  When taking advantage of these teachable moments we need to keep in mind the rights of our students to express themselves and help them learn how to do so appropriately.

Chapter 10: Educational Technology for School Leaders

Hinduja, S. and Patchin, J. W. (2011). Preventing cyberbullying. In Schrum, L. (Ed.), The best of Corwin: Educational technology for school leaders (167-199). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Summary

            Cyberbullying is a serious phenomenon that affects individual students and school culture.  Teachers and parents need to establish clear rules and guidelines for using internet resources and monitor student computer use.  Education on netiquette, recognizing, avoiding, and responding to cyberbullying is also important.  Administrators need to also remain aware of school culture, including prevalence of cyberbullying through anonymous surveys to recognize and react to potential problems.  Educators are not alone in this arena; there are many online and community resources to aid in the prevention of cyberbullying.

Reflection

            As a teenager, the internet was still a budding technology.  It was not until my college days that social media like MySpace and instant messaging really took off.  As such, I never had much experience being cyberbullied, although I was once sexually assaulted online.  Remembering that incident and my inability to block or otherwise get rid of my assailant, I can see how a younger person could feel powerless in an online setting.  To further know and have to face your attackers in real life would certainly be very intimidating.

            In this regard, I was happy to see so many resources online aimed at combatting cyberbullying.  I checked out the National Crime PreventionCouncil and Anti-Defamation League specifically, both had very clear messages for parents, teachers, and students of various ages.  In a partnering school, these resources would be an excellent starting point for students to create their own content on preventing cyberbullying in their school.  One of the best resources for teachers was this simple table from the ADL:

 Even for adults, responding to bullying can be intimidating.  Having some responses handy is a huge help.  My husband was plagued by bullies as a child and one of his biggest frustrations, even today, was that his teachers did nothing and even went so far as to excuse the bullies’ behavior when my mother-in-law complained to the principal.  Bullying is never excusable and we as teachers need to be prepared to take action when we recognize it happening.

Chapter 9: Educational Technology for School Leaders

Bissonette, A. M. (2011). Policies, procedures, and contracts: Communicating expectations to teachers, students, and parents. In Schrum, L. (Ed.), The best of Corwin: Educational technology for school leaders (151-166). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Summary

            To protect themselves, their employees, and their students, school districts need to establish acceptable use policies (AUPs), contracts that establish internet use rules and regulations.  When establishing an AUP districts need to collect data, solicit input, and draft and circulate the policy prior to approving and disseminating the new policy.  This technology policy needs to include consideration of legal risks, communication of boundaries, include stakeholder input, train users prior to implementation of technology, educate parents, and establish a chain of command for reporting incidents.

Reflection

            How can I, as an educator, best facilitate and not obstruct learning with technology?  It is very clear that AUPs are an important step in establishing clear guidelines, boundaries, and expectations for technology use in an educational setting.  However, how can I create a least restrictive learning environment that protects my students and me but still grants easy access to an entire world of knowledge?

            I often meet teachers who are frustrated with the lack of access they have because of stringent firewalls.  Many teachers have to plan in advance, clearing specific websites with their administrators to gain access.  With control this strict, it seems that students do not have an adequate opportunity to learn how to discriminate among sources.  Also, restricting student access to their cellphones seems to undermine some of the suggestions outlined in other chapters of this book.  I wonder where the line between reasonable protection and technopanic lies.

            That is not to say that the AUP is not important.  However, if we require that students keep their cellphones put away, are we hobbling their access to knowledge and learning?  Does allowing students to use cellphones at their discretion help to teach them how to balance phone time and people time?  On the other hand, if we allow students to use smart phones in class, can we still restrict what websites they visit? 

            I am facing this question right now, to be honest.  Tomorrow, I am implementing a HootCourse in my writing workshop to try and stimulate class participation.  I am hoping that by using the technology my students have at hand, I will be able to better engage them in the exercises, rather than watch them text away on their phones regardless.  Front row, left hand lab table, I’m talking to you…

Chapter 8: Educational Technology for School Leaders

Prensky, M. (2011). Assessment in the partnership pedagogy. In Schrum, L. (Ed.), The best of Corwin: Educational technology for school leaders (139-148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Summary

            In partnership classrooms, the goals and forms of assessment must be reconsidered.  Students need detailed feedback from teachers through formative assessment.  They also need measures that demonstrate improving upon their personal best along with self-assessment.  Peer assessment and real-world assessment also give student work meaning.  However, individual students are not the only ones that should be assessed in a partnering school; teachers, administrators, the school as a whole, and parents should also be assessed on how they are contributing to the learning process.

Reflection

            Prensky (2011) ends the chapter with the sentiment that a population adept with technology and full of entrepreneurship is likely more important than one where most have a ninth grade reading level and associate’s degree.  I followed the chapter to this point; considering multiple forms of assessment that enable partnering and mirror the real world seemed commonsense.  However, Prensky’s (2011) final thought reminded me of the myriad of Star Trek, Stargate, and other scifi episodes that show civilizations dependent upon a failing technology that no one knows how to fix.

            Without enough students engaged in science, engineering, technology, and math, our “increasingly complex digital machines” (Prensky, 2011, p. 148) will assuredly stagnate.  In addition, what good is technology and innovation when we no longer have natural resources and manufacturing is outsourced to other countries?  While I agree that international cooperation is preferred to raise standards of living and education for all children, the best way to do so may be to focus on our students at home, enabling them to become the innovators of tomorrow.