Session 10- Wrapping It Up

After so many years working with, in and on instructional technology, it was wonderful to take my first distance learning class. I have worked on learning distance classes as a developer and instructional specialist, and it was great to be on the other side as a student. Also, I have learned so much with my projects- I have created websites and blogs, but never learned how to host them myself until now.

I enjoyed looking at Rogers again, and very much appreciated Dr. Newberry's Technology Hierarchy- I have been using this model as a way of explaining and justifying my recommendations for adoption and diffusion of new technology, both at my site and within my district.

And to give a name to the frustration that is Ed Norman; what a droll, perfect two-word descriptor for this syndrome. Mostly, I need to look for Ed inside of myself as I branch out to more and more support and innovation within my region.

As anyone that has had a chance to look at my Project #3, one can see where I am going with Instructional Technology. I am very much interested in exploring the power inherent in combining Visual and Performing Arts and the use of technology to support these standards. In so many ways, our performing and visual arts are stuck- literally and figuratively- in the 1950's. Band, choir, drama, drawing/fine arts dominate the classrooms of what is quickly a disappearing, underfunded quagmire of anachronistic artistic expression. There is a need, both in terms of instructional opportunities, as well as real-world connections, to present the visual and performing arts through technology. To give drawing/painting classes real immediacy, all student work must be catalogued and shown via websites create and maintained by the student artist. The musician must be able to not only be able to play in an intricate and musically complex marching and/or orchestral band, but they need to be able to record, arrange, compose and publish music electronically, and to harness the power of technology to advance their musical expression.

I am developing the REAL Project (recording and electronic arts lab), which will be a classroom with 20 workstations (pairs of students working each station). Each workstation will have a USB connected guitar, bass and keyboard, controlled by a Macintosh computer loaded with recording, looping and sound creation and management software, allowing students to create, compose and record their own music. Also, students will be able to record remotely, allowing them to record, mix and archive performances by the school band, choir and theater. Also, each station will have a digital video camera, allowing for video recording editing, program creation and event archiving. Using the REAL workstations, students can create video for web applications, local cable affiliates, and live video and image projections for concerts and school events. Finally, the same labs can serve as web creation stations, allowing students to learn to create webpages for music, video, and school and community orginizations.

By marrying current VAPA programs with the future and real-world power of technology, students will be engaged in projects that gaurantee that their passion for the arts will be joined together with skills and knowledge that will make them marketable in the world of their tomorrow.

Activty Log- Session 10

Monday, March 16
Completed and posted Project #1, my ETEC Masters portfolio.
Listened to lecture for Session 10, Wrapping it up. Took notes via Google Docs.

Tuesday, March 17
Revised project #1 with suggestions from teacher.
Reposted webpages.
Completed blog for Session 10.
Responded to three other blogs.

Session 9: Professional Development

Describe an excellent and a poor experiences in PD- Key similarities and differences.

When being part of a professional development experience, or if I am the one creating it, I find there are 5 indispensable components that need to be in any workshop-
1) Inspire and model what it should look like (See)
2) Break it down into manageable parts (Hear)
3) Hands-On (Do)
4) Evaluation(Change)
5) Follow-up(Care)

Imagine, if you will, a Wednesday afternoon, after the kids are gone, and you are sitting in an after school workshop on creating websites for your classroom. In the "typical" PD experience, you would be talked to about the benefits of using a website for your classroom- you would then be shown a PowerPoint that illustrates how to begin your own website. You would be told the various features of the website protocol and the ways you can access them. You would be given a print out of the very PowerPoint being used to teach the workshop, and you would be encouraged to use the program as soon as you could; an hour and a half later, the presenter would leave, and the subject would not be broached again.

Same Wednesday afternoon. Same crowd. However, the workshop begins with the shared commitment to increase parent communication and parent involvement. Also, the collective commitment to increase student homework and student involvement. Finally, the collective commitment for increasing the use of technology to facilitate learning and communication would be reviewed. Once the purpose for the technology had been set, then the learning would begin.

The presenter would then have teachers on computers, with working examples of websites that have been created by teachers in the respective grades. The communication, ease of posting notices, assignments and calendars would be highlighted as the teachers explore the teacher-created websites. Various on-line templates would be shared, and teachers would create a single entry for their own webpage.

Teachers would then break into workgroups that are grade or level specific, and they would work together to create their webpages. The facilitator would be there to help, there would be clear guidelines for creating websites posted around the room, and in hand outs, as well as models of websites projected on walls. Finally, there would be weblinks to videos showing how to complete their webpages on their own in accessible, step-by-step formats

Evaluations would be on-line, using SurveyMonkey, and results would be instant.

The Facilitator follows up on-line, and answers questions, suggests links to model websites, offers step-be-step directions for ONE MORE piece of the website. The principal features screenshots of teacher's websites as part of her weekly bulletin, and offers links to other staff webpages in her staff e-mails.

Although both scenarios have a presenter, a group of teachers, and a technology lesson to impart, they are different in both tone, substance and style. The latter is focused, broken down into manageable parts, meets the predetermined needs of the institution, is supported by both the principal and the presenter later on, and offers multiple models and entry points into the training for the various learning styles of the participants.

For me, both as a participant, and as a trainer, the second scenario is more empowering, more effective, will have long-term results, and will produce more bang-for-the-SD-dollar. This kind of workshop presentation could be used for other topics other than technology, and would garner much more staff buy-in, and, in the end, cost less than constantly coming out to the site to train those who "didn't get it the first time".

Activity Log- Session 9

Monday, March 9
Listened to podcast- took notes via Google Docs, which I highly recommend. Sent up a blog on Professional Development, and continued working on my Project #1, which will be my ETEC Portfolio done as a webpage.

Tuesday, March 10
Started responses to peer's blogs. Worked on Project #1, creating links to activities, projects, lessons and grants I have written or completed.

Wednesday, March 11
Completed responses to peer's blogs.

Thursday, March 12
Uploaded partial Etec portfolio into bravaehost.com. I hate the adds. I need to make different hosting situation.

Saturday, March 14
Changed markermorse.info to smallorange.com. Changed DNS settings, and changed domain servers.

Sunday, March 15
Finished two more sitings in Etec portfolio. Uploaded components into new webhost. Downloaded new FTP manager, and moved all files and folders from bravehost to smallorange. Reconnected all links from webpages and blog to connect to new webhost.

Session 8- Data Driven Decision Making

One of the areas our school, and our district, excel is in the use of data to drive decision making. We have used Accelerated Reader to maintain a treasure-trove of data about students reading. The data from AR has been used in many positive ways. Students can keep track of their own data, and determine which books to read, what level of books to pursue, genres of book enjoyed, and students can be rewarded for their reading with prizes, contests, privileges, entertainment and grades. Teachers at my school use the data from AR to create reading groups, literature circles, incentive programs, homework tracking, and to give another data piece in the literacy puzzle of each of their students. Administration has been able to use AR data to direct spending to library replacement of books, reading program support, and to justify after school library hours and summer reading programs. What makes AR such a positive way of obtaining and using data in the classroom? First, their are multitudes of ways data can be displayed and disseminated, from student friendly printouts to web-based dashboards, to detailed item analysis to in-depth reading ability evaluations. Second, AR is relatively easy to use, and students can be trained quickly and effectively to use the program. The program can also be used at home, school and at public libraries throughout the city. Third, The data that is collected can be mined easily by teachers, staff and parents to compare, contrast and confirm progress over time.

Leadership, at least at our site level, is what made this program so successful at my school. The temptation to use the program as a stick, instead of a carrot, was avoided from the very beginning, and the program was pushed to be used as it was designed- as a reading incentive program. Buy-in was gradual, and required use in all classrooms was a five year process. Rewards and incentives were the primary way the program was implemented, for both students and teachers, and early use was rewarded and successful use was demonstrated. Clear expectations of use was expressed by year 5, so that when it was a required part of our school's technological infrastructure, it was clear how it was to be used.

Although we have been successful at my school in using data driven decision making, utilizing other programs besides AR (Data Director, SASSI, On-line report cards, PearsonSuccessNet, etc), there are real concerns about using data driven decision making. One such concern is that although we have many pools of data from which to gather information, are we ignoring the areas in the curriculum that have few if any data resources? Do we simply wish away those areas? I find that areas such as art, music, PE, and especially history and science, are tossed aside curricularly and instructionally because we have no data mandates for these subjects. If we don't test it, or collect data for it, it often just does not exist in our classrooms anymore. Just because we can not quantify art, or because we do not test for science or social studies, does this mean that they are any less important than grammar? Second, we tend to value the data that is easiest to get, and ignore the more complex, and more educationally relevant, data. For example, we look at grammar and mechanics in writing far more than the student's actual ability to communicate, simply because this data is so much easier to obtain through multiple choice tests. Looking at student writing, scoring on a rubric, and imputing those scores takes time, and it is often hard to compare scores over time and across grades. So, we concentrate more and more time on teaching to the multiple choice test, and ignore the actual task that the test is supposed to prepare students for- writing. We are even taking time to teach kids how to choose the best sentence in a choice of sentences presented, not because this is good teaching, or will make them better writers in anyway, but because this form of writing assessment is on the state test.

Leadership is key. When leaders demand high quality assessments that actually get at what students can and can not do, we create assessment programs that actually test what kids know. When leadership is more interested in speed, continuity and cost, then we get multiple choice tests that assess only what their limited design allows them to assess, and all other knowledge, skill and student ability is ignored. As we lurch forward in our toddler-like way with the new world of assessment technology, it will be bold, insightful and knowledgeable leaders who will make the difference in whether assessments are either meaningful or simply mandatory.

Activity Log- February 22-28

Activity Log-

Sunday, February 22
Uploaded successfully my Project #2, Communications. Linked to blog, linked blog to webpage. Checked all the links.

Monday, February 23
Tried to access other webhost site for Project #1, my portfolio, but server must be down. I tried to FTP files into the server, but this did not work, and cpanel just timed out. This is the site I am paying for! AHHHHH!

Tuesday, February 24
Listened to Session 7 podcast. Took notes using Google Docs. Continued to work on program outline for Project 3, long-term VAPA use of technology in a high school setting.

Wednesday, February 25
Created blog for session 7 and activity log. Responded to 3 other blogs.

Session 7: The Ed Norman Syndrome

A few years ago, I was working on a wonderful project that involved creating student-generated radio shows. These podcasts were reader's theater version of books that we shared in class- students wrote the adaptations, acted out the parts, created the Foley, mixed and posted their shows. District bigwigs wanted to see how the project worked, so a crew from the DO came to observe. Most were impressed and gave their blessings. But a few could not see the innovations, they could only see the problems. Ed Norman had arrived.

Because I had created a LAN with computers from home mixed with computers from the school, and because I had networked them together, instead of being praised for my integration and use of computers to enhance and promote active learning, I was upbraided for daring to bypass the network restriction of the district, and required to remove the home computers. I was never given any way to replace the hardware that was needed to run the program. Also, because the Podcasts where data heavy, they were never posted on any district server. Finally, I was warned that I might be running into intellectual property laws, and I was asked not to do this anymore. Of course, anyone that has taken any fair-use training would know immediately that my student's projects were exempt.

So, Ed Norman stuck his ugly little head in the way of innovative, standards-based use of current and cutting-edge technology in 3 ways. First, there was the networking concerns about home computers mixing and infecting the system. Second, there was a bias against posting student work on line, using the "size" issue as a reason to nix having student work on the net. Finally, there was ignorance about fair use.

How do I deal with this issue now? I am currently having my students work on a project in which they create music to express their understanding of core science learnings, and I am using my own computers again from home. They are accessing the network to download loops, and I will be uploading their songs onto a website that I am maintaining for the project. There are district people coming to video tape the project, and, of course, I am nervous. So I am resorting to subterfuge. I am taking out old district computes that no longer work, and putting them in front of my home computers to mask them during the taping. I am posting the music, without any identifying labels of course, on the internet myself. Since their work is completely original, I am free of any fair-use problems.

To successfully implement cutting-edge use of technology, and to get around the Ed Norman Syndrome, I am falling back to the old adage, "It is better to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission." Are others of you forced to act like a sneaky teenager just to do what is best for kids?

Session 6: Barriers to Technology Use

Barriers that I see or perceive- Which are actual barriers, and what are actually proxies, for something else. What would you do to solve, or get over, the barrier?

I am a gamer. Not much of one anymore, as family, grad school, teaching, training and supervision take a great deal of my time, but I am, at the heart of it, a gamer. Currently, the only game I have time for anymore is World of Warcraft (War-crack?) and that just intermittently. However, I seem more than willing to get past any hurdle, any barrier, the game puts in front of me...the more challenging the dilemma, the better the game experience for me. I see this as a truth for most of the player I encounter. Yet, the same players, myself included, see difficulties in the use of technology in a classroom as a barrier, an obstacle, not a challenge, and the same sense of conquering a dilemma does not lead us in our use of new technology. Why this disconnect between what, in a game format, is an entertaining challenge, and what in work is a stress-inducing, avoid-at-all-costs barrier?

In the gaming world, one is rewarded for breaking through barriers. Money, treasure, points, are all gained by combatting problems and solving them head on. There is a direct, consistent reward for getting past barriers, so much so that finding problems to solve becomes the point. In schools, barriers are there because 1) there are very little incentives to solving problems. 2) There is little support for solving and getting past barriers and 3) Expectations for one to solve problems are placed in front of us, causing stress, but no tools, paths, models, or support is given to show how the barrier can be overcome, no methods are shared among peers. "Do this, fix that, it should have been done yesterday, implement this, complete that, we don't know how it should be done, no one knows, just do it!"

As Dr. Newberry suggested in his post, it is leadership that gets us all past barriers. Since there is a natural proclivity for many of us to solve problems on our own, simply recognizing and rewarding those who focus on solving problems and share solutions would go a long way towards moving schools past technological hurdles. I also see the truth in the idea that clear directives, modeled expectations, understandable goals and consistent support would cause much of the time problem to take care of itself.

At my school, and against my wishes, a very large purchase of equipment was made- Tablet PC's, document cameras and projectors for every teacher. But no money, no support structure, no training schedule, no model of instructional integration, nothing, was created or purchased to give support to this purchase. And, as anyone in this program knows, the resulting stress, or worse, complete disinterest in the technologies use, is prevalent in my school. Instead of being seen as a way of increasing classroom productivity, student engagement, and instructional competency, the tools are being seen as another hurdle to bash into, and the possible transformative use of the technology is being squandered. Are those who took the initiative to integrate their technology in their classroom being rewarded or recognized? No, they are, in fact, being upbraided for causing too many problems with the system, or asking for too much help, or using time that has been set aside for specific program planning for technology support. Is there a model of how the technology should be used? Administration can not agree on any part of a model for use.

Kids should not be allowed to use the equipment. Kids must be allowed to use it everyday. Teachers must use the e-mail function everyday. Teachers may not e-mail in their classrooms! Teachers may not use their overheads anymore. Teachers are not to order bulbs for the document camera/projectors that replaced their overheads. Teachers need to use flipcharts. Teachers are not allowed to download flipcharts from the internet.

The barriers, as you can see, were predictable and completely avoidable. But no leadership was given, and the structure and personnel used in previous successful technology integrations was ignored. And, the lessons from the gaming wold were never learned and used- reward, recognize achievement, lower the stress threshold, and make the technology fun. Instead, it has been humiliation, ignorance and profound disorganization.

How would I fix it?

First, recognize and reward success. A blurb or line in the weekly bulletin about who is doing what with the new equipment would be nice.

Second, I would construct a consistent path of knowledgeable staff to work as support for the implementation, and I would reward these staff with pay and/or readjusted duty.

Third, I would mandate weekly technology sharing of ideas and flipcharts during our planning time.

Fourth, I would encourage the use of the technology by students.

Fifth, I would release teachers with roving subs to see the use of the new technology in classrooms in their school.

And finally, I would continue to make the use of technology fun. Get away from unstructured and unsupported mandates, and remind teachers the fun they and their students can have with the new toys that were purchased.

That's how a gamer would do it, at least.

Session 6: Barriers to Technology Use- Activity Log

Activity Log- 

Sunday, February 15

Got webhosting functions working on webpage post. FTP and control panel now work, and I can see my project #2-but only one page of it.  

Monday, February 16

Linked up my posts using E-Chalk as an alternative way to see links for the class. Was able to edit one of the pages in webhost site's HTML editer, but can only see the one page of it in the editor. I can see both pages on the web, but can only make links to pics and images on one page. SHsssssseeeeeshhh! Found and attached ancillary pages for IRB application. 

Tuesday, February 17

Listened to Session 6 podcast. Took notes using Google Docs. Found and catalogued grants and grant outlines for Project 3. Created outline for long-term VAPA use of technology in a high school setting. 

Wednesday, February 18

Created blog for session 6, and activity log. Downloaded a web editor, but found it useless. Building kitchen for new gas oven to put my head in. Dropping off ancillary materials for IRB application later in the day. 

ETEC 623 Session 5- Best Practice

Activity Log- 

Sunday, February 8 Worked on completing my Project 2 webpage, and creating a place to post it. Tried multiple free sites, but all of them had problems. Are any of the paid site better? Completed my IRB Application- Just have to get attachments from school. 

Monday, February 9 

Completed my webpage for exploring how I use Discussion Boards for communication, both with my new teachers and with my students. Tried to post again on another site, but FTP size limits are killing my posts, as well as limits on what can be posted. Ahhhhh!!!!

Tuesday, February 10 

Reposted my project proposals on my district's E-chalk site. Can't post my webpages there, but as least I have a consistent place to put my links. 

Wednesday, February 11

Listened to Dr. Newberry's podcast, took notes and posted them on Google docs. Created and posted my blog response to Session 5. Gathered attachments for IRB, and responded to 3 other blogs. 

The 2002 study by Ravitz, Mergendoller and Rush, What's School Got To Do With It? explored the effectiveness and best practices of the use of technology in classrooms, and often found a negative correlation between student use of technology and achievement- I have always had reservations about this study, but it did point out one thing fairly clearly- What we perceive to be best practice, and what can actually be called best practice via data and analysis of outcomes are often two different things. In my classroom, I often wonder if what I believe is best practice with the integration of technology, and what is actually working, are connected in some meaningful way. An example. 

I use Activotes in my classroom, a handheld device with buttons that interacts with the computerized white board in the front of my classroom. I use it for assessment of student understanding, and I use it for engagement. The assessment piece is actually useful, because I can see quite quickly whether students understand the concept I am teaching. But the engagement part, the main reason given for their purchase and use, I wonder about. Is the efficacy of the little devices for engagement really worth the cost of the devise? Since they break, and have to be replaced at $100.00 a pop, wouldn't I have been better off purchasing a stripped down, student laptop for each student's desk, which also would have allowed them to interact with the lesson, but also would have allowed the students more interactivity and engagement? 

I would say the most effective use of technology in my class right now, based on actual data, is the use of interactive, modeled writing. The writing scores of my class always outpace my team mates scores, and I attribute the difference to my use of a word processor projected on my interactive whiteboard, which allows me to create a piece of writing with my students. As I create, and model, this writing, students come up and add their own sentences, grammar and word changes, and style to the shared document. I highlight different sections of the writing with different font colors, which makes seeing specific writing targets easier for the students. In addition, the students can download the shared writing as a model for their own written project from Google Docs, and can tweek and change the classroom writing at a later date in lab, or at home.  I began this use of technology years ago when I took a modeled writing training, and began applying the concepts found in the workshop to the use of a shared classroom word-processing document. 

I have demonstrated the use of this simple technology, and others have taken it on. Others just cant see how it is more useful than modeled writing shared on a large piece of chart paper, so although they have adopted some of the modeled writing techniques, they still do not integrate it in their use of classroom technology. 

Another Best Practice, shown by data, that is useful, well, indispensable now, is the use of e-mail with parents. Dr. Newberry mentioned his use of e-mail as a best practice, and I immediately thought of how I use it so successfully in my class. I e-mail updates and announcements weekly as part of a e-mail list of parents and students, and this broadcast of e-mails causes quick clarifications and conversations with individual parents and students. My classroom always has the highest, or at least one of the highest, level of parent participation in school and classroom events, and I have the best completion rate of projects and homework in my grade. I attribute this to my consistent use of e-mail. In addition, it gives me a paper trail for parent contact, and a way of including, through cc and bcc, my team and administration in the discussion of student behavior. Why don't more teachers use this proven method of parent and student engagement? It can't be because they don't know how, because every teacher on my staff used e-mail at work as part of their workday. Is it because they don't contact their parents? No, many of the teachers I work with sit and make phone calls to parents at their homes, during their lunch, or after school. I am mystified why teachers have such a hard time adopting this use of technology. 

Dr. Newberry said that Best Practice is in the eye of the beholder; I could not agree more. The years of watching effective use of specific use of wonderful technology slide into oblivion convinced me of the truth of this adage years ago. Developing common technology standards and technology use expectations for grades would, perhaps, be one one way of accelerating the use of best practice in the classrooms...but what technology, which applications, for what instructional purpose, would we mandate? How would mandating best practice be evaluated for efficacy, and how would individual teachers be evaluated for their use of mandated best practice technology integration? Does mandating best practice cause that very best practice to suffer simply from its forced adoption? These are some of the questions I am left with after my review and reflection, questions I will have to sit with and ponder. 

ETEC 623 Session 4

Activity Log

Monday, February 2- Completed IRB/CITI on-line training. 

Tuesday, February 3- Listened to Session 4 lecture on diffusion of innovation

Tuesday, February 3- Wrote blog response

Wednesday, February 3- Commented on fellow student's blogs, continued IRB application, posted to BTSA discussion board for Project 2

I have enjoyed Rogers work over the years, and found it very applicable to myself, my school and to society as a whole. Lately, as I have completed 20 years in the elementary setting, I find myself in all of the categories at once- different places for different areas of education. Each area in which I am at a different level affect the people and the organization around me in different ways.

Innovators- I am an innovator in may ways, and I live in this area most of my time. I am the first in my school, and often the first in my district, to adopt a new technology, a new way of using a technology, or integrate a new technology into my instructional day. I find myself stunned that others are not willing to adopt a technology that I have embraced, and made successful in my classroom- but then I remember Rogers, and I realize that I am just too far out there. For example, I am the only teacher in my school who ever uses the discussion board with their kids, and even though I use it weekly, have made it a useful and reflective part of my instruction, and have been successful with it for so long, no one else can see the benefit of such a technology compared to the steep cost of obtaining the new technology. Right now, I am out there with having student create music to demonstrate their learning, and even though I am developing this use of technology to be easily implemented in other classrooms, I expect that it will be an uphill battle to get it put in place throughout the school. My use of e-mail lists of my parents, a remarkable, simple and powerful tool for communication, is still not being adopted by other teachers.

Early Adopters- I was an early adopter of the use of the ActiVotes in the classroom- I was not an innovator, but simply adopted the use already demonstrated to my by other, more innovative tech leaders. But my use was observed and modeled by others in the district, and my use of the technology pushed them to wider acceptance by my staff, and the teachers I train. Because I am seen as an innovator, when others see me using a district-sanctioned and supported technology, such as ActiVotes, others begin to see that it is not so "out there" anymore, and are much more willing to adopt the new technology. Often, what separates the Innovator from the Early Adopters is the leadership, management and support given to new program or technology at the district level. Even a new, "scary" technology will be adopted by others if others see that the new practice or technology is valued by their administrators or their district. 

Early Majority- I have recently begun to use the assignment and assessment tools found in the new Pearson math adoption. Other teachers on my staff got fired up with this, and really led the way in the diffusion of the system's use throughout their curriculum. I have just recently made the commitment to use is on a weekly basis, and had to be shown how to do so (like I said, I am usually the one who is way out ahead on a technology, and I rarely have to be shown anything). Here, I am just a follower, not a leader.

Late Majority- I find myself in this category lately when I am asked to adopt some component of the our reading or math program, or some district mandate, that seems to me to be more about meeting some arbitrary rule than the learning needs of my students. Of course, when I step back into my role as a leader, I see myself acting just like the Late Majority of my school who think the use of technology is just some arbitrary hinderance to their program, and adopt a new technology just to appease the peer pressure.

Lagger- There are mandates and program requirements with our focus on testing and accountability that I just see as detrimental to children, not just a pointless rule, but as actually harming children's learning. These I steadfastly lag behind with- I am that rock in the garden that seems to get watered. I have never found a way to be okay with being forced to implement these policies, which I would like to think is a sign of my good moral fiber, but which should also be seen by me as a need to become more mature in the ways of public education. I see the Laggers in my own school in the use of technology, or the implementation of some outstanding instructional strategy, and shake my head. How many are shaking their head at my Lagger-mentality with their demand for implementing some approach or guidelines to which I object?

And the exploration of this model could easily be expanded to include society as a whole, and the laggers and innovators with the changes in the political spectrum, but this would be another discussion altogether- excellent conversation for a pub, but off-topic for this class.  

Project Proposals for ETEC 623

Here is the link to Proposal 1, Using Technology

Here is the link to Proposal 2, Communication with Technology

Here is the link to Proposal 3, Developing Technology Programs

Session 3 Technology Integration Hierarchy

Session 3 Technology Integration Hierarchy

Dr. Newberry's Technology Hierarchy really resonated with me. It illuminated the path I see technology following in classrooms, and the struggles and successes that come with implementing technology in a classroom. Of course, I could see myself in the hierarchy, but I could also see my peers, my school and the schools I work with, struggling to ascend the hierarchy. Clearly, technology integration can be expressed in a hierarchy; however, I would like to suggest another category to to a technology integration hierarchy.

Dr. Newberry described the fourth level as having students use technology to p[resent their understanding of their learning, through multimedia presentations, music, video, and/or graphics, and utilize the resources of the internet to find and bind new knowledge, and as a place to store and retrieve their learning portfolios. In this level, students decide how technology is to be used in their expression of their learning. Students are, in fact, empowered to have choice.

But my experience of this level of the hierarchy is different, and I think a new level my need to be applied. There is a level where the teacher uses technology actively in his or her lesson design and presentation, where students are required to use technology as a tool in their learning, however, in my proposed new level, the student do not control how or when technology is used. The teacher is the arbiter of the why AND what of student's technology choice. This level would fall somewhere between the third level, of using technology with students, and the fourth level, of students choosing how to express their learning through technology.

This new level is most often seen in the elementary school setting, where emerging skill and proficiency of technology use by students is being guided by the teacher, or at schools or in classrooms where limited equipment and curricular time causes the teacher to give explicit and detailed instruction in how and what technology will be used by students to express their learning. In this level, students still use technology to express their learning, however, the teacher decides what technology will be used. Classroom projects are created, but the use of technology is dictated by the teacher, not the student.

I think that even the final level of the hierarchy can see this type of dictated use. I see, in my capacity as a new teacher support provider, and my role in instructional technology, classrooms, and now even schools, where the use of technology is ingrained in the psyche of the school, where students and teachers use technology seamlessly throughout the day, but the students rarely if ever choose the use of technology.

Perhaps this choice needs to become more widespread in the elementary environment. Empowering students to choose the method and form of technology to express their learning would imply a higher order of both thinking skills and technology use.

Activity Log

Monday, January 26

Complete more modules for the CITI research course

Tuesday, January 27 

Listened to podcast and took notes

Completed more modules for the CITI research course

Met with Dr. Newberry

Wednesday, January 28

Posted my blog on session 3

Thursday, January 29

Completed more modules for the CITI research course

Commented on fellow student's blogs. 

Friday, January 30

Completed more modules for the CITI research course

Completed Project 1 proposal

Session 2

Activity Log for Session 2-
Wednesday, January 21: Created bloglist of all members of ETEC 623
Wednesday, January 21: Began commenting on members blogs
Thursday, January 22: Met with Dr. Kamusikiri about program
Thursday, January 22: Continued science lesson series for research project
Friday, January 23: Added to my Session 2 blog, and continued to comment on others

Management vs Leadership
I have been struck recently how leadership without management causes both to break down. We have been part of an EETT grant, which ends it three year cycle this year. Part of our grant that was developed included both IT support and IT staff development and coaching. As we end our grant funding for this program, district money was supposed to take over, and continue this powerful and successful combination of support. Of course, as with the entire country, drastic budget shortfalls cause our district to almost immediately drastically cut back on this support. Already, the use of technology district-wide has suffered, and the it seems that much of the progress we made in the 3 years of the grant has been decreased.

We just don't have the money to continue much of the leadership activities that moved this grant along.

Now, is it management of resources that caused this, or lack of leadership?

To me, it is both. We built into the grant ways the district could fund this initiative beyond its federal funded life, but we did not consider the drastic cuts that would mandated by the financial meltdown.

We also did not create a leadership core that could operate without significant funding. We did not consider how we move ahead in technology leadership with viable funding to continue with trainings, workshops, inservices, and to continue to push programs that would propel our program forward. So, we watch as much of what was built the last 3 years languishes in unfunded stagnation.

I suppose that the way to move from management of what is left of our district's IT program to leadership in innovation is to move from a centralized, district-wide focus to individual movement in classrooms or schools, supporting changes at the classroom and site level instead of trying to maintain district-wide changes without district-wide funding. Leadership once again at the grassroot level. And we will continue to manage the remaining equipment, district and state-wide technology expectations, and refinement of the current instructional practices throughout the district. However, leadership with new ideas, new initiatives, new equipment and new technologies is perhaps going to be, as necessitated by the budget crisis, smaller and more client-based, and not so much system-wide in scope.

Anyway, this is what Dr. Newberry's lecture brought up in my thinking.

As a leader, I am going to have to find ways to continue to focus my resources to improve the school, not just improve our technology, since that technology we have will need to be enough for us for awhile. As for management, I am befuddled with the thought that we need to find ways of managing our staff training needs without money for such support- How to manage the need to keep staff current with instructional design and implementation, without the resources to do so. Do we create staff teams of trainers who coach through the PLC structure?

And how can leadership skills in this crisis trump the need to manage the crisis first?

I suppose that if the answers to this were easy, we all would not need to be in a leadership class. We would just know the answers. It's great to be in such a class, with a format of exploration of ideas and professional support that will, however, give us the ability to find the answer to management vs leadership in the age of diminished funding.

Session 1`, part 2

Okay, so here is my actual post, not just my test post to see how all this works. I have been active in Instructional Technology for the last 20 years, and the three lenses we are looking at leadership through (Teacher, administrator, technology support/curriculum development) are all areas I have been part of, in one way or another. In this class, I will be focusing on two of those areas- the teacher perspective, and technology support/curriculum development. 

As a teacher, I am currently involved in action research as part of my connections with UCR's Copernicus Project, and I am combining this with research and lesson development for my Thesis through this program.  In this, I am trying to offer leadership, both at my site and throughout the arts community, in developing ways to integrate the content areas with VAPA activities and strategies, and marrying them together with technology. 

As a staff developer/technology support provider, I am now working with new teachers through the BTSA program, and using discussion boards as a vehicle to give support and reflection opportunities to the new teachers that I serve.  I am also active in writing and developing grants and program funding for the continued use of technology in the Visual and Performing Arts. 

As I mull in my mind options for my projects, two come to mind. Of course, I will continue working on my Action Research project, which will fulfill the Research Validated Use of Technology Requirement. My students are receiving instruction in 6th grade science using the 5E lesson design- Then, they are using music creation software, such as GarageBand, to write and record songs that represent their learning in that specific content area. Right now, my students are creating songs about earthquakes and plate tectonics, and they will next create songs about heat and temperature.  

My second project is still a little vague, but I want to connect the use of technology and the creation, production and presentation of content-related theater arts or video production. Don't know what it will look like yet, but it is the technology support area of curriculum development that I wish to pursue. 

ACTIVITY LOG-

Thursday, January 15- Listened to lecture, took notes, established my blog and blog address. 

Saturday, January 17- Reflected upon the lecture, and the possible projects I will pursue. I responded to three other blogs. 

ETEC 623/Educational Leadership

I am Chris MarkerMorse, a 6th grade teacher in the Riverside Unified School District, and a grad students in the Instructional Technology program at CSUSB.