As a technology coach with a responsibility for training staff on new technologies that my school purchases/buys into, I often have to work with members of staff who believe the 'current' way they do things is already great. Certainly, when they are awarded "Outstanding" in lesson observations by Ofsted who can argue with them? Here I am thinking "whao, your lessons are outstanding!" but I have to get you using technology in the classroom to bring you into the 21st century!
I have had some good successes with individuals who don't see why they should change. I was able to show them that the focus of their lesson can be the students and that they can extend their classroom far beyond the tables, desks and paper they sit at and write into. When I work with members of faculty like this, I am very careful not to say: "You can use technology to improve your teaching", or "Using technology will improve your students' learning." The "improve" word is a problem; it gets their back up! How can you improve on teaching that is officially considered "outstanding?" So, my vocabulary has changed to "enhance."
I try to sneak techie ideas "under the door." The staffroom at lunchtime is a good place for this where I walk in with a big grin on my face. People just can't help ask what has made me so happy, so I tell them how my students videoed themselves pretending to be newsreaders reporting about an epidemic of Spanish Flu and the percentage of people that died from it in the past. I have automatically hit English, History, Media, Science and Maths! I then go on to describe how the students added captions and links to their videos in the YouTube editor, how they built a Google Map of the areas reported worst hit - linking in their videos etc. and how the other students proceeded to add comments for evaluation and improvement. All of these are higher order thinking skills (HOTS) on Bloom's taxonomy and the staff can't help but ask about it. I have augmented and redefined how students present their work on infections. It is after this initial seeding of disruption to their status quo that I have begun to break down the resistance! These teachers aren't threatened but are enticed into presenting their lessons in a way that is more student centered and in line with 21st century ideals of collaboration, creativity and redefinition.
Relative advantage is the degree to which the new approach "enhances" the current approach. With regard to introducing technology to classrooms where the practitioner is accomplished; I feel it is key to show the advantage with regard to skills rather than knowledge e.g. allow students to collaborate on a document, evaluate each other's work, create videos, a Google map or a tour in Google tour builder, etc. The choice for students makes it interesting for them and I have had some success with #takeawayhomework and problem based learning using different technologies as a way for the students to present their work.
Regarding the different types of software, I am a fan of the tutorials that augment the teacher's lessons and give the students an alternative view of the content. The current trend of reverse instruction/flipping the classroom with Ed.Ted.com allows me to find videos for the students that presents the content differently to the way I do; it is like they are getting a second teacher. When the students turn up to my lesson and I assess their comfort with the content and they aren't fully confident, I know that I need to give them my take on things so that they will walk out of my lesson with good progression. If the students are good with the content, we can start to do some HOTS and make the best use of class time.
Simulations and games go hand-in-hand in science. The students love the games and if the simulation is part of the game that makes it even better. Science Pirates is just awesome for getting 11 year old students comfortable with the concept of controlled variables. It is important though to give the students questions to complete as they play in order to focus their attention on the learning objective and not just on the fun of the game.
I use several of the Spongelab games with my students, in particular the A level photosynthesis games. Jeremy Friedman of Spongelab has published several articles on the use of the games his company has produced including a recent report (Muehrer, R., Jenson, J., Friedberg, J. and Husain, N., 2012) where his team describe the mixed successes of using games in class. Their findings suggest that students remember terminology well but struggle to transfer knowledge outside of the game. I have found that the simu-game format of the Spongelab games makes them good for strengthening knowledge after instruction as they give the students the opportunity to visualise and manipulate the molecules they have been learning about.
A current favourite of mine at the moment is Pearson's Mastering Biology series (needs a login) that accompanies their huge textbook. The software is a full online solution with tutorials, animations, e-book and quizzes. The animations are all fully 3d and provide excellent visuals to set the scene for the students and simulate the molecular processes involved. I can teach action potentials and the propagation of an action potential in the post-synaptic membrane without the animations and simulations but the simulation makes the students' understanding progress at a much faster rate. While the use of the simulation to directly instruct the students would be criticised by the contructivists, my students don't have the time available to construct their own knowledge with their A Level exams looming over them in four weeks; they would think I was wasting their time and not focus on the task!
Appropriate software, like appropriate strategies, have to be weighed up for their strengths and weaknesses. If you have time to do constructivist style problem based learning then absolutely go for it! If you have time to allow your students to construct a cell in Mindcraft then go for it. For me, the strategies I choose to use with my students must be supported by the software and I will likely need a combination of the five (drill and practice, tutorial, simulation, instructional games and problem solving software) for any given topic as they represent the varying levels of Bloom's taxonomy or the 21st century skills I want my students expressing.
References:
Muehrer, R., Jenson, J., Friedberg, J. and Husain, N. (2012). Challenges And Opportunities: Using A Science-based Video Game In Secondary School Settings. Retrieved from: http://www.jenjenson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2012-Science-Based-Video-Game.pdf
View original Pictochart here.
Showing posts with label 1.3-ContKnow:Assessing-Evaluating. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1.3-ContKnow:Assessing-Evaluating. Show all posts
Tuesday, 18 February 2014
Thursday, 18 July 2013
Technology Use Planning Overview
Technology Use Planning.
Technology use planning is a process by which an institution develops a time based action plan for the future integration of technology. The plan is based upon the mission and vision of the institution; where they currently are and where they aim to be all in light of their budget, stakeholder skills, and the current state of the technology available.
How might the new National Educational Technology Plan 2010 be an effective and powerful resource for technology use planning?
After researching and reading about digital divides and digital inequalities, I feel that the NETP 2010 tries to address each of the elements of possible inequality well while looking at new competencies and how these should be approached. In this regard the NETP is a great guide from which to base technology use planning.
I particularly like the section on "Assessment: Measure What Matters". I have been challenged over the last couple of years to find ways to measure the effectiveness of student behaviors online in relation to 21st century skills, so this section has definitely caught my attention. The recording of formative assessments (assessment for learning) using simulations and games is very interesting and as the authors clearly see the increase in gaming and the use of tablets for such actions as a trend that will continue to rise, finding ways to evidence the 'players' performances seems logical particularly in light of the skills Universities and employers are asking for lately.
The recommendations for "Connected Teaching" are very forward thinking. To have a vision such as this come to fruition will require the other possible divides that teachers might face to already have been leveled. Whilst I am a big fan of using LinkedIn, Google+ and have various RSS feeds aggregating into my email, and enjoy learning on Coursera, the majority of the teachers I work with are far from a level of 'connectedness' that would meet the NETP goals. The degree of awareness and ed-tech skills exhibited by my colleagues would have to grow considerably and would require, at the very least, one year if not more is several cases, for staff members to become connected. On top of this, a full culture change would be required and driven with considerable energy by the senior leaders of the school for there to be an impact. A shift toward professional development that was continuous, focused and has time allotted to it very regularly would be necessary.
The "Rethinking Basic Assumptions" is an interesting section with the reference to the restructuring of classes to ones where competence is the primary factor and not age. Is it not generally a difficult decision to have students, who are not performing at their age appropriate standard, move to work with different aged students? Physical and emotional developmental states can have repercussions in certain scenarios. Having not read any research on the success of American schools using this technique, I am only going on what I have seen in the British and International systems. It has become more common for tutor groups to be arranged in a "vertical" fashion so that younger students come into contact with the more mature students; learning from them and building relationships. It is not common in international schools or British schools for this vertical, competency based approached to be applied to the curriculum.
It is mentioned several times in the NETP 2010 that research into learning sciences and pedagogy has and is to be used to guide the further implementation of technology. This is essential for any effective integration. It has been my experience that new technologies are bought by schools to provide a superficial push toward meeting requirements. The knowledge and experience of how the technology can be used to enhance learning must be built through the use of sound theories from good research and practice.
Do you agree with See about tech use plans needing to be short, not long term? Why or why not?
Whilst much of the technology that Dr See refers to is out of date, his ideas are still relevant. The first two paragraphs of his article refer to his opinions of long and short term plans. I personally do not agree that five years are too long. It really depends on what you are trying to achieve. Planning for the acquisition and integration of a VLE may easily take three to five years; research, trialing, acquisition, implementation, training of early adopters in the student, teacher and parent body, opening up to the institution, and review/evaluation. If however we are planning for the integration of a new site wide application e.g. Prezi, this could easily be done in a much shorter time and probably within six months assuming the budget has been prepared with foresight to allow for such a fast turn around purchase. Certainly curriculum based software and technology identified by the specialists can be requested by a deadline that provides the requisitioning staff time to order and receive the purchase for the next academic year; three to six months seems appropriate in this instance.
So, whilst I understand his perspective, Dr See has simplified the situation too much for it to be applicable in all instances.
What do you think about his comment that "effective technology plans focus on applications, not technology?
After reading this section of Dr See's article, I wonder if Simon Sinek didn't get his inspiration for his "the golden circle" concept made popular on his TED talk from Dr See. The 'Why' is very important and I fully agree with Dr See in this regard. The why is always about the learning of our students. When we understand the why and can answer this question, the how and what are much easier to address. Example: The Art department are interested in giving their students the best opportunity to enhance their digital photography and video work. This is the why. How? By providing them with the best possible hardware and software within the constraints of the budget, if not for this year, perhaps for the year after. What? Apple? Microsoft? Adobe? It may actually be easier to convince the Board of Governors to spend more money by allowing them to answer the question "What?" after considering the why and the how first.
If the answer is Apple for the Art department, a similar consideration of technology may lead the Science department to acquire Microsoft laptops. Like what we teach the students in IT class; use the correct tool for the job, one size does not fit all.
It is this argument with which I intend to approach the Board in the near future to argue that forcing all of our students to buy iPads for our 1 to 1 scheme isn't appropriate. As long as our students can achieve the desired learning experience, it doesn't matter which device they use, therefore BYOT seems like a better fit. The only stipulation the students should be given is that they are capable, using the device they choose, of experiencing the process their teachers wish them to have.
What experiences have you had with technology use planning and what have been your experiences in terms of outcomes (both good and bad)?
The examples I have mentioned above are indeed my own experiences. Not everything has been smooth sailing. The implementation of our VLE has had its challenges as it was decided to implement two different versions of the VLE, one for the primary campus and one for the secondary, on the same server. While we were assured this would work, it has had problems as the company has updated the different instances at different rates causing malfunctions on the instance that wasn't updated.
What have I learned from this? Don't be an early adopter and don't try something that others haven't done before and been successful with. I'm sure that my compatriots in other international schools in the region have looked at our experience and steered away! That being said, I'm not afraid to lead the pack but when it comes to a product that costs $25000 per year, it needs to work!
The majority of my experience has been around the training of staff to improve their basic skills and to enhance their lessons with technology use. This has been a success for those members of staff who have given their time to attend the sessions and apply what they have learned. If I were to have this be more successful, I would need more support from the senior leaders of the school to make the use of educational technologies to enhance learning a greater priority for all teachers. Many teachers who choose not to attend the training sessions use the technologies in ways that could be a lot more inspiring but since there is nothing forcing them to attend and to improve, they continue to use the IWBs simply as a surface to project on to. My plan this year was to identify individuals how were prepared to give thirty minutes of their time after school to run a training session. These sessions were replicated several times each week with different volunteers, including myself, running the same content. This has had the benefit of serving more teachers as many can't make it to training on certain days. This strategy will continue next academic year.
The most recent blunder and success I have had was this year when I, through lack of awareness, registered the wrong email address with Google when we began the process of integrating GAFE into our school. After attending a Google summit I realized the scope of what acquiring GAFE for our school meant. Fortunately the error wasn't a serious one and my drive to have GAFE into our school is progressing well with us rolling out Gmail to our early adopters in preparation for a school wide transition in September. These early adopters are a combination of savvy and not-so-skilled individuals working in teams. They will disseminate there knowledge to the rest of their faculty colleagues and progress through further training sessions, as the year goes by, in the various Google Apps. I have encouraged the less confident adopters to get involved because I wanted them to be able to show the rest of their teams how the technology worked; if they can do it, everyone can! I have also used these individuals as a debugging tool not only for the technology itself but as a gauge for the appropriateness of the training I have organised. Everything seems to be going well although I do have to remind myself on occasion that just because they volunteer, doesn't mean they can use technology, and so I need to go a lot slower!
Technology use planning is a process by which an institution develops a time based action plan for the future integration of technology. The plan is based upon the mission and vision of the institution; where they currently are and where they aim to be all in light of their budget, stakeholder skills, and the current state of the technology available.
How might the new National Educational Technology Plan 2010 be an effective and powerful resource for technology use planning?
After researching and reading about digital divides and digital inequalities, I feel that the NETP 2010 tries to address each of the elements of possible inequality well while looking at new competencies and how these should be approached. In this regard the NETP is a great guide from which to base technology use planning.
I particularly like the section on "Assessment: Measure What Matters". I have been challenged over the last couple of years to find ways to measure the effectiveness of student behaviors online in relation to 21st century skills, so this section has definitely caught my attention. The recording of formative assessments (assessment for learning) using simulations and games is very interesting and as the authors clearly see the increase in gaming and the use of tablets for such actions as a trend that will continue to rise, finding ways to evidence the 'players' performances seems logical particularly in light of the skills Universities and employers are asking for lately.
The recommendations for "Connected Teaching" are very forward thinking. To have a vision such as this come to fruition will require the other possible divides that teachers might face to already have been leveled. Whilst I am a big fan of using LinkedIn, Google+ and have various RSS feeds aggregating into my email, and enjoy learning on Coursera, the majority of the teachers I work with are far from a level of 'connectedness' that would meet the NETP goals. The degree of awareness and ed-tech skills exhibited by my colleagues would have to grow considerably and would require, at the very least, one year if not more is several cases, for staff members to become connected. On top of this, a full culture change would be required and driven with considerable energy by the senior leaders of the school for there to be an impact. A shift toward professional development that was continuous, focused and has time allotted to it very regularly would be necessary.
The "Rethinking Basic Assumptions" is an interesting section with the reference to the restructuring of classes to ones where competence is the primary factor and not age. Is it not generally a difficult decision to have students, who are not performing at their age appropriate standard, move to work with different aged students? Physical and emotional developmental states can have repercussions in certain scenarios. Having not read any research on the success of American schools using this technique, I am only going on what I have seen in the British and International systems. It has become more common for tutor groups to be arranged in a "vertical" fashion so that younger students come into contact with the more mature students; learning from them and building relationships. It is not common in international schools or British schools for this vertical, competency based approached to be applied to the curriculum.
It is mentioned several times in the NETP 2010 that research into learning sciences and pedagogy has and is to be used to guide the further implementation of technology. This is essential for any effective integration. It has been my experience that new technologies are bought by schools to provide a superficial push toward meeting requirements. The knowledge and experience of how the technology can be used to enhance learning must be built through the use of sound theories from good research and practice.
Do you agree with See about tech use plans needing to be short, not long term? Why or why not?
Whilst much of the technology that Dr See refers to is out of date, his ideas are still relevant. The first two paragraphs of his article refer to his opinions of long and short term plans. I personally do not agree that five years are too long. It really depends on what you are trying to achieve. Planning for the acquisition and integration of a VLE may easily take three to five years; research, trialing, acquisition, implementation, training of early adopters in the student, teacher and parent body, opening up to the institution, and review/evaluation. If however we are planning for the integration of a new site wide application e.g. Prezi, this could easily be done in a much shorter time and probably within six months assuming the budget has been prepared with foresight to allow for such a fast turn around purchase. Certainly curriculum based software and technology identified by the specialists can be requested by a deadline that provides the requisitioning staff time to order and receive the purchase for the next academic year; three to six months seems appropriate in this instance.
So, whilst I understand his perspective, Dr See has simplified the situation too much for it to be applicable in all instances.
What do you think about his comment that "effective technology plans focus on applications, not technology?
After reading this section of Dr See's article, I wonder if Simon Sinek didn't get his inspiration for his "the golden circle" concept made popular on his TED talk from Dr See. The 'Why' is very important and I fully agree with Dr See in this regard. The why is always about the learning of our students. When we understand the why and can answer this question, the how and what are much easier to address. Example: The Art department are interested in giving their students the best opportunity to enhance their digital photography and video work. This is the why. How? By providing them with the best possible hardware and software within the constraints of the budget, if not for this year, perhaps for the year after. What? Apple? Microsoft? Adobe? It may actually be easier to convince the Board of Governors to spend more money by allowing them to answer the question "What?" after considering the why and the how first.
If the answer is Apple for the Art department, a similar consideration of technology may lead the Science department to acquire Microsoft laptops. Like what we teach the students in IT class; use the correct tool for the job, one size does not fit all.
It is this argument with which I intend to approach the Board in the near future to argue that forcing all of our students to buy iPads for our 1 to 1 scheme isn't appropriate. As long as our students can achieve the desired learning experience, it doesn't matter which device they use, therefore BYOT seems like a better fit. The only stipulation the students should be given is that they are capable, using the device they choose, of experiencing the process their teachers wish them to have.
What experiences have you had with technology use planning and what have been your experiences in terms of outcomes (both good and bad)?
The examples I have mentioned above are indeed my own experiences. Not everything has been smooth sailing. The implementation of our VLE has had its challenges as it was decided to implement two different versions of the VLE, one for the primary campus and one for the secondary, on the same server. While we were assured this would work, it has had problems as the company has updated the different instances at different rates causing malfunctions on the instance that wasn't updated.
What have I learned from this? Don't be an early adopter and don't try something that others haven't done before and been successful with. I'm sure that my compatriots in other international schools in the region have looked at our experience and steered away! That being said, I'm not afraid to lead the pack but when it comes to a product that costs $25000 per year, it needs to work!
The majority of my experience has been around the training of staff to improve their basic skills and to enhance their lessons with technology use. This has been a success for those members of staff who have given their time to attend the sessions and apply what they have learned. If I were to have this be more successful, I would need more support from the senior leaders of the school to make the use of educational technologies to enhance learning a greater priority for all teachers. Many teachers who choose not to attend the training sessions use the technologies in ways that could be a lot more inspiring but since there is nothing forcing them to attend and to improve, they continue to use the IWBs simply as a surface to project on to. My plan this year was to identify individuals how were prepared to give thirty minutes of their time after school to run a training session. These sessions were replicated several times each week with different volunteers, including myself, running the same content. This has had the benefit of serving more teachers as many can't make it to training on certain days. This strategy will continue next academic year.
The most recent blunder and success I have had was this year when I, through lack of awareness, registered the wrong email address with Google when we began the process of integrating GAFE into our school. After attending a Google summit I realized the scope of what acquiring GAFE for our school meant. Fortunately the error wasn't a serious one and my drive to have GAFE into our school is progressing well with us rolling out Gmail to our early adopters in preparation for a school wide transition in September. These early adopters are a combination of savvy and not-so-skilled individuals working in teams. They will disseminate there knowledge to the rest of their faculty colleagues and progress through further training sessions, as the year goes by, in the various Google Apps. I have encouraged the less confident adopters to get involved because I wanted them to be able to show the rest of their teams how the technology worked; if they can do it, everyone can! I have also used these individuals as a debugging tool not only for the technology itself but as a gauge for the appropriateness of the training I have organised. Everything seems to be going well although I do have to remind myself on occasion that just because they volunteer, doesn't mean they can use technology, and so I need to go a lot slower!
Monday, 10 June 2013
AECT Standards 2012: Content Knowledge
AECT Standards, 2012 version
AECT Standard 1 - Content Knowledge:
Candidates demonstrate the knowledge necessary to create, use, assess, and manage theoretical and practical applications of educational technologies and processes.
Indicators:
• Creating - Candidates demonstrate the ability to create instructional materials and learning environments using a variety of systems approaches. (p. 81)
• Using - Candidates demonstrate the ability to select and use technological resources and processes to support student learning and to enhance their pedagogy. (p. 141)
• Assessing/Evaluating - Candidates demonstrate the ability to assess and evaluate the effective integration of appropriate technologies and instructional materials.
• Managing - Candidates demonstrate the ability to effectively manage people, processes, physical infrastructures, and financial resources to achieve predetermined goals. (p. 178)
• Ethics - Candidates demonstrate the contemporary professional ethics of the field as defined and developed by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (p. 284)
NOTE: Parenthetical page references are to Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary (2008, A. Januszewski & M. Molenda, Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.)
AECT Standard 1 - Content Knowledge:
Candidates demonstrate the knowledge necessary to create, use, assess, and manage theoretical and practical applications of educational technologies and processes.
Indicators:
• Creating - Candidates demonstrate the ability to create instructional materials and learning environments using a variety of systems approaches. (p. 81)
• Using - Candidates demonstrate the ability to select and use technological resources and processes to support student learning and to enhance their pedagogy. (p. 141)
• Assessing/Evaluating - Candidates demonstrate the ability to assess and evaluate the effective integration of appropriate technologies and instructional materials.
• Managing - Candidates demonstrate the ability to effectively manage people, processes, physical infrastructures, and financial resources to achieve predetermined goals. (p. 178)
• Ethics - Candidates demonstrate the contemporary professional ethics of the field as defined and developed by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (p. 284)
NOTE: Parenthetical page references are to Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary (2008, A. Januszewski & M. Molenda, Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)