When reading for this module, I could easily identify with the different coaching situations mentioned. Coaching can be mandated by districts or administration or it can be requested by the teacher or an accepted part of the school culture. Coaching relationships arise from many different situations and for different reasons, but as Marzano and Simms (2013, p. 211) point out, “in teacher-initiated coaching, the teacher is self-motivated and invested in the change”. I myself, have found this to be true as well, in my training, I was able to offer the training to the entire faculty and allow them to sign up if they were interested. Our first grade teachers had already expressed interest in Google Docs because of standards based report cards. The majority of the faculty signed up for the training, at least one member from each grade level and several grade levels had 100% participation. The fact that everyone who was in the training chose to be there made a huge difference in the participation and motivation during the training. I have included in my follow up survey additional topics the faculty may find relevant so that we may begin to offer this type of training on a monthly or bi-monthly basis. I also found that the fact the training was something the teachers chose to attend, the motivation level was high, even if the skill was low for some of the teachers. From Marzano and Simms (2013) “the motivation level of a teacher is one of the most important elements in determining the success of a coaching relationship”. I found this to be true in that even though I had a wide variety of skillsets in my training, all of the teachers wanted to learn and be able to use what I was showing them, so their motivation was high and they were all successful in being able to complete the activities that I had them to do. I believe overall, coaching can be successful in any situation whether it’s required or requested but I believe the optimal setting is when a teacher, like a player (in sports) wants to be coached almost always achieves a better outcome.
Works Cited:
Instructional Coaching. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2015, from https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/instructional-coaching
Marzano, R., & Simms, J. (2013). Coaching classroom instruction. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research.
Thought Partners. (2014, October 6). Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://thoughtpartners.blogspot.com/
When I started the “coaching” process for this class, I thought it was a “new” experience, but as I have discovered, it is something I have been doing in my school for some time. Like Marzano and Simms point out, “the term coaching can be used in a variety of ways” (2013, p.7). I thought about classroom coaching as what our instructional coach does or what formal mentors do for their mentees, but I have discovered it is something that goes on informally quite often in schools everywhere. In my school, it happens for me in the area of technology on a regular basis. I was the first person in my building to get a SMART board. I applied for a grant and got the money to purchase it and loved using it interactively with my students. Naturally, several years later, when our school received the money to install them school-wide, I was the go-to person for basic how-to information and getting everyone started. Thus, my technology coaching experience began simply because I had experience with something nobody else had worked with before. This continued as I was chosen to pilot Chromebooks for our district before we started making large purchases of them. Now I am the assistant principal, but before that change, I moved from unofficially being the tech-helper to the tech go-to person for administration and teachers to the official technology coordinator for our building. There were many teachers who had never seen a SMART board who are now using them everyday for their morning calendar routines. Some teachers had never used any of the SMART notebook software and now many can hardly function without it if we lose Internet and I was part of that. I realized that during all of these transitions there had to be certain things in place in order for me to help others learn and become confident in using technology. First, I had to have the knowledge. I had to be interested in new technology and not be afraid to try new things and get my students involved. I had to learn the ins and outs of any new technology before I could help others learn. I also had to learn to troubleshoot it so that I could help others do the same. I also had to become trustworthy. According to Marzano and Simms (2013) “trust is an important aspect of effective coaching relationships and effective schools”(p. 10). I had to be someone that the other teachers knew they could depend on to be able to help them when they needed it. I had to be someone they could trust to be vulnerable in front of and someone that they could trust to help them find answers or express their frustrations to. I learned early on in these “coaching” relationships that trust was a huge factor and that if I did not know the answer it was okay to say so, but that I would have to be able to find it. So, if by definition coaching is helping teachers become better at what they do, then an informal coaching relationship was what I was beginning with these teachers.
Sources:
Bates, Mark. "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Teachers Who Use Educational Technology Infographic - E-Learning Infographics." ELearning Infographics. Alwaysprepped.com, 28 Feb. 2014. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.
Marzano, Robert J., and Julia A. Simms. Coaching Classroom Instruction. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research, 2013. Print.
When I started reading the chapters for this module, my first thoughts were of our instructional coach in our building. She is very helpful, good with data and very uplifting and encouraging. But then I also thought about how I started out my first year teaching without one. I started out in a 7-12 high school setting, no formal mentor relationship and no instructional coach. I realized, while reminiscing, that on my own, I sought out exactly that type of person. She was a veteran teacher, well respected by both students and coworkers as well as someone I knew would know the right advice to give, and she did. I also, looking back, entered into an informal mentor relationship with another person in that school that I still seek advice from to this day. I never thought of either of those relationships as a “coaching” relationship, but now, looking back, I think that’s exactly what they were. According to Marzano and Simms (2013, p. 4) “the term coach generally means helping someone move from where he or she is to where he or she needs or wants to be.” That is exactly what those people helped me to do. That is what coaches do, whether in the professional, athletic, or academic arena, that is what they do, they make us better at what we do.
There is lots of research out there on coaching, various stances on which style is best or how it should be done, but it is not a one size fits all item. In fact “effective coaching is not entirely dependent on the coach. Rather many assert that the person being coached is the most important determiner of the success or failure of a coaching relationship” (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 9). This statement emphasizes just how important and unique that relationship must be in order for it to be successful. I am from the south, where football is king. We all know what sport takes precedent in the fall, and we can all name famous coaches. All of these coaches are successful, but most would agree their styles vary greatly from one another. I think instructional coaching styles would be the same. There are going to be basic needs in any coaching relationship for it to be successful: trust, feedback, choice (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 10). There are a wide variety of personalities out there in education. I think there would have to be a wide variety of coaching styles ready to meet those needs as well. This, as in most aspects of education, is not a “one size fits all” situation.
Instructional Coaching With Technology. (2013, November 13). Retrieved September 28, 2015, from https://youtu.be/wA4ZHlBHvDc
Marzano, R., & Simms, J. (2013). Coaching classroom instruction. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research.
Waterman, R. (2013). Coach Graphic. Retrieved September 28, 2015, from http://www.richwaterman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/coach.jpg
While reading chapters nine and ten, I was thinking of blog topics and how I use technology in my classroom as a teacher for the most part. It wasn’t until I happened upon the part discussing distance learning versus e-learning that I began thinking of my own experiences as a student with using technology. I was intrigued by the debate over whether or not the term “e-learning” applies to both instruction delivered over the Internet and content delivered via CDs and DVDs, audio and video recordings, and via satellite broadcast, and interactive television and cable” (Larson and Lockee, 2014, p.193). If, indeed, we include cable and interactive television, my first e-learning course was many years ago when I first started my college career in a community college. Home computers were a rarity, most of my papers were typed on a word processor, and my e-learning class consisted of recorded (via VCR) lectures from the local public television station that I would watch after reading the text and then complete selected classwork to be turned in periodically on campus. We would visit campus a set number of times during the quarter to turn in work and complete tests and that was my first experience with “e-learning.” Basically, the lecture portion of the class was recorded for viewing outside the classroom. Thinking back on this experience, I was surprised when considering the technology at the time, how well it fit the iterative process illustrated by Larson and Lockee (2014, p.194).
Larson and Lockee 2014 p. 194
The instructional need (#1) at the time (early 90’s) was to make the class schedule more flexible and accessible, so the video lecture did that. The instructional strategy (#2) was exactly the same as the classroom setting would have been, primarily lecture. Consideration of media affordances (#3) there were very little to choose from at the time so the televised lectures to be recorded and watched at the student’s leisure (asynchronous format) was as flexible a format as was available at the time, so this was the selected technology (#4). While it was not as engaging as an actual classroom lecture setting might have been and there was no accompanying thoughts, remarks or group discussions, it did provide flexibility, which, I assume was the main goal. This was my only reference for e-learning which explains my hesitance when taking on an entire degree program based primarily in an online format. Being almost at the halfway point now though, I can truly say, times have changed! I can honestly say the technology being incorporated is “being used to meet a specific need” (Larson and Lockee, 2014, p.184). We have the synchronous chats to create the sense of group familiarity we would have in a face to face environment, we have the asynchronous blog communications to read and reflect on each other’s views and opinions at our convenience. The technology is used a little differently each time as well, so that it doesn’t become monotonous or repetitive. So, for me, in my experience instructional design in e-learning, “you’ve come a long way baby!”
How education has changed in past years?? Teaching and learning at Qpage www.qpagep.com. (2013, June 6). Retrieved July 29, 2015.
History of E-Learning: E is for Evolutionary. (2012, October 11). Retrieved July 28, 2015, from http://www.idealearninggroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TimelineBlogLarge-ILG.png
Larson, M., & Lockee, B. (2014). Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York, New York: Routledge.
When starting the reading for this module, we were asked to come up with three considerations for technology selection, mine were cost, access, and engagement. Having been on more than one technology committee, and written more than my share of grants, cost had to be my number one, money is always an issue in education, but certainly when it comes to technology. “When possible, select technologies and media that can be used by other efforts in your organization and factor in the expected lifespan of the instruction when considering costly technology choices (Larson and Lockee, 2014, p.200) Secondly, I came up with access. All the technology in the world is great, but if you don’t have the infrastructure in place or equipment necessary to access it then it is useless. And finally, engagement, the one that is sometimes the most elusive. We have all planned that wonderful (or so we thought) lesson that would have the students hanging on our every word from bell to bell only to see it flop within the first five minutes. Luckily, while reading, I was reminded of some of the more inexpensive, easily accessed, and interesting technology based activities I use with my students and that is what I want to talk about.
First of all, I am a science person, through and through. I love science, completely, even outside the classroom, ask my husband. All things science hook my interest, so naturally a problem for me from day one in my science classroom has been the information in the textbooks. Due to the nature of textbook publication, by the time the books hit the classroom, the information is old.
I have always tried to integrate current science through magazine articles, video clips, and news stories as I see them, but this is very time consuming. I also love technology, so I have always tried to integrate videos, animations, and short clips to introduce, wrap up, and even reinforce or reteach lessons to my students. I have recently started using science magazines to integrate and address all of the above. The cost is minimal, usually covered by a classroom donation, instructional supply money, or my principal’s generosity, or a combination of all of these, and I use one classroom set for all my classes.
These magazines reinforce core science concepts through current science articles that kids are seeing in the news already. I have started converting many of the questions and data tables into google forms or socrative for the students to fill out so that I can grade them easily or compiling their data into google sheets and the students love working with the technology.
This actually raises the skill level the students are using, to using “technology as a partner, or mindtool” (Larson and Lockee, 2014, p. 185) I also like that with these magazines, I have the option of the online version or the print version as a backup if necessary, this addresses the access issue. Alternately, the online version is easily enlarged for students with visual disabilities, or students who have trouble navigating the online environment, can go to the print, so it works both ways. I can also have the students read the material and work and discuss in groups and enter data on only one computer if I am short on technology or I have students who need extra support. According to Larson and Lockee it is important to “consider producing a version of the main content via a low-tech medium, both to provide a backup in case of technology failure and to accommodate learners with special needs” (2014, p. 200). Lastly, engagement is something that these magazines do a really good job with, they start with some short videos to introduce some of the stories for the magazine to get the student interested, they also have some online games related that we play after the assignments are complete. Most of the students really like that the information is tying concepts we talk about in the classroom to things that are happening in the world right now, not 10-15 years ago. They like hearing about bedbug infestations and flesh eating bacteria and why these things are becoming more common and the science behind it. Overall, my experience with integrating technology in my classroom is that it has helped me bring my content to life and helped my students realize that science is not something that happens in a book or a classroom. It is something that is happening everyday, everywhere, we just have to look with our “science goggles” and know what to ask so we understand it.
Glasbergen, R. (2007). Randy Glasbergen – Today's Cartoon. Retrieved July 23, 2015, from http://www.glasbergen.com/?count=13&s=education
Larson, M., & Lockee, B. (2014). Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York, New York: Routledge.
Science World Magazine Online Resources. (2011, December 8). Retrieved July 23, 2015, from https://youtu.be/tslcvzh4HxY?list=PL95385C6482FE3B21
In the reading assignment for this module, the chapter about assessment really stood out to me. As teachers or administrators so much of our decisions are based on data from assessments whether formal or informal. While reading the chapters discussing aligning your instruction with your outcomes and assessing your instruction accordingly, I was reminded of the cartoon I started with here. We have all seen this at some time or another used in some context. But it is so true of assessment if it is not aligned to our learning. If our assessment does not match our outcomes or objectives, it is useless. We cannot expect our students or participants to do something we have not prepared them for. This brought me back to the earlier principal Larson and Lockee (2014) pointed out regarding “beginning with the end in mind” when designing instruction. This simple concept will make sure that our assessment is appropriate as well. I also found myself nodding my head during the marshmallow illustration from chapter 6 when the instructor demonstrated that “it was necessary to have a target, that the target should remain constant and not move, and that the task required opportunities to practice prior to assessment” (Larson and Lockee, 2014, p.116) As a science teacher, I find students definitely tend to perform better on assessments when they have had the opportunity to interact with the material in some way. The following infographic I found called "the cone of learning" includes data that supports just that.
Cone of Learning
Interactions can be as simple as discussing with their group or partner, or as complex as a full lab experience, but it does seem to help them to comprehend the material. We also know there are different types of assessment, formative and summative, just to name a few and they all have their appropriate time and place. So, what makes for effective assessment? According to Larson and Lockee (2014) effective instruction must: “Align with the learning outcomes, be a learning experience for both the learner and the designer, and be known in advance by the learners” (p.139). I find that these three principles while simple, give us exactly what we need. We have to know what we want from our students before we start (begin with the end in mind, align with the outcomes), it has to be ongoing and guide our instruction (we have to reteach or support the learner if necessary), and we must let our students know what we are going to expect from them up front. So, the instructor who used the marshmallow demonstration was right “on target” with her “assessment of assessment.”
Larson, M., & Lockee, B. (2014). Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York, New York: Routledge.
Lim, J. (2012, May 1). Finance and Listening to Nature. Retrieved July 16, 2015, from http://joycelim.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/cone_of_learning.png
Rao, S. (2014, June 26). Top 10 Traits of a Good Tester. Retrieved July 16, 2015, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140616032541-3446415-top-10-traits-of-a-good-tester
Zody, O. (2015, April 1). Summative VS. Formative Assessments. Retrieved July 16, 2015, from https://youtu.be/-DrFt_tqMSU
Good Instructional Design vs. Bad Instructional Design……
While reading the chapters for Module 1, I was reminded of this image I found a while back on Pinterest. It always makes me laugh. Most of us have at one time or another sat through an inservice presentation that made us feel exactly like that picture, like we are about to die. I can remember times like that as a student as well. I had an early morning geology class that would have been difficult at any time of day, even for a science lover but early morning class completely about rocks for a college student was nearly impossible. My favorite classes usually were science though, because there was a natural element to the content, I was usually learning about something I had experienced or was at least familiar with (plants, animals,). I also always enjoyed the fact that there was usually a lab component, a place that we could explore or extend our learning about the current topic. As educators, we present instruction to our students daily and we sit through more professional development and instruction than most other professionals with a unique perspective. When we are asked, we can definitely point out bad instructional design when we see it or experience it, and easily give examples of great instructional design. When looking at these examples though, what exactly must we do to ensure our professional development and presentations model good instructional design? Defining exactly what that entails is sometimes much more difficult than just giving examples. One of the first things Larson and Lockee (2014) insist on for planning is “beginning with the end in mind.” Most of us find this easy to do with our students, as we have clear cut objectives and standards to guide us. With professional development, just like with our students, we must know what we our outcome needs to be before we can plan our route to get there. We have all been the victim of professional development that seemed to have no clear purpose or goal, and just like our students, adult learners also want to know what the purpose for their learning is. While researching good instructional design, I found this infographic and I really liked the simplicity of it.
It also connects well with the ADDIE (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) model we are working with. Starting similarly with “begin with the end in mind” just as Larson and Lockee (2014) recommend, it also gives four other simple guidelines to follow. It must be student-centered, which for professional development that could be any learner. I think we would all agree that all learning must be centered around the learner. The third point “it is perfected by improvement” ties directly into the evaluation/revision part of the ADDIE model. “Continuous evaluation produces feedback that facilitates continuous improvement of the instruction” (Larson and Lockee, 2014). The fourth point, “follows a well-defined system” ties in perfectly with the systematic ADDIE model of instructional design we are using in this course. Lastly, it points out “considers the big picture”. I realized when completing my ADDIE outline for this first module that this model does a great job of looking at the entire picture. When planning for successful instructional design, its very easy to go about it from our own comfort zone, learning style or viewpoint. We must always consider the goals, expectations, and needs of our learners, as well as the limitations that we may encounter. "Learners mus have a will to learn as well as the skill" (Larson and Lockee, 2014). Once again, bad instructional design may be very easy to point out and identify, but after reading and starting to research it is becoming more clear exactly what makes good instructional design as well.
5 Golden Rules of High-Quality Instructional Design Infographic - e-Learning Infographics. (2014, May 19). Retrieved July 10, 2015, from http://elearninginfographics.com/5-golden-rules-of-high-quality-instructional-design-infographic/
"Inservice" by Doug Johnson. (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2015, from https://www.flickr.com/photos/kjarrett/4138613146/
Instructional Design Series Introduction. (2013, December 26). Retrieved July 10, 2015, from https://youtu.be/_WGcS6lxqME
Larson, M., & Lockee, B. (2014). Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York, New York.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Moving from Central to Mobile...
Just like our telephones used to be centrally located but are now mobile and go with us wherever we need them to, so is the trend with computer labs. I can remember when centrally located labs were really the only option in schools. Students would periodically, maybe once or twice a week trek to the "computer lab" to play Oregon Trail, or practice keyboarding with Mavis Beacon or some other educational software. Now, as Picciano (2011) mentions on page 232 "moving students to a central laboratory for several periods per week is effective given limited resources, but it is not ideal." With the changing standards, most computer use is tied to classroom instruction and mobile labs are more useful and many schools have been able to even implement 1:1 initiatives. When schools decide what type of computer labs they are going to go with they still need to keep the basic concepts of good planning in mind. When making decisions, the administrators still need to consider the "human needs of people both inside and outside the school- including students, teachers, parents, and taxpayers." (Picciano, 2011, p. 16) One must always consider what the main goal or objective is with the computer labs. Are they students learing basic keyboarding and computing skills alone or are teachers incorporating these skills into lessons? What is the goal of the faculty and administration by adding this technology? Are the faculty comfortable with technology in their classrooms and incorporating technology into their lessons? These are all questions that must be answered before the decision on a centralized or mobile lab could be made. The current trends in most subject areas require the integration of research, word processing, presentations and technology use within each subject area. With that being the current trend, I believe mobile or 1:1 is where most schools are headed, but infrastructure and faculty must be supported in this transition. Today's students must not only be able to produce written work, but they must also be able to produce digital work whether it be videos, blogs, wikis, or other forms of media and to do that we must bring technology into our classrooms. This requires the computers to be with students in the places where the teaching and learning are taking place, which is usually in the classrooms. According to Breedlove (2014) "instead of learning technology in a vacuum, students should be using it the same as paper and pencil." This requires it to be integrated into the classroom activities on a regular basis not as a "token" activity here and there. The landscape of our homes have most definitely changed in the area of technology, why should our classrooms be any different? In closing, here is a short clip showing today's kids, with some of those earlier computers I was talking about that we used to play oregon trail on. This shows us just how far we actually have come in my lifetime, I have to wonder what my son will see.
References:
Picciano, A. (2011). Educational leadership and planning for technology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
Breedlove, H. (2014, September 30). Why You Should Ditch The Computer Lab - Insight ON. Retrieved April 23, 2015, from http://www.insight.com/insighton/education/ditch-computer-lab/
I like to think that I am not "that" old. I have only been teaching for thirteen years. I have a seven year old son, and with spending so much time in middle school, I keep pretty current with music, pop culture and what's new and current. I use technology, have several social media accounts and try to integrate technology into my classroom successfully. But then my seven year old loses a tooth, or our cat has kittens and then I realize how the times have changed. Instead of wanting to call and tell someone or just enjoy the moment, what does he say? "Hey, take a picture and put it on facebook, you can tag (fill in his friend's parent's names here)" then I know we "aren't in Kansas anymore." My seven year old will never remember a world without social media. He loves seeing his friends and their vacations, lost teeth, awards, pets and other things, and for now he sees no negative. I remember my first experiences with online interaction, in college, with dial up internet service via AOL instant messenger. It was so exciting sitting waiting for that dial-up process to complete, and, if you were really lucky you got to hear the "you've got mail" when it was complete. When I started teaching high school, students were already on MySpace. So the students we teach now are likely much like my seven year old in that social media has always been a part of their reality. It is, however, our responsibility as educators to support students as they learn digital citizenship. (Hicks, 2013, p.138) As I have discussed in my earlier blog post "when being born digital isn't enough" we must teach our students to be responsible when it comes to social media and the internet in general. This leads me to the topic of this blog post. This is a screenshot of a tweet that was retweeted by a technology specialist I follow from another system. It caught my attention because it is a reference to the old "teach a man to fish" proverb.
I think that this is completely true for our time, in our age, in our classrooms and especially true with social media. We are teaching students who have access to a mass of information at their fingertips 24/7. Finding information is not a problem. We have to teach them how to use these tools responsibly, how to think critically, how to be skeptical of information sources they find online and also to be aware of what they are putting out there for others to see. When looking at this tweet using the MAPS heuristic I see the following:
The Mode: The mode here could be considered persuasive or argumentative, the author is clearly making a point and strongly encouraging a digital citizenship approach versus a censorship approach.
The Media: The media here is twitter, so the post had to be brief, I like that the actual tweet summed up the photo perfectly by emphasizing the importance of digital citizenship.
The Audience: The audience here is broad as the author has over 27,000 followers but he is a educational technology specialist, so most of his posts relate to technology in education and is geared toward that.
The Purpose: The purpose of this tweet I most likely would be to start conversation and encourage teachers to teach digital citizenship, not locking down the internet so that it is barely useable. I would think it did that by the number of retweets and favorites.
The Situation: The situation here I am unsure of, there could have been a link to further educational resources on digital citizenship or further information, but with twitter, most posts are quick, brief, overviews, like this one.
Overall, I believe as teachers, we have to follow this approach with our students. Our students are going to use social media, we use social media, why not use it in a positive way for both? I have found Google Classroom to be very useful with my students already. Our school PTO has used facebook as a very successful communication tool. I have found Google+ and twitter to both be endless sources of technology information and classroom ideas. Lastly, this article I found retweeted by an administrator in another system fits with the above tweeted graphic perfectly. "Don't Lock it Down" This also reiterates what Hicks (2013)says in the chapter 2 (about our students) that "we can help them understand how, when and why digital writing matters, both for them as individuals, and for their families and communities.
Resources
Hicks, T. (2013). Crafting digital writing: Composing texts across media and genres. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lehmann, C. (2015, April 3). Don't Lock it Down. Retrieved April 15, 2015, from http://www.techlearning.com/blogentry/9157#.VSgAZnCdWkA.twitter
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Hardware evaluations and how times have changed.
While reading chapter 10 I felt like Picciano (2011) spoke truth immediately when he said "there frequently has been too much emphasis on the acquisition of hardware alone. A common assumption was that once the hardware was acquired the other components would follow." I feel this has been true more often than not in many local systems including my own. We have over the years installed lots of great technology hardware and devices, such as smartboards, slates, interactive response clickers, and many other things in classrooms. These things have many times, however, gone unused or not used to their full potential due to lack of professional development or lack of technical support. I always found this to be very discouraging as one of the technology support people in my building. I always found myself looking at those things as wasted money when they weren't being used to their full potential. I do see this changing currently though.
With the push in most systems being focused on 1:1 initiatives whether it be a bring your own device (BYOD) or system provided technology, our system, too has begun exploring this type of technology with our students. This time, however, we are doing it differently. We have pilot groups using chromebooks with groups of students to find potential problems/issues that may arise in classroom use settings on a small scale before we look at implementing something like that on a system-wide basis. We are also looking at building up the infrastructure within the older buildings to be able to support a 1:1 initiative before it becomes a possibility so that we will be ready before it becomes a reality. Laying the groundwork so to speak.
Being part of this pilot group has been a learning experience for both my students and myself. They also have enjoyed knowing they are part of the decision making process. While working through this pilot program, we have visited most all of the evaluation criteria for evaluating and selecting computer hardware identified as important by Picciano (2011, p.190) performance, compatibility, modularity, ergonomics, vendor, and cost. We have had some issues with performance, but not many, compatibility is one issue we have been waiting on to make sure Aspire/ACT online testing would be compatible with chromebooks. One compatibility issue which is also mentioned in reference to math programs by Weldon(2013) in his article is some issues we have had with programs using Java, but we have found fixes for most of those. Modularity and ergonomics seem to be fine, software availability has been somewhat of an issue transitioning system-wide to Google Apps for Education. The vendor issue, I believe, speaks for itself as Google is a global entity, and cost is the major selling point for chromebooks. The per pupil cost per chromebook is not much more than a text book costs per student. Here is a quick video overview of chromebooks for education.
I feel that this pilot program approach has also met several of the recommendations of Weldon(2013) from his article about implementing chromebooks successfully. We have been phasing in Google apps for education in our system over the past few years as well as providing professional development in that area. We have a technology "think tank" with stakeholders to provide feedback and ideas for technology implementation. We are now working through the pilot program with a few small groups in different grades and schools throughout our county.
So, overall, I haven't always been involved with the hardware or software selection process in my district. I have, however seen changes over the years and I am happy to say I am a part of the process this time. We have come a long way in how we do things and how the decisions are made. While we are exploring the possibility of our district's use of classroom sets of chromebooks or our preparation for a 1:1 initiative I think we are headed in the right direction and using our resources wisely. I hope that we continue to move forward in this style with whatever technology decisions we make in the future.
References:
Chromebooks for Education Overview. (2012, May 16). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSbZQNJwPuI
Picciano, A. (2011). Educational Leadership and Planning for Technology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
Weldon, D. (2013, April 23). Thinking About Chromebooks? Here's Everything You Need to Know First -- THE Journal. Retrieved March 27, 2015, from http://thejournal.com/Articles/2013/04/23/Thinking-About-Chromebooks-Heres-Everything-You-Need-to-Know-First.aspx?Page=2
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Audio and Video Texts and Introductions...Take Two
While reading chapters 5 and 6 I was worried I might be in over my head. Audio and Video editing are not my strongest areas. Add to that the thought of revisiting my own video of myself talking on camera. Well, lets just say there was a little voice in the background the whole time I was reading. While I love using instructional audio and video texts in my classroom and do so quite often, the thought of making my own is not very appealing. As the reading progressed, however, I did become more comfortable thinking about the editing process as we began talking once again about the MAPS heuristic and how it applies to both audio and video texts. Whether we are crafting written, audio, digital or video, we always have to consider these four points (mode, media, audience, point, and situation) and Hicks (2013) frames them in reference to video on page 111, which is where I started the editing process for my video.
I chose not to recreate my video from scratch, because I was happy with the content as far as the composition of my speaking part, but I did want to enhance it and add some things using the MAPS heuristic for evaluation. The first thing I addressed was the mode. The mode of this assignment was informational, to inform my classmates about who I am, which I felt was covered with the content of the original video. The next element of MAPS is media. I chose to stick with my original media which was a video of me talking directly to the camera. I felt the point of this video was to introduce myself to my classmates and this was taking the place of an actual face to face class but I wanted to recreate that feel. The next thing I had to consider was my audience. Who would be viewing my video? My classmates, while all in education, all have different subject areas and backgrounds so I wanted to share some of what makes my experience and what I bring the to class unique. Lastly, for situation and context, I wanted the video to feel relaxed and have a conversational feel while incorporating some pictures to add to what I was saying as well.
After all the consideration, I began working on the editing process. I was in complete agreement with Hicks(2013, p115) that “a challenge in any writing situation is getting started.” I started out using a free service called wevideo. WeVideo Introduction I do think would this would be a good starter video editing tool for my students. I think when I tackle the video projects with my students this is what I will start them with because it has the introductory video and gives a little more instruction than imovie. However, I already had my idea of what changes I wanted to make while keeping the original audio and I could not do that with the free version of wevideo. So, I made the decision to tackle imovie. While a little frustrating at first, after several youtube video tutorials and a little trial and error, I ended up with a finished product pretty close to what I had pictured in my mind. Overall, even though I was a little stressed about the project itself, I did enjoy the reading and the process once I got started. Here is the finished product.
I added Captions and text at the beginning to reiterate my name and what the purpose of the video was. I added pictures of myself, my family, and my classroom to give a feel of my environment and family. I also added screenshots of common technology tools I use in the classroom in case those watching the video were not familiar with them. Overall, this experience wasn’t nearly as bad as I thought it would be and I learned a lot in the process. I now feel like I would be much more comfortable making and editing a video for my class, and I feel like I would be better equipped to help my students do the same thing.
Resources:
Hicks, T. (2013). Crafting digital writing: Composing texts across media and genres. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
IMovie In Under Five Minutes. (2011). Retrieved March 23, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J79_0h3ozS0&feature=youtu.be
Make and share amazing videos online. (n.d.). Retrieved March 23, 2015, from https://www.wevideo.com/overview
Monday, March 9, 2015
Data…..use it or lose it??Tests, assessments, data collection, data-driven instruction, formative assessments, and summative assessments can all be overwhelming. As teachers, administrators, and instructional coaches, how do we design it, use it, manage it, and what do we do with it all? Where to start can sometimes be the hardest part, but we first have to make sure that the data we use is relevant. We have to be measuring and looking at what matters. Are our assessments measuring what we, as stakeholders, feel matters most? Do our goals match what we feel is most important for our schools and communities? Then once we have this data, what do we do with it all? I am not only referring to the annual tests but also the daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, formative and summative, formal and informal assessments that teachers gather. Gone are the days of teachers looking at annual testing results once a year and saying, “Hmm, maybe I should change a few things,” and moving on to the next year. No longer is it acceptable for teachers to have students failing to master concepts without making changes to their instruction in the classroom. Teachers are now collaborating, looking at data in creative ways, working with their peers and mentors to figure out what needs to be done to make all students successful. Gathering and organizing data takes a great deal of time, and, thankfully, many systems have employed instructional coaches to assist in that role. But in most, if not all, schools, teachers are no longer “islands unto themselves” but functional parts of school communities that work together to ensure student success. Collaboration has become part of most school’s culture. The collaborative model for data-driven instruction also makes use of a teacher’s natural inclination to turn to other teachers for support.
One of the most creative ways to incorporate data collaboration that I found while looking at data-driven instruction research is data walls. I think that this is a wonderfully visual way of looking at student progress throughout the year, and I have talked to my grade-level team about possibly using them in the future. Here is a clip explaining the process.
I think that this process is a great example of what “fosters and utilizes a sense of community.” (Picciano, 2011, p.89) Teachers have to work together and be creative to craft our instruction to meet our student’s needs on a daily basis. In our chat, it was mentioned that in a team setting with collaborative planning and data collaboration, each student gets multiple advocates who get to know them well and have the ability to speak for them. I think that this type of collaboration has become a vital part of what teaching and data-driven instruction looks like in our time. Teachers collaborating with other teachers can be one of our most valuable resources; It can also be one of our most valuable assets. This collaboration can not only benefit our students but also our teachers. According to Sparks (2013), effective teams strengthen leadership, improve teaching and learning, nurture relationships, increase job satisfaction, and provide a means for mentoring and supporting new teachers and administrators. There are several things that the Center for Teaching Quality recommends for best practices in collaboration: scheduling adequate time for collaboration, aligning collaboration for both horizontal and vertical collaboration, structuring collaboration meetings formally, and creating an atmosphere of mutual trust. (Berry, Daughtrey, and Weider, 2009)
References:
Berry, B., Daughtrey, A., & Wieder, A. (2009). Collaboration: Closing the Effective Teaching Gap. Center for Teaching Quality.
Data Walls. (n.d.). Retrieved 8 March 2015, from https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/differentiated-instruction-with-data-walls#
Picciano, A. G. (2010). Educational leadership and planning for technology (5th ed.). United States: Allyn & Bacon.
Sparks, D. (2013). Strong Teams, Strong Schools. Learning Forward, 34.
E-Learning… You’ve Come a Long Way Baby…..
While reading chapter 10 I felt like Picciano (2011) spoke truth immediately when he said "there frequently has been too much emphasis on the acquisition of hardware alone. A common assumption was that once the hardware was acquired the other components would follow." I feel this has been true more often than not in many local systems including my own. We have over the years installed lots of great technology hardware and devices, such as smartboards, slates, interactive response clickers, and many other things in classrooms. These things have many times, however, gone unused or not used to their full potential due to lack of professional development or lack of technical support. I always found this to be very discouraging as one of the technology support people in my building. I always found myself looking at those things as wasted money when they weren't being used to their full potential. I do see this changing currently though. 
