Creating the Conditions for Teacher Innovation - 20 minute Paper Presentation from MiTE2018

1. brholland.com/mite2018
FromTeacher Education to
Opportunity to Learn
Creating the Conditions for Teacher Innovation

2. Introductory Experiment

3. Introductory Experiment
✤ Objective: learn the names of three people whom you have never met

4. Introductory Experiment
✤ Objective: learn the names of three people whom you have never met
✤ Challenge: introduce yourself in a language OTHER than English

5. Introductory Experiment
✤ Objective: learn the names of three people whom you have never met
✤ Challenge: introduce yourself in a language OTHER than English
✤ Reflection: what can we learn from this initial experience?

6. How might we expect our teachers to teach in an
environment that they never experienced as learners?

7. Digital technologies contradict the systems and structures on which
schools and educators base their identities.
Collins & Halverson, 2010

10. Systematic Rejection ofTechnology to
Transform Instruction

11. Systematic Rejection ofTechnology to
Transform Instruction
✤ 25% of teachers accounted for 60% of computer use and most teachers employed technology
solely within the context of traditional instruction (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001)

12. Systematic Rejection ofTechnology to
Transform Instruction
✤ 25% of teachers accounted for 60% of computer use and most teachers employed technology
solely within the context of traditional instruction (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001)
✤ Most often, teachers used technology for administrative purposes rather than to encourage
students to use technology for their own learning (Zhao & Frank, 2003).

13. Systematic Rejection ofTechnology to
Transform Instruction
✤ 25% of teachers accounted for 60% of computer use and most teachers employed technology
solely within the context of traditional instruction (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001)
✤ Most often, teachers used technology for administrative purposes rather than to encourage
students to use technology for their own learning (Zhao & Frank, 2003).
✤ In a sample of 225 wikis, only 1% served as examples of students collaborating on creative
multimedia projects (Reich, Willett, & Murnane, 2012).

14. Systematic Rejection ofTechnology to
Transform Instruction
✤ 25% of teachers accounted for 60% of computer use and most teachers employed technology
solely within the context of traditional instruction (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001)
✤ Most often, teachers used technology for administrative purposes rather than to encourage
students to use technology for their own learning (Zhao & Frank, 2003).
✤ In a sample of 225 wikis, only 1% served as examples of students collaborating on creative
multimedia projects (Reich, Willett, & Murnane, 2012).
✤ Though 65% of educators claimed that technology improved their practice, only one of 37
teachers demonstrated a significant change in classroom instruction and culture (Cuban, 2017)

15. Models forThinking
SAMR (Puentedura, 2006)
TPACK
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006)
TIM
(Hogarty, Lang, & Kromrey, 2003)
trudacot
(McLeod, 2015)

16. Pathway to the Future
(Walton, 2017)
✤ Education systems need to address project-
based learning and global citizenship in
addition to traditional subjects.
✤ Students need the opportunity to apply
academic concepts to real-world situations.
✤ Educators need to be “willing and able to
tackle the challenges of preparing students
for an ever-evolving and complex
future” (p. 4)

17. Opportunity to Learn (Gee, 2008)
© Hannah Barbera

18. Opportunity to Learn (Gee, 2008)
✤ Learning can be resisted when it conflicts with previously held beliefs
(Alexander, Schallert, & Reynolds, 2009)
© Hannah Barbera

19. Opportunity to Learn (Gee, 2008)
✤ Learning can be resisted when it conflicts with previously held beliefs
(Alexander, Schallert, & Reynolds, 2009)
✤ Educators may reject a culture of active-learning and student creation
as they do not view these pedagogies as central components to their
conceptualization of an effective teacher (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2010)
© Hannah Barbera

20. Technology Leadership Study:
Creating Opportunity to Learn

21. Sample
District A District B District C
Total = 29
3 Central Office
9 Principals
17 Coaches
Total = 40
15 Central Office
11 Principals
14 Coaches
Total = 47
16 Central Office
16 Principals
15 Coaches

22. Sample Demographics
40%
31%
29%
Central
Principals
Coaches

23. Total Participation
19%
81%
Sample Active Participants

24. Participation by District
District A District B District C
9
20
Sample Active Participants
6
34
Sample Active Participants
7
40
Sample Active Participants

25. Qualitative Data (to date)

26. Qualitative Data (to date)
✤ “No Time” - 25 observations in Districts A and B

27. Qualitative Data (to date)
✤ “No Time” - 25 observations in Districts A and B
✤ “I am not comfortable with others seeing what I am thinking” - 6 statements
from administrators

28. Qualitative Data (to date)
✤ “No Time” - 25 observations in Districts A and B
✤ “I am not comfortable with others seeing what I am thinking” - 6 statements
from administrators
✤ “We ask our students to make their thinking visible and yet we won’t and
don’t do it ourselves.” - Elementary Coach in District C

29. Opportunity to Learn
Initial program design did not create low-threat situation
for high-intake learning.

31. Future Research Opportunities
✤ Create conditions for enactive and vicarious experience (Bandura, 1986)
✤ Encourage shared cognition, tool manipulation, and contextualized
reasoning (Resnick, 1987)
✤ Learning should be situated with a focus on developing common language
(Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1987; Cobb & Bowers, 1999)

32. References
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What Is Learning Anyway? A Topographical Perspective Considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176–192. doi:10.1080/00461520903029006
Bandura, A. (1986). Models of human nature and causality. In Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4-15.
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2010). The second educational revolution: rethinking education in the age of technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 18–27. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00339.x
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834. doi:
10.3102/00028312038004813
Cuban, L. (2017, May 29). Change and Stability in Classrooms, Schools, and Districts (Part 2). Retrieved July 01, 2017, from https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2017/05/30/change-and-stability-in-classrooms-schools-
and-districts-part-2/
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. doi:
10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
Gee, J. P. (2008). A sociocultural Perspective on opportunity to learn. In P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel, & L. J. Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn. Cambridge.
Levy, F., & Murnane, R. (2013). Dancing with robots: Human skills for computerized work. Washington, D.C., Third Way NEXT.
Reich, J., Willett, J., & Murnane, R. J. (2012). The state of wiki usage in U.S. k-12 schools: Leveraging Web 2.0 data warehouses to assess quality and equity in online learning environments. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 7–
15. doi:10.3102/0013189X11427083
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-54. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1175725
Walton, N. (2017). Worldwide educating for the future index. (M. Gold, Ed.) The Economist Intelligence Unit (pp. 1–40). Retrieved from The Economist website: http://educatingforthefuture.economist.com
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840. doi:10.3102/00028312040004807

33. ThankYou!
✤ Slides: brholland.com/mite2018
✤ Email: beth@brholland.com
✤ Twitter: @brholland
✤ LinkedIn: /brholland