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.
A framework for action: Intervening to increase adoption of transformative we...Joan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
Abstract: Web 2.0 tools have emerged as conducive for innovative pedagogy and transformative learning opportunities for youth. Currently, Web 2.0 is often adopted into teachers’ practice to simply replace or amplify traditional instructional approaches rather than promote or facilitate transformative educational change. Current models of innovation adoption do not adequately address successful diffusion of transformative educational technology. A new interactional model, called a framework-for-action (FFA), repositions ‘success’ on qualitative criteria and necessitates timely intervention by change agents at ‘points of factor interaction’ in the change process. These interventions engage potential adopters (i.e., teachers) in meaningful learning opportunities that reposition individuals or groups to make decisions leading to adoption of technologies that support transformative learning and teaching with web 2.0 tools.
Final published article can be found at:
Hughes, J. E., Guion, J.*, Bruce, K.*, Horton, L.*, & Prescott, A.* (2011.) A framework for action: Intervening to increase adoption of transformative web 2.0 learning resources. Educational Technology, 51(2), 53-61.
Presentation by Dr. Joan E. Hughes on November 8, 2010 for SETDA - State Educational Technology Directors Association (http://www.setda.org/).
This was a 10 minute talk to get a working group started on the topic "Helping Educators Transform Their Practice."
Technology Integration: The RAT – Replacement, Amplification, and Transformat...Joan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
The reference is: Hughes, J.E., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006, March). Assessing Technology Integration: The RAT – Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation – Framework. (SITE) Conference Proceedings (CD-ROM).
Abstract: This brief paper will introduce an assessment framework, called RAT – Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation, that can be used with preservice and inservice teachers to increase critical decision-making concerning integration of technology into the K-12 classroom. The framework is currently being refined through (a) expanding our literature review to refine conceptual and theoretical categories, (b) subsequently applying the framework to videotaped technology - supported classroom lessons, and (c) working with practicing teachers interested in learning self-assessment techniques to improve their technology integration decision-making.
RAT Question Guide: Using the Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation ...Joan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
This downloadable question guide can help districts, schools, or individuals identify the important dimensions of the teaching and learning process and THEN use those dimensions to explore how the use of technology impacts these dimensions. I use this guide in my consulting with schools and districts (and in my graduate-level teaching) to support the change process related to educational technology integration and transformation.
Please note this is Copyrighted. Please contact me for use.
For more information see the RAT Slides: http://www.slideshare.net/joanhughes/rats-lides
or
The RAT article: http://www.slideshare.net/joanhughes/hughes-scharber-site2006
or
A presentation that puts RAT in context with school change and professional learning: http://www.slideshare.net/joanhughes/transformative-technology-integration-in-classrooms
A framework for action: Intervening to increase adoption of transformative we...Joan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
Abstract: Web 2.0 tools have emerged as conducive for innovative pedagogy and transformative learning opportunities for youth. Currently, Web 2.0 is often adopted into teachers’ practice to simply replace or amplify traditional instructional approaches rather than promote or facilitate transformative educational change. Current models of innovation adoption do not adequately address successful diffusion of transformative educational technology. A new interactional model, called a framework-for-action (FFA), repositions ‘success’ on qualitative criteria and necessitates timely intervention by change agents at ‘points of factor interaction’ in the change process. These interventions engage potential adopters (i.e., teachers) in meaningful learning opportunities that reposition individuals or groups to make decisions leading to adoption of technologies that support transformative learning and teaching with web 2.0 tools.
Final published article can be found at:
Hughes, J. E., Guion, J.*, Bruce, K.*, Horton, L.*, & Prescott, A.* (2011.) A framework for action: Intervening to increase adoption of transformative web 2.0 learning resources. Educational Technology, 51(2), 53-61.
Presentation by Dr. Joan E. Hughes on November 8, 2010 for SETDA - State Educational Technology Directors Association (http://www.setda.org/).
This was a 10 minute talk to get a working group started on the topic "Helping Educators Transform Their Practice."
Technology Integration: The RAT – Replacement, Amplification, and Transformat...Joan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
The reference is: Hughes, J.E., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006, March). Assessing Technology Integration: The RAT – Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation – Framework. (SITE) Conference Proceedings (CD-ROM).
Abstract: This brief paper will introduce an assessment framework, called RAT – Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation, that can be used with preservice and inservice teachers to increase critical decision-making concerning integration of technology into the K-12 classroom. The framework is currently being refined through (a) expanding our literature review to refine conceptual and theoretical categories, (b) subsequently applying the framework to videotaped technology - supported classroom lessons, and (c) working with practicing teachers interested in learning self-assessment techniques to improve their technology integration decision-making.
RAT Question Guide: Using the Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation ...Joan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
This downloadable question guide can help districts, schools, or individuals identify the important dimensions of the teaching and learning process and THEN use those dimensions to explore how the use of technology impacts these dimensions. I use this guide in my consulting with schools and districts (and in my graduate-level teaching) to support the change process related to educational technology integration and transformation.
Please note this is Copyrighted. Please contact me for use.
For more information see the RAT Slides: http://www.slideshare.net/joanhughes/rats-lides
or
The RAT article: http://www.slideshare.net/joanhughes/hughes-scharber-site2006
or
A presentation that puts RAT in context with school change and professional learning: http://www.slideshare.net/joanhughes/transformative-technology-integration-in-classrooms
This is the paper written about the project carried out between September 2014 - January 2015 at University of Oulu for the Ubiquitous Computing Fundamentals course.
UbiTeach is a project carried out for the Ubiquitous Computing Fundamentals course at the University of Oulu. UbiTeach is a multi-device interactive application that supports and enhance learning and teaching experiences within a classroom by offering additional means to propose and solve exercises, gain insights and feedbacks about the students. The team went through 7 steps:
- Concept Idea
- Literature survey about the state of the art
- System design
- UI design
- Prototyping
- Evaluation in-the-wild
- Final Report
Technology enhanced learning
Dr. Eisa rezaei
Ph.D. in Instructional Technology, Assistant Professor, Virtual University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran EisaRezaei.ir
DEFINITION
Technology Enhanced Learning
Instructional Design and Technology Timeline
Reiser and Dempsey (2012)
Why should we incorporate TEL in our educational pedagogies?
Using technology can be costly
Potential Benefits
Higher Education Funding Council for England (2009)
Learning Theories and TEL
Learning Theories and TEL
Technology Enhanced Learning design models
Designing Enhanced Learning Activities
Networked Teacher Model (Couros, 2008)
Networked student Model (Drexler 2010)
This is the paper written about the project carried out between September 2014 - January 2015 at University of Oulu for the Ubiquitous Computing Fundamentals course.
UbiTeach is a project carried out for the Ubiquitous Computing Fundamentals course at the University of Oulu. UbiTeach is a multi-device interactive application that supports and enhance learning and teaching experiences within a classroom by offering additional means to propose and solve exercises, gain insights and feedbacks about the students. The team went through 7 steps:
- Concept Idea
- Literature survey about the state of the art
- System design
- UI design
- Prototyping
- Evaluation in-the-wild
- Final Report
Technology enhanced learning
Dr. Eisa rezaei
Ph.D. in Instructional Technology, Assistant Professor, Virtual University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran EisaRezaei.ir
DEFINITION
Technology Enhanced Learning
Instructional Design and Technology Timeline
Reiser and Dempsey (2012)
Why should we incorporate TEL in our educational pedagogies?
Using technology can be costly
Potential Benefits
Higher Education Funding Council for England (2009)
Learning Theories and TEL
Learning Theories and TEL
Technology Enhanced Learning design models
Designing Enhanced Learning Activities
Networked Teacher Model (Couros, 2008)
Networked student Model (Drexler 2010)
Student voice : is honesty the best policy?Malcolm Murray
Student voice: is honesty the best policy? Giving students control of TEL evaluations.
Presented at the Blackboard Teaching & Learning Conference in Dublin, 1st May 2014.
Speakers: Eleanor Loughlin, Anne Skerratt, Elaine Tan & Malcolm Murray
Enhancing Learning with Technology in Higher Educationjjulius
Originally developed in this form for Dr. Jana Pershing's SDSU class on Teaching Sociology, March 2008, though elements of the presentation were previously shared in other contexts.
Situational ingenuity of teachers: The key to transformative, content-focused...Joan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
This presentation was shared at a colloquium sponsored by the University of Houston, Victoria on April 28, 2014 (Please read the slide notes for generally what I said in the presentation). I share my vision for the use of digital technologies in education. I refer to it as transformative, content-focused classroom technology integration. I illustrate this concept through 3 stories of practice: from teachers, a school and its district, and a college of education. Tom is a mathematics teachers who designs a lesson with ropes, video, ipads, and graphing calculators to help students learn to write an equation for a trig function. Hilly High School began a iPad learning innovation in which all students got ipads - I share how they developed their vision which included both a technology-focus and a learning-focus. Finally, I share data on preservice teachers' use of social technologies and discuss how COEs could design a set of experiences that would develop preservice teachers to be connected educators. These will show the possibilities but also many of the challenges involved in this work. In these stories, I hope that you’ll discover ways that you, as a teacher, a school leader, a teacher educator, a parent, can assist in this transformation. I end by describing "situational ingenuity" and how I see teachers as most interested in this challenging work in their classrooms and how I see it as the key to designing content-focused, technology-supported innovations in classrooms.
SITE 2014 Presentation: Preservice Teachers' Social networking use, concerns,...Joan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
This paper was presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education on March 18, 2014 by Sa Liu (representing the authors). It is authored by Joan Hughes, Yujung Ko, Mihyun Lim, and Sa Liu. If you would like a copy of the paper, please contact Dr. Joan Hughes
An audio-recording of the presentation will be available soon at http://techedges.org
Panel Presentation from "Lightning Talk Series - At The Helm: Women's Impact in EdTech" sponsored by EdTech Women (http://edtechwomen.com).
In this presentation, I share four stories of graduate students I mentored from the Learning Technologies program at the University of Texas at Austin who are putting the "ed" into "edtech" in their current work. I call for all of us to mentor others, especially those underrepresented in the edtech field, and to ensure that the "ed" is in "edtech" and to seek help if you are unsure. Ultimately, collectively we will continue to shape and change education.
Audio for this presentation is located at http://techedges.org/sxswedu-2014-presentation-and-audiorecording/
Descriptive Indicators of Future Teachers’ Technology Integration in the PK-1...Joan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
This research examined preservice teacher graduates' positioning toward integrating technology in future teaching. Participants included 115 preservice teachers across three cohorts in 2008-2009 who graduated from a laptop-infused teacher education program. The study implemented a case study methodology that included a survey administered upon graduation.Indicators of positioning toward technology integration included: digital technology self-efficacy, attitude toward learning technologies, pedagogical perspective, personal/educational digital technology behaviors during the program, and TPACK knowledge used to rationalize their most valued technologies for future teaching. Results indicated graduates held moderate digital technology self-efficacy, positive attitude toward learning technologies,and moderate constructivist philosophy. During their preparation,productivity software activities were used most widely for educational purposes.Their most valued technologies for teaching subject matter were predominantly productivity software as well as general hardware, such as computers, projectors, and document cameras. They described teacher-centric uses three times more often than student-centered. Graduates showed low depth of TPACK. Teacher education programs need to consider the degree to which their candidates are exposed to a range of contemporary ICTs, especially content-specific ICTs, and the candidates' development of TPACK, which supports future technology-related instructional decision making. Such knowledge is developed across the teaching career, and technological induction programs may support continued TPACK development.Future research should employ longitudinal studies to understand TPACK development and use across novice and veteran teachers.
Teaching and learning with Internet-supported technologies - Course syllabusJoan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
In the course participants will examine a myriad of ways the Internet may function within teaching and learning contexts through internet-supported technologies (e.g., web, apps etc.). The course will focus on these technologies’ capabilities for instructional use, learning, professional development, and research. The course will provide a set of foundational readings to situate your thinking in this educative space. Then you will lead your own experiences with a diverse array of Internet-based instructional and learning tools; it will also encourage you to consider these tools with a critical eye, always determining the advantages and disadvantages of using particular web-supported or web-based tools.
This course focuses on the role of Internet-based technologies within face-to-face or hybrid learning situations and mostly within PK-12 realms. For all uses we consider, we will use the following questions (as well as any you offer) to structure our analysis of Internet uses:
• What assumptions about the nature of knowledge and learning does this innovation make (either explicitly or implicitly)?
• What unique role does the technology play in facilitating learning?
• How is this innovation seen to fit with existing school curriculum (e.g., Is the innovation intended to supplement or supplant existing curriculum? Is it intended to enhance the learning of something already central to the curriculum or some new set of understandings or competencies?)
• What demands does the innovation place on the knowledge of teachers or other “users”? What knowledge supports does the innovation provide?
• How does the technology fit or interact with the social context of learning? (e.g., Are computers used by individuals or groups? Does the technology support collaboration or individual work? What sorts of interaction does the technology facilitate or hinder? Does it change or reify social systems?)
Course goals include:
• Understanding the historical context of uses of the Internet and Web for teaching and learning
• Experiencing what it is like to be an actor in the ‘participatory’ or ‘semantic’ or ‘connected’ culture of the Web
• Developing a critical framework for evaluating web uses in educational contexts
• Interpreting (i.e., reading, understanding, interpreting, adapting) educational research that focuses on teaching/learning with the Internet-supported technologies
This course is not about fully online or distance education topics. If you are interested in that topic, consider taking LT’s “Online Learning” course(s).
Course developed by Dr. Joan E. Hughes at The University of Texas at Austin
The purpose of this class is to introduce you to the theories, assumptions, and practices underlying the use of qualitative research in education. In the tradition of survey courses, this class examines the broad history, concepts, and themes that distinguish multiple methods of qualitative research, specifically as they relate to education research. Students will study, practice, and reflect on different qualitative research methodologies and consider the components and challenges faced when engaging in qualitative research methods. Each student will design and conduct his/her own qualitative study. Issues related to data collection, negotiating access to the field, ethics, and representation will be of particular importance. While it is not assumed that you will gain a comprehensive, rich understanding of any one particular qualitative research tradition over the trajectory of the course, it is expected that upon completion you will acquire the foundational knowledge and experience to begin evaluating, selecting, and defending appropriate qualitative methods for use in your own future research projects.
Goals:
1. Understand historical background and fundamental tenets of qualitative research.
2. Understand ethical issues within qualitative research.
3. Develop a researchable question.
4. Identify the limits and affordances of qualitative research designs.
5. Develop a beginning awareness of qualitative inquiry approaches, including ethnography, case studies, narrative, postmodern, critical, and basic interpretive.
6. Engage in qualitative research activities, including: field observations, interview, coding, analysis, and report writing.
Teaching English with technology: Exploring teacher learning and practice (Hu...Joan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
In 1998-2000, I developed the RAT (p. 30+) and TPCK / TPACK (see page 137+; p. 178 for figure) in this dissertation at Michigan State University as a doctoral student.
Abstract: The purpose of this study, conducted during the 1998-1999 school year, was to examine the nature of teachers’ technology-supported English practice and understand teachers’ learning to teach with technology. Four middle-school English teachers, who used technology in support of teaching English content, agreed to participate in this study. The data included a combination of classroom observations and life-history teacher interviews. Observations focused on the teachers’ use of technology in relation to instruction and student learning experiences. The series of interviews explored the teachers’ life histories, including history of educational preparation, career(s), teaching positions, technology experiences, technology learning, and technology use.
The dissertation study was written in the format of three journal articles. In the first article, a technology use taxonomy was developed to analyze teachers’ technology use in content areas: technology as replacement, technology as amplification, and technology as transformation. Across time, participants used technology across all three categories, not in a sequential order. This finding challenges the notion that sophistication of technology use is linked to technology experience. This finding may be explained by the expansion of practical uses for technology, the teachers’ reform-oriented beliefs, and the possibility that these teachers learned from others’ “expert knowledge.” Varieties of technology transformation that may have been obscured in the data analysis are discussed.
Analysis in the second article explored how teachers learned to use the technology they reported knowing. Using technology to support subject matter instruction occurred more often when a teacher’s initial learning experience involved either (a) learning technology in the context of learning more English language arts content or (b) learning technology with an awareness of a connection between the technology and the English language arts. From analysis of trends in four teachers’ technology-learning, I developed a general model that illustrated the technology-learning process and described how teachers take multiple pathways through this learning model.
In the third article I analyzed and compared why and how teachers learned and used technology. The teachers’ reasons for learning technology were closely associated with the reasons they used technology in their teaching practice. Further, the manner in which the teachers learned impacted the design of learning opportunities for their students. I conjecture about the kinds of knowledge (TPCK, TPACK) that teachers develop through the process of learning to teach with technology.
Common Writing Issues for Undergraduates, Masters, and Ph.D. StudentsJoan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
Handout from my undergraduate course at UTexas which focuses on assisting students to develop research and writing skills. I appended some other writing tips that I also provide for Masters/Ph.D.students, with their descriptions in the APA 6.0 Manual.
Ready, Aim, Fire: A presentation about technology integration and iPad integr...Joan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
In this presentation, I speak about the challenges of technology integration with a group of U.S. K-12 district superintendents and principals. I use my recent research on a high school's endeavor to integrate iPads into teaching and learning to situate my remarks about technology integration. Topics covered include: school change, vision/goals for technology integration, my RAT (replacement, amplification, transformation) model for assessing lessons that integrate technology, and using subject-specific problems of practice to drive technology-related professional learning for teachers.
This handout was shared with a group of superintendents, principals, and directors of teaching/learning after they visited the University of Texas Visualization Laboratory in the College of Education. We then led them in an introductory visualization activity with Gapminder.com and encouraged them to share these resources with their high school teachers who might want to integrate data analysis and visualization into their content area activities.
Session conducted on Thursday, October 3, 2013
This activity was used in a session with school district leaders (superintendents, principals, directors of teaching/learning) to expose them to beginner data visualization tools.
UGS 302 Syllabus: The role of technology among youth in society and education...Joan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
Fall 2013. A semester-long, writing-intensive course that leads first-year students in considering inventions and innovations (technological and historical) that have changed society and education. We weave from exploring current trends to historical shifts to again current digital innovations with critique from a range of perspectives (educational, political, advertising/marketing, technical, psychological). This course includes university-level requirements including: visiting remarkable places at UT (Harry Ransom Center, TACC VisLab), attending university lectures, engaging in research, writing and oral presenting, and being taught by a Ph.D. tenured faculty member.
iTeach and iLearn with iPads in Secondary Language Arts (AERA 2013 Presentation)Joan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
Presented at: American Educational Research Association (AERA) Conference, April 2013, San Francisco, CA.
Authors: Gregory S. Russell and Joan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
Abstract: Tablet computers like the iPad seem to be well-suited for educational purposes, but little empirical research yet exists that examines its potential. This ethnography characterizes the ways in which two, veteran English Language Arts teachers and their students use ubiquitous iPads to facilitate teaching and learning in high-school. Results indicate that the iPad improves the efficiencies of learning activities but also introduces new classroom management issues. Many teaching and learning activities replicate or amplify previous approaches, and a few are transformed. This research can provide guidance for other schools that endeavor to create ubiquitous tablet computing environments. Future research should examine the longitudinal effects of similar interventions.
This compilation paper was presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting in April 2011 at an invited session of the TACTL (Technology as an Agent of Change for Teaching and Learning) Special Interest Group.
Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, April 2011
Authors: Michelle Fulks Read, Sara Jolly Jones, Joan E. Hughes, & Gloria Gonzales-Dholakia
Degree of Digital Equity in Schools by Race and Socio-Economic CharacteristicsJoan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
This handout summarizes a research presentation from the American Educational Research Association Conference in April, 2011. This research examined and compares digital equity at two different middle schools. Focus is placed
upon minority student in- and out-of-school technology use to explore the relationship of school and digital equity. The first middle school, Saguaro, is a minority-majority school, with 93% Hispanic and
African-American students. The second middle school, Porter, is a historically white majority school participating in a district student-transfer program with a 50% white and 50% Hispanic/African
American population. Data from the two schools is compared to examine student in- and out-of-school technology use and perceived technology skill level. In exploring the relationship of student technology use both in and out of school to that of the school and minority status, digital inequities were present. Students at the historically white school were more likely to utilize various technologies for
communication, creation, web, and productivity activities both in- and out-of-school.
Please contact Dr. Hughes if you would like a full paper.
This is the digital technology self-efficacy measure we use in our research.
A 17-item digital technology self-efficacy measure adapted from Holcomb, King, & Brown (2004) who reported reliability µ=0.80. Language was updated replacing computer with digital technology. Items were measured with a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). A 1.0 score reflects low digital technology self-efficacy, while a 4.0 represents high digital technology self-efficacy.
Holcomb, L., King, F. B., & Brown, S. W. (2004). Student traits and attributes contributing to success in online courses: Evaluation of university online courses. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 2(3), 1-16.
This research examined five years of data collected from preservice teachers while in their program and at the conclusion of their program.
The research questions included:
What kinds of software/hardware are preservice teachers and faculty using in courses and in PK-12 fieldwork/student teaching?
For what purposes/activities are laptops being used within university coursework?
To what degree is the provided technology training/resources adequate to support laptop use in preservice preparation?
Preservice Teachers' Dispositions Toward Technology IntegrationJoan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
Research study that examined:
What are teacher graduates' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to technology integration as they set off to become novice teachers?
Presentation at American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting: April, 2010.
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp NetworkTechSoup
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at postgraduate students and early career researchers with little or no experience in writing and publishing journal articles.
This presentation was provided by Steph Pollock of The American Psychological Association’s Journals Program, and Damita Snow, of The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), for the initial session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session One: 'Setting Expectations: a DEIA Primer,' was held June 6, 2024.
Normal Labour/ Stages of Labour/ Mechanism of LabourWasim Ak
Normal labor is also termed spontaneous labor, defined as the natural physiological process through which the fetus, placenta, and membranes are expelled from the uterus through the birth canal at term (37 to 42 weeks
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
"Protectable subject matters, Protection in biotechnology, Protection of othe...
Pivot Points for Technology Integration (Tech & Learning Live Austin Keynote)
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.
7. “…a complex, dynamic, and very messy
multilevel system”
“…a tangled maze of structures, events,
and relationships”
Cuban, 2013, p. 163Photo: Public Domain
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
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.”
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. ✓ 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. 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.