Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Loading in …3
×
1 of 37

Pivot Points for Technology Integration (Tech & Learning Live Austin Keynote)

2

Share

Download to read offline

Dr. Hughes kicks off a day of professional development workshops and discussions with a presentation on developing a “distributed vision” for K-12 technology initiatives.

She believes the technology vision is not a piece of paper filed away but a new way of living and working – impacting day-to-day and long-range thinking, actions, decisions, and processes. She will share research-based examples of how schools successfully navigate this cultural shift to get all stakeholders on board and provide tips and tools you can use to replicate these success stories in your schools and districts.

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Pivot Points for Technology Integration (Tech & Learning Live Austin Keynote)

  1. 1. joanh@austin.utexas.edu | @techedges Pivot points for technology integration Joan E. Hughes, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin Work licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
  2. 2. Photos
  3. 3. Initiation of an innovation idea Implementation Institutionalization
  4. 4. Teaching and learning with technology is not rocket science! It’s actually harder than rocket science.Photo: Library of Congress
  5. 5. Why is teaching and learning harder than rocket science? #tltechlive
  6. 6. “The Black Box of the Classroom” Photo: Joan Hughes
  7. 7. “…a complex, dynamic, and very messy multilevel system” “…a tangled maze of structures, events, and relationships” Cuban, 2013, p. 163Photo: Public Domain
  8. 8. Research-based SUCCESS Factors classroom-based school-based ∧
  9. 9. #1 Technology Leadership
  10. 10. What leadership practices matter for technology integration? #tltechlive
  11. 11. ✓ Technology Leadership ✓ Students per computer ✗ Internet ✗ Hardware $/student ✗ Software $/student Anderson & Dexter, 2005
  12. 12. 48of 50 states NOtechnology preparation for future school leaders Schrum, Galizio, & Ledesma, 2011
  13. 13. Photo: Cliff Distributed technology leadership
  14. 14. Schrum & Levin, 2013Photo: Iolanda Pensa
  15. 15. Hughes, De Zeeuw, & Ok, in pressPhoto by Jesse Dittmar, used w/ permission
  16. 16. Johnston, 2012 Farmer, 2013Photo by Jesse Dittmar, used w/ permission ✓ Supportive principal ✓ Collaborative teachers ✓ Professional organizations ✗ Competitive instructional technologist ✗ Unsupportive principal ✗ Uncollaborative teachers
  17. 17. #2 Technology Vision
  18. 18. What’s your technology vision? #tltechlive
  19. 19. “Superintendents have been pressed to purchase new hardware and software, in the belief that if technology were introduced to the classroom, it would be used, and if it were used, it would transform schooling.” Cuban, 2001; 2013 Zhao & Conway, 2001
  20. 20. ✓ Learner-focused ✓ Curricular-focused ✓ Pre-planned Dexter, 2011 Hughes, De Zeeuw, & Ok, in pressPhoto: Wesley Fryer
  21. 21. Students are a constituent group that is often neglected, ignored, or forgotten. Photo: Wesley Fryer Fullan, 2007
  22. 22. Warschauer, Zheng, Niiya, Cotton, and Farkas, 2014Photo: GoogleMaps
  23. 23. Anderson & Dexter, 2000 Schrum & Levin, 2013 Hughes et al., in press Top-down Bottom-up
  24. 24. DEAD or ALIVE? Photo: TorenC
  25. 25. #3 Technology Professional Learning
  26. 26. What are the keys to professional learning that lead to successful technology integration? #tltechlive
  27. 27. Meaningful Change (transforming student learning) Change in materials Change in teacher practices Change in teacher beliefs
  28. 28. adoption of innovations Rogers, 2003Photo: Natebailey
  29. 29. ✓ Technology specialists ✓ Learning opportunities ✓ Teacher bonuses ✓ Early release days ✓ Substitutes Lin & Chiou, 2008 Dexter, 2011 Schrum & Levin, 2013Photo: Jericho
  30. 30. ✗ One-shot workshops ✗ Tool focus “50 apps…” Photo: Јелена Продановић General tech = “replacement” pedagogy Dexter, 2011 Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007 Lin & Chiou, 2008 Schrum & Levin, 2013
  31. 31. Photo: Univ Fraser Valley Hughes, 2003; 2004; 2005 Hughes, Kerr, & Ooms, 2005 Hughes & Ooms, 2004 POPs + Tech = Transformative learning ✓ Content-specificity ✓ Ongoing, long-term
  32. 32. Schrum, Galizio, & Ledesma, 2011 “[Leaders] uniformly stressed that the role of the school leader is essential in helping teachers establish a culture that values risk taking, promotes exploration, and celebrates innovation.”
  33. 33. grammar of schooling Selwyn, 2011
  34. 34. a school’s engrained educational format and goals Selwyn, 2011 grammar of schooling:
  35. 35. “…we [math team] all need to do the same because everybody needs to have the same thing and equal and all the same time. If you don’t do that material and you don’t give them that quiz and that test, well that’s not fair. Your kids are making some frilly little project they’re going to get an “A” on, and my kids have to factor something which is hell.…”
  36. 36. ✓ Include leaders in prof learning ✓ Drive change w/ librarians ✓ Enact tiered visioning ✓ Nurture content-specific tech PLCs ✓ Support real risk-taking Top 5 Pivots!
  37. 37. Questions, Comments, Ideas joanh@austin.utexas.edu | @techedges Joan E. Hughes, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin Work licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Editor's Notes

  • I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today. I’ll be sharing some research-based insights about technology integration, which will culminate with 5 pivot points where YOU can put the research into practice in your schools and districts.
  • Investing in new technologies is nothing new – in the past past 70 years!, K-12 schools have invested in radios, TVs, computers, laptops, smartboards, ELMOs to name a few.
    These become part of a change process in schools.
    GRAPHICS:
    Radio: Gaschurnpartenen at the German language Wikipedia [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], from Wikimedia Commons; http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Minerva_Radio_PERFECT_W_0524.jpg
    TV: By Roketo2000 (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY-SA 4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons; http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Televisi%C3%B3n_peque%C3%B1a_blanco_y_negro.JPG
    Computer: Tandy – public domain
    Computer Lab: By Michael Surran (Flickr) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons; http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Students_working_on_class_assignment_in_computer_lab.jpg
    Interactive Whiteboard: By svonog (flickr)[CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Interactive_whiteboard_at_CeBIT_2007.jpg
    Document Camera: Photo: Cushing Library Holy Names University https://www.flickr.com/photos/hnulib/16324910934/
    iPad: http://www.flickr.com/photos/intelfreepress/6310585622/sizes/o/in/photostream/
    Picture (girls): by Fancy Jantzi https://www.flickr.com/photos/jantzi/5386423632/
  • Such a change process can begin with one or more individuals in an organization initiating an innovation. Today we’re concerned about innovations involving digital technologies.
    Next, the innovation starts being used or implemented. This phase involves at least two to three years of use or working towards adoption.
    Last, the innovation is institutionalized – in other words, has widespread adoption.
    The scope of the innovation may vary from a small-scale local idea to a system-wide reform, and thus, initiation can evolve from anywhere within an organization.
    Revision of the idea or rejection of the innovation can occur at any point during the process.
    In thinking about this change process …
  • Larry Cuban, from Stanford University, reminds us that “Teaching with tech is not rocket science!” .. In fact, It’s actually harder than rocket science!
    Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    GRAPHIC:
    VIEW OF THE REDSTONE ROCKET TEST STAND LOOKING WEST. - Marshall Space Flight Center, Redstone Rocket (Missile) Test Stand, Dodd Road, Huntsville, Madison County, AL
    Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, HAER, Reproduction number HAER ALA,45-HUVI.V,7A—3
    http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/al1184.photos.046984p/
  • Give some thought to why teaching and learning might be harder than rocket science?
  • Larry Cuban puts forth that education is COMPLEX, more like the flight of a butterfly (Philip Jackson) than the flight of a bullet.
    Rocket launchings are COMPLICATED with precise engineering plans, flowcharts with steps, and computer procedures.
    COMPLEX systems such as schools and education have hundreds, thousands of moving parts, many of which are HUMANS who vary in expertise and independence and work within different (and changing) political, economic, societal, and community conditions.
    That’s why he calls it a “black box”
    Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    GRAPHIC
    Joan E. Hughes, Work licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

  • Cuban depicts no less than 13 political, governmental, business, educational external influences on the classroom, such as federal govt, state govt, economy, business leaders, media, reform organizations etc.
    These external influences connect with COMPLEX internal social system involving:
    Students and teachers,
    Parents and community adults
    School and District level decision-makers
    This tangled maze of multi-level, dynamic structures, events, and human relationships is exactly why education is harder than rocket science
    Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    GRAPHIC:
    Maze; Public Domain: https://pixabay.com/en/maze-graphic-render-labyrinth-2264
  • Within this COMPLEXITY, classroom and school-based research reveals many factors associated with success in technology integration. I’m going to explain how technology leadership, technology vision, and professional learning SHAPE these successes.

  • Technology leadership in schools does influence teacher and student technology use.
    But how and why?
  • So from your point of view, what leadership practices or skills matter for our technology integration efforts? Take a chance to talk with your table mates.
  • Well, first off technology leadership matters a lot!
    In a study of 800 schools, Anderson and Dexter, found that technology leadership (a measure reflecting eight indicators of organizational technological decisions and policies) and lower students: computer predicted teacher technology integration and student computer use for academics. Expenditures toward technological hardware and software did not.
    Tech leadership included: staff dvlpt policy (periodic tech learning), technology committee, IP policy – copyright, 5+ principal days (on tech planning and admin), school tech budget & control, grants (in last 3 yrs, with 5% toward tech), district support, principal e-mail (29%))
    But as important as technology leadership is, when you hire a principal or superintendent, it’s not a given they have technological skills and knowledge.

    Net use: frequency of teacher student use of email or web (R2=.29) [internet did predict this]
    Technology integration: estimated # of teachers integration tech into various types of teaching activities (R2=.14)
    Student tool use: for academic work (R2=.06)
    Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 49-82. doi:10.1177/0013161x04269517
  • In a recent study by Lynne Schrum and colleagues found that 48 of 50 states have no required technology preparation for school leaders.
    Michigan – vague “aware of tech for T&L” ; New Mexico – “use technology and data”
    Needs to expand beyond data-drive decision making 92% of 137 prep programs do not mention tech in curriculum; 7% have something to do with data.

    When they interviewed tech-savvy administrators and tech coordinators, they:
    Learn on their own;
    Are dedicated to changes with technology;
    Promote change through PD by modeling and setting goals.
    With little formal preparation, It would be difficult to make technology-related decisions as a school leader.

    Schrum, L., Galizio, L. M., & Ledesma, P. (2011). Educational leadership and technology integration: An investigation into preparation, experiences, and roles. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 241-261.
  • Several recent research studies emphasize how leaders are not working alone, like this, but rather engaging in “Distributed technology leadership”.

    GRAPHIC:
    Thomas Jefferson Middle School Principal Sharon Monde, by Cliff; (CC BY 2.0) https://www.flickr.com/photos/nostri-imago/5049583135
  • So technology leadership looks looks more like this.
    In Schrum and Levin’s work that examined exemplary leadership, the ways in which leadership was distributed varied by school – which is another point – the leaders were sensitive to school and community local knowledge in creating a successful path.
    In one school, a principal used multiple teams to make decisions and refocus teachers’ purposes.
    Another used 3 APs and dept chairs for vertical and horizontal communication.
    Another superintendent hired new school leaders and staff who agreed with the vision.
    Schrum, L., & Levin, B. B. (2013). Leadership for twenty-first-century schools and student achievement: Lessons learned from three exemplary cases. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 16(3), 379-398.

    GRAPHIC:
    Committee Meeting, By Iolanda Pensa (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AWikipedia_Primary_School_meeting_in_Cape_Town_June_2014_04.jpg
  • In my own recent research in a high school adopting iPads for 21 C learning, we saw inclusion of students and the librarian as specific and crucial to the technology leadership team. The librarian inspired the iPad innovation through a pilot project - and she communicated the successes with the district staff. As the innovation was more broadly implemented, she served as a key connector between teachers and district staff.

    Pictured here is Kristina Holzweiss, School library journal librarian of the year 2015 (Long Island, NY). She works similarly to the librarian in my research study - another teacher explained she “single-handedly brought our library into the 21st century,” a space with iPads, Chromebooks, and a whiteboard, and a maker space to foster hands-on learning.
    I’m emphasizing librarians as a key leader in this distributed technology leadership model because [slide]
    Hughes, J. E., De Zeeuw, A., & Ok, M. (in press). A case study of technology leadership in situ: A high school iPad learning initiative. Journal of School Leadership, 26(2).

    GRAPHIC:
    Image by Jesse Dittmar, Permission by photographer. http://www.slj.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/SLJ1509-SLOTY_Kristina.jpg
    http://www.slj.com/2015/08/industry-news/meet-kristina-holzweiss-sljs-2015-school-librarian-of-the-year/
  • Recent research shows librarians are contributing to technology leadership due to their knowledge of pedagogy, curriculum, technology, and collaboration with teachers . In Johnston’s study discovered that the most frequent enablers of librarians functioning as technology integration leaders were: a supportive principal, collaborative teachers, and engaging w/ professional organizations.
    Disablers of technology leadership included competitive instructional technologist, uncollaborative teachers, and unsupportive principals.
    Farmer (2013) positions librarians as new partners for teachers pursuing transformative classroom technology integration.

    So we’ve learned that technology leadership matters (perhaps more than dollars), and it is distributed across people –librarians are crucial in that leadership mix.
    Johnston, M. P. (2012). Connecting teacher librarians for technology integration leadership. School Libraries Worldwide, 18(1), 18-33.
    Farmer, L. S. (2013). Librarians' roles in informatics to support classroom incorporation of technology. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Research perspectives and best practices in educational technology integration (pp. 129-147). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

    GRAPHIC:
    Image by Jesse Dittmar, Permission by photographer. http://www.slj.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/SLJ1509-SLOTY_Kristina.jpg
    http://www.slj.com/2015/08/industry-news/meet-kristina-holzweiss-sljs-2015-school-librarian-of-the-year/
  • I’ll move next to technology visions which are typically generated during technology planning processes. They can serve rhetorical, political, pedagogical, and financial purposes at the least.

  • Do you have a personal vision for what technology should enable? Does your school or district? What is it? Why does it work or not work in supporting success?
    Let’s see what some of the research reveals…
  • Does your vision promise a grand utopia?
    Cuban explained that “superintendents have been pressed to purchase new hardware and software, in the belief that if technology were introduced to the classroom, it would be used, and if it were used, it would transform schooling” (p. 13). In his most recent book, Cuban (2013) argued that simply introducing new resources is not sufficient.
    Yong Zhao and colleagues who examined state technology plans also saw a propensity for the visions to favor “new technologies” and have utopian ideals.
    But research shows us that…

    Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Zhao, Y., & Conway, P. (2001, January 27). What's in, what's out—An analysis of state educational technology plans. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org
  • The importance of a learning-based vision. For example, in Dexter’s study there were a variety of technological visions in laptop programs at five schools, such as focus on access, equity, tools, standardized test achievement, or curriculum enhancement. There was more success with the technological implementations in schools where the visions were curriculum-related and were pre-planned.

    In my case study of the high school using iPads, I saw evidence of a strong, learning-aligned, vision, which was reflected when a curriculum director noted “…this initiative enabled the curriculum, instruction, assessment, and technology administration team to function as “seamless…not separate.”
    Dexter, S. (2011). School technology leadership: Artifacts in systems of practice. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 166-189.
    Hughes, J. E., De Zeeuw, A., & Ok, M. (in press). A case study of technology leadership in situ: A high school iPad learning initiative. Journal of School Leadership, 26(2).

    GRAPHIC:
    Wesley Fryer: https://www.flickr.com/photos/wfryer/16939340525/in/set-72157651515604686 CC BY 3.0
  • Who creates the vision?
    Again, much like technology leadership, the most successful visions are created collaboratively across stakeholders, including leaders, technology directors, librarians, parents, teachers and students.
    Students are a constituent group that is often neglected, ignored, or forgotten despite our aim to impact some aspect of students’ learning and achievement.” (Hughes)
    In my own research, I’ve found the school and district directly involving students in technology vision groups, evaluation processes (collecting and analyzing data – what a great project for a math or statistics course), and presenting about their own technology-supported learning at meetings, such as with teachers or school boards.
    Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College.

    GRAPHIC:
    Wes Fryer; http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2014/07/16/students-teach-about-redstone-wiring-in-minecraft/ CC BY 3.0
  • Who creates and is involved in the vision impacts technology integration success.
    In a study of netbook 1:1 programs, Warschauer and colleagues discovered low success in Birmingham school’s 1:1 computing initiative where the program “was largely conceived and deployed without consulting key stakeholders, such as teachers” (p. 49) as compared to greater success in Saugus and Littleton where planning, goal-setting, and implementation involved teachers, administrators, parents and students.
    Interestingly, the vision for Birmingham was on increased use by students, while in Saugus and Littleton, their vision was tied to writing - a curricular and learning focused vision.

    Birmingham: XO tablet – OLPC; deployed 1-5th grade; 2 hrs of PD. Key: increase use by at-risk students.
    Saugus: Asus Eee PC netbooks (focus on student writing achievement through technology enhanced collaboration)
    Littleton: Linux Asus Eee PC netbook. “Inspired writing laptop initiative” goal: improve writing outcomes through writing and sharing.
    Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., Niiya, M., Cotten, S., & Farkas, G. (2014). Balancing the One-To-One Equation: Equity and Access in Three Laptop Programs. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(1), 46-62. doi:10.1080/10665684.2014.866871

    GRAPHIC:
    GoogleMaps; Created by Joan Hughes
  • There are far more top-down visions than bottom up – but both can work well.
    Anderson and Dexter remind us that initiation of technology reforms or innovations may emerge from anywhere in the school organization, such as from teachers, librarians, or administrations, but “the most important thing is that groups the share vision and work together supportively” (p. 2).
    In Schrum and Levin’s cases of exemplary leadership, all three sites involved superintendent or principal-led, top-down visions for technology change (two were laptop programs). These visions were communicated widely and garnered buy-in by all stakeholders.
    In my own case study, we found evidence of “grass-roots,” or “non-formal-leader-initiated,” “bottom-up” technology innovation emerging from “pilot” experiments by the librarian and special education teachers and then moving up to the technology director and other formal leaders and expanded to an entire school and then to more schools in the district.
    Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. L. (2000). School technology leadership: Incidence and impact (6). Retrieved from http://http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/report_6/
    Schrum, L., & Levin, B. B. (2013). Leadership for twenty-first-century schools and student achievement: Lessons learned from three exemplary cases. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 16(3), 379-398.
    Hughes, J. E., De Zeeuw, A., & Ok, M. (in press). A case study of technology leadership in situ: A high school iPad learning initiative. Journal of School Leadership, 26(2).

  • How is the vision communicated and buy-in secured?
    Is it dead or alive? Can you recall your school’s vision? Is it memorable? Is it actionable? Is it visible?
    Is it in a document, filed away after completion of the “tech plan”.
    It’s living and active and changing, even has a facebook page and twitter and instagram acct! Share successes, ask for help. Yes. Some might even say is it branded?

    So we’ve learned that visions should be learner and curriculum-focused (not necessarily a utopia with new tech), can be top-down or bottom-up, but need buy in and support from broad base including students, and optimally should be alive and dynamic.

    GRAPHICS:
    Filing Cabinets: Photo by TorenC: https://www.flickr.com/photos/torenc/61396515 CC BY 2.0
    RSS: By User:ZyMOS [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons; https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Rss-feed.svg
    All others – public domain, used with permission from companies.
  • Finally, let’s examine how this leadership and visioning come together to contribute to professional learning goals.

  • I’m sure you are all passionate about teacher learning, so let’s talk shop!
  • Meaningful change requires changes in three areas: materials, teacher beliefs, and teacher practices.
    If your leadership or vision focuses only on tools and equipment, you won’t be working towards a change in learning or curriculum.
    Larry Cuban’s work shows technology does not change teacher practices and student achievement because the initiatives rest after providing the new materials.
    SO: to have movement, we must focus on changing teachers beliefs and practices that align with our learner-focused vision. The way to do this is through professional learning.
    Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College.

  • You might say NO! I’ve seen change in practices without professional learning. With just addition of materials, the changes you see reflect people who are Innovators (2.5%) and Early Adopters who happen to have the beliefs and knowledge to adopt the technologies in ways you see as innovative. So, with luck, you might get 16% of your faculty doing innovative things with technology. But the change will not spread without intervention.
    Obviously the key is professional learning to help change beliefs and practices.
    Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

    GRAPHIC:
    "DiffusionOfInnovation". Licensed under CC BY 2.5 via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DiffusionOfInnovation.png

  • Professional learning MUST be offered if you plan to progress towards success. Thus, you MUST appropriate budget dollars towards it.
    The budget can go towards what other districts have found useful, such as funding for technology coordinators, specialists, or facilitators; professional learning opportunities (consultants, teachers, format, food); teacher bonuses for meeting goals; early release days or substitutes to facilitate learning.
    Lin, F., & Chiou, G. (2008). Support-seeking and support-giving relationships of school technology coordinators. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 922-927.
    Dexter, S. (2011). School technology leadership: Artifacts in systems of practice. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 166-189.
    Schrum, L., & Levin, B. B. (2013). Leadership for twenty-first-century schools and student achievement: Lessons learned from three exemplary cases. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 16(3), 379-398.

    GRAPHIC:
    By Jericho [CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons; https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Money_Cash.jpg
  • Learning opportunities must move beyond a focus on general tools.

    In a large format, short workshop with diverse teachers across subject areas, presenters tend to choose to share technologies that can work for all subject areas. That lowest common denominator approach ends up with a lot of learning about technology that supports general pedagogy. Things that can work across subject areas: administration, organization, presentation, assessment.
    With one-shot workshops, you are relying upon the teacher (with no time or necessarily expertise) to then do the hardest work of all – figuring ways (if it makes sense) to use these apps/technologies in their curriculum.
    There’s no changing of beliefs here. So if you end up with new practices, they will match practices that have come before (but technology jazzed up).
    Why not spend those precious PD funds on experts who will work with subject area teams rather than general tool talks?
    General tools – get you tech-jazzed up pedagogy that matches what came before.
    Dexter, S. (2011). School technology leadership: Artifacts in systems of practice. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 166-189.
    Lawless, K. A., & Pelligrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integration technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614.
    Lin, F., & Chiou, G. (2008). Support-seeking and support-giving relationships of school technology coordinators. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 922-927.
    Schrum, L., & Levin, B. B. (2013). Leadership for twenty-first-century schools and student achievement: Lessons learned from three exemplary cases. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 16(3), 379-398.

    GRAPHIC:
    By Јелена Продановић (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Conference_on_Open_education_and_teachers%27_digital_competences%2C_FON%2C_2014-48.JPG
  • Alternatively, you could position professional learning as content-specific, such as subject area teams, to explore problems of practice (POPs) to drive explorations into technology for teaching and learning. But again, we don’t want to just tell teachers to do a technology PLC: we want to also involve teachers, technology integrationists, curriculum specialists, & librarians.
    Content-specific POPs + technology yields – transformative, content-focused learning. (the stuff of visions!)
    Hughes, J. E. (2003). Toward a model of teachers' technology-learning. Action in Teacher Education, 24(4), 10-17.
    Hughes, J. E. (2004). Technology learning principles for preservice and in-service teacher education. Contemporary Issues on Technology in Education, 4(3). http://www.citejournal.org/vol4/iss3/general/article2.cfm
    Hughes, J. E. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277-302. Retrieved from http://dl.aace.org/16971
    Hughes, J. E., Kerr, S. P., & Ooms, A. (2005). Content-focused technology inquiry groups: Cases of teacher learning and technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(4), 367-380.
    Hughes, J. E., & Ooms, A. (2004). Content-focused technology inquiry groups: Preparing urban teachers to integrate technology to transform student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 397-411.

    GRAPHIC:
    By University of the Fraser Valley; https://www.flickr.com/photos/ufv/13721946634/in/set-72157643661082604 CC BY 3.0
  • Here’s the challenge: Teachers working hard to solve problems or practice with technologies that changes beliefs and leads to new practices requires risk-taking.
    Research among successful leaders shows they are supportive of failure and support risk-taking, as this quote from Schrum and colleagues reveals.
    But this is very much a CULTURE change.
    Schrum, L., Galizio, L. M., & Ledesma, P. (2011). Educational leadership and technology integration: An investigation into preparation, experiences, and roles. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 241-261.
  • And positions teachers as battling against the grammar of schooling.
    Selwyn, N. (2011). Schools and Schooling in the Digital Age : A Critical Analysis. Hoboken: Routledge.
  • Neil Selwyn describes this as a school’s engrained educational format and goals. If our technology visions frame technology to be used in “transformative” ways that necessitate or would likely lead to changes in practice and beliefs --- these may challenge the exact engrained format and goals of the way education occurs in our schools.
    Here’s an example:
    Selwyn, N. (2011). Schools and Schooling in the Digital Age : A Critical Analysis. Hoboken: Routledge.
  • Tom, a high school math teacher, had students explore, create and capture a real instantiation of a sine wave with ropes using their iPad videocamera and ropes. Then they mash it up by taking a frame overlaid on graph paper on their iPad and then inquiring about its properties using their graphing software. Ultimately they calculate the mathematical equation that matches each of their unique rope sine waves. And understand how their equation might change if their rope stretches or squishes.
    But there was a challenge for Tom…
    He collided with the grammar of schooling. His team heard what he was doing, and told him “READ SLIDE TEXT”
    Not only did Tom get push-back from his mathematics colleagues, his AP told him as long as the tests are given on the same days he’s open to be creative, his students started to worry why they weren’t doing the same thing as their friends, and while no parents had YET to contact him, they surely would have. While this lesson matched the goals of the vision in this school, the culture had not changed yet to support this kind of risk-taking.
    What’s actually not fair is creating visions of transformed teaching and learning but not considering changes to wider structures, expectations, and relationships in our complex educational spaces to support the vision.
    Toward that end, I offer 5 pivot points for action.
  • If leaders must tend to their own learning, we should be inviting them to the opportunities we arrange in schools and districts. And leaders should go! When Scott McLeod and I created the School Technology Leadership Initiative at Uminnesota, one of my courses actually engaged the leaders with actual technology-supported lessons. They loved this so much.
    Librarians are the new change agent! Use this to your advantage. Hire and cultivate technology-interested librarians and encourage their contributions.
    While an optimal technology vision has had input from constituents, not everyone has participated. You can enact tiered visioning through small groups or PLCs, grade level teams, subject area teams) who develop their own technology vision. Think of these as a wedding cake – the largest bases are built from these small group visions and all culminate and relate to the overarching school or district vision. This can enable top-down and bottom-up visioning and enactment at the classroom level.
    Then you want to find ways to nurture content-specific PLCs to examine POPs. If they’ve created visions, it’s a logical next step to work on enactment (with support).
    Finally, if we are asking teachers to change their practices and beliefs, then we must support real risk-taking by working towards cultural change.
  • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
  • ×