On Tuesday of this week past I completed the interview for the new position, which was a K-12 Technology Education position. In that interview I had to present a technology education vision for the Newfoundland and Labrador English School District (NLESD). This blog post will outline what I presented in my interview.
1) Learner: When looking at a vision for technology education for NLESD the technology cannot be the focus. By that I mean we can't try to fit the technology we like to the learner, we have to flip that to look at the learner we want first and then integrate the technology. So when looking at the type of learner we can tun to the work of John Hattie and Michael Fullan. With both of these authors there is the goal to produce a deeper learner, one that problem solves, designs, inquires, experiments while applying a critical lens. This focus on the deeper learner will produce higher PISA results than what we presently experience in our province. Why? Because PISA assesses deep learning more than any standardized or common exam we presently administer.
2) Classroom: After identifying the type of learner we then need to look at the type of classroom that supports the deep learner. It's not the classroom where the teacher is standing in front of the class disseminating information, in rows or in pods. It's the classroom where the teacher has released control of the learning to the student, with the student being more independent and interdependent upon each other and less on the teacher. If you have been in a K-6 classroom where block structures are a part of the instruction, the classroom I am referring to is obvious. If not, read up on Daily 5 or Daily 3 to look at a structure for a deep learner classroom which supports the deep learner. In addition the classroom that facilitates deep learning is more likely to be a classroom more like a learning commons with flexible seating, technology carts, 3d printers, etc... with fast and reliable wireless Internet access.
3) Committee Consensus: Some teachers unfortunately and periodically view IT with a negative lens. They consider that when a site is blocked or a technology is denied on a network that learning is being impeded. What some teacher are unaware of is that in reality is legislation written and laws to be followed that require NLESD to protect privacy and personal data while maintaining a safe and caring environment. On the other hand IT sometimes feel it is asked to try to make technologies work in incompatible environments and without a lot of advanced notice. The reality is that for the deeper classroom to integrate digital, both entities need to be talking to one another. With that balancing in mind, it was my vision that a committee be struck with Programs, IT and Finance to ensure that
when we leverage digital for learning, that all entities and involved in the decisions to ensure that it impacts learning, is affordable and will work. This committee communicating consensus decisions to the system will bridge this perceived divide between IT and Programs.
4) Google/Chromebooks: I often get criticized by colleagues that I am "anti" Apple. I like Apple devices... as individual consumer devices and not classroom devices. I believe that when looking at the history of initial iPad integration, the purchases were more about the "cool" or "emotion to touch" factors and less about how it would be used with students and between students. Teachers still tell me that Apple Configurator is problematic and data stored locally is exposed to deletion by others. I believe that if we are to leverage digital for learning that the cloud is the future. There needs to be anywhere and any device access to files and information. G-Suite for Education gives NLESD learners that option. In addition, any device that NLESD purchases needs to "just work" and, from an administration point of view, be easy to manage. Chromebooks, from my perspective, are that device. And they are cost effective too. I believe that if the above committee structure I mentioned had been established before schools purchased iPads, there would not be as many today that do not work because of forgotten Apple ID's or memory congested with apps.
5) Coding: From what I can observe we could be in the position where we have the potential to create inequities between students and it could get away from us. Let me elaborate... Right now, at this point in time, we have many entities in this province that are teaching our students to "code". Some are focused on certain technologies and others are focused on different "languages". Interspersed are teachers who are more than proficient and some that aren't engaging in coding with students whatsoever. My concern is not so much what code or what tech is being used but rather do we have what I will call "competency benchmarks" that will allow us to know what the "elementary coder" should know and what the "intermediate coder" should know? In the absence of such benchmarks we could potentially see an elementary student entering intermediate already "knowing" the coding competencies for their new teacher or school. Let's decide what we want different aged coders to do and get them there.
6) Digital Portfolios: In all my personal readings and my most recent masters studies I have come to the conclusion that we are far too reliant upon testing as a mechanism to report that learning has occurred. In fact I believe that the amount of and value placed upon testing is what is preventing us from moving into the deep learning realm and out of the surface learning arena we are presently in. But what do we replace testing with? It is perceived by many to be the most objective way to report learning and teachers are fearful that test reduction equates to losing validity and reliability of grades, with scholarship attainment no longer having an authentic benchmark on which to measure and compare. The answer to me involves the documentation of learning with digital portfolios. The "classroom" folder for a student who uses Google Classroom is a digital portfolio. Can a teacher record an interview with a student and use a rubric to give it a grade? Could a reading record be videotaped and made accessible to a parent? Absolutely... and would they not be better evidence of learning occurring than a simple cumulative grade on a report card? I believe so.
7) Professional Learning: It frustrates me to no end when I hear people say that teachers who participate in online professional learning obtain less of an experience when compared to face to face experiences. It's nonsense... plain and simple. I have attended some of the worst professional learning of my career in person and have received some of the best while doing laundry in my basement. If one reads any research on adult learning they will know that what matters is a knowledgeable, understanding facilitator (teacher presence) who creates the learning to be collaborative with time to discuss with colleagues in an arena of mutual respect and trust (social presence). From a technology lens it means less of "I will show you what it can do" and more of "you try it and I'm here for support as you do". My technology vision for professional learning involves more localized courses which are specific to NLESD needs (like reading or assessment), allow for discussion with others over time and involve both synchronous and asynchronous learning. In addition sessions hosted in regional offices should be available to all teachers provincially via web conferencing technologies where every classroom is its own videoconferencing hub. We offered such professional learning this past year and it was received quite well by teachers. We have to make the distance in professional learning as transparent as we have with high school courses in distance education.
8) Distance Learning: Although I left teaching distance learning almost 5 years ago I do still see the benefit of students receiving instruction from a remote instructor. However I am less certain that it has to be exclusively students and teachers logging into the same synchronous class server at the same time. I believe a teacher in a classroom with students in the "same" classroom can teach students outside their physical plant. I also believe a virtual teacher can be broadcasted in a face to face classroom to deliver instruction. I also believe that with well designed courses and content, courses can be delivered asynchronously and at the 7-12 level. Expansion in these areas will provide students with choice in areas such as credit recovery, IB and AP programming, regardless of geographical location in our province.
9) BYOT: I have said it previously and it is worth stating again that I am not anti Apple. They are excellent technologies for individuals to own, not classrooms to distribute from one student to another. Further to that we have many of our students today that have small computers they carry around with them, computers that have far more processing power than what NASA had when they sent humans to space, to the moon. Even further to that proficiency with technology builds with increased use, we know how to use our own smartphones. It is why I am a strong advocate of students being allowed to bring their own technologies (BYOT) into the learning environment. A BYOT classroom is also a much more cost effective but technology rich environment than one where the school or district holds full responsibility for all technology purchases. Given the reluctance of schools to let its technology leave the physical plant, a BYOT environment is the only one that truly allows for anytime anywhere access to learning. But... for BYOT to be a reality in all our schools, safety, security and privacy are a must. That's where the above committee would help find and cost out a mobile device management system that would allow for the proper BYOT integration.
9) BYOT: I have said it previously and it is worth stating again that I am not anti Apple. They are excellent technologies for individuals to own, not classrooms to distribute from one student to another. Further to that we have many of our students today that have small computers they carry around with them, computers that have far more processing power than what NASA had when they sent humans to space, to the moon. Even further to that proficiency with technology builds with increased use, we know how to use our own smartphones. It is why I am a strong advocate of students being allowed to bring their own technologies (BYOT) into the learning environment. A BYOT classroom is also a much more cost effective but technology rich environment than one where the school or district holds full responsibility for all technology purchases. Given the reluctance of schools to let its technology leave the physical plant, a BYOT environment is the only one that truly allows for anytime anywhere access to learning. But... for BYOT to be a reality in all our schools, safety, security and privacy are a must. That's where the above committee would help find and cost out a mobile device management system that would allow for the proper BYOT integration.
Seems like a lot to talk about in ten minutes. It was... so I had to get to the point and stay on point. I had 4 other questions in addition to the vision presentation but for those of you who wonder if my head is in the clouds... the answer is yes. And I think the district needs to continue to transition to the cloud as well. Will we? We shall see. As a final note I don't think there should be one person formulating a vision but rather a group with differing perspectives... like my committee proposal?