One of my primary job responsibilities is helping educators in my district to innovate by providing thought leadership and professional development to get us there. We have embraced University of South Florida’s Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) as a way to help teachers understand the different levels of technology integration, with an eye toward reaching transformation, all while understanding that not all teaching and learning will fall into this category. Much like with the Rigor and Relevance Framework created by the International Center for Leadership in Education, we recognize that learning brand new content often occurs in Quadrant A, or, on the TIM, in the “entry level.” We explain that we hope teachers can increase the frequency of teaching and learning that occurs in Quadrant D of the Rigor & Relevance Framework, or transformative teaching and learning in the TIM. But lately I’ve been wondering, will this get us to innovation? Or, will we have teachers that will be content with the low-hanging fruit – which would be Quadrants A & B, or Entry/Adoption?
The two models are different, in that the TIM focuses on levels of technology integration –the strategy for learning, rather than describing the learning. TIM is all about how the tools are being used – not on the results they produce. It is about inputs. The Rigor & Relevance Framework describes what the students are doing, and the outcome. As I look at these models and reflect, I wonder if transformation, as described by TIM, is enough for innovation. (See http://d20innovation.d20blogs.org/files/2013/05/Technology-to-Learning-Design-Chart.jpg) For instance, if we are using technology in transformative ways, but it is only for acquisition or application of knowledge, or is limited to one discipline, can we even describe this as transformative, in terms of the impact on the learner?
Let’s face it, educational technology departments are stretched pretty thin, and so much of our efforts are still being spent on just trying to get more teachers to use technology. But to obtain the level of innovation that we seek, transformative learning that will prepare our students for an “unimagined future,” a systematic approach is needed, that meets teachers where they are, and consistently moves them forward in both pedagogical and technological knowledge, so that they can achieve the sweet spot described in the TPACK model –Technological, Pedagogical Content Knowledge. We can’t just focus on TIM, because that is only about inputs. To really achieve innovation, I believe we must also use the Rigor and Relevance Framework and backwards design process outlined in Understanding by Design, which includes setting learning goals for transfer.
Underlying truly meaningful and deeply skilled teaching with technology, TPACK is different from knowledge of all three concepts individually. Instead, TPACK is the basis of effective teaching with technology, requiring an understanding of the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress some of the problems that students face; knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, accessed at http://tpack.org/tpck/index.php?title=Main_Page).
I love the Understanding by Design (UbD) method for planning learning with the end in mind. This makes perfect sense, no matter what you teach – if your goal is to make sure that your students learn. (it’s not enough to say you “taught” it.) In my case, my learners happen to be teachers, and so modeling backwards planning when designing professional learning is essential.
Currently, I am working on a plan for professional learning to support teachers who may pilot 1:1 through BYOD “Bring Your Own Device” in their classes next year. In UbD, Stage 1 involves identifying the learning goals for transfer, understanding, knowledge, and skills, and an overarching essential question that can drive the learning. I love how thinking through these learning goals can spark ideas for the “performance assessment” – which in this case will be the teachers designing learning that is focused on learning goals, and then designing a performance assessment and activities to support those goals – which is where the technology comes into play.
Here are the goals I’ve drafted–what would you add?
Teachers create learning ecosystems that motivate students to own the learning by using technology to support deeper, more personal learning.
Goals for Understanding:
- What is possible to do with technology that could not be done without it
- Understanding how to design learning that motivates learners to take ownership
- Understanding how to give learners voice and choice
- Understand that learning is a social endeavor
- Understand that learner questions and questioning are at the heart of learning
- Understand that real world problem solving motivates learners to reach higher
- Understand that the more they release control, the more students will own the learning
Goals for Knowledge
- Teachers know how to backwards design learning
- Know what it “looks like’ when students are using technology in transformative ways
- Teachers know how to design learning for authentic problem solving
- Teachers know the 21st century skills
- Teachers know how to facilitate, rather than just deliver learning
Goals for Skill
- Basic troubleshooting of devices
- How to use a core group of apps and tools for creating and connecting
- How to model, teach, assess and give students feedback on 21st century skills
Essential Question: How can we make the learning ecosystem meaningful for each individual learner?
I started this blog 4 years ago, after my first visit to Educon in 2011, being so inspired by the students and staff, under the leadership of Chris Lehmann, at the Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia, who host this conference every year. It remains one of the best examples I have ever seen of a school where students own the learning. This year’s visit proved that despite budget cuts and over-testing that they are experiencing along with the rest of the public schools in the country, it is still possible to remain true to your mission and core values . At SLA, inquiry, research, collaboration, presentation and reflection are the core values, and they are evident everywhere you look.
Below you will find a brief presentation I shared with the Digital Learning Coaches in our school district, in which I attempted to capture from tweets the reasons, for me, that visiting The Science Leadership Academy and participating in Educon is so inspirational. Educon has become the “un-conference” where I go to re-charge my batteries, and to be reminded of what is possible in public education with the right vision, leadership, and support.
My Question: In its current form, does an LMS help, or hinder learning?
I share a lot of articles and resources with my PLN on a regular basis, usually adding a few words to share my reaction to the item. I often get retweets, and sometimes, a thank you or a few tweets exchanged, but every now and then, something really special happens. Sharing Audrey Watter’s blog post “Beyond the LMS” in September was one of those special moments. This blog post seemed to hit a nerve with several others in my PLN. There was a desire to talk it out, exchange more thoughts and ideas, more resources, and gain a better understanding. My friend and fellow Coloradan, Jessica Raleigh, (@TyrnaD) responded to my comment in a Google Hangout, “This really made me think!” sharing that it made her think too! She offered to put together a Voxer group to discuss, and proceeded to invite others to join us. I had no idea how to use Voxer – I don’t think I had ever heard of it before then, so I was excited to learn this new tool on the way to gaining a better understanding of LMSs. Soon, we were joined by Chris Rogers (@chrisrogers07) and Sarah Thomas (@sarahdateechur), as well as Lisa Goochee (@blubirding)
Thus, the stage was set for our learning. We had:
Note that there is no LMS in this learning scenario. It is happening freely, serendipitously, utilizing social media of many kinds. No one gave us this “assignment.” We all participated in this learning out of our personal desires to know and understand, in order to best meet the needs of the students we serve.
Over the course of 4 months, we have discussed, shared additional articles, and even wrote ( and it was accepted!) a proposal for an unconference-style conversation on LMSs at this summer’s InnEdCo conference in Keystone, Colorado. We have tweeted, blogged, Voxed, curated, and texted each other sharing our “ahas,” additional resources, and further questions. Some things we discussed included:
-The word “management” is problematic. Who should manage a student’s learning? It seems to be more about control. It can stifle learning.
-The LMS is like a walled garden. We need to open up that garden and let students interact in the “real world.”
-The LMS could best be viewed as “training wheels” – but eventually, those training wheels need to come off.
- The LMS affords some level of accountability and safety. This is why it may always be with us. This means we need to find a balance between management & control and, well – learning!
Here’s the thing. We have been participating in really wonderful, self-directed, unfettered learning. On our own terms. In our own time. With the tools of our choice. It has been a powerful, heady experience! Relationships have formed – even though most of us have never met face-to-face!
This is what I want for our students. What are the chances that this kind of learning could take place inside an LMS? That is the question that continues to haunt me.
What I see in practice is that the LMS basically picks up the 20th century teaching and information delivery style, and transfers it into electronic format. The LMS seems to make the S (substitution) in the SAMR model easiest to accomplish. It is hard for a teacher and students to form relationships inside its electronic walls. It is hard to foster creativity.
When I have been a student using an LMS, I have felt isolated and alone, other than a very artificial sense of community in the “mandatory” participation in the forums. Some comments there seem so contrived, they are laughable.
This is not the kind of learning I want for our students.
So, I will continue to seek answers, and try to find that perfect balance. I am excited that we have an opportunity to draw even more people in our conversation at InnEdCo.
I’d love to know your thoughts on the LMS. What do you think? Does it help, or hinder learning?
Ed-tech must not become an extraction effort, and it increasingly is. The future, I think we’ll find, will be a reclamation project. Ed-tech must not be about building digital walls around students and content and courses. We have, thanks to the Web, an opportunity to build connections, build networks, not walls. – Audrey Watters
Do high schools today provide opportunities for students to innovate? This was the question that 3 high school science teachers in our “Creating Innovators” grant project kept asking themselves as they were reading Tony Wagner’s book Creating Innovators during our project’s book study. It seemed apparent that very few of the innovators described in the book attributed any of their innovative nature to teachers or mentors in their high school. Upon further reflection, these teachers, Kristi Follett, Heather Wendt and Niki Juhl realized that providing opportunities for innovation while still meeting content requirements and within the current school structure and time constraints is next to impossible, so they set out to do something about it.
In researching examples of innovation in the Colorado Springs area, they learned about a unique program at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs: the world’s only Bachelor of Innovation Degree Program. This program offers Bachelor of Innovation degrees in six different majors: Business, Computer Science, Computer Security, Electrical Engineering, Game Design and Development and Inclusive Early Childhood Education. No matter which area students major in, all students in the program must complete 27 credit hours of the Innovation Core courses, to include courses in entrepreneurship, the innovative process, business and intellectual property law, technical writing, proposals & presentations, and innovation teams, to include analyze, report, research, execute, design, lead, and strategy. Students in this program work with real clients, write grants, design programs, and solve real-world problems.
Creativity is thinking up new things. Innovation is doing new things. – Theodore Levitt
Kristi, Heather & Niki reached out to the BI program via the visionary founder, Dr. Terry Boult, and Co-Director of of Strategic Alliances, Dr. Colleen Stiles. After multiple conversations, a true collaborative partnership emerged. One of the UCCS BI Innovative Teams classes adopted these 3 science teachers as a client. The problem they were trying to solve? How to bring innovative learning opportunities to high school science classes. The result? The UCCS students worked with Kristi, Heather and Niki to design an elective science course, I.D.E.A.S. – “Innovative Design in Educational Alliances for STEM.” The program is rooted in standards for Science, English, and Math, but also addresses all parts of innovation: funding, teams, process, and protection of ideas – and 21st century skills. Essentially, high school students will be mentored by UCCS BI students and participate on innovative teams applying science knowledge to solve real world problems for clients. The BI students are currently seeking funding for the program, and are prepared to assist when it comes time to request the new course before the school board. These BI students are highly motivated to make this happen, being recent high school graduates themselves. They recognize the need to create more engaging and authentic learning experiences for high school students.
How do we reach teachers who would probably never volunteer to attend an educational technology professional development workshop, let alone a full-year grant project? During the 2013-14 school year, our IT-Educational Services department wanted to use some internal grant funding to try to reach out to some of these teachers in a meaningful way; to start them on the road toward innovative and transformative learning for their students. We decided on piloting a peer-mentoring program, where we would select some of our innovative/early adopting teachers from 8 different schools to mentor 2-3 “technology-reluctant” teachers in their schools. Here are the goals we drafted:
Designing the Professional Development Plan
We use Understanding by Design to plan out our professional development workshops and programs, to help us assure that we identify meaningful learning goals for our teachers, activities were aligned with these goals, and that measures of success were in place. For this project, our overall transfer goal was this:
Before meeting with the whole group of mentors & mentees, we had one workshop just for the mentors, to give them tips and information on strategies for instructional coaching, using many of the wonderful resources from ISTE’s Coaches PLN, including the ISTE Standards for Coaches. Both mentors & mentees participated in an online learning community to do a book study of Tony Wagner’s wonderful book, Creating Innovators – from which we came up with the title of our grant project. Throughout the year, we offered four face-to-face workshops to the whole group. At each workshop, we modeled active, hands-on learning, sharing strategies and tools that they could use in their classrooms. We used the University of South Florida’s Technology Integration Matrix for teachers to self-assess where they were in using technology and the videos to help them capture a vision of where they’d like to be. We set up “think tanks” for them to benefit from small group brainstorming on how to improve a lesson or unit through the use of technology tools and innovative learning strategies. We introduced them to the Stanford dSchool Design Thinking process. Additionally, we provided subs so they could visit each other’s classrooms, and we visited two innovative schools in the Denver Metro area – Adams 12’s STEM program at Northglenn High School and the STEM Launch K-8 school, also in Adams 12. In addition to all of this, the mentors worked 1:1 with their mentees throughout the year, offering just-in-time teaching of tools and strategies, advice, and encouragement. All of these activities were designed with the end in mind: building the mentee teachers’ understanding, skills and confidence so that they would be willing to try some of these innovative practices for teaching and learning with their own students.
I am happy to report that we were very successful in accomplishing our goal. It was interesting that each team of teachers seemed to connect with one particular strategy from our professional development plan, and all seemed to branch out in different directions, to best meet the needs of the learners in their schools. Our mentor teachers presented as a panel at ISTE to an audience of over 200 people, sharing their challenges and successes in the Creating Innovators Project.
I’d like to share with you the impact on one of our elementary teachers. The video below was produced by Justin Crosby and mentor teacher, Autumn Crosby, and features Autumn’s mentee, Cheryl Hammarquist, kindergarten Teacher, Michelle Sylvestri, kindergarten paraprofessional, and Dr. Kathy Pickering, assistant principal.
In my next blot post, I will share the story of our high school mentor/mentee team, who are taking innovation to a whole new level!
A comment made during this week’s #edchat, for which the topic was “What are your 2 specific top priorities that you would put in place today for education reform?” has inspired this writing for #leadershipday2014. Justin Buckner (@bucknerclass), a 4th grade teacher from San Antonio and author of the Everyday Project Based Learning blog tweeted:
I wonder how many schools and districts have some version of the word “innovate” in their mission statements. I also wonder how many of those schools and districts are prepared to back their teachers who truly want to innovate, within a system that is becoming more rigid and inflexible every year.
Innovation, as defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
A new idea, device or method, or is the act or process of introducing a new idea, device or method.
This is not research-based best practice if it is “new.” Because of this, there is a certain element of risk involved. Will it work for one student? For some? For all? Teachers need to know that their educational leaders “have their backs” as they try to implement new tools and strategies in pursuit of helping each individual student to maximize his/her learning.
There are so many incredible technology tools available –and more are introduced every day. These tools open up a whole new world and the possibility of truly transforming learning for our students. “Best Practice” needs to give way to “NEXT practice,” as students are learning through technology in ways that were never possible when those “best practices” were identified years ago.
Dr. John Sullivan describes it this way:
Best practices only allow you to do what you are currently doing a little better, while next practices increase your organization’s capability to do things that it could never have done before.
Educational leaders, empower your teachers to innovate, so that they can help students in ways they never could have done before.
There seem to be an increasing number of “1:1” initiatives, “mobile learning” initiatives, “BYOD” initiatives, and “digital learning” initiatives throughout the country, perhaps in response to Obama’s call for digital textbooks to be in every student’s hands within 5 years (from 2012) or in response to online testing requirements. Perhaps, though, the purpose of these initiatives is something more.
Here is what I am wondering. If we call an initiative by the name of the strategy, rather than the results we hope to see, will we actually achieve the end goal? Have we even identified what the end goal is? Isn’t the end goal about more than access to technology?
I had a moment of clarity yesterday, brought about by tuning in to the first of Broward County Public Schools Webinar series (through the Center for Digital Education) on their “Personalized Learning” initiative. The first webinar of the series was about planning. As I listened, I thought how odd it was that the planning they were really talking about had everything to do with getting a digital device into the hands of every student. I thought I was listening to a webinar about a 1:1 initiative, and that perhaps I had tuned in to the wrong webinar.
Then it struck me. Personalized Learning is the end goal. (-or should be.) A major strategy to accomplish this is getting a personal digital device into the hands of every student, so of course this is a huge piece of the planning.
What a simple concept. By labeling the initiative what it is, I believe there is a much better chance of achieving it. Why? Because the measures of success will be to determine the level of personalized learning that is accomplished, or perhaps even student achievement, growth, or skill acquisition. If the initiative is just about getting technology into kids hands, then the measures of success will likely look quite different. They will be more quantitative in nature, and probably not as focused on the learning–or the student. Re-labeling the initiative might even be the shift needed to get all of the right people to the planning table – not just the technology team, but leaders in curriculum, instruction, and assessment as well.
What initiative do you have in your school or district? What do you call it? What are the measures of success? Are they in alignment? Would it help to call it what it is?
I was ecstatic when I found out recently that I had been selected by EF Tours for a full scholarship to travel to China last month for a Global Student Leadership Summit! This was an opportunity to see student global collaboration and problem solving in action, and to brainstorm and collaborate with other educators from Colorado and around the U.S. to start building a plan for students in my district to address global competency in a comprehensive way. Ever since my first travel experiences outside of the U.S. many, many years ago– to Mexico with my high school choir, and Europe with my college choir –I have understood that my thinking, my understanding, and my world view were different from those of my peers and my family, I believe, as a result of this travel. Sure, I had participated in the obligatory “cultural” experiences of my schooling – making crepes in French class, having an “international fair” with my Girl Scout troop, and even exchanged some letters with a French pen pal. None of that prepared me for actually being in another country, where not only many of the buildings, but the traditions date back hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of years. This makes Mt. Vernon seem downright new – and brings an unbelievably new perspective to a person’s thinking in a way that is difficult to describe. Not to mention the perspective gained through real relationships formed. In both of these travel experiences of my youth, I was pushed way outside my comfort zone. Brief as they were, we were immersed in the culture, in my case, through the language, the music, the historical sites we visited, the food we ate, the personal stories shared by our excellent guides, and staying with host families at least part of the time. I was excited to see this impact on the students at the Summit.
It is this kind of experience, I believe, that leads to global understanding. People who travel abroad with an open mind can experience this. (Note –open mind required!) It goes beyond “global competency.” Don’t get me wrong – global competency is essential for our students’ future success – and certainly better than nothing, but there is a huge difference between knowing something –and really understanding something.
In China, in addition to the group of educators I traveled with, about 400 American and Chinese high school students were brought together for the Global Student Leadership Summit to use the Stanford dSchool Design Thinking process to design and present solutions to global issues. This was true global collaboration. Students came together to address a topic they were passionate about, and in the case of the Chinese students, in a language that was not their own. They had just two days to accomplish this! (The rest of the week, we spent touring in and experiencing the culture of Shanghai and Beijing.) During the Summit, students were inspired by NPR’s Planet Money hosts, Adam Davidson and Alex Blumberg, and by former ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman Jr. Click on the image below to see some highlights of the Summit experience:
Here is what I am wondering: Can we duplicate the intensity of an immersion experience through technology – to go beyond global competency to achieve this kind of global understanding? I believe whenever possible, we need to make travel experiences like this available to our students, but when travel is not possible, technology can and must help bridge the gap between global competency and true global understanding. Veronica Mansilla and Anthony Jackson state in their book, Educating for Global Competence: Preparing our Youth to Engage the World. Published by the Council of Chief State School Officers and The Asia Society:
Videoconferencing, social networking, and other communication technologies now allow students unprecedented opportunities to investigate issues of global significance with students around the world—much the way working professionals now operate in global teams.
The issue, though, is how in-depth teachers design these learning experiences to be. A simple cultural exchange about weather, holiday traditions, music, and foods, while students sit surrounded by their own comforts of home, might be a good starting point for young students, but for older students, to really grow their global understanding, we need to design opportunities for actual cross-cultural collaborative problem solving. It is through this kind of experience that we will develop students as future leaders.
I encourage you to investigate EF Tours for future Student Leadership Summits, service learning, exchange programs, and travel opportunities for students and educators – I am quite impressed with the programs they offer. Also check out Flat Connections for opportunities for technology-enabled global, collaborative problem solving. On my Global Collaboration Wiki Resource page, I have listed several other links to help students make connections through service learning and problem solving globally.