Support STEM

Support Interest in STEM Careers by Supporting Robotics

In earlier blog posts, I wrote about my passion for Robotics in general and specially FIRST LEGO League (FLL). Being a FLL coach was rewarding to me and memorable for students on my team.

This year’s FLL challenge is called Animal Allies. In addition to building and programming robots, teams will do a research project about how humans help animals and vice versa. At the culmination of the project, the team needs to propose an innovative solution to a human or animal real-life problem of their choosing. Our team is made up of fourth and fifth graders at Hawthorne Elementary in Middle River, Maryland.  If you have a background in human/animal interaction, our team would love to gain insight from you through a visit or skype session.  Please contact me at kbenson@immersivesteam.com.

Dean Kamen, FIRST founder states, “FIRST gives kids the opportunity to develop the muscle between their ears; to gain experience that will directly affect their future and our future as well.” If this resonates with you as well, consider getting involved by starting a team, volunteering at a tournament, or helping in other ways.

To learn more about FIRST, visit http://www.firstinspires.org/.

To learn more about participating as a volunteer:
    if you are in Maryland,
          visit Maryland FIRST Call for Volunteers
    otherwise
          visit Information on Volunteering for FIRST worldwide.

To learn more about supporting FIRST financially:
      visit Ways to Give.

Is teaching computer science (CS) worth it?

Some educators wonder if teaching computer science as early as kindergarten may be forcing children to be more like adults too early.  I have wondered the same thing about parts of the Common Core CCSS (i.e., Is it developmentally appropriate for certain CCSS skills to be pushed down into earlier grades?).  Children love computer science even in Kindergarten (while the same cannot be said for certain facets of the CCSS). If enjoyment and accomplishment are key to determining the efficacy of CS in the earlier grades, then my teaching experience with elementary school students would argue that CS as early as Kindergarten is worthwhile.    

As mentioned in my previous post (see Robots for Resilience ), I assert that robotics promotes resilience.  In this post, I’d like to add that effective CS instruction does as well for the same reasons.  When completing CS projects, students are faced with rigorous work, but work that is doable with persistence. When they persist and conquer these tasks, they are empowered. This empowerment spills over to other parts of their lives as well and promotes agency.

In addition to promoting resilience, CS instruction is essential. New jobs created in the CS field are expected to grow at twice the rate of other jobs. We are facing a large deficit in the number of employees trained in CS.  In 2020, there is expected to be a 1 million person gap between the number of CS jobs and trained people to take these jobs.  This is huge. Computing knowledge is needed for a multitude of careers not just those in the technology industries. As a matter of fact, over 70% of computing occupations are outside the information technology industry.  CS jobs are well paying (graduates with a computer science major can earn 40% more than the average college graduate).

To quote Hadi Partovi, founder of code.org, “Computer Science is not just vocational it is foundational”. I agree.  Developmentally appropriate CS teaches indispensable 21st century skills necessary for students to be globally competitive. Computer Science develops students’ computational thinking and critical thinking skills.  When students receive effective CS instruction, they are more engaged and have fun.  CS instruction teaches collaboration, project management, reasoning, and presentation skills. When students understand how computing works, they are transformed from consumers of technology into creators of solutions. For further support, see this Edutopia article on Why Teach Coding.

Despite the benefits of this type of instruction and computer science (CS) in particular, it is not universally available in the early grades.  With a fully packed instructional day, it is sometimes difficult to fit in “one more thing”. Innovative schools are addressing this problem by embedding CS across content areas. Also some schools are encouraging students to use CS as another medium for learning and demonstrating understanding. Although more research is needed, positive correlations have been shown between learning CS and performance in other content areas.

Furthermore, many teachers do not have adequate training on how to implement CS instruction and may not have a district sanctioned CS curriculum. Only 1 in 4 schools teach CS. Twenty states don’t count CS courses toward graduation.  Never-the-less, free training and curriculum resources are popping up on the Internet (see https://code.org/ , Google’s cs first, and Microsoft’s CCGA, Apple, CodeAcademy, CSTA).  Companies are also launching in-school / after-school programs, teacher training and curriculum resources (Code to the Future, Project Lead The Way, IDTech)

I am proud of the White House’s Computer Science for All (#CS4All) initiative.  Things are moving in the right direction. Yet we still need to increase minority and female representation in CS. If you agree, please sign the commitment page.

What do you think?

Robotics for Resilience

In the aftermath following the death of Freddie Gray (Baltimore City resident in police custody, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Freddie_Gray ) and other physical confrontations between police officers and minorities, the nation is contemplating how to address the essential social issues.  Issues include economic inequality (see http://www.nccp.org/profiles/US_profile_6.html  and http://www.aecf.org/blog/why-inequality-hurts-kids-and-families/ ), unemployment, injustice, violence, drugs, and race relations.

Education is supposed to be a vehicle for economical mobility, but now a days this is a daunting undertaking. We tell our children that no matter your race, gender, our wealth, in America you can become anything you want to be. Unfortunately, not all economically disadvantaged students believe this. Outside of school, children of disadvantaged households may become discouraged by circumstances out of their control. For example, only 12 percent of poor children live in two parent households as compared to 60% for all children.  Households with children in poverty may experience unstable parent employment, housing instability, insufficient access to adequate health care, or food insecurity.   Poor children are also more likely to start school at a disadvantage. There is a 27 percentage point gap in school readiness between poor children and those from moderate or higher income families. A child from a high-income family will experience 30 million more words within the first four years of life than a child from a low-income family. This gap does nothing but grow as the years progress, ensuring slow growth for children who are economically disadvantaged and accelerated growth for those from more privileged backgrounds. In addition, two-thirds of America’s children living in poverty have no books at home.   How can educators overcome these circumstances?

As a recent teacher in a high poverty elementary school in the Baltimore area, I have witnessed first-hand how poverty, parental unemployment, and a lack of trust have driven children to lose hope in their chances for a better life.  Moreover, some of my school’s economically disadvantaged students regularly avoid taking academic risks to “save face”.  They will do anything to not be embarrassed by their weaknesses in performing schoolwork. I have had many private conversations with youngsters in efforts to convince them that such tasks worth trying and that they will only improve by putting forth effort.

Students can be successful when they experience rigorous instruction which promotes a growth mindset, resilience, and it relevant to their needs (see http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/how-kids-really-succeed/480744/).  When students face and accomplish meaningful, challenging problem-based learning, they grow in confidence and grit.  I have witnessed how robotics allows students to accomplish great things and develop more positive attitudes toward not just Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) but also school in general. 

Simultaneously, robotics provides important career and life skills which will make students globally competitive. Robotics provides a foundation for the type of thinking required in the 21^st century (see http://www.p21.org/ ). It promotes creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration.

One reason robotics is so successful is that there is less fear of taking a risk.  Everyone starts with a level playing field because in elementary school nobody comes in knowing how to program a robot.  Students who may not excel linguistically often shine when working with their hands with robots. If a robot doesn’t work, then they tinker with it until it works.  The moment of “failure” is transformed into an opportunity for learning.  How does this work?

Rather than artificially boosting esteem through superficial praise, real agency is earned by overcoming rigorous challenges. We present tasks of gradually increasing, but manageable levels of difficulty.  The instruction provides students with alternative paths to learn and demonstrate understanding. By holding high expectations, but providing multiple pathways to meet such expectations, students are able to conquer tasks by applying their own unique talents. With properly scaffolded tasks and just-in-time coaching, students rapidly see success. This methodology promotes agency.

At the conclusion of our robotics team tournament, we held a debriefing.  I asked students to reflect on their experiences. Paraphrased comments included “If it doesn’t work at first, you should keep trying different things”, “Initially, I was afraid to present to the judges, but I learned that I like it and am good at it”, “It doesn’t matter if you win, as long as you learn something and have fun”, “I’m good at being a leader”, “Teamwork makes it easier to get the most points”, “When it is hard to do something, it feels when you finally make it”, and “When can we do more?”. I couldn’t have said it better myself.  

Robots Rock!

This was the first year Hawthorne had a FIRST LEGO League (FLL) robotics team. FIRST (which stands for For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) provided fourth and fifth grade team members with hands-on opportunities in Robotics. They were able to design robots, identify and solve science-based problems, develop models, and apply engineering and math concepts. 

Data from a 10 year evaluation of FIRST demonstrates the benefits of these programs. 98% of the participants improved their problem solving skills.  95% of the participants increased their time management skills. 93% of the participants increased their conflict resolutions skills. 76% of the participants strengthened their communication skills. 88% of the participants were more interested in doing well in school.  87% of the participants were more interested in going to college. 

A FIRST LEGO League challenge has four parts: a research assignment, robot design judging, a robot game, and exhibition of core values.  

For the research assignment, our team was very moved by a movie they saw that showed a beached whale who eventually died because his blow hole was blocked by trash.  We wanted to protect sea animals from the dangers of plastic. We knew that it was good to recycle, but we learned that reducing and reusing is even better. We recognized that everyone drinks a lot of soda so we wanted to design a better soda bottle that needed less plastic.  They prototyped some different ideas and shared them with our teacher Mrs. Ross, who is on the Green Team for our school.

For the robot game, students design and program a Mindstorm robot to solve missions on a special obstacle course. By mid-January, we were able to score 156 points on the robot game.  We used the engineering design process to repeatedly improve and in our final match at the tournament, we scored 329 points. As our principal likes to say “We are the best at getting better!”

For the robot design, students share their strategic thinking about how best to build and program their robot to meet the challenges of the robot game. Since we are a rookie team, we wanted our robot design to be simple and reliable. For our chassis we started with the Base from the Core EV3 Educator kit and added the medium motor to control the arm.  We researched different attachments and our first one was a push plate (like a bulldozer).  Tyler figured out how to easily attach the plate to the arm of the robot. We created a bumper, but we discovered the push plate could do that too.  We also invented a hook.  We decided to start with the easiest missions and work on them one by one until they could be mastered reliably.  Then we added more missions until we exhausted the 2.5 minute limit.

For the core values exhibition, teams are judged on important life skills including teamwork, sportsmanship, and leadership. In school, we follow the Leader in Me (7 Habits of Happy Kids) program. The robotics team has helped us practice Habit 1: Be Proactive - (I am a responsible person. I take initiative. I choose my actions, attitudes, and moods. I do not blame others for my wrong actions. I do the right thing without being asked, even when no one is looking.)  The team also exhibited gracious professionalism because they wished competing teams’ good luck and shared what they learned with each other.

Through FLL, participants not only hone their STEM skills, but also learn how to be effective leaders, creative problem solvers, and better members of their communities.  At the end of the tournament, the team members were proud of what they learned especially about persistence.  They had a lot of fun too!

Value Added Technology

I haven’t posted in a long while and I found this post which I had started in March 2011.  I decided to post it now.

I have been reflecting on the raging debates about the merits (or not) of interactive whiteboards IWB.  A couple of things have happened recently that have added to my inner conversation on this topic. On Thursday, I heard Ginno Kelly of Promethean speak.  On Friday, I proctored a session of the Maryland State Assessment (MSA).  On Saturday, I read some of Breaking Down Digital Walls: Learning to Teach in a Post-Modern World  by R.W. Burniske and Lowell Monke. While I highly recommend the first and third experiences, you should avoid the second one if you possibly can.

My “aha!” moment happened when I noticed parallels between the debate over the efficacy of telecollaborative projects (based on my reading of the book) and the efficacy of IWB (based on various blog posts and cemented in my mind through the exceptional application of IWB and LRS by Ginno Kelly).

With telecollaborative projects, teachers may first attempt basic “keypal” exchanges which result in nothing more than social exchanges.  Alternatively, an early telecollaborative project may be a mere “scavenger hunt” which result in nothing more than low level fact hide-n-seek exercises.  If you judge the telecollaborative computing based on these types of projects, you could easily conclude that they do not provide value in terms of student achievement when compared to traditional offline activities. On the other hand, think about data sharing telecollaborative projects (e.g., students from all over North America track sightings of Monarch butterflies, report their data collectively, and infer conclusions from the data) or problem-solving telecollaborative projects (e.g., students brainstorm and share solutions to rain forest habitat loss).  These later projects provide instructional experiences which would be impractical without telecollaborative computing, thus their efficacy is much higher.  I conclude that the efficacy does not depend on the technology alone, but rather on how it is applied. Thus, professional development, adequate time for instructional planning, and freedom to flexibly utilize the available instructional time are variables that matter. 

Let’s follow this line of thought to the efficacy of IWBs.  IWBs are easy to implement in teacher-centered “chalk-n-talk” lessons. In such lessons, the teacher is the one at the board and content is extolled to students by the sage on the stage. If you were to gage the efficacy of IWBs based on this type of instruction and you value student-centered learning over teacher-centered instruction, you’d fairly conclude that IWBs don’t provide sufficient value for their cost. (I happen to feel that “teaching” is not a dirty word. It has its place in a balanced approach to education, but that’s a topic for another blog post.). On the other hand, suppose the IWB facilitated inquiry-based discussion via sharing of thought-provoking visuals, videos, real-world scenarios and other multimedia integrated with rich discussion/debate.  Add to this instruction students collaborating with the IWB serving a digital hub to reveal the classes’ construction of meaning as it evolves.   This instructional approach would also be impractical without an IWB or at least a minimal digital teaching hub (projector connected to a computer). Again, the efficacy depends on implementation approach (i.e., how the IWB is applied rather than the particular technology alone). Likewise, professional development, adequate time for effective and innovative instructional planning, and freedom to use instructional time flexibly are variables that matter.

For illustration purposes, the table below shows that various technology’s efficacy is dependent upon instructional approach.

Technology	Basic Approach	Advanced Approach
Telecollaborative computing	o   Keypal exchanges o   Scavenger hunts	o   Data sharing o   Problem-solving
IWB	o   Lecture	o   Multimedia enhanced real-world examples o   Rich inquiry-based discussions o   Student collaborative reflection shared at the board
1-1 Computing / Computers on Wheels (COWs) – writing	o   Word process to publish pre-edited hand-written drafts	o   Students create interactive multimedia products to share over the web to synthesize their understanding of a topic o   Wiki discussions to reflect on thinking about your thinking collaboratively with your peers
1-1 Computing / COWs – Internet	o   Explore the web (without a specific purpose) o   Visit links about a topic and summarize them in a “bird report” (i.e., an exercise in recall)	o   Use a webquest which requires synthesis of your new learning into a new product o   Publish on the web
Learner Response Systems	o   Answer factual questions as a summative assessment	o   Use as  a formative assessment tool (check for understanding) through out the lesson to provide direction for subsequent instruction o   Ask thought provoking higher-order questions to stimulate discussion o   Have small groups confer and reach consensus in order to submit a group response o   Seed voting results for subsequent classification / analysis
Digital photos /  videos	o   Capture a field trip or student performance	o   Collect students thinking about their thinking for subsequent analysis o   Students create a mash-up / montage using a collection of content-related photos or videos o   Students write and produce a video documentary or public service announce which synthesizes important points of a unit
Video on demand	o   Play a whole movie with not particular instructional accountability for the material shown	o   Select a particular salient clip and sandwich it with before-viewing, during viewing, and after viewing instructional activities.

Let’s explore the ramifications of the realization that the efficacy of a technology depends upon how it is applied.  This “realization” is not news to anyone who works with educational technology, but it seems to be easily forgotten.  Over zealous vendors and educational technology evangelists are partially to blame. In order to justify the expenditures to funders, great instructional approaches of the technology are disseminated.  These successes are then attributed to the technology rather than the instructional approach facilitated by the technology and the hard work that lead to the success.

Frequently, the hard work entailed:

• Indentifying visionary teachers who see the potential efficacy of the technology for their instructional needs
• Visionary teachers teach their students using the technology after expending untold quantities of their personal time to innovate, reflect and revise their instructional approach until they are satisfied with the results
• Visionary teachers reshape their instructional approach into a replicable best practice and then disseminate the best practices through varied, differentiated, and distributed professional development activities
• Leaders foster buy-in with the next wave of adopters
• Repeating this process for each successive wave of adopters
• Meanwhile providing just-in-time technical support and pedagogical coaching so that as each wave adopts the technology, they have a safety net if glitches arise.

Call this hard work “adoption effort”. When the adoption effort is done well, it is labor intensive.  It frequently costs more than the initial cost of the hardware or software.   When the adoption effort doesn’t happen, often the technology is only adopted by the first wave of early adopters. Then, the rest of the teachers are perceived as resistant or poor teachers.  While this may sometimes be the case, it isn’t necessarily a fair conclusion unless the adoption effort has occurred.

Let’s assume that each technology requires some form of adoption effort. Also, we don’t evaluate a technology per se, but rather the technology along with a particular instructional approach, i.e., technology / instructional approach (TIA). Borrowing from the concept of total cost of ownership (TCO), I posit an equation for evaluating efficacy of TIA. The increase in student achievement achieved (i.e., its value (V)) for a TIA must exceed the initial cost (IC) of the technology plus the cost of the adoption effort (AE) in order for the TIA to have efficacy.

V for a TIA ≥ IC + AE

While this equation over simplifies a complex issue, it think it still provides a useful as a mental model.  For example, let’s say a TIA makes the instruction more engaging. Engagement is not included separately in the equation.  Instead if the increased engagement leads to increased student achievement then it provides value (V). What if the TIA helps students learn about how to use technology (i.e., technology literacy)?  Well technology literacy is fine but there is so little instructional time, I feel that unless the TIA provides some value, there isn’t time for teaching technology for technology’s sake.

I then thought back to one technology rollout that I viewed as a success (Video on demand). See my earlier post on this rollout.  The initial cost IC was absorbed by the district. The adoption effort (AE) to reach advanced instructional approaches was low. Therefore, the value was realized fairy rapidly.

Where does that leave us on the debate about the value of IWBs?  My opinion is that IWBs do provide value because the make it possible to bring a wide variety of digital / interactive resources to the classroom, make it easier to model use of technology, and facilitate collecting data through learner response systems. Moreover, with the incorporation of the IWB, the class has gained a user-friendly instructional design authoring tool. Students are completing teacher-created flipchart at their own computing devices and/or creating their own flipcharts to demonstrate their learning.

Note:  In hindsight (now in 2016), I still believe in the value of IWBs.  I feel that at the time (in 2011), they paved the way for converting to a more digital curriculum which ultimately made it easier to evolve to a more learner-centered model especially with 1-1 computing. In a typical lesson today, whole class instruction takes a lesser and smaller portion of the instructional role, but my IWB is indispensable for that role. Students more frequently request to take up the pen at the board to model for their peers and small groups meet for mini-lessons at the board.  

Are iPads just for consumers or do they belong in schools?

Our school has decided that we'd like our technology program to help us implement more challenge-based learning. I have been looking at different mobile devices. There is plenty of controversy. We have looked at Windows 8 tablets, Android Tablets, Chromebooks, and iOS tablets. I don’t intend for this post to go into a lot of details comparing the alternatives, but I will provide an overview of my thinking. First of all, you must start by identifying your instructional need (i.e., don’t put the cart before the horse). The choice of device must follow from what you want to do with the device. See Sam Gliksman blog post on asking the right questions.  

There are different reasons for wanting mobile devices in schools. The first of three major reasons is to provide students productivity tools to become more efficient at their learning tasks. We could call this philosophy "teaching technology for technology sake". This philosophy provides a great benefit as students move into their workplace. With this philosophy, it is a priority that the device be easily managed by IT and support the productivity tools which the students are already familiar.

A second reason for providing mobile devices for students is to not just help them learn about technology but to help them learn about content by using technology tools that will help them become better readers, writers, problem solvers, scientists and historians. You might call this philosophy "technology integration". With this philosophy, the teacher's role is to cover the curriculum and to make sure that students master the outcomes as established in the curriculum. Technology's purpose is to leverage technology integration to enhance instruction. With this philosophy, it is very important for teachers to be able to manage the dissemination of information to students and be able to track their progress towards the standards being covered. With this philosophy, it is important to have a strong repository of instructional media, assessments, and standards. Technology is beneficial because it helps the teacher to align standards, instruction and assessment. Technology is also beneficial because it allows the teacher to measure student progress against the standards.

With the third philosophy, it is important for students to learn "how to learn". This is a more student-centered approach. It includes instructional strategies such as problem/challenge-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and perhaps personalized learning. You might call this philosophy "21st Century Teaching and Learning". The device that suits this philosophy needs to be easy for the students to use and easy for the student to customize (when appropriate). With this third philosophy, it is important that students can access information through a variety of techniques and modalities. It is also important that the students can demonstrate their understanding through a variety of approaches and modalities. Students need to reflect on their strengths and weaknesses and self-monitor their progress. The teacher acts "as a guide on the side" to ensure that the tasks are challenging, yet achievable; and provide a sufficient depth and breadth that the students are well versed in a deeper understanding of the disciplines being studied. Technology is beneficial because it provides the ability to collaborate with others, explore resources outside the school walls, work on authentic problems, and publish results to authentic audiences.

There is a place for all three philosophies in education. There are overlaps between them as well. To strive for one approach at the complete exclusion of the other two is ill-advised. None-the-less, each technology program may select a single philosophy as its focus.

A Windows 8 mobile device, Windows laptop, or Chromebook is a better fit for philosophy 1. (See a blog post on the merits of Chromebooks or Surface tablets versus iPads). The strengths of these mobile devices are in productivity tools and IT manageability. A LearnPad, Kuno, or Amplify Android tablet is a better fit for philosophy 2. (See Scott McLoad's blog post: Why Big Brother Would Love the Amplify Tablet). Its strength is in teacher control over the learner's experience. An iPad or iPad mini is a better fit for philosophy 3. Its strength is in ease of use for the student, versatility, opportunities for student/teacher creativity, and an established network of innovative educators striving to use technology with best practices which modify and redefine education (M and R of the SAMR model). See this list of curated resources on iPad best practices, ideas for using iPads, and this summary of research on the impacts of instructional use of iPads on student achievement. Here, I have exaggerated the distinctions between the devices to make my point. All three devices can serve any of the three philosophies depending on how the teacher or students uses the devices. Yet, the different devices strengths are better aligned with different educational philosophies.

Our school has already had five years as a technology-rich school. Our teacher laptops, student laptop carts, student-operated TV studio, as well as, interactive whiteboards have allowed us to leverage technology for the purposes I outlined under philosophy 1 and 2. We have been endeavoring to use technology in ways fitting philosophy 3, but we still have a ways to go. We don't intend to get rid of our existing technology, but we are looking ahead to add technology that will help us move into more innovative instruction. We don't intend to discontinue our pursuits of use of technology for the purposes of philosophy 1 and 2, but we are more than ready to pursue philosophy 3. Philosophy 3 is aligned with our school mission statement and our newly articulated technology program vision.

Because of our hope to promote challenge-based learning, iPads are best for us. There are tons of instructional apps for any content area. eBooks can be created that make the most of the Internet, video, audio, interactives, and multimedia resources. There are tons of creation apps so students can demonstrate their understanding in a way most appropriate for them. The camera, camcorder, voice recorder, speech-to-text, and text-to-speech provide an excellent "swiss-army knife" for learning. The device turns on quickly and has a long-lasting battery, so students can pick it up when they need it and use paper and pencil when that would be more applicable. Many of our teachers and students already use iPads personally outside of school, so they know how to leverage them. The iPad is so easy to use that toddlers take to it easily. They rarely fail and if they do, restarting usually fixes any problem. Not that it should matter, but they are cool (teachers covet them and so do students).

Got Skype?

I have been inspired by the great work at Cromwell Valley Elementary by Dana Novotny, Jill Wright, Michael Fort and many others. With administrator vision and support, they have embraced Skype and Web 2.0 technologies.
At our school, we hosted Adora Svitak (child prodigy, international presenter, and published writers) for a series of four webinars focused on creative writing. The culminating activity was an extraordinary literary magazine of selected writing by our 4th and 5th graders. There was deep and meaningful learning by the teachers as well as students. I firmly believe that web conference is an affordable tool to enrich learning and extend it beyond the four walls of the classroom.

This upcoming school year, my administration and I plan on following Cromwell Valley's lead (but on a smaller scale). We hope to have all interested grades participate in a guided inquiry project with a web conference as a component. One activity to support this endeavor was for me to teach a two hour professional development workshop on Skype. The participants were further inspired by Nancy Reed, David Langis, Fred Balmages, and Todd Loht (who appeared via Skype). Part of that discussion revolved around best practices in web conferencing.

I have collated key web conferencing tips. The credit for many of the best tips come from the individuals mentioned above as well as great technology integration visionaries like Vicki Davis, Janine Lim, Silvia Tolisano, and Cherrie MacInnes .

I would like you to crowd-sourced these tips.  Please comment below to add to our understanding of successful web conferences.

Seed Starter for School-wide PLN

In December 2010, my husband gave me an iPad for my Christmas present. I planned to use it as an eReader for the many books I love to read and as my mobile PDA (check email, keep my calendar and to do lists up-to-date). I also was looking forward to being able to get to web sites on-the-go.

Shortly, after I got my iPad, I was lucky enough to attend an iPad tweetup with tech divas @according2jo @DigiLibrarian21 @thetechtiger among others. They shared great apps and I immediately downloaded many of the recommended apps. One of these, Flipboard, was a game changer for me.

Flipboard allowed me to preview web sites mentioned in tweets, my RSS feeds, and facebook updates. The interface put all of this information in one place in a digital magazine format. Honestly, before Flipboard I was not into twitter. Since twitter is blocked within our school system and I didn’t have access to it on my phone, I could only read tweets when I was at home on the computer. I checked my tweets once or twice a month, rarely tweeted my own ideas, and didn’t have much of a network of followers or people I followed.

Flipboard makes it so fun to keep up with my network and learn more from people with interests similar to mine. It can be addicting to a geek / life-long learner like me. (I need to restrict the amount of time I spend online in this fashion.) I have discovered so many new Web 2.0 tools and how they are being used effectively in classrooms across the world. I regularly make an effort to follow the tweeters and subscribe to bloggers who are contributing to my learning. Growing my network with quality individuals is a continuous work-in-progress.
This leads me to my reason for this post. I’d like other (less geeky) teachers at my school to be able to dip their toes into the PLN waters. My teachers are willing to collaborate with each other. Since we have ample laptop carts and interactive whiteboards at my school, teachers already regularly share their lesson flipcharts and student project templates with their grade level teammates. The principal also calls on teachers to share best practices face-to-face at faculty meetings. Every six weeks or so teachers have grade level meetings where they can discuss what’s working and what needs improvement.

I’d like to foster even greater collaboration between grade levels, capture some more of the informal discussions on meaningful school improvement, and reflect more deeply on 21st Century teaching and learning. I’d like to have a school-wide eCommunity where such discussions can happen asynchronously. The discussions can be enriched with links to web sites, book recommendations, and videos relating to the topics being discussed. It could also be a place to share instructional resources across grade levels. The eCommunity would be a place to continue discussions as follow-up to face-to-face professional development activities, a place to discuss professional book study topics, and a forum to exchange impromptu best practices. Since it will be kept online, existing teachers can search it and refer back to it at will, and new teachers can catch up easily be looking back on the discussions. Building this eCommunity would be one step on the path to promoting PLNs for all.

What do you think about this idea? I’ve participated in online forums that worked well and ones that flopped. What would make our eCommunity successful? Since twitter is blocked at school, what environment you’d suggest for implementing the eCommunity?

Standardized or Individualized?

How do you feel about a national curriculum? a national standardized test? Think about the opinions expressed in this video.

Enthusiam

Here is the video that Maryland Public Television made about me when I won the MICCA Outstanding Technology Using Teacher of the Year award. It was such an honor.

Higher Order Thinking in a Digital Age

I came across the revised Bloom's taxonomy (with digital skills added). See http://techlearning.com/article/8670. I wonder how many of the new digital additions are being taught in schools. At what grade level should they be introduced? How many teachers today can do them all?

Are Interactive Whiteboards Worth their Cost?

I was interested in this post:
http://mcrel.typepad.com/mcrel_blog/2009/07/do-iwbs-change-instruction.html

I commented:
Your question has been raised a lot in my district as well. I received a Promethean ActivBoard this school year and now I can't imagine teaching without it. I find myself trying to justify the technology to others in the district (generally those who are without IWBs themselves). These folks seem to see them as either an expensive substitute for a wireless mouse or just another way to keep teachers locked into teacher-led whole-class instruction.

I agree with you that the best way to get insight into this question is to see an IWB used by an effective teacher with real students.

I must admit that before I had an IWB I too was concerned that IWBS might lead to too much teacher-led whole-class instruction. We have only had our boards since October of 2008. In the beginning, they were an extension of the teacher's toolkit (i.e., another way to do what they would have done with a chalkboard, overhead projector, etc.) Yet in less than one year, the IWB have been increasingly used by students to increase their role during whole-class instruction; but more importantly, this has gradually led to the teachers adding new technology integration approaches to their repertoire. Our teachers are now comfortable with a variety of technology integration strategies (at the board, with the board as a center, with activities in the computer lab, and with laptops on wheels). IWBs provided the bridge to technology integration adoption and more student-centered instructional strategies.

This change did not happen overnight or without effort. It requires patience, respect for teachers unique abilities, plenty of professional development, responsive technical support, and administrative vision. Could we have made these advances without IWBs? Who knows, but I’m glad we didn’t have to!

What do you think?

Effective ePortfolios

In his blog 2 cents worth, David Warick comments that he views a state-of-the art ePortfolio system as the next killer app (see http://davidwarlick.com/2cents/?p=1792).

I commented:

I too participated in the Leadership Symposium at NECC. I agree that “what gets measured is what gets taught”; therefore we need to move toward adding ePortfolio in as one way of assessment. In Maryland, this was the first year that High School Assessments (HSA) were required for graduation. Seniors needed to pass the HSA Algebra, Government, Biology, and English to graduate. As the deadline approached, there was an issue about students who would not graduate who had met all the other graduation requirements. Maryland decided to offer projects and portfolio assessment of these projects as an alternative to passing the tests. Many students worked hard and teachers worked hard with them to satisfy the requirements. Reports from this year’s seniors to under classman are that you should pass the test because it is alot less work than passing the project portfolio assessments. May question is why weren’t these students taught this way in the first place?

Now I'd like to add:
Finland (top ranked in educational performance) emphasizes project-based learning (along with performance assessment). What do we need to do in the US (besides reducing our dependence on high-stakes testing) to make project-based learning and performance assessment more widely adopted here?

Baltimore Sun Article - Maryland Math Gap Widening

I'm glad the issue of math achievement made the front page of the paper today (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/education/blog/2009/07/math_standards_and_maryland.html). Preparing students in mathematics for college level study is indeed an important issue. This blog post repeats my comments on that article.

One thing I'd like to see in such an article would be information about how many more students are now attempting college work than before and therefore are taking "college prep" coursework in high school. It is difficult to judge the trends without such information.

I teach in a Maryland elementary school and I agree there is an issue with students mastering basic facts fluently. The curriculum emphasizes problem solving and concept attainment which is important for 21st century learning. Practicing math facts then becomes homework. I'd like to see more parents support this by quizzing their children in their basic facts when it is assigned by the teacher.

MSA and HSA high-stakes testing is causing negative instructional impacts such as the issue of Algebra I courses being diluted as described in the article. Finland who tops the list of educational performance does not use high-stakes testing (http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/blog/1340000334/post/20022802.html). Instead they focus on providing a highly qualified, respected, and supported teaching force; project-based learning; and broadband access to the web. I'd like to see the US move in that direction.

Finally, there are great advances in educational technology (interactive whiteboards, learner response systems, individualized learning management systems) these days. I’d like to see more funds available to apply these technologies to mathematics instruction at all levels.

Contribute to the Solution

I urge all people interested in the advancement of technology integration to share their opinions as the next version of the National Educational Technology Plan is developed. The initial round of comments was solicited at NECC. You can share your thoughts by visiting www.edtechfuture.org. Register, sign in, read, and respond!

I drink the Orange Kool-Aid

I have just completed my first year openning up the newest school in Baltimore County Maryland (Vincent Farm Elementary). We are tech-rich school with an onsite TV studio, one stationary computer lab, six mobile laptop labs with 24 laptops each, Promethean ActivBoards and Elmo document cameras in every classroom, a podcasting kit, a poster maker, and a digital camera kit with 10 cameras.

The most amazing technology has been the ActivBoard. They are changing the we we teach daily. They arrived in October for half the teachers and April for the rest. I've had mine since October and I can't imagine teaching without. It is so hard to explain the value but it makes teaching and learning so much more multimodal, engaging, and tailored to the way digital natives prefer to learn.

Last July, a group of educators from BCPS went to Activ08 in Boston. We were so impressed with the passion and enthusiam that the Promethean teachers demonstrated. It almost felt like we joined a cult. We coined the phrase for how this felt (i.e., like we drank Orange kool-aid). Well, I'm happy to report I too have sipped the Orange kool-aid and I try to convert any teachers in my path to the wonders of teaching with ActivClassroom technologies.

Please share your thoughts with me on interactive whiteboard technologies.

Freedom Writers

The other day I finished The Freedom Writers Diary: How a Teacher and 150 Teens Used Writing to Change Themselves and the World Around Them. If you haven't read the book or seen the video, put them on your summer to do list!

Erin Gruwell is a novice high school English teacher who inspires her students to overcome the violence, bigotry, and poverty of their East L.A. neighborhoods through her effort to form personal connections with these students and allowing them to express themselves through writing. Visit her website to learn more about her teaching practices.

Ms. Gruwell’s students articulate the pain of abuse, neglect, bullying, drugs, homelessness, abandonment, shop lifting, prison, suicide, and gang wars to name a few. The students feel like outsiders because of their race, sexual preference, learning disabilities, obesity, -- you name it. They suffer a loss of “childhood” which results in a loss of hope. Ms. Gruwell shares with them the stories of Anne Frank, Zlata Filipovic and others so they see that even under extreme adversity an individual can make a difference. Her message is so empowering.

Although I teach elementary school students in a working class suburb of Baltimore, the story still resonates with me. At my school, I too see students who are not protected from the harsh realities of the world. Columbine, 911, and the Virgina Tech shootings make it difficult for any child to stay a child for long. Additionally, the rapid pace of change and increasingly impersonal aspects of a growing society adds to students’ feelings of isolation. A caring teaching and the ability to voice one’s story are potent tools to combat these forces. The leads me to ponder how Web 2.0 technologies can boost this process.

A rose by any other name

I recently was asked to talk to some teachers in my district about Action Research. I must say I felt some trepidation. I did an Action Research project some years ago, but I am not an expert by any means. The event was coordinated by University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) and I was going to have a UMBC professor as a partner for the session. My role would be to give the viewpoint from the trenches (i.e., a teacher who had actually been through the process). This made me feel better about not being an expert, but I it also made me realize I had another concern.

I was not convinced that Action Research was worth the effort required. I didn’t know if I wanted to “advocate” for something that I doubted myself. It turned out that all of the other teachers who might have served in my place were not available. Thus, I agreed to participate and do my best.

Well, I pulled out some books and looked at some websites as I prepared my presentation. I wanted my audience to understand that Action Research is not as intimidating as it sounds. Actually, reflective teachers do a less structured variation of it all the time which I prefer to call “teacher inquiry”. I realized that “teacher inquiry” was something that I do firmly believe in and have been doing and promoting for some time. I even was a finalist in Dell’s competition on “data-driven decision making” – another name for “teacher inquiry”. I had to look at my preconceptions to reconcile this contradiction.

When you call it “Action Research”, the connotation includes publishing a definitive conclusion for a larger audience, using the scientific method, and perhaps “randomized groups”. However, this connotation comes from the word “research” and those characteristics apply to “basic research” – not “action research”. The word “action” means that you act within your classroom. With “action research”:
· Publishing your results is optional
· The process is expected to be iterative – not a linear like the scientific method
· You don’t need to use randomized groups.

In other words, I had a problem with the name not the concept. My action research project had been time-intensive, but action research is still valuable on a smaller and less formal scale. I needed to examine what I valued about action research. First, the basis is inquiry. As a life long learner, asking my own questions about my practice is fundamental. I need to question in order to improve and should question in order to be a model for my students. Questioning without follow-up is worthless. Action in order to answer these questions is vital. Next, it follows that if you are going to spend effort on some action, it makes sense to evaluate if the action had the intended effect. The Question-Action-Evaluate triad just makes sense and really is what action research is all about.

This triad was something I could advocate. I needed my audience comprehend this understanding of “What is action research?” Not only that, but I wanted them to be empowered by what this meant. If practice could be improved by personal examination, then the individual could be a source of school improvement innovation. Each teacher did not need to wait to be told the best course of action by the district or “basic research”. These sources were tools in the process of improved practice, but one’s own “action research” was also a valid tool as well!

Note: After this line of reasoning, I was ready for my co-presentation. It went well and the audience went from saying that they never did action research to realizing that they have been doing action research all along.

Safari Montage was the biggest success

When a teacher wants to jazz up a lesson to help students understand a concept, a picture is worth a thousand words and a video is worth .... ? This year our county (Baltimore County Publish Schools) provided a video on demand service (Safari Montage) for all schools.

Safari is very easy to use and because the videos are not streamed, the performance is excellent regardless of Internet bandwidth. The greatest feature of Safari is that you can search by topic, or content standard. Then you can zero in on the just the minute or two of video that supports your specific instructional objective. Our teachers have used video clips to help students learn about behavior of mosquitoes, the life cycle of a frog, what a seed needs to grow, healthy eating habits, and many other topics. The videos were high quality and each had metadata that decribed the appropriate grade level(s) for viewing the video.

In addition to the technical capabilities provided by the Safari Montage vendor, the county utilized a well-thought out rollout strategy. The rollout included on-site setup, system-wide professional development, technical support coordinated with the department of technology and follow-up via the library information services web portal, including an e-community of best practices.

I have introduced a lot of different technologies to my teachers, but this one took off the fastest. I wonder what made this innovation more successful than others. I'm sure the ease of use was an important factor, but I also feel it fit easily into the classroom teachers’ educational philosophy. In other words, it supported them as communicators of new knowledge. Basically, they already know how to apply videos in the "lecture" instructional model. I believe another positive factor was that for teachers with a large TV connected to their computer, they could use it directly in their classroom with minimal set up. Thus, the innovation was an efficient use of instructional time.

I hope as more technology integration approaches become available they will be adopted as quickly and broadly as Safari Montage. What innovations have been successful at your school?

Adopt or Avoid?

Why do some teachers jump right in when a new technology is introduced? There are tons of reasons to postpone adopting a new technology, such as …

The professional development:

• Hasn’t happened


• Was at an inconvenient time or place


• Wasn’t targeted to my situation


• Didn’t provide enough information on how to apply it to teaching.

The technology:

• Takes too much preparation time to use


• Is not reliable


• Is too slow on the equipment I have


• Requires that I sign-out equipment elsewhere in the building, so it is too inconvenient to setup


• Is too restrictive (not enough flexibility, agility, or creativity).

The intended use:

• Is not developmentally appropriate for my students


• Is too abstract/basic for my students


• Is not part of the curriculum


• Would inhibit human-interaction between the teacher and the student or between students


• Is just another fad. This too will pass.

I usually respond that if you could just as effectively deliver the lesson without the technology, then you should! However, there are times when technology integration truly enhances the instruction (i.e., it has a high ratio of instructional benefit to effort required – a high value ratio.) There are too many examples of innovative practices with high value ratios to list here. Yet, a high value ratio is necessary but not sufficient to induce adoption. What makes one innovation take hold while another one flounders?

See also: Sugar, W., Crawley, F., & Fine, B. (2004). Examining teachers’ decisions to adopt new technology. Educational Technology and Society, 7 (4), 201-213.