Falling for Gadgets and Getting Up

Last week five graduate students and I traveled to Beatrice, NE to participate in the ESU5 Tech Fair.  It was a very successful day and we worked with many teachers in very short sessions. Nick Ziegler was a great host and the event went without a hitch (at least as far as I know).

At the end of the event, I was asked to draw the winners of the door prizes. Nick has arranged for an impressive set of prizes that included screens, printers, iPad, software licenses and more. I agreed to draw for all prizes except for the Interactive Whiteboard. This was the gadget that caught my eye and where I have put all of my door prize tickets.

Despite all of my efforts, I did not win. On the way back, I thought about the gadget and why I was focused on it? It is easy to fall for cool gadgets. You see them in actions or just imagine what you could do with them. It is like getting a present- that sense of getting something cool and starting it for the first time. Laurie calls it the Christmas morning effect. And seeing the gadget I can already anticipate how great I will feel when I open it.

Surrendering to my emotions I forgot to ask the most important question we need to ask about any technology in the classroom: Is it a teaching device or a learning device? In the case it was more a teaching device than a learning one. Now that gadget fever has subsided I also recall that most schools that I have worked with and adapted whiteboards were disillusioned within a year or so. It was simply not worth it and made very small if any gains in instruction. The change if any will come from well-used student devices that are scaffolded for teachers and students.

Transformation

By Real Change [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

After two negative posts I vowed to write a positive one. This week it's easy. We concluded our semester long professional development course on new literacies integration. As each teacher shared it was clear that we have all changed.

I have to admit that taking this new path was not easy. Laurie (Friedrich) and I had constant discussions about setting clear expectations and providing support. We rejected a notion of formal point by point grading. Instead we embraced an atmosphere of acceptance and support. We were absolutely right, every participant in the class emerged as a true professional and found ways to surpass our expectations (and I am quite sure their own). In an era when teachers are devalued and de-professionalized our humble experiment showed (once again) that treating individuals with trust and professionalism leads to exceptional professional growth.

This group of teachers have put their trust in us and Laurie Friedrich and I did our best not to fail them as a group. This PD was not about grades or reaching some arbitrary standard, instead it was about each professional identifying a goal and working towards it. To be honest I think everyone, myself included, achieved more than we originally planned. Here are some excerpts from our teachers' blogs:

"Even though this class has only lasted a semester, I have learned a tremendous amount. I have pushed myself to try new things and through this process have found incorporating technology into my lessons as simple, fun, and best of all… engaging for my students! "

"I've learned to be a little more patient as I try to integrate technology into the curriculum. I'm still working to be OK with the "messiness" that comes with using new technology for the first time. No matter how much I prepare and try to anticipate glitches, new issues arise when we use an app or website for the first time. I can't let that stop me from trying new ways to enhance learning via technology."

"As I reflect over the course of the semester, I realized I have integrated more technology into my teaching than I ever have before. I now feel more comfortable trying out new technology resources with my students. Previously, I was too scared that the lesson would be a total flop or that my students would know more about computers than I do. As it turns out, I am knowledgeable, capable, and confident in teaching my students skills with the use of technology."

We included in the class graduate students who were not currently teaching. These students with varied classroom experience stepped into the breach and supported classroom teachers as they worked to integrate new literacies into the classroom. Carly is a graduate of our program who will get her first classroom next year wrote:
"This semester I learned so much about how I can integrate technology into a classroom. As I start my first teaching job in August in a third grade classroom, I am very eager to take many of the activities/ideas and the knowledge I learned and use them in my own classroom! I was very fortunate to be able to work with many great teachers this semester that have prepared me and shared many great things I can do in my classroom. I am very thankful for the teachers who invited me into their classrooms for me to observe and help out with the technology aspect of their lesson. From these opportunities, I gained confidence as a new educator."

First Reflcetions on our China Tour- Common Ground

Photo Op in a First Grade Classroom Linzi, Shandong, China

We came back from our China Tour two weeks ago. It was a whirlwind tour focused on Linzi in Shandong province and Chengdu in Schizuan province. In each we visited elementary schools that are integrating iPads with our support. There were many lessons to learn and I am still thinking through much of what we saw. In addition we visited only three schools and observed instruction in only two. There is no way for me to know how representative this ample is so please read with great care. This, however, are some of my observations:

There are many differences between US and Chinese schools. For example Chinese classrooms were much larger (over 40 students), and the stakes to students future are higher (high stakes in China is much higher stakes for students not teachers. What struck me though were the similarities. When we observed teaching, our Chinese partners and us were often in agreement about high quality instruction and what it should look like. In our last school after three days of work the principal asked to see me privately. She sat opposite me with her four assistant principals (one each for instruction, professional development, organization, and discipline) and with a tense expression asked for my opinion on the instruction we saw. I laid out a step by step analysis of the lessons (I used LessonNote to annotate lessons carefully). At the end of my exposition she was visibly more relaxed. Smiling she asked: "Do you think it is possible to integrate technology into our traditional lessons?" [translation].

Earlier in our visit I thought traditional meant a focus on memorization and recitation, but at this point it has become clear to me that she was referring simply to the existing curriculum. This is the same question/ concern I often encounter in schools. Teachers and administrators interpret our effort in professional development as an addition or even substitution of the existing curriculum, the reality is that we see it first and foremost as part of the curriculum already taught with some extra skills integrated when they are relevant (e.g. digital citizenship). I carefully responded that yes I thought there could be such integration that would benefit students and help instruction as well as 21st century skills. I went back to the SAMR model as a core foundation to move forward and for the first time since we entered the school we were on the same page.


At the heart of the matter was the fact that both sides did not understand how close our positions were. We were seeing the same instruction and evaluating it in similar way but all of us were also hung up on cultural differences not wanting to assume common ground that was actually there.

Losing Faith in Journalism- a response to "Can Students Have too Much Tech?"

My dean directed me toward an opinion article in the prestigious New York Times by Susan Pinker. The title was "can students have too much tech?" Who can resist this title? Of course you can have too much tech- thinks the person reading this on her iPad seating at Starbucks on a staurday morning. Kids these days all they do is play video games and waste their time texting.
A closer read of the article actually disproves the main thesis quite clearly. I expect more from a published author and a psychologist by training! I almost never comment on writing like this. In this case, however, I am mostly because we all expect better from a publication like the New York Times.

I would like to say that I agree with some of the premises in the article namely:
1. It sucks to be poor. Children raised in poverty have lower outcomes on standardized tests.
2. Devices are no magic. It depends what you do with them. Duh.
3. We still need teachers to teach even if we have devices.
4. Putting crappy devices in students hands without support will do very little to improve academic outcomes (sorry Sugata Mitra I am not a believer).

While we definitely need to be careful about technology use and balance in this just like any other facet of our lives a careful of the article and the sources cited bring a totally different picture.

Here is what is inflammatory, cherry picked, and untrue:

The story starts with the Obama initiatives on free and open Internet and providing access. Both policies are crucial for long term success of our educational system and social justice but are also completely unrelated to the evidence cited later. The critique is mostly about tech use at home

(where they gathered some correlational data) but the implication is that the president¹s agenda in this area is wrong.

The main concerns I have about the data presented (you can read the report here):

1. There is no consideration that technology is an area of literacy that is just as important than any other. Without computer/Internet literacy students are behind (if you can't conduct an excellent Internet search for research- how good is your research paper going to be?).

2. They basically point to an interaction between poverty and home access to technology. Does that mean that all kids are better off without access at school or even at home? Is she advocating letting middle class students have access at home but not for African American boys? Really?

3. The data is old and it predates smart phones, high speed internet, and the wide array of educational resources avaialbale and required in education (for example GAFE). Smart phones are now ubiquitous and most students from mid school up have them- including children growing up in poverty. That means that access is already there all that is left to schools and parents and to try and channel the activity to educational benefit as well as social and entertainment.

4. Now for the main source of data. The report is from 2010 the data is from 2000-2005 (what tech did we have then?). The report is by two economists. They actually claim: (1) that students that always had a computer actually improve over time (2) some students do better after they get a computer and finally and 

5. Most importantly their effect sizes are all in single digit % effect size that is for them an effect size of .02 standard deviation is fairly large. In educational research any effect smaller than .40 (that is 20 times higher than that reported). This effects are considered  small and not educationally meaningful.

The clearest part of this is that the author has failed at critical reading and thinking. She does not (want to?) understand that the devil in any report is in the details and in complete reporting including the context of a decade old study. It is legitimate to have concerns, it is also legitimate to question the ways technology can be used. Support for the argument should be based on a reasoned argument, and facts that are relevant to our current context. 

Why my new Apple TV will not matter (much) for learning and Why it will!

I caved in and got an Apple TV. I spent a few minutes setting it up and enjoyed the way all my work looked on the large screen. And then I had to remind myself that while it is slick and easy to use it will not matter much for learning.

Where it doesn't matter- Learning happens with student devices handled individually or in small groups. It is the active interaction that really pushes students forward (and engages them). The question is: is it a teaching technology or a learning technology? Apple TV falls much more in the teaching than learning. Teaching is important you might say. True, but we've focused on teaching for a few thousand years, time to focus on learning.

Why it will matter- As a teaching device the Apple TV will allow me to share presentations, websites and media from anywhere in the room. This allows me the flexibility to move around, interact with students while giving all students access to what I am looking at. This improved mobility and ease of operation will make me a more effective teacher. One that has to spend less time on tech and more on students. The sharing extends to my students they can share their thinking with the rest of the class using their own devices- a way to teach and learn t the same time.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Apple TV and will use anytime I can BUT I will remind myself constantly that real change will come from individual learning devices not the fancy teaching ones.

Motivation to Innovate- or five reasons to risk failure

The lens I most often use to view motivation is Bandura's concept of self efficacy. The idea is that we are more likely to succeed when we believe we can be successful. There is quite a bit of empirical work supporting this construct. More than that self efficacy is the best motivational predictor of academic success.

Recently, however, I've had read personal narratives of failure from teachers who are innovating in their classroom and school. The thing that immediately emerged is that self-efficacy cannot be the prime motivator because they actually do NOT always think they will be successful. Often they actually say "I don't know if it's going to work". In my work on democratic education I actually said "I don't even know what it looks like but I think it is important to do."

So what are some ways to think about the motivation to innovate despite the high probability of failure:

1. Value- while self-efficacy is important we also have to consider the value of our actions. If the value is high enough we may be able to consider failure and the potential personal fallout from it.
2. Long term success- while we may not believe that we have it figured out right now we have a belief in our ability to work it out through trial and error. This is closely connected to the idea of grit or stick-with-it-ness/stick-to-it-ness recently highlighted.
3. Self delusion- you can have self-efficacy that is completely unjustified. Sometimes it is better to believe that you are going to be successful despite best evidence to the contrary.
4. Identity- when individuals assume the identity of an innovator (or even entrepreneur) makes self efficacy for a specific action less important than your sense of competence as an innovator. You believe not that you can do the next step but in your ability to overcome the odds and problem solve.
5. A community of innovators. The knowledge that peers around you will support your efforts, share your experiences and appreciate your willingness to dare.

For me it comes down to "surfer attitude" (temporary name)- this is what I am calling it now. It is the deep understanding that to gain expertise you have to fail, since you are constantly pushing the envelope without quite knowing your limits or whether you can hang on. For me it is all five previous aspects wrapped into one. It is what keeps teachers innovating despite not knowing if they will be ultimately successful.

It's good to be back blogging.

EdTech and Gender in 4 Scenes

This post started out as a post about getting large systems to move forward with EdTech and notions of frontier. The more I thought about it the more my examples seemed to be about gender roles as much as about technology. I think this much less true in higher ed than k12 but still. You may disagree, even then the post might illuminate something.

1. All of my students have tablets (it is a requirement) and most have an iPad or iPad mini. In a conversation one of my students confided that her dad hates the iPad. I smiled and said: "let me guess, he loves tinkering and hates the fact that you do not need him to conduct maintenance and problem solve your computer problems." She paused, thought about it and admitted: "yep that's pretty much it".

2. In a work with a specific district the school technology guy refused to get iPads for the teachers. He was an old army guy (I can relate) used to the age where we could fix anything with pliers, a screwdriver and a few components he rebelled against the blackbox. His main defense was "how will we change the batteries once they start running out?" Once again it was an issue of control of a male "techie" over mostly female staff. By the way there was a lot less patronizing over the high school staff in the same school with many more male teachers.

3. Two weeks back I was in Western Nebraska participating in the ESU 13 MidWinter Conference. We had two great sessions with teachers (60 in one session and over 100 in the second). A few kindergarten teachers complained that they have yet to receive the iPads because the technology person at the district will not release the iPads until they take a class and a test. They were frustrated as was I. I've seen 3 year olds and cats manage the iPad effectively- a course?

4. A large district I work with bought i devices, but gave the elementary teachers (predominantly women) sets of predefined apps and no passwords. The devices were updated 1-2 times a year. Again, the same women we trust with 16-30 of our children (a woman's role) cannot be trusted with technology and access to a password or just the freedom to create their own.

Each one of these scenes on its own is just a tiny sliver of reality but taken together we start seeing a whole picture. I am not "blaming" anyone I just think that we have persisted with stereotypes and attitudes that go unexamined. Why do teachers need to pass a "test" or a "cours" to use a device meant to be used out of the box? Mainly because we want to "protect" the womenfolk from their own foley. Some of it is based on previous experience. Elementary teachers (again mostly but not exclusively women) disliked using computers that required constant tinkering and time wasting on just getting things to work. They needed machines that worked and for that they needed techies (mostly menfolk). Now with new devices that do not require support it is the techies that resist because these new devices make their role as gate keepers and winners of admiration less somehow.

Because as we all know the role of the tech experts is actually much greater than ever, security, network, wireless and privacy are all necessary, crucial to the operation of any school system. But that puts the techies away from the teacher and her gratitude. Teachers as a result developed a dislike of technology and its many obstacles. How many passwords will you try before you give up on that Youtube video?

Technology in it's modern transparency is part of literacy. Devices let us express ourselves and experience others in a multitude of ways that are crucial for raising this next generation- remembering that the kindergarteners of today will graduate college (or the open-badge factory) in 2030. As a result we cannot heap obstacles in their way we should be opening doors to seamless technologies and let everyone- EVERYONE- play.

Teaching Reboot Starts Now

A new semester is upon me. A colleague mentioned today that we are lucky to restart twice a year. A new life a new opportunity to make it better- a reboot. As every semester rolls by I make improvements and adjustments. Last semester it was the addition of Open Educational Resources. This semester I am working on better integrating these resources, replicating past success and attempting to increase the visibility of democratic practices in my classroom.The ultimate goal is to present an alternative educational approach to the way our students are used to interact in education.

The dilemma is such an integration in a class that is essentially a content class in which students must acquire he basic teaching skills for teaching reading and writing in any school even schools that provide very little attention to democracy.

Right now I wonder how my students will accept these practices and the two graduate students that will help me work this out. I wonder how I can make sure they are making progress in their teaching of reading and writing while thinking about a more democratic option. Conceptually this is a simple problem but practically I am nervous. In some ways it is easier to fret openly before I start before I have names and faces. It is still conceptual but only for 10 hours more.

How does technology and creativity merge here?

Technology: some tools can be a great tool to increase participation, but to much emphasis on technology can take away from participation by creating added frustration. For example I thought about incorporating a Twitter backchannel to the class but now I am wondering if it is an overkill. Pinterest perhaps ? a choose your own?

21st century skills, I would love to add creativity to my class and reward my students for it but how? How do I provide a space for that in an already full class?

Five Wrong Paths Down Technology Integration Road

I believe we stand at the dawn of a great change in education. Technology is forcing schools to change as it does society at large. The direction of change, however, is not always clear and looking around I see plenty of examples for paths we should not be taking.

1. Buy Devices- This is an if you build it they will come argument. True new devices will push some teachers to try them out. But, it usually starts and ends with a massive investment in equipment followed by very little professional development and opportunities to experiment. Devices are great but they are just tools, teachers and students need to be shown how to use them well.

2. Teacher Devices Only- For financial and other reasons some schools see teacher devices and professional development as the end game. They champion a laptop/iPad/smartboard in for every teacher or in every classroom. These are inherently teaching devices and will increase student achievement marginally if at all- the real gains and 21st century learning will be achieved only if we put instruments in students hands.

3. Lets wait until they master basic skills- This is an old argument that has been used in many ways to stand in the way of making sure that all students learn high level thinking. In technology integration it usually means that students who have lower achievement are robbed of opportunities to explore other modalities and ideas. In this we may be limiting the futures of our most needy students. Just last week I heard a teacher say that her third graders were going to do research without computers because they have not learned how yet! It is our job to teach them and administrators jobs to make sure there is space for that.

4. The disabled device- Most teachers I meet have device/s from their district that they cannot update, download to or in one case even change the background on. In that way iPads go for a year before they are updated (making some apps useless) and prevent teacher from downloading great (mostly free) apps.  In some ways it is a curious argument. We trust teachers with the lives and well being of 20 seven-year olds but do not believe they are responsible enough to use their computer/iPad wisely. The same goes for student use. While I do not advocate allowing students full access to every device, if you do provide individual devices you must open it up, as recent examples from LAUSD show.

5. The canned curriculum- At the heart of 21st century learning is user choice motivation and creativity. In some districts, however, technology is leveraging curriculum company software to deliver a "one size fits all" curriculum. Paradoxically what started as an opportunity for teacher leadership and professional decision making is turning into a regimen of assessments, activities and monitoring that limits teacher decision making. If the curriculum companies with districts created a dashboard driven structure in which teachers can create their own sequence to a core curricular path, that would be great, but that is not what is going on on the ground. This is perhaps the most dangerous road to take as it may very well help de-professionalize the teaching profession further.

At the heart of my argument is that technology is opening new paths to leaning, adding a diversity of possible paths. Let's not use it to close down options. And if we choose to go down the road (I do not think we have a real option about that) we need to make sure that it is used by students and supported by top notch PD that helps teachers experiment and learn not follow a predetermined path.

Textbooks Alternatives and Despair

In my search fo better ways to teach I have challenged myself to teach this semester without textbooks. In my four classes I use no textbooks (although I do use two content books). Instead I use a series of freely available resources from professional organizations, libraries, YouTube etc. The idea was to tailor learning to students of the 21st century adapting to their media consumption behaviors. At the same time since all of my students aim to become elementary teachers this serve as a demonstration of a possible future in which education can choose a digital option that is not tied to one of the large curriculum companies.

As such I also imagined my role in the classroom changing from the authority on content to being the person who connects all the pieces to a meaningful schema.

A month in I have some neat mixed media in folders on LMS, I am happy enough with the resources. This is where despair kicks in. I spent a lot of time planning resources and approaches- putting items I think are really exceptional BUT when I try to get discussion going in my class I am met with blank stares. A quick check of student activity online shows that they are not consistently accessing the materials. Heck even materials students create for themselves and others as part of the learning are not really accessed...

This is where despair creeps in. The empty stares and quiz results tell me they are not consuming the media, that they do not know core ideas beyond what was discussed in class.

When I try and analyze why I have a few ideas. The first is that this is a new practice and students have been conditioned to consider online resources as somehow "lesser" or supplementary. Without a textbook class becomes the main event and without students being well versed it serves more like a lecture since they have no clue what I am talking about.
The second is that this is actually like textbooks that students often skip reading. While less dramatic this option is exactly one of the things I am trying to fight against.
The last options is that the materials lack a coherent structure and thus students are lost as they try to engage and they give up.

As I try these new ideas I am modeling to my students how one grapples with innovation and less than stellar outcomes so despair is not really a constructive option. Instead I will start an open discussion in class addressing my students as learners and teachers and hear what they think and suggest. I usually have an open conversation at the end of class when we know each other well, and I get some pretty honest feedback I use to redirect my class. This time it may worth trying to do so earlier, although I am facing the danger of collective negativity, that is the ability of one or two negative (but strong) personalities to influence events.

So, this thursday I will set chairs in a circle and be honest with my students hoping that they can learn from my mistakes... Deep breath.

iPads in the classroom workshop

I have just finished an intense week working with educators on iPad integration into the classroom at UNL. We had participants from across the k-16 spectrum and with very different levels of experience. From first time users who unboxed their first iPads the morning of the workshop to a teacher that has already implemented iPads in her classroom effectively.

The approach was developmental and each of our learner-participants (students just sounds wrong) set their own personal goal. They all made it. Outcomes included creating iBooks on grammar, a blog on apps for teachers in the school, books that taught basic words in native languages and many many more. As everyone presented on Friday I could not stop smiling and thinking about this amazing group of learners and their willingness to step with us outside their comfort and embrace twitter, apps, and a new role for the teacher. We aimed straight for the creation and critical thinking (Blooms taxonomy) knowing that the rest was something we could all do.
One of our participants reflected on her blog: "My mind is reeling with ideas now. It is an exciting time for me as I feel we are on the cutting edge rather than just catching up with a movement."
Another:
I also like the idea of a flipped classroom.  It was nice that Jason was honest about the startup time and possible frustrations that we may run into while trying to implement this process.

The biggest lesson was mine. Yes, all teachers can learn to CREATE in a short amount of time and all of them created video, screen casts, and other media products. Yes, iPads seem to make sense for everyone in education in different ways although it is by no way a magic bullet. And, Yes, it was very stressful but also lots of fun. Looking forward to next year and using some of this year's participants as coaches. 
Now I am ready for a break...

On Grades, Grading, and Educational Reality

I am writing this post as a response to a blog post by Dr Bernard Bull on Five Common Reasons for the Importance of Letter Grade. I am not necessarily arguing with Dr. Bull's comments but instead I am using them as a starting point for my own thinking about grades in a teacher education program. That is I do not fundamentally disagree with the points made in the post that seem to be aimed at the overabundance of the letter grade in secondary schools.

For full disclosure I would like to point out that I hate grading. As my 9 year old son says "I hate [...]. I know it's a strong word but that is just how I feel". I know I am not alone in this. As a result I have tried to effectively do away with grading in some of my classes. I have yet to make it work. Now, about a decade ago most students in our program received A's almost always making it effectively a Pass/Fail structure. It is not like that anymore and that is an improvement.

My students seem to have been conditioned by years of letter grades. They are masters of counting points, figuring out averages and what they need to do to get the grade they want. I would love to take all that energy and turn it into a focus on mastery and field based performance. This just doesn't happen, sometimes it even backfires. So here are my five consequences of moving away from grading on an individual instructor basis.

1. External evaluation. Outside agencies (in my case NE dept of ed) have set criteria for performance defined in certification requirements. Without grades my students cannot be certified. More than that regulations prevent me from creating Pass/Fail grades in certain classes.

2. When I have a class that de-emphasizes grades my students seem to be making strategic decisions that seem to be something like this: Guy does not grade us, so, since R. P. and Q. do I will put more of my time in these classes so I can keep my GPA.

3. After many semester of frustration with the low levels of reading before class I finally asked my students what would compel them to read they answered "quizzes, give us quizzes". That for me goes back to the idea of conditioning. I think in their minds if it doesn't carry a grade it isn't important.

4. Students clearly want to be recognized for effort and hard work in ways that count. I still remember a student who thanked me for having grades that she perceived as being fair because those who were not invested actually got a grade that reflected it.

5. Students are motivated to redo assignments and reach mastery because the grade is a meaningful consequence. For me it is the reverse math from number 2.

So... Any change to grading has to be wider than any one teacher, instructor and to consider outside demands. We also must consider how to slowly change the perception of students. Moving away from grades we will essentially have to retrain their brains after 12-14 years of schooling, not an easy task. Perhaps we can borrow from the feedback that video games provide- in the form of badges, awards and small markers that signal mastery and capacity to meet standards.

I started this blog post from a this can't be done stance but as I write this I can see some potential for systemic change relying on technology as a rich and quick feedback loop. hmm...

Yo Yo

The last two weeks have felt like the perpetual motion of a YoYo. After presenting at the state conference - a high note, we came back to earth with our students midterm reviews. Laurie and I co-teach a reading/language arts methods courses. This semester following our passion for technology integration and its rising importance in schools we decided to be playful and layer in a variety of technologies and ideas. Our students were somewhat unhappy, and a few were so disconcerted that they wrote a quite lengthy review that was frankly a bit hard to read.

So Laurie and I sat down to process why the reaction to our efforts was so negative. We came up with four main reasons that overlap to a degree.

1. We assumed that students who grew up in the 21st century would have an innate understanding of why technology integration is important. It turned out they don't- quite possibly because while they grew up with the internet and a multitude of devices they were never an integral part of their school experience. Laurie and I were so immersed in this topic we forgot other aren't.

2. Our students are making their first steps as pre-service teachers. When we integrated a large number of technologies they became overwhelmed and lost the single most important aspect which is the link to teaching. Practicing teachers we work with see the relevance almost immediately in our Tech EDGE Conference.  Our students are simply not quite there developmentally.

3. This generation of students is used to the chaos of internet resources and the vast number of media available. In college classes, however, they want us to help them organize the information and sort out what is important. That said I think it is a set of skills we need to help them develop- something that should probably start long before junior year of college. 

4. Beginning professionals want straight answers and procedures. We attempt to give complex responses in an effort to teach them to think in an organized way- while dealing with ambiguity. This tension is at the heart of teacher preparation and Laurie and I may have crossed the boundary for this group of students.

Laurie and I have regrouped and refocused the work we do. Since we have just under half a semester to go we hope to be able and present a more balanced picture that will allow them to learn and use technology integration skills that are appropriate developmentally. The same can probably be applied to anyone scaling up technology integration with teachers. We must recognize where teachers are developmentally and support them in the steps that they need to make next.

Speaking of Khan

A couple of weeks ago I caught Salman Khan on CNN. I have been a critic of Khan at times, but I do have to admit that the "unpolished" demeanor he has in interviews is somewhat endearing and usually lessens my resistance enough to actually listen. The anchor was interviewing him about the current state of education. I have to admit that I was initially miffed. There are many professionals that have dedicated their life to studying education and are coherent speakers on the matter. But here is this innovator commenting on the status of education, the Obama initiatives and what may come next. I understand why you would interview Khan about the future, but about the current state of affairs?

Then I listened to the interview (you can watch part if here Khan Video) and I have to admit that I was impressed by the clarity and focus of the statements. I especially liked these:

1. International rankings are not what we should worry about. We still lead in creativity and initiative.
2. At the same time we need to worry about who has a chance to participate in this economy- namely issues of equity.
3. We need room for creativity and problem solving.
4. We should preserve the room to make mistakes.
5. More homework is not rigor...

What Teachers do, the role of teachers in the 21st century.

I recently happened upon this meme on Facebook. The forlorn (yet handsome) man laments that everything he learned in college can be found on wikipedia. I glanced at it smiled and moved on only to double back and think. How is it different from previous generations? While it is true that wikipedia provides an ease of access and somewhat vetted information, it is not inherently different from the world in the last century. We had (and still have) books and journals in libraries some even available (gasp) for purchase. This made reflect on an ongoing question that we are grappling with as we rewrite our book on the Universal Learning Model (first edition here). The question is the role of the teacher in the learning process. We know that we are not the first nor the last to tackle this problem. Our angle though is cognitive, that is why do individuals  need a teacher for learning when the learning process itself is a set of brain activities? Why don't we just go to the library and read (or go online)? It is easy to understand the role of the teacher in the primary years. Early on they provide the skills that will allow you to access information effectively. The question is why continue into high-school and beyond?

Some might argue that schools are part of the power structure and seek to replicate themselves. While not without any merit, the universality of education in complex societies proves otherwise.

Here are my efforts to place the role of the teacher:
- Motivator- Teachers motivate their students to learn. We need motivation because learning is effortful. We seem to be much more motivated through human feedback than through any other means. For example Krashen described what he calls the affective filter.
- Model- Since thinking and learning is a temporal task largely absent from reading activities teachers can model the "how to" or procedural knowledge top their students in a way that is easier to follow than that of a text.
- Connector and organizer  This is true today more than any other time. We have access to a lot of information but we need models of how and when toi make connections. Even more so to have an organized view of  domain it's development boundaries and connections. These are hard to discern without a guiding hand.
-Mediator- Teachers adjust their action to the reader to make sure they are "getting it" and provides incremental steps to make sure a student experiences success.


I remember my first semester of undergraduate studies in History. My brain was on fire, fully engaged for the first time in my life. I read a lot but without classroom interaction, feedback, discussion, and lecture (yes lecture) it would not be as engaging and I would have probably stopped. So I would argue that the one piece of teaching that cannot be effectively emulated by machines or strict curricula is the affective/ motivational aspect of teaching- that is why machine based instruction (google, wikipedia, online video lessons or wolfram alpha) will never work. We need human interaction to motivate us to put this effort forward.

One Skill for Teachers

This week I promised my students that I will do as I asked them. Come-up with something I have not done before. True to my promise and to my own thinking about use flipped classrooms I came up with a within class activity focused on making a short instructional video. I presented some options using the iPad including using the front facing camera, the ShowMe app and a few other great options. The assignment was simple. Think of the most important strategy you taught your student this summer, design a short video reminder of it and shoot it in one take (two at the most). No editing, low expectations.

The response was stunned silence followed by "do we really have to?'s". I was a bit surprised, almost every teacher in the group said "I do  not like my voice". I get a similar reaction when I ask everyone to draw. Every student hesitates, apologizes and does her best to find a way to avoid the task. Making movies was along the same lines.

Part of it is the fear of the complete product that will be there to be judged without our ability to mediate. The other part is the fact that we fail to meet our expectations to be Bogart or Knightly. It took me a while to adjust to viewing myself on the techedge01 videos for iPad in the classroom. It was jarring at first but after a short time I got over myself and moved on. I have come to realize that I am not and will not be Bogart. I can tell you that I am too stiff, wordy and academic but I am getting better.

Video in my eyes is too good a tool to avoid using for instruction, especially when we need to individualize instruction for students at very different levels. My students reaction opened my eyes to this barrier of discomfort about performance. Maybe we all need to dabble in performance arts to let go? or just get used to making videos for instruction.

My conclusions force everyone in teacher education programs to make short videos enough to desensitize them. This way when they teach the option to supplement, support or even flip using videos will be just a few simple steps.

Diversity in the Teaching Force

While not directly related to arts integration nor literacy it is a topic that I've been thinking about quite extensively lately.  We are embarking on a path that will increase the number of diverse pre-service teachers. The goals are two-fold. Enriching all students in our program by having diverse viewpoints and personal histories that will help all children understand their increasingly diverse students. At the same time increasing the diversity in the teaching profession so students have role models that look familiar. I am in no way suggesting that African American students should have only African American teachers or vice versa. I am just suggesting that the data we collected shows such disparity that we have to act and act now. Link to the full file is here.

Teaching Art Online

A prospective graduate student came by a few weeks ago. His goal as he stated it is to minimize damage to rural students by providing quality arts instruction online or through distance education in other means. I worry.
I told him that I worried, arts education is a field that requires demonstratin, proximity and more than anything else mentoring. This kind of mentoring is extremely hard to reproduce at a distance. I think that the ability to look at the dancers moves from multiple perspectives, the painters brush strokes or the guitarist hands are crucial elements that cannot be done at a distance. I teach distance courses and Ithink some of


them are great- but not in arts education or arts integration.
My second concern was that by creating online replacements we urge districts that have stuck by their specialists and invested in them to stop. If the quality is there, they might say, why not save a bundle. So what can be done instead?
Here are some ideas:
1. Train classroom teachers in arts integration and enhance their understanding through studio experiences with local artists and museum resources.
2. If online lessons are created integrate them with rich artist in residence programs- mandated not just as an option. The experieneces must be bundled and truly integrated.
3. Educate school boards and administrators about the importance of the arts.

Do not let rural schools do without arts....

Composition- Teaching Creativity and Problem Solving

A few weekends ago Kurt and I found ourselves in a Uhaul truck moving furniture. Kurt as is his habit levels a multi-layered question in a matter of fact way. This is in no way a direct quote but the essence of the question was How do you teach and evaluate [musical] composition at the graduate level? What I love about Kurt is that he asks this just as if he was asking "Should we make a right here?" That is while the question is complex it is also very concrete in his mind (and mine I think).
Anyway this post are some of my thoughts about the topic that applies directly to creativity in other domains and has clear parallels in the writing process and in visual arts. I borrow here from Ken Robinson and define creativity as the process of having original ideas that have value. In the context of education as a process I think that most often creativity is about finding novel solutions to meaningful problems. The problems themselves can be defined by an educator or the learner. When teaching composition, writing or visual arts this definition holds, and one can see how we can ask students to create in a familiar style or form (say painting a still life picture or writing a Haiku) making it uniquely our own by identifying the problem and providing a solution to it. In a sense teaching writing is very much just that. Lucy Calkins coined the phrase "Teach the writer not the writing" (I am actually borrowing it from Evi who is one of the best teachers of writing I know) which I take to mean there is no one uniform way to go through a program, instead as educators we must allow room for learners to define their own problems and find solutions to them. In a way teaching creativity is about teaching our students to identify problems, learn how others solved similar ones and then coming up with their own solution.
This is exactly the reason that I believe there is no universal creativity factor but instead expertise leading to creativity in a specific domain. The process in broad strokes has parallels but the details are often too different. For example I have no capacity to identify problems  in [music] composition , but I am extremely capable of doing that in educational research (it is a strange field to be creative in I know).
The area that has the most to offer I think for educators interested  in developing the ability to compose is Teaching Writing. You must decipher the parallels of course and the elements that are uniquely linked to writing but I still believe that it is useful.
A place to start might be:
The work of Lucy Calkins, Linda Flower, and unl's own Robert Brooke.

Engagement in Teaching

It is a rainy morning punctuating a beautiful but extremely busy week. In a short conversation with Monique who is doing some thinking and writing about what is left from arts integration projects after the project is over.
Our conversation turned to thinking about different responses by different teachers and the conditions under which these responses emerge.

One factor that we did not explicitly discuss was teacher engagement. For me we, as teachers, are not fully accepting a practice until we let that practice "fill" us. That is we enact it with students fully embracing and participating in the practice. This is even more important when integrating the arts, since the arts are meant to be displayed, shared, and audienced (not sure this is a word...).

If we stay reserved while playing a song, drawing, dancing, making a movie- our students will feel our reservation and will limit their own participation, viewing full engagement as "childish". Maybe the term I am looking for is JOY (parallels the notion of ">FLOW). If you find joy in integrating the arts and your students can feel your joy, they will buy into it, fully particpate, and learn what it means to really enjoy what you do.

Now I do not mean that finding JOY in a practice shold stop you in any way from being critical after the fact, evaluating what worked and what didn't and improving a practice. This JOY/FLOW is ot always there because to reach it we must have expertise, practice and confidence. But when we reach it the results and the JOY can fill us with a strong sense of efficacy and empowerment.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad