iPads in Chinese Classrooms

We just finished with our second professional development with educators in China. This time it was an elementary school that would like to be part of our long term project. The plan was for 20-25 teachers that have been identified as leaders. Over 40 showed up. Every event like this is fraught with difficulty: bandwidth, technology on both sides but more than everything it is the physical and cultural distance. It is hard to get a read on a large crowd through distance and it is almost impossible to get the personal commitment that would drive change.

I started with a very short theoretical foundation. We then used Socrative as a demonstration of a way to engage participants.  Jason Wilmot proceeded to discuss the Flipped Classroom and Krista Barnhouse showed a few apps she uses in her classroom. It then turned into a mini app shootout. Overall it was a successful if stressful session with Ji at the helm producing the event, Dandi translating and Qizhen as a backup/ backchannel discussant. It is a fairly big team but it probably is the only way we can manage that.

This is an evaluation of the effort through our back channels (edited version so I take full responsibility):

         "There were a total of 43 teachers and two principals joined our conference physically. There were three teachers joined our conference online. According to the responses, teachers who participated in online felt more engaged than those who joined physically. This is because those teachers all had a one-on-one technology person sitting next to them solving the technical issues, such as installation and registration. All teachers love our apps introduction but some of them suggested to get rid of theory section because they all know the theories. Moreover, teachers asked us to bring real-time classroom instructions rather than only introduction. 

I talked with a couple teachers yesterday and they said they need the conference but they all indicated that Chinese teachers will never integrate technology into classroom unless principals force them to do so. A teacher stated that there is only five who want to learn among 100 teachers in similar trainings in China, meaning those teachers did not get engaged. The lack of quality of motivation, will hinder them to learn."

I do not share the morbid evaluation. At the heart of it, it seems that teachers in China are like teachers everywhere. They want to change but know it is hard and are afraid that it might not work. Change if any will be slow and will depend on our ability to deliver tailored information and on-going support. It is true with the schools we work with at LPS, it is true with pre-service teachers, and it si true when we work with Chinese educators. Heck based on a faculty meeting last friday, it is also true with our teacher education faculty.

Our Chinese experiment will continue!

Honesty, Data, Mooc Mania, and Persistence

MOOC Wheel
from the Chronicle of Higher Education
Graphic by XARISSA HOLDAWAY; illustration by NIGEL HAWTIN

I have mixed feelings about the fate of the Udacity experiment and the glee of many in the I told you so. Let's start with where I am, I am no fan of MOOC's as a "hack" and a solution to all of our Higher Education woes (cost, quality, ROI). I have written in this blog and have spoken publicly on my beliefs that MOOCs (more specifically xMOOCS) crowned as the solution will fail but may hurt public higher education before it fails to deliver.

As the data about Udacity's experiment at San Jose State emerged, Udacity admitted they have failed to achieve the projected results. Consequently they decided to change course and try to work as a workplace initiative. There are great points of discussion here that are worth attending to some actually positive.
The first is that a major corporate player was honest about dismal results, yes it took a while but we seldom see this kind of honesty from corporate or educational leaders. Moreover, they admitted reality with data in hand. We preach data based decision making and here it is.

I think this data will temper MOOC mania for a while and serve higher education as a reasonable argument for caution if not resistance. But something bugs me about it. The main finding was that students need to persist to succeed. In effect students the best predictor of success was the number of assignments handed in. Its actually a lecture my wife who teaches in a community college gives her students often: Not handing assignments is the surest way to fail. The problem is therefore first and foremost a problem of motivation.

Here lies the problem of all MOOCs be it x or c (more on x and c MOOCs here). Persistence is key, but persistence is driven by self efficacy the feeling that you are capable of performing a task which is usually derived based on past success. When the students you use a MOOC with have had little success they have little self efficacy, therefore they do not persist, drop out or just stop handing assignments. This theoretical view is well supported by the SJSU MOOC effort. In effect to break this cycle of low success and self efficacy we need to rewire students by making sure they succeed and interpret their success (attribute) based on their effort and persistence. This can be accomplished most easily with instructors who are sensitive to their students needs provide the right encouragement and the right feedback. To quote Taylor Mali in What Teachers Make:

                          You want to know what I make?

                          I make kids work harder than they ever                               thought they could.

                          I can make a C+ feel like a Congressional                           Medal of Honor

                          and an A-­‐ feel like a slap in the face.

                          How dare you waste my time

                          with anything less than your very best.

So why am I ambivalent? Because if persistence is the most important component in success; where is Udacity's persistence in producing a quality learning experience? 

A Thanksgiving post on Complexity

Sometimes I need to remind myself that technology integration does not mean just using a movie or a device as a replacement. It does not mean just using a document camera or power point. In the same way I need to remind myself that arts integration is not about coloring the right shades inside the lines or making your basic five finger turkey outline.

What integration is, is a thoughtful, well planned exploration of the ways an integrated process and product represent a more complex (sometimes efficient) way to teach to the standards that all of our children need- creativity, collaboration, and a complex understanding of the world around them.

Complexity this time of year is the ability to celebrate Thanksgiving while recognizing that for Native Americans it is not a day of joy. Just like I can celebrate Israel's independence day while recognizing the Palestinian Naqba is valid.

Personally I want to give thanks to all the teachers past present and future who work everyday to make education meaningful! Keep up the good complex work!

Standards and Integration

Last week I participated in the first phase of Reading/ Language Arts standards writing organized by the Nebraska department of education organized by the very capable Tricia Parker-Siemers. Our charge was to consult with existing standards and rewrite them with an eye to the changes in our understanding of literacy. The changes we suggested (the process is long and we were merely the first stop) focused on the significant changes to the ways we understand literacy, primarily because of technology. We crafted the new standards to have an expanded notion of what counts as a text and aspects unique to online reading and writing. For example in Reading Fluency we added the notion of persistence and focus in online reading. This integrated approach seems o make sense at this point in time as a signal to teachers that they cannot separate technology integration from everyday classroom practice. The idea of "computers specials" once a week cannot help our students meet the standards necessary for them to be ready for college and work.

That being said I am also keenly aware that changing of standards is rarely correlated with a change in the ways teachers teach and even less with student achievement. So what is the hope? Why did I take two days out of my professional life to spend trying to re-craft a set of standards that may matter very little?

I believe that we can send a message and provide support for teachers that are working in the right direction. In the work on Tech EDGE Laurie and I have often invoked the multiple literacy standards as a way to justify and base our work with teachers across the state.

The danger of the integrated standards is that they can disappear into the background. When the standards were all together they had a "presence" that cannot be denied. I worry that when they are part of wider constructs (e.g. comprehension) they might only get a nominal mention and much would happen. On a second thought this is already happening in many classrooms anyway...

What I really hope is that the Nebraska State assessment will use these new standards to make better items and test environment that includes multiple literacies in wise and creative ways. Yes, I used state assessment, creative and wise in the same sentence; a man can dream, can't he?
If they follow in the footsteps of the work Don Leu and his colleagues have done we may have some interesting things in our future.

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.

iPad Focus

I admit it. I have been waffling. I have been championing iPad use but have actually been using a combination of iPhone iPad and laptop. Two weeks ago I met with a potential honor student and her parents. The conversation predicitably came around to iPads. The dad asked me if I thought the iPads were the roght devices for a college students, and I answered that a mixture of devices is what I use and what I can honestly recommend at this juncture. I know that devices matter and i love my ipad but I do not want to lead people to believe that just an iPad would work out. Some application clearly do not.

Then, Last week in out iPad user group meeting Dave Brooks asserted- iPads are still primarily a consumption device. I thought about it, and I still disagree, true, I consume a lot of media on my iPad, from reading news stories to netflix. At the same time I also create video, particpate in online discussions, write in google docs and take notes. The iPad is also my primary machine for email and calendar. 

So where is all of this going? I am doing my own ipad experiment. Any thing I need to do digitally I will start with on the iPad and switch only if it does not work well on the IPad. I will make daily notes about use and see how I manage and how much I need other devices (read laptop).

This blog post was writtem on the blogger iPad app.

My Chinese iPad Adventure

Ji Guo is a new graduate student in our program. With his help I have been able to expand our work on professional development in technology integration to China.

The first foray was adopting our YouTube videos so they can be accessible in China's YouKu. We went even further and developed a separate series of video PD on iPads designed specifically for the Chinese market.

This monday we tried something new. An online presentation for Chinese teachers who are interested in integrating iPads into their classrooms. It took us a full day to prepare and make sure the technology and content were all up to par. We had a great crowd of about 50-60 computers linked (we estimate 100 viewers) through Adobe Connect. This was a great experiment in producing a cross cultural professional development. I think that the team including Ji and Qizhen is very aware of the cultural differences and we all took special care to make the content relevant and helpful as well as culturally sensitive. The viewers were attentive, interactive and fun to work with!

As a reality check I would like to talk about 3 unexpected outcomes that can serve as a guide to working with China.
1. Less than 48 hrs after we made our powerpoint available someone was using it as their ow selling PD.
2. Our book on the Universal Learning Model is available in China in digital format illegally
3. Someone has charged $50 for the password to our presentation (that we served for free).

I find the experience educational and amusing. In some ways it is flattering.

I take a few things from it- We can have a real impact in China- there is obviously a thirst for innovation. The added value in the market cannot be a product it has to be the service- us. Finally that there is considerable monetary value to our and if anyone is profiting it might as well be us.

Here's to continuing my Chinese adventures...