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).