This weekend, I tweeted about a K-12 educational marketing white paper that floated past my desk. The more I pondered the report, the more I realized I had more than 140 characters to say about it. The “key takeaway” that stuck with me concerned the marketing tip to innovate disruptive technology in stages… the exact wording being
The interactive whiteboard segment offers a particularly instructive example of how disruption can happen slowly, in stages, and still fuel growth (meaning marketing/sales growth – not learning growth). At a time when schools are reluctant to invest in new technologies, this market has exploded, and one key reason for the rapid growth is that the technology need not disrupt traditional classroom practices: for a teacher standing in front of a classroom, and interactive whiteboard can be functionally similar to a blackboard. Ignoring the argument about whether this is pedagogically sound, one less derived from the success of interactive whiteboards is that technology succeeds best when it disrupts least.
Let me take this apart…
1. The interactive whiteboard first hit the market in 1991. So by slowly, they apparently mean over 20 years. That’s really slow folks. Too slow for our students.
2. Let us remember market value. While many of our vendors claim to be partners in education (and some may even believe it)… the bottom line is they are for profit companies. They need schools to buy their product. Period. According to the Association of American Publishers, in 2006 educational materials was a $8.1 billion industry for publishing. I appreciate everyone needs to make a living,.. this is not a rant about costs. However, we as educators need to remember educational products electronic, print or plastic are a for profit industry.
3. Educational resource companies do not teach your class. Bad pedagogy is on us.
4. The industry surrounding education is marketing to the lowest common denominator. If we sit back and allow manufactures to dictate our teaching by dictating our resources… then nothing is going to change. They do not think we want a disruptive force affecting daily classroom practices.
No one is creating magic in a box for $29.99, $599.99 or even $3999.99. The time, the talent and disruptive change is going to have to start with the classroom teacher. Daunting, yes… but rather exciting.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Sunday, November 13, 2011
BYOT
JD has been more prolific at posting on the topic than I at http://geekreflection.blogspot.com/... but here's my two cents...
We began a voluntary BYOT program this semester in our private, 9-12 college preparatory school. I tend to use the term (or acronym as the case may be) BYOT as I see student choice evident not only in device, but in all the various tools student use.
Our goal in BYOT is critical in understanding why we chose this model:
Brebeuf Jesuit IT focuses on the learning needs of the students, creating an environment where students, faculty and staff:
• have the ACCESS to all the resources necessary for teaching and learning;
• develop EVALUATION literacies (skills) to discern appropriateness of their tools, their actions and their behavior;
and
• are supported in the USE of technology tools personalized to the learner.
I approached our faculty and staff with Marc Prensky’s “nouns vs verbs” argument. It’s not important to get hung up on the nouns (Mac, PC, tablet, desktop, Word, Pages) in education. What we need to focus on are the verbs – what we DO to illustrate mastery. For example, with BYOT, our teachers are still confident that they can teach persuasive writing techniques. How students evidence learning can be done on a Mac, PC, mobile tablet… heck a cell phone (which will happen once and lesson will be learned). What matters is not the device or word processing program used. What matters is the academic learning objective of the persuasive essay. We are finding that students are more engaged in determining the best tool for the job when they are held responsible for demonstrating the learning objective. Learning how to access, evaluate and use technology to meet one’s objective is critical and oh, so valuable for the future.
We began a voluntary BYOT program this semester in our private, 9-12 college preparatory school. I tend to use the term (or acronym as the case may be) BYOT as I see student choice evident not only in device, but in all the various tools student use.
Our goal in BYOT is critical in understanding why we chose this model:
Brebeuf Jesuit IT focuses on the learning needs of the students, creating an environment where students, faculty and staff:
• have the ACCESS to all the resources necessary for teaching and learning;
• develop EVALUATION literacies (skills) to discern appropriateness of their tools, their actions and their behavior;
and
• are supported in the USE of technology tools personalized to the learner.
I approached our faculty and staff with Marc Prensky’s “nouns vs verbs” argument. It’s not important to get hung up on the nouns (Mac, PC, tablet, desktop, Word, Pages) in education. What we need to focus on are the verbs – what we DO to illustrate mastery. For example, with BYOT, our teachers are still confident that they can teach persuasive writing techniques. How students evidence learning can be done on a Mac, PC, mobile tablet… heck a cell phone (which will happen once and lesson will be learned). What matters is not the device or word processing program used. What matters is the academic learning objective of the persuasive essay. We are finding that students are more engaged in determining the best tool for the job when they are held responsible for demonstrating the learning objective. Learning how to access, evaluate and use technology to meet one’s objective is critical and oh, so valuable for the future.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Why I Need to Stop Watching Educational YouTube Videos While Eating Lunch
Nothing like expanding one’s job scope to… I don’t know… Director of Faculty Development… to wipe out blogging time! I am really going to try and get back on the wagon.
So I am watching a YouTube video from the Hunt Institute introducing the Common Core State Standards. Seemed like something a Director of Faculty Development would do while she eats her peanut butter and jelly sandwich. About 17 seconds in, I put down my PB & J at the line “…our students need better knowledge and tools to compete in the global economy…” And there it is folks, the commoditization of education. We no longer educate to create informed electorate, to create life-long learners, for the growth of humankind… we educate to compete. We educate to make more money than our neighbor. We have our commodity to create: men and women who compete in the global marketplace! I guess this is why mainline educational arguments surround improving test scores, value-add accountability matrixes for teachers and the predilection of social media forming the bullies of tomorrow. We can count those things! We can make more, do more, score more than our neighbors.
Silly me – I thought it was about cultivating God-given talents to live in the fullness of creation.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Frustrations at the Curve
I find it annoying that I am thwarted at every turn this summer testing new tools. Not by my non-Digital Native status. Not by my lack of formal education in the computer sciences. Not by gender, age, ethnicity, location… or any of the other demographics usually surveyed to determine computer comfort and proficiency. No, I am thwarted by the fact that I update my browser.
Yes, I run IE9, Firefox 4.0.1 and Chrome. This is apparently odd amongst educators as currently I am 2 for 12 on web-based products working on my computer. I am not even going to start on my mobile devices (Blackberry and iPad). No, today’s rant is simply an open request to educational vendors. Contrary to what you appear to think, schools are not in the dark ages. We do upgrade our operating systems. We do upgrade our production tools. And we do upgrade our browsers. I will not buy your product if I have to wander the building looking for an old machine running an outdated browser (and now that re-imaging is complete I can’t even do that as every machine here is running either IE9 or Firefox 4.0.1).
I spend a great deal of time with curriculum and technology integration. The annoyance of having to roll back browsers in order to run outdated vendor created products does nothing for student learning. In fact, I would have to hinder student learning (Firefox 4.0.1 has some wicked web developer tools) in order to run web-based learning environments which refuse to keep up with the times. Brebeuf is going to a BYOT model. Our students will learn on a multitude of devices running all sorts of operating systems, apps, software and browsers. The days of platform uniformity are slowly but surely ending. I believe those vendors who embrace flexibility and fluidity will survive. The rest of you will not.
BTW: Firefox 5 is on the horizon... Just saying.
Yes, I run IE9, Firefox 4.0.1 and Chrome. This is apparently odd amongst educators as currently I am 2 for 12 on web-based products working on my computer. I am not even going to start on my mobile devices (Blackberry and iPad). No, today’s rant is simply an open request to educational vendors. Contrary to what you appear to think, schools are not in the dark ages. We do upgrade our operating systems. We do upgrade our production tools. And we do upgrade our browsers. I will not buy your product if I have to wander the building looking for an old machine running an outdated browser (and now that re-imaging is complete I can’t even do that as every machine here is running either IE9 or Firefox 4.0.1).
I spend a great deal of time with curriculum and technology integration. The annoyance of having to roll back browsers in order to run outdated vendor created products does nothing for student learning. In fact, I would have to hinder student learning (Firefox 4.0.1 has some wicked web developer tools) in order to run web-based learning environments which refuse to keep up with the times. Brebeuf is going to a BYOT model. Our students will learn on a multitude of devices running all sorts of operating systems, apps, software and browsers. The days of platform uniformity are slowly but surely ending. I believe those vendors who embrace flexibility and fluidity will survive. The rest of you will not.
BTW: Firefox 5 is on the horizon... Just saying.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Test upload from iPad
This is a sample test using Blog Press app to blog from the iPad. Now to try and upload a photo of the birthday present the guys gave me in April.
Okay... I am optimistic this will work. Used the camera connection kit to get photos from camera SD card to iPad.
And for my vanity... No, I was not born in 1965!
Okay... I am optimistic this will work. Used the camera connection kit to get photos from camera SD card to iPad.
And for my vanity... No, I was not born in 1965!
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Ed Lingo Bingo
Because professional development webinars need a little "fun"... feel free to use at your next department viewing of your favorite education reform movie/webinar/network expose or article/book discussion.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Pondering Presentations (and bad blog post titles) Part 2
When we last visited our intrepid rant, we uncovered feelings of anxiety that seemed interrelated with the use of technology by those crazy kids to quickly create presentations using tools that are much more natural to them than they are to the educators (please Google “digital natives” for the 5 million blog entries, books, and YouTube videos on this subject).
But rather than continue to pick apart some of the flaws in presentations-as-assessments, let’s see if there is a correlation between the assessment tool and the tendency to foster an environment that promotes critical thinking skills in students. In fact, let’s just compare presentations to one other tool:
Traditional papers, especially those with multiple drafts, seem to have this call to critical thinking built into the process. First, it is apparent when someone is not saying anything of relevance for paragraph after paragraph (the irony of this multi-post blog is not lost on me). Second, the drafting process itself forces the reflection on both the content (is this really what I want to say?) and writing style (is that the best way to say it?). Finally, the traditional written paper has set modes of attribution and citation that encourages the use of outside resources to broaden the scope of the individual mind.
In summary:
· Built-in checks to validate the presence of thought
· Built-in reflection on content and style through drafting
· Built-in assumptions and methods for incorporating the thoughts of others into your own
Conversely, while the typical presentation is made better when these things are present, they are not necessary. Presentation assessments typically (and frankly ideally) have fewer words so that lack-of-thought can remain hidden. Use of multimedia, pictures, sounds, clever (and not-so-clever) transitions tend to compound the issue, particularly when educators are liable to be impressed by things that have nothing to do with the content of the presentation (but a lot to do with the presentation mechanics).
Informally, there seems to be less of a drafting process with presentation-based assessments. Where formal papers may typically have one-on-one meetings with a teacher, peer reviews, work-shopping strategies, etc., the typical project timeline for presentations often consists of a combined research-and-preparation period (individually or in groups) followed by a class presentation. Feedback by the class is limited and feedback/assessment by the teacher is done in the form of written comments given afterward. There is little presumption that a presentation is “drafted” or will be refined throughout a creation process.
Furthermore, the growing tradition of “borrowed” photos without citation and a lack of feedback from teachers about attributing ideas properly also feed the trend to use other ideas and claims as one’s own thoughts. Not only does this reinforce a cultural trend of plagiarism, but it eliminates the critical process required to properly present the ideas of another and critically compare them with one’s own.
Unfortunately this issue is happening at all levels of education; thus we as secondary educators find ourselves encountering students who have less and less exposure to the assessment strategies that most naturally call for the upper levels of Bloom’s famed taxonomy and more and more experience with assessments that can be done quickly, without drafting, and with minimal critical feedback to evaluate proof of accuracy or originality of thought.
So what is the solution?
1. Let’s isolate the problem from its apparent technological origins. This has very little to do with the mechanics of Keynote or the tendency for teenagers to tweet in 140 characters rather than handwrite letters. Technology is an emphasizer of trends, seldom a trendsetter in its own right.
2. Design assessments timelines that build in the critical thinking process and identify when that process has not been followed. Two examples:
a. The teacher from the illustration in the last blog modified his assignment to require a written paper (with traditional citations, page length, drafting etc.) as a preface to the presentation. Thus the teacher engages with students during the “thinking” portion of the education and the presentation becomes a distillation of the thought that has gone before.
b. Embed another process for showing critical thinking into the presentation assessment. This might include a question and answer period used by both teachers and students after the presentation, formal reflection writing afterward on a prompt of the instructor’s choosing based on the presentation, or a separate analysis of literature about a research topic as pre-work.
c. Require drafting and peer-review of PowerPoint presentations.
It is easy to blame the trends of society at large or the looming media-consumption tablet explosion on our lack of student’s willingness to engage in critical thought. But if we have fallen into the all-too-comfortable trap of lowering expectations due to the lure of the shiny and pretty, we may need to take time to identify our ultimate learning objectives, reflect on our experiences, and match our assessments and activities with our desired outcomes. It is the same bar to which we should hold our students, whether they are thumb-typing a book report at the elementary level, researching for term papers in high school, or presenting with Keynote in middle school.
PS: Yes, this is a long multi-post blog. But according to Mark Bauerlein’s article “Too Dumb for Complex Texts?” (Educational Leadership, February 2011), we need to encourage reading of complex texts for at least one hour a day (we’d link to it but we don’t think he’d like that… oh whatever…click away). Consider today complete for you.
But rather than continue to pick apart some of the flaws in presentations-as-assessments, let’s see if there is a correlation between the assessment tool and the tendency to foster an environment that promotes critical thinking skills in students. In fact, let’s just compare presentations to one other tool:
Traditional papers, especially those with multiple drafts, seem to have this call to critical thinking built into the process. First, it is apparent when someone is not saying anything of relevance for paragraph after paragraph (the irony of this multi-post blog is not lost on me). Second, the drafting process itself forces the reflection on both the content (is this really what I want to say?) and writing style (is that the best way to say it?). Finally, the traditional written paper has set modes of attribution and citation that encourages the use of outside resources to broaden the scope of the individual mind.
In summary:
· Built-in checks to validate the presence of thought
· Built-in reflection on content and style through drafting
· Built-in assumptions and methods for incorporating the thoughts of others into your own
Conversely, while the typical presentation is made better when these things are present, they are not necessary. Presentation assessments typically (and frankly ideally) have fewer words so that lack-of-thought can remain hidden. Use of multimedia, pictures, sounds, clever (and not-so-clever) transitions tend to compound the issue, particularly when educators are liable to be impressed by things that have nothing to do with the content of the presentation (but a lot to do with the presentation mechanics).
Informally, there seems to be less of a drafting process with presentation-based assessments. Where formal papers may typically have one-on-one meetings with a teacher, peer reviews, work-shopping strategies, etc., the typical project timeline for presentations often consists of a combined research-and-preparation period (individually or in groups) followed by a class presentation. Feedback by the class is limited and feedback/assessment by the teacher is done in the form of written comments given afterward. There is little presumption that a presentation is “drafted” or will be refined throughout a creation process.
Furthermore, the growing tradition of “borrowed” photos without citation and a lack of feedback from teachers about attributing ideas properly also feed the trend to use other ideas and claims as one’s own thoughts. Not only does this reinforce a cultural trend of plagiarism, but it eliminates the critical process required to properly present the ideas of another and critically compare them with one’s own.
Unfortunately this issue is happening at all levels of education; thus we as secondary educators find ourselves encountering students who have less and less exposure to the assessment strategies that most naturally call for the upper levels of Bloom’s famed taxonomy and more and more experience with assessments that can be done quickly, without drafting, and with minimal critical feedback to evaluate proof of accuracy or originality of thought.
So what is the solution?
1. Let’s isolate the problem from its apparent technological origins. This has very little to do with the mechanics of Keynote or the tendency for teenagers to tweet in 140 characters rather than handwrite letters. Technology is an emphasizer of trends, seldom a trendsetter in its own right.
2. Design assessments timelines that build in the critical thinking process and identify when that process has not been followed. Two examples:
a. The teacher from the illustration in the last blog modified his assignment to require a written paper (with traditional citations, page length, drafting etc.) as a preface to the presentation. Thus the teacher engages with students during the “thinking” portion of the education and the presentation becomes a distillation of the thought that has gone before.
b. Embed another process for showing critical thinking into the presentation assessment. This might include a question and answer period used by both teachers and students after the presentation, formal reflection writing afterward on a prompt of the instructor’s choosing based on the presentation, or a separate analysis of literature about a research topic as pre-work.
c. Require drafting and peer-review of PowerPoint presentations.
It is easy to blame the trends of society at large or the looming media-consumption tablet explosion on our lack of student’s willingness to engage in critical thought. But if we have fallen into the all-too-comfortable trap of lowering expectations due to the lure of the shiny and pretty, we may need to take time to identify our ultimate learning objectives, reflect on our experiences, and match our assessments and activities with our desired outcomes. It is the same bar to which we should hold our students, whether they are thumb-typing a book report at the elementary level, researching for term papers in high school, or presenting with Keynote in middle school.
PS: Yes, this is a long multi-post blog. But according to Mark Bauerlein’s article “Too Dumb for Complex Texts?” (Educational Leadership, February 2011), we need to encourage reading of complex texts for at least one hour a day (we’d link to it but we don’t think he’d like that… oh whatever…click away). Consider today complete for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)