A conversation about Vision...

I had a conversation with some other educational professionals a couple days ago about what the goals, direction and vision of what a tech department should be like. I feel like I didn't give a good explanation of what I thought at the time so here goes for a better explanation...

What do I envision for a Tech Department? In looking at the ISTE Standards, a tech department should probably model elements of those standards. Listing some key descriptive words would help clarify my thoughts on this topic. Some are clichés and catch-phrases that may be overused, but they do capture the spirit of the type of department I want to be involved in.

• Dynamic:  Creative and Innovative. Something is always happening. New ideas are being shared, projects are being worked on, in order to improve the integration strategies, school systems and knowledge of the school. 
• Goal-Driven: Goals are clear and defined. Steps are defined to solve problems. These are based on the schools Mission and Philosophy, and what the overall goals/objectives are for the school (usually from an accreditation report). 
• Collaborative:  Communication is key. There is a culture of working with others and not in isolation. Ideas are being shared amongst the members of the department and with the rest of the school. We are team players and we reflect and share to become better.
• Engaged: Actively model good practices and work with other departments and students to assist and help integrate. 
• Appropriate: Tech is not integrated for techs-sake. It is integrated where appropriate. Sometimes the best technology is a pencil...
• Research based and Data-Driven: We are critical thinkers that base decisions and best practices on research. Decisions and new programs are not just adopted willy-nilly. Time is spent to research effectiveness
• Helpful: No one will want assistance if we are not helpful
• Responsible and Ethical: We model appropriate use of technology

This is all I have for now...

SAMR and TPCK

I have read about TPACK in the past, but not SAMR, as approaches to tech integration. I came across an article in http://www.techlearning.com which mentioned SAMR and it piqued my interest to follow up. SAMR was developed by Mr. Rueben R Puentadura, an educational technology specialist, and he has some great information and explanation of these two approaches on his blog at: http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/ 

TPACK: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) attempts to identify the nature of knowledge required by teachers for technology integration in their teaching, while addressing the complex, multifaceted and situated nature of teacher knowledge. At the heart of the TPACK framework, is the complex interplay of three primary forms of knowledge: Content (CK), Pedagogy (PK), and Technology (TK). See Figure below. As must be clear, the TPACK framework builds on Shulman’s idea of Pedagogical Content Knowledge.

SAMR is: a model designed to help educators integrate technology into teaching and learning , was developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura.  The model aims to enable teachers to design, develop, and integrate digital learning experiences that utilize technology to transform learning experiences to lead to high levels of  achievement for students.

Reading about TPACK and SAMR was a good reminder and refresher of how to approach tech integration from a pedagogical standpoint. 

21 Things That Will Become Obsolete in Education by 2020

An interesting article by Shelley Blake-Plock. I agree with many of these predictions. Hopefully the mac-n-cheese one as well :-) Click here to read the article...

Tech Integration Coaches

I had an interesting system of coordinating tech integration at a school, presented to me today. I had been thinking that having one tech integrator/coordinator at each division would be ideal. But maybe a better method is to give a stipend or release time to a person in each subject department area, and make them a Tech Coach. Then have one main tech integrator (maybe one main one in elementary, and one for MS/HS), who would then regularly meet with these "coaches" to help with their individual integration efforts. This would give more ownership to the staff to ensure tech integration is occurring, and someone would always be at the team/department meetings to make sure that tech integration is being talked about. These people would also have their fingers on the pulse of the other staff on other items, and could be a Tech Advisory Council (TAC) on issues such as 1-1, software/hardware purchases, and the school tech plan. If they were given release time, then they could be helping other teachers as well. It would look great on their resume...Hmmm....

Making the Shift Happen: Embracing 21st Century Learning at Your School

Kim Coffino from Yokohama International School came as part of the NESA Fall Institute to our school, and had created this wiki of great strategies, lesson ideas and links to help schools with their 21st century learning goals. Take a look!

http://makingtheshifthappen.wikispaces.com/Home

What if the Secret to Success Is Failure?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/magazine/what-if-the-secret-to-success-is-failure.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all


A very powerful article that speaks to character education and its role in helping students succeed. Some interesting quotes:

• “Learning is hard. True, learning is fun, exhilarating and gratifying – but it is also often daunting, exhausting and sometimes discouraging… To help chronically low-performing but intelligent students, educators and parents must first recognize that character is at least as important as intellect.”
• Early research showed that self-control was a more reliable predictor of grades than
  I.Q., but she subsequently zeroed in on another quality: grit – the passion for a single mission, unswerving
  dedication to getting there, and perseverance in overcoming obstacles
• “And yet we all know – on some level, at least – that what kids need more than anything is a little hardship: some challenge, some deprivation that they can overcome, even if just to prove to themselves that they can..”
  

In Classroom of Future, Stagnant Scores

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-in-schools-faces-questions-on-value.html?_r=2&emc=eta1

From the article:
"To be sure, test scores can go up or down for many reasons. But to many education experts, something is not adding up — here and across the country. In a nutshell: schools are spending billions on technology, even as they cut budgets and lay off teachers, with little proof that this approach is improving basic learning.
This conundrum calls into question one of the most significant contemporary educational movements. Advocates for giving schools a major technological upgrade — which include powerful educators, Silicon Valley titans and White House appointees — say digital devices let students learn at their own pace, teach skills needed in a modern economy and hold the attention of a generation weaned on gadgets.....more..."
Wow! What a title and story. It really opens up some debate for the validity of using computer technology to assist teaching- how much bang does it give for the buck? Especially when teachers are losing jobs and money spent on technology could be used for teachers. I like to present many sides to a story or issue. I would be mis-informed if I weren't. But to be honest, I am biased towards using technology in education. I wouldn't be in the line of work that I am in if I weren't :-)

One interesting paragraph, read:
"There are times in Kyrene when the technology seems to allow students to disengage from learning: They are left at computers to perform a task but wind up playing around, suggesting, as some researchers have found, that computers can distract and not instruct."

The key point I want to make is that the author writes that computers are to "instruct"...I would argue that computers should not be instructing- people should. Technology should be assisting in the process. Technology does not make a bad teacher good. Just the opposite in fact- it can make a bad teacher worse. No computer can replace a teacher and the human interaction. But technology can enhance the teaching process and engage students and take them places where an overhead projector and chalk cannot. In the modern world, communication and business are done electronically, and students have to be prepared to do this when they join the world after graduating high school.