What makes Technology fun?

Last night in class, Laura demonstrated her iPod Touch. We all had a great laugh over the tiny device packed with interesting features that could have an educational implication. However, this got me thinking about gadgets. Stereotypically, women are not the “gadget” fiends, but last night 6 women were giggling at a tiny device that one could download a harmonica to. What makes technology interesting to some and not others? Is it past experience? Is it promotion on a parent level that technology and gadgets are interesting and fun. Because the flip side to this is the technophobia that haunts many of my teachers. Sometimes, its not even just women, but men – sometimes those who teach the more “science” or “mathematical” subjects. Is it maybe one of Gardner’s multiple intelligences – that people who are more technologically inclined are more tactile or visual? I have always tried to approach any new technology situation I find myself in with a sense of fearlessness, that no matter what I did I would not break or destroy the technology by sheer ignorance of how it functions. Interestingly enough, I never thought of myself as a particularly hands on learner, I always learned by books and reading and tests. But to find myself in technology, promoting a way of learning that is foreign to myself, is interesting to me. Especially in light of my research on problem-based learning, I find myself understanding why technology is still fun to me after being a technology hobbieist for over twenty years and being in Ed. Tech. for almost five. Inherently, technology for me is solving a problem – how does this work and how can I entertain myself with this? I guess I am fortunate enough to still believe that a new gadget is like a toy – that the instructions are useless and I will be able to master it on my own. Now, the problem becomes how do I get my students to feel the same way? How do I get all of my students to believe that technology is something fun, even when the classroom part of it always isn’t?

Technology and Legality

Last night’s conversation during Christine’s presentation really intrigued me. When she brought up the teacher who would play WoW with his students, it really got me thinking about pedagogy and the legal constraints many educators find themselves dealing with. How often does litigation stop innovation in the classroom? All it takes is a disgruntled parent or colleague to turn something that helps students to learn into something that is pulled before a school board and argued. A case could be made that these students are actually in a safer environment, because feasibly, they are safely gaming with a trusted adult. This confusion can be echoed in the larger problem of “what technology is appropriate for students to use in school.” Cell phones have been a huge part of this particular debate. Do we allow students cell phones or other communicative devices in school – other than being a disruption – is it a problem? Or do we not allow it and then in the case of an intruder or other threat – students cannot act as a conduit for communication? This ties into the Cisco article we were reading last night as well. Can school policy keep up with technology? If we say okay to phones, but a student is surfing the Internet during class, are they accountable to rules that don’t necessarily cover that particular behavior. For example, if a student uses a proxy server – are they violating the acceptable use policy? Or are they circumventing the system because the policy has not kept up with the technology – or even worse, are these students optimizing the ignorance of educators regarding emergent technology. Of course, this all goes back to the idea that while the students can operate a high tech cell phone but cannot manage to type a sentence in Word or save something to a hard drive, all of which is extremely frustrating.

Is Technology Necessary?

In our discussions over the last few weeks, we have analyzed the concepts of technology integration and meaningful learning. As I listened to the Tech Buzz presentations and then learned about the different pedagogical approaches, I began to wonder about technology and its role in education. Obviously, I have to be all for it, it’s the bread and butter of my existence. But, does the technology facilitate learning – does it make learning happen more effectively? That is curious to me because as the Tech. Associate here, its my job to keep the equipment running, but I haven’t really had a chance to see teachers anywhere use it in a way that has made me say wow (except in one or two cases in the last year). We so often say that the reason why something in educational technology will work is because the kids like anything electronic. Is that true? I have had several students (boys as well as girls) that have been extremely technology phobic. We presume that the kids all come in to school in regards to technology on the reverse bell curve –that they will be enthusiastic about technology just because they are kids. But I have also seen some of the traditionally “anti” technology people – older teachers, approach technology with enthusiasm and an open mind, while some students have a hard time using the technology – so much that they need to be lead to it – worse, they decide they want nothing to do with “school” technology, but still use the iPod and the cell phone. I think using some of the pedagogical approaches may address some of these issues, but how do we make “educational tech” interesting and useful to students? Does this then require us to redefine what “technology literacy” in students really means? Is a student who can use a cell phone more “technology savvy” than a student who can use Word or is just less fearful or resistant to new technology? Just something to think about.

Meaningful learning and technology proficiency

After our class discussion on 9/29, I really started thinking about meaningful learning as a future parent. How can one create meaningful learning experiences for their child? A good place to start, I feel, is to think about the types of things that are meaningful to oneself- or what is important for me to teach my child? As a teacher, one sifts through the curriculum and makes decisions about the things they want to focus on in teaching – specific skills or concepts that they place a value judgment on. We have discussed in the past that when teaching, we teach a variety of unintentional curriculums, each unique and some even student defined. We then defined “meaningful learning” as finding new ways to interact with the environment that creates a change in the person. What then, is meaningful teaching? How does one teach meaningfully? How can we control any teaching situation when there are so many variables and make the experience a meaningful learning experience for our students? That is why I was somewhat disappointed in the Edutopia module we looked at. The experience was good because I got to see what Edutopia saw as technology integration. I didn’t think that any one project stood out more than the other, as some were very clear in terms of student expectations and some just looked really pretty. This brings me to my benchmark project. I will try to make sure that the unit isn’t about technology for technology’s sake. In a brief aside, I had a colleague tell me today that broken technology makes technology really hard to integrate. I understand his frustrations, as I seem to forget that just because I am technologically proficient; integrating a technology piece into a lesson is much easier for me than for others. So, does that mean that my technology lessons are more meaningful? Probably not, but they just go smoother for me than for somebody who is trying to do an interesting technology project who doesn’t have the same level of proficiency. I think this is why we are doing the PD piece in the benchmark, so we as technology leaders, can assist our colleagues in really integrating technology.

Do Schools Kill Creativity - response

After our discussion on 9/29 regarding curriculum and instruction, as well as viewing the video “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” I am left thinking about how schools approach curriculum and its effects on instruction. As new teachers, we are bound to the curriculum, as we are so nervous about the actual job of teaching that we need to feel secure about something. But, as we get more adept at instruction, we start to move away from the curriculum. In fact, as we become better teachers, the curriculum becomes secondary to what we do every day in the classroom. But, while watching the “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” video, I am struck by what instruction and the daily grind of the classroom can do to kids. It makes one reassess what they say to students every day, especially in light of all of the different types of curriculums (as we discussed) that exist on so many levels within a classroom. It makes one second guess the types of attitudes we exude on any different day within the classroom. So, even if I am having an “off” day, i.e. the server goes down, I am tired, etc, all of these become part of the experience of being in my classroom and having me as a teacher. Then, what if I say the wrong thing to a student, and they are affected in ways I cannot begin to imagine? This boils it down to the awesome responsibilities teachers have. I think this is one thing that Sir Ken Robinson did not touch upon – with all due respect, that could have been another lecture. In a world of test scores and cut funding, it’s important to realize that everything is curricular, and one curricular choice made by a teacher has longer reaching results than one could realize. So, the question can become, do TEACHERS kill creativity?

TIE 536: Attitudes and Technology Integration

What makes a district reach full or appropriate technology integration? A lot of good points were made during the discussion on Monday night – context of technology (can we really expect that a poorer district can get the technology that a richer district might?) and time (how long do we expect districts to take to integrate technology?) It seems to me that technology integration looks different for each district – and it may be reasonable to presume that districts have different ideas of what technology integration looks like for them. A major component of technology integration that I believe is critical is attitude. For technology integration to work on any level, a district must decide that technology is a priority and work to make it happen for faculty and staff. But, as a citizen who pays taxes in a town, it must be incredibly difficult to promote technology expenditures when your tax base may not understand why the purchase or the change may happen. It seems as though parents want change and promote the idea of technology, but sometimes it seems as though when it comes to specific purchases or ideas, the reality is much more difficult than the projected results. It is also somewhat disconcerting that in an election year, we are still discussing what books should be read or taken out of libraries, and looking at emerging technology, we are and continued to be barraged by different opinions. We could possibly face a future where technology is banned because of the ideas it espouses – look at the controversy surrounding cloning. It is also valuable to note that, while our government promotes technology in the schools, the same budgets that contribute to this technology are being cut to almost nothing. Thus, when I think about technology integration, one major issue that I find is that attitude is a huge barrier to successful technology integration. Therefore, even if the poorest district in the world decides that getting one computer in each classroom is a technology goal, so many people (parents, teachers or administrators, even the government) can impact how successful that district is. It takes the effort of so many people to make technology integration successful, and key behind that effort is the belief that technology is important to learn and integrate into daily living. And much like the arts in school, how can you quantify that? Obviously, statistics show that 21st century jobs require 21st century skills, but in order to make integration work, we must look at the process as organic, as daily living and technology grow into each other. Is it valuable for a student to know what an iPod does – sure, because if they know how to use the iPod and do not have a fear of technology, that same student may be the one using a computer to compose a symphony.

Evidence Based Post #4

My last post discussed the Illinois eLearning initiative. In this post, I would like to discuss the response I received from Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach regarding my first post.
To review, my first post discussed what schools and states do in regard to the changing technology standards and teacher preparation. I examined an article posted on Education World, regarding Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach’s experience training students and teachers alike in technology. After posting my analysis on my blog, Ms. Beach responded by telling me about two more websites that detailed her work with preservice teachers.
The first site directed me to the 21st Century Collaborative page, found at Preservice Class Wiki for a course entitled Edu 330, Tech Enhanced Learning, which essentially trained teachers in various technology and Internet based tools, much like are offered in our class. Clicking on the main home link brought me back to the same page, but, Ms. Nussbaum-Beach offered me, as her second link, a link to her homepage on the 21st Century Collaborative, found at Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach. I wanted to discover more about this 21st Century Collaborative, so I followed a link I found on her webpage marked 21st Century Learning, which lead me to a whitepaper, which described the work that described an organization called the Alabama Best Practices Center, or ABPC. They work with schools in order to train teachers from schools in how to become more technologically oriented. Nussbaum-Beach developed the curriculum, and the teams established a virtual community. ABPC has been offered assistance by Microsoft, and ABPC works with selected schools throughout Alabama.
To switch gears, I wanted to complete this posting with what I discovered about what specifically Illinois does to make sure its teachers are technologically savvy. Perusing the Illinois State Board of Education website, under Curriculum and Instruction, one will find a link to the National Educational Technology Standards, published by the International Society for Technology in Education. Interestingly enough, under this link on the ISBE website, one can find the link to the Illinois Content Area Standards for Teachers. This document contains eight specific standards for all teachers, regardless of content area. They are:
1) Basic Computer/Technology Operations and Concepts
2) Personal and Professional Use of Technology
3) Application of Technology In Instruction
4) Social, Ethical, and Human Issues
5) Productivity Tools
6) Telecommunications and Information Access
7) Research, Problem Solving, and Product Development
8) Information Literacy Skills
These standards closely mirror the National Educational Technology Standards for both teachers and students. It seems like Illinois is trying to figure out a good way to integrate these standards, thus borrowing heavily from ISTE. However, in terms of new teachers, I skimmed the Certification section of the ISBE website, only to find no mention of technology. It seems, as stated earlier, that Illinois is trying to get up to the level set by states like Virginia, but we are not quite there yet.

So what does this mean? Essentially, because education is a state-specific entity, states will largely determine what they feel is “sufficient” for teachers in terms of technology. While Illinois does not mandate an assessment test or the creation of a technology portfolio, this does not preclude the fact that one day this may be a requirement. With the ever changing nature of the teacher certification process, this may not be that unrealistic of a situation. Right now, Illinois simply refers to the NETS standards, and seems to be creating Illinois teacher standards out of them. It will be interesting to see how this continues to develop.

21st Century Collaborative. (2007). Blog. In ABPC 21st Century Collaborative. Retrieved May 28, 2007,
from http://21stcenturylearning.typepad.com/blog/

21st Century Collaborative. (2007). Course Description. In Tech Enhanced Learning. Retrieved May 28,
2007, from http://techenhancedlearning.wikispaces.com/

Illinois State Board of Education. (n.d.). Illinois Content Area Technology Standards for All Teachers
[Data file]. Retrieved May 28, 2007, from
http://isbe.net/profprep/CASCDvr/pdfs/24120_coretechnology.pdf