Technology, Creativity, and Windows of Opportunity

At another academic year's end I have much to reflect on so this post is the first of a few that will try to help me think through and share what I've been doing. Throughout my research, visits to schools and teaching I have a growing sense that we are truly at a crossroads. Technology is becoming ubiquitous and schools are embracing it. The working assumption of many early technology integration leaders was that technology will help open learning up. It will help teachers individualize instruction and students to learn independently and follow their own learning paths.
This option is still open but at the same time a second option opened. Technology in schools can be used as a top down delivery of curriculum and assessment that would stymie any creativity from teachers and as a result students. As I watch school districts I see both trends happen. Larger districts tend to be top down using technology to deliver content and increase centralized control. Smaller more agile districts tend to be more open to diverse practices. This week I visited Aurora Public Schools and saw some of that agility. Teachers were creating their own assignments, thinking through steps and allowing their students to do the same.
I believe that we have a window of opportunity, the call for 21st century skills may be enough to make sure that the top down approach does not win. For that we have to act, lead and show the options. In teacher education we must make sure that our future teachers are ready to use technology in ways that will promote creativity. We need to make sure that young teachers joining schools that are often called on to lead technology integration are ready.

5 ideas from our NETA Panel: This is how you should teach technology in Teacher Ed

Storm over Telluride Courtesy of Jay's Thought Stream Blog

We had a great panel @NETA14. We asked our panelists to reflect on what should be part of teacher education and how we might get there.

The panel quickly evolved to a group discussion that included teachers, administrators, board members and university supervisors and instructors. The feedback was fantastic and will help to go forward.
Here are some of the key ideas:

1. Its not about specific technologies, it is about affordances and pedagogies.
Everyone agreed that at the rate of change there is little value in "sticking with" one technology. Instead teaching the ideas behind what technologies afford can open up future teachers to flexibly adapt to change and keep innovating.

2. Teach Open Source mentality, teach students to be participants and contributors.
Future teachers need to learn to share their ideas learn from others and whenever possible move away from canned purchased curricula.

3. Teach flexibility- plan B. One of our panelists said: "It is my 33rd year as a teacher and I still need flexibility. We have to learn that it is ok to change, ok to learn from our students."

4. Technology needs to be in the hands of kids
Technology is transformational when students use it, when students learn, act, create. Need I say more?

5. Focus on the Why. Learn to integrate with learning in mind!

The Golden Rule of Professional Development

I got an email a few days ago announcing the potential for professional development in the areas that I have some expertise in. I actually produce research in these areas and so my first reaction was complete rejection. On second thought I re-examined the invite to see what the format was. It was the classic workshop where we will be given all the wisdom collected by beings with superior intellect and secret knowledge. Then we can turn around use the secret knowledge and transform our results.

This is the model of professional development that our own research would point to being highly ineffective. On second thought I realized this is how most teachers feel when PD from the outside is brought to the school or district. The Golden Rule should apply here as in all other social interactions.

As a professional I would like to be treated with respect to my expertise and knowledge I want to part of a change process not a subject of a program. The same could be easily argued is true of teachers. Instead of coming and talking at we can come and talk with and stay awhile. This of course is a much less profitable suggestion to professional developers and harder for schools to sustain. I have erred in the past but our work in the last few years supporting technology integration in school leaves no doubt- we have to abide by:

Develop other professionals like you would like to be developed. Not as a show but as a sustained discussion.

Grappling with Democracy and Technology in Teacher Ed

I have been trying out democratic practices in my Teacher Ed class for the past semester with the help of two researchers and my students. It has been a hard journey for all of us (well for me for sure). It feels very different, and the ways I think through instructional dilemmas are very different. At the heart of the change is redefining the relationship between instructor and students. The two components that I find most appropriate right now are participation and trust, and both have been supported by technology.


When I talk about participation, most students and teachers immediately conjure in their minds an orderly class and students raising their hand and waiting patiently to speak. This does happen at times in my class but that is not what I mean here. This semester I reworked my classroom interactions so we all would have as much time as possible to process together and think through instructional dilemmas. One of the best instruments for that was opening circle. In opening circle we raise a relevant question and everyone has to participate in the discussion at least once. At the beginning of the semester I initiated the discussion and we went around in a circle. At this point in the semester the topics are student generated and at the students request we stopped going around in a circle and instead they speak when they feel ready. This made for a much richer discussion and a sense of shared ownership. I think that this practice led to a very different relationship between me and my students that in interesting ways allowed me to discuss more things I care about, and say things I have never said to my students.

Trust is the second leg. The message I am trying to send my students is one of trust- in each other in me and in their students. An illustration of the ways trust can work is in group work. In our last class period we created annual plans for teaching reading and writing. It is a hard task and many of the groups were "frozen" for awhile. After spending their last few semesters focusing on the micro aspects of teaching, I suddenly asked them to zoom out and focus on macro structures. When trying something this new trust is a concern. My students have to trust me that they can do it (it was hard for them), they also had to trust that I will not grade them harshly. This is a really important point, in difficult/unfamiliar assignments students are looking for scaffolds and fear grading. Here, there was no grading to be done but students were still concerned with my evaluation of their efforts.

So where does TECHNOLOGY come in? Many people know that I integrate technology throughout my class. They have a sense that students in my class are always on their devices. They are not. In fact I would estimate that students are about 20% of the time on their devices- viewing documents, taking quizzes, creating presentations. Most of the time is spent on discussion, group interaction, and even some lecture (gasp) time. That said, technology has a significant part in what I am able to do in participation. I use discussion board to hear questions from all students. I can then have enough time to conduct opening circle and other participatory elements. Email and other communication have been used as a backchannel to discuss ideas and concerns in ways that I have never experienced in this class. It's been a challenge and I still wonder how my students see all of this.

Scholar 2.0

Yesterday at the American Educational Research Association meeting I went to a session on the role of social media in our work as scholar (check out #AERAcademicSM). The discussants were honest and open about what they did and did not do on social media. This prompted me to think about my social media habits and the choices I make as I manage multiple identities: professional, personal, institutional.

The participants admitted that with time there convergence between the different identities and the management forces you to choose the one major stream. I think the most common identity management were (1) non engagement (for me its tumblr) and (2) using facebook as a family and friends platform distinct from other more professional platforms.

Everyone admitted that social media tools were great for a variety of uses. The first and maybe most important was communicating with various audiences. Communication in social media was bi-directional in many ways not all of them robust (being liked is great but how much substance is behind it?). On the research side online communities can help recruit participants for studies and disseminate results back to them. Working with young children this is not something I do but I can see the potential especially when you are working with marginalized populations that are not easily accessible.

I have been struggling with these concepts myself as this blog has evolved. The blog has started as a blog that shares the results of the work on arts integration. With time the blog has morphed to conform my new interests: teacher education and technology integration. I found myself thinking, I want to write about... but it doesn't really fit the title or the original intent. On the other hand I do not want to manage multiple blogs either. At this point my blog it is just a reflection of my overall professional identity.

I am also attaching a map of my social media presence. Icons are related to the relative volume on the channels but I intend on adding layers with data in the near future. Mind you this does not include our parallel work in Chinese Social Media.

Six Ideas for EdCamp

So Enjoyed myself immensely at EdCampOmaha. At the same time my brain could not stop thinking about ways we could make it better. These are ideas and not critiques nor do I think I have a monopoly over these ideas in fact I will not be surprised if I learned that some have already been tried and may have even failed. I will not be able to sleep if I did not share them so here goes.
1. Newbie sessions. I noticed that most of the presenters/ session orgizers were veterans. There is nothing wrong with that but I wonder if allocating a room or a time slot that has to be reserved for first time session leaders will encourage others to dare and cross the threshold from attendee to session leader.
2. Requests online. Google employees have an online discussion page with voting to suggest topics for their weekly meetings. We can use a similar approach in which everyone interested in coming can suggest topics or vote on existing ones. This way people can have an idea of what attendees have on their mind.
3. Planning session. How about giving some morning time to plan joint sessions by people who have never before worked together and give those sessions their own time slot/ room. This can encourage new and wonderful sessions.
4. Going to scale- I would just love a district that does a professional development day like that. Ah to dream.
5. Un-poster session- most of the conferences I go to have poster sessions. These are some of my favorite since you can stop at one idea and have a long discussion. In an un-poster session paper and markers are provided and many presenters draw/ write a few key ideas from their practice or experience. Everyone else walks around and interacts.
6. EdCamp is right now mostly about technology (though @mrbalcom gamification session was decidedly low tech). Could we think of ways to bring in art, music or engineering?

Now that I shared I would like to repeat that I loved EdCamp and would come again no matter what the format. Keep it going...

Five things I Learned at EdCampOmaha

I just came back from EdCampOmaha and I am still
 processing. EdCamp is an unconference without a program, fees or a hierarchy. You just show up, offer a session and join others. The experience was immersive, so much enthusiasm passion and powerful learning moments that you cannot but feel hopeful about education teachers and the future. Teachers came from as far as Minnesota and Oklahoma but also Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri.

The energy was undeniable and I wish every one of my students was there to experience it. So here are five things I learned or relearned:

1. Democracy in professional development works, to a degree. In EdCamp sessions are arranged on the fly and teachers choose by title. In essence anyone can create a session that anyone can attend. Participation is key. The afternoon crowd also showed that people vote with their feet and choose to come back in smaller numbers.

2. Gamification can be effective without technology. And easier to implement in some ways. Physical badges, leaderboards and other ideas can put a spin on tedious tasks. Thank you Nate Balcom. The session has renewed my interest in gamifying a portion of my classes.

3. It is fun to be a learner and just enjoy. Its been awhile since I've been to a PD conference just to learn and not be in charge, worry about details or prep another presentation. I've been doing so many TechEDGE conferences and presenting in others that I forgot the joy of just being open to new ideas.

4. Some people are so impacted by circumstance and professional isolation that they find it hard to open up to other possibilities. In a few of the conversations I had it became clear that professional isolation in some schools created an environment in which educators find it hard to innovate. They want to, and I guess they came to edcamp to get energized but the isolation was so severe that they actually sucked the energy out of discussions. My heart went out to them.

5. Teachers are focusing on student creation. Student creation is a literacy multiplier and some teachers have figured it out. The teachers I talked with (especially from Bellvue) were on fire saying: "I have been one to one iPads since January, it has transformed my teaching. I cannot go back!" Thank you Brent for an exceptional opportunity.

Great learning with great colleagues! I do have some ideas and concerns but those will come at another post.

Five ways to jump start your tech integration

Warning: this post was written in a moment of professional frustration and fully reflects the way I feel a good part of the time. So, be forewarned!

Lately I have had the sense that some of the groups around me are standing still. The official reason is that we are waiting for infrastructure/ resources to come. Then and only then will we be able to move forward on technology projects, literacy projects, after school ideas just about anything that would change the educational needle. Wait? Really? I would argue that we needed jlots of cars driving here and there cars before we actually invested in roads.

Some people might say (and rightfully so) aren't we already there? Don't we know we need roads? Yes we do. Everyone in education, k12 and higher, is talking about technology, devices, mobility, Open educational resources. Talking yes. But at my little corner of the world, it seems like talking into the wind.

A large district I work with is moving ahead with technology, what you ask? student management system will come first. Why? I am pretty sure that student learning was not a top priority. My campus at a top 50 public university still does not a universal device requirement and many of its faculty completely ignore the connected world our students live.

My graduate students wonder. What can schools, teachers do? I argue that all they can is DO. Don't wait for a campus or district wide policy change or infrastructure. Just do, infrastructure will follow behind trying to catch up. Does it make the going more difficult? Yes. It can get frustrating sometimes just downright discouraging. But the alternative is to fail our students and in my case my students future students impacts that will last a long time. Time to stop kicking the can down the road and just do. For me it all starts with people skills.

1. Be passionate- people may disagree with you but when you are passionate people accept it as a genuine effort and are more likely to rethink their position. If they do not at least they know exactly where you stand and are unlikely to stand in your way. This leads to everything else. To be truly passionate you will have to pour time and energy, you cannot be passionate about something 3 hours a week- commit.

2. Link with likeminded people- they may be everywhere, they may not in you field even, but they are out there looking for people to talk to. Find them it'll keep you going when you hit walls of resistance.

3. Find a sponsor- there is someone higher ranking than you in your organization that will give you some support as long as they risk very little. Find them and make them con-conspirators. When you have something to show their support will increase until the impact start reaching others. You want to be the teacher/ faculty that gets mentioned when people discuss innovation, passion, and creativity.

4. Communicate- write, blog, perform, present. Start with 3 people or two (I presented to 5 just). Its a great way to find likeminded people, and to convince those on the fence.

5. Find the ones who are on the fence- everywhere I go I find people on the fence, just waiting for someone to come and pull them into action. Be that person!

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.

Tech Edge, iPads In The Classroom - Episode 100, Favorite Apps

I am proud of the team that has gotten us here. First and foremost Dan Hartig who stuck with me, learned with me and keeps thinking about new ideas. To Allison, Laurie, Mellisia, Amanda, Taylor, Qizhen, Ji, and Dandi- thank you for hosting, co-hosting and making it happen. The next milestone is 100,000 viewers on YouKu...



Look at the rest of our work on iTunesU or YouTube:

iPads in the classroom/ techedge01

Gaming in Education- Observing Minecraft in the Classroom

In the last couple of weeks I have observed a few classrooms from Kindergarten to middle school using Minecraft EDU to support 21st century learning. To be completely honest I have not played Minecraft before this week, although I have watched my kids play it on the iPad and computer. I understood the theoretical affordances but for the first time I actually saw it in action in classrooms.

My first visit was to a fourth grade classroom facilitated by Jason Wilmot. As we walked into the classroom you could immediately sense the buzz of activity. As Matt Gordon shared later: "the first thing you get is engagement". All students were engaged moving around (the virtual world), asking for peer help, showing each other how to accomplish specific task. We (Jason, Ji and I) decided to start students with unstructured time seeing what patterns emerge. Jason is weaving in specific skills required by district and state standards making sure that students are receiving all the skills necessary.

I settled next to two students building houses one right next to each other. They were discovering functions and clearly helping each other produce the outline for their respective creations making sure that they each have enough space. This simultaneous communication off and on line is something we have observed across all grades. This is a fantastic illustration of the 21st century skills of Communication and Collaboration.

Moving to a different group I saw a student avatar in what seemed to be a vast underground cavern creating bales of wool and setting them on fire in large quantity. As I watched I could see no real reason for his actions. I casually asked: "I see that you are lighting a lot on fire". "Yes" he answered eagerly, "you see I am lost and can't find my way out. My friend is in the area", here he tapped the shoulder of his friend on the adjacent computer "he knows where he is. I hope that if the fire is strong enough he can see it and help me get out." I smiled. What I initially saw as a mindless activity, turned to be Critical Thinking and Problem Solving.

Two students were introduced to me as the "resident experts" since they have been playing at home for a few months. These two were mindlessly building, it seemed as if their position as experts was actually stopping them from exploring and innovating. I asked "What are building?"
"a house" they both answered almost in unison.
"can you make doors or windows in Minecraft?" I asked. One started showing me how you can make windows and seemed invigorated by the more structured task. Later I challenged him to create a second story with stairs leading up. He seemed somewhat disinterested but before I left he proudly showed me his new house with a roof garden and stairs that actually worked. His friend switched to creating a water area, a challenge to create a pool with a slide sent him on a creative bend as well.

On a visit to Matt Gordon's class in Horizon Middle School in Kearny we saw a real "Digital Making Space". His classroom hosted a variety of students working in Minecraft (set of tasks), creating video with iPads, editing work and probably a few other tasks that I failed to catch.

Both Matt's and Jason's spaces showed that the interaction of virtual world and a challenge led to Creativity and Innovation.

The biggest challenge that I observed across settings is the power of students to damage each others creation. While this problem can be managed with the tools embedded in Minecraft EDU, we would like to challenge students to create a civil society and foster democratic principles in which students set the norms and explore implication of personal and community boundaries. In this way we can address not just digital citizenship but citizenship in it's broadest sense.

Breaking Cycles

We still teach computers as if we have this one...

My son who is a senior is taking a few computer applications classes right now. He came back one day and said: "You're big on technology. Why am I learning to make tables in Word? I use Google docs anyway? Who's going to use Word in five years?" He likes to tease me about what I often preach (I switched him over to Google Docs) and what he sees at school. And he is right, why are we teaching the ins and outs of any application when we know that it is going to be replaced soon?

The answer, I said, is that no matter what word processor you will use it will likely have similar functions and affordances ( my new favorite word) to Word. So knowing words well will help you figure out whatever you might be using in five years or even ten. Yes, he answers, "I get that. But if the goal is really to let us think flexibly why are we doing it step by step? Why can't the teacher say: Make a table for this data and let us figure it out?" I had to agree with him here. He continued describing a class in which students are asked to follow with precision a set of production steps, never are they given a problem to solve and the freedom to experiment or *gasp* find a solution online. How is this leading to independent use of technology?

He continued describing the reason his teacher might be pursuing this approach. Some of the students in the class seem to have really hard time following the steps and finding their way around the application. So it seems that the teacher has crafted a "fool proof" method of teaching in which students follow a set of instructions. As a result students can reach a narrow outcome but completely miss on the generalized skill that both requires and fosters cognitive flexibility. Where is peer scaffolding, problem based learning or higher order thinking? It may very well be that the class and its content is a remnant of a bygone era when we knew Microsoft was forever...

To a degree we at UNL sometimes follow the same path. We still provide computer labs all over campus despite the fact that all of our students have their own (2 or more) devices. It used to be an issue of equity and access, but no more. In effect we are requiring our students to buy computers twice. Once for their personal use (laptops usually) and then labs (through student technology fees). Why can't we stop? I believe that at this point we do not actually have the vision of what we want so we plod along doing what we've always done...

In a meeting of the EdTech special interest group on campus this friday I we were discussing flipping classrooms. I ventured- if we are to ask teachers to flip, shouldn't we do it first? Shouldn't we live the dream before we ask others to follow?

In teacher education we need a bold vision, showing our students what it means to teach in this new era. We can show them what it means to fail and reboot (as Laurie and I did two semesters ago). Just like the artist in her studio we try and retry until it is successful, learning that a creative product is never perfect but always a work in progress. Part of it is technology- creating spaces that foster participation, creativity, and learning. The other part is true interaction and learning, make our own reflexive practice visible to our students- who soon will be teachers themselves.

Room to Play

I wanted to write about so many things this week. It was so hard to decide that it stopped me from actually sitting down and committing to a topic. As I reflected on everything it became clear that the theme linking everything is finding room to play.

If we want to try new practices in education, be it mobile technology, problem-based learning, or a focus on nature, we must above all provide room to play. I know play is a word that many do not want to associate with schools but yes play. The school, teachers, and students all need an environment where it is OK to take the time, take a few wrong turns and wonder.

Here is an example: We are currently working with an elementary school in Chengdu in Sichuan Province China. We are working with teachers, parents and administration to individualize instruction through mobile devices (Tablets- mostly iPads). This group of first graders have created their first ever videos explaining their understanding of math problems. How did we create this room to play? We brought together parents, teachers and administration to commit to this vision. So much so that in a country as obsessed with national tests as China we got a waiver on student assessments to give teachers and students time to develop and answer the challenge. Here in the US it seems at times that we want to have our cake and eat it too. Everybody is fine with 21st century skills as long as everything else will happen as well. Imagine a teacher's desk with unit, district, semester and state assessment and hundreds of standards per year. Now imagine trying to make room for something as fluid and time consuming as technology integration (real, deep, instruction altering) or problem based learning. If you put that on the desk something is bound to fall...

The same thing is happening in my class as I try to implement democratic practices. The order and pacing have to shift to make room for new ways of teaching and learning as I create new lessons and rethink the way I deliver instruction so the practices become more than just a facade. Luckily in higher education we do have some room to maneuver, although, that may be changing as well.

The same holds for arts integration or more to the point learning in and through the arts. For such learning to be successful we must make room to be creative, to try, to fail, to try again. If we want our students to learn persistence we must give them room to fall, dust themselves off and get up again in authentic ways.

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?

Jazz as a metaphor: Creativity Diversity & Modern Media

 Papa Celestin’s band Circa 1927

Let me start with full disclosure. I know fairly little about music. In a sense my musical taste is non-existent. My family contends that I will enjoy any music performed live (true), but will prefer talk to music on the radio (almost always true). Despite all this I was thinking about Jazz this week.

As winter break set in I had time to watch some movies and shows on Netflix. One of the shows was the Ken Burns documentary Jazz. As I was watching it I listened carefully to the language used to describe Jazz especially by Wynton Marsalis. They describe what can only be creativity. Not "inspiration" but perspiration born out of practice, deep understanding of the craft, and the license to experiment. In essence the quintessential 21st century learning experience was created over a hundred years ago. Down in New Orleans musicians from all walks of life created a genre of music that allows all of its participants to be constantly engaged with creation and recreation. In many ways Jazz is a great metaphor for 21st century learning.

Thelonious Monk 1947

• Creativity. Jazz requires creativity from all. Not just composers but players and even the audience.
• Collaboration. Jazz is inherently at once a collaborative and highly individualistic endeavor. Musicians sit together and collaborate to create an experience for themselves and audiences. They must take turns, lead, and follow. 
• Experimentation. For Jazz to succeed there must be room to experiment and fail (often to be saved by your fellow musicians- so I am told).
• Communication. Musicians must communicate with each other to take turns, solve problems and create a cohesive sound, not an easy feat while improvising. They also must be able to communicate verbally and musically with their audience.
• Subject Matter. This creativity and effective collaboration happens as musicians master their instruments. There is a threshold of understanding of music and of a specific instrument before the rest can come into play in meaningful ways.
• Diversity. Jazz was also born out the meeting of many cultures led by African Americans and later Creoles. It shows how important diversity of culture, language and experience are. And how they can make something new, original and wonderful that has survived the test of time. When we argue for diversity in our schools, universities, and places of work, we should keep Jazz as a shining example of the possible.
• Technology. The spread of Jazz was aided to a great degree by the information technology of its age. First the gramophone and then radio that became the great equalizer like the internet does now.

Wynton Marsalis reflects:
"Well, we have to realize that just like in New Orleans, a, a band
would march down the street; everybody heard the music. Buddy Bolden’s open this trumpet up. If you were white, green, red, it didn’t make a difference. You were going to hear some swinging jazz music. If you played trumpet, you wanted to play like him. The radio did that in an ad… The radio did that nationally. Now, you could be in Dubuque, and you could hear somebody playing in a ballroom somewhere in New York, many times, you, you didn’t know whether the band was black or white. All you knew was, Man, whatever this is, I want to get a part of this. And the radio did a lot to break down segregation. In fact, even though the laws remained, in fact those m…, tho…, the, in fact, people all around the United States of America were listening to the mind and the soul of the Afro-American unguarded.
They could really check out the music of Duke Ellington, the music of Count Basie."(full transcript here)

Wynton points out the ability of technology to break down barriers, serve as a voice that is more democratic, more human, transcending some of the stereotypes generated by time and place.

So, Jazz can be a great metaphor, or maybe just maybe it can be part of a 21st century curriculum. A kind of learning that really goes to the uncommon core that can make our students truly creative, collaborative, and embracing diversity.

Top Ten Netcasts: iPad in the Classroom

It is traditional to create top ten lists at the end of the year. So here is my top ten most watched videos on the Tech EDGE channel on youtube:

Tech Edge - Episode 38,English Language Learners

Tech Edge, iPads In TheClassroom - Episode 49, Top Free Apps for a One iPad Classroom Part 1

Tech Edge - Episode 11,Apps for Teachers

Innovation In TeacherEducation

Tech Edge, iPads In TheClassroom - Episode 50, Top Free Apps for a One iPad Classroom Part 2

Tech Edge, iPads In TheClassroom - Episode 85, Video Physics & Graphical Analysis

Tech Edge, iPads In TheClassroom - Trailer

Tech Edge ConferenceInterview with Jason Wilmot

Tech Edge - Episode 14,Teaching Exceptional Students

Tech Edge - Episode 8,Maps and Apps for Social Studies

Enjoy!

QuizUp- Motivation, Learning, and Dashboard Design, and 6 ways it can work in education

QuizUp is one of these flash in the pan games that takes the mobile world in a storm. In less than two months it amassed over 5 million users. If you haven't tried it you should, but not just because it is addictive, but also because it points to some aspects that QuizUp does well, and that we can do better in education. In short I believe that some of the things QuizUp does right we can use in education.


The key is motivation, and QuizUp uses every game mechanic and social aspect to drive you to use the system out of your own volition. First QuizUp allows the user to select the areas they want to be a part of. While we can't always let students choose what they want (vs. need) we know there is great motivation in choice. Second comes the sense of developing an area of expertise. I am for example the "Best in Ancient Rome in Nebraska" a dubious title but it works! We can imagine a best in multiplication in Mrs. Hendriks class or best in Ancient Greece in Washington Elementary.

QuizUp adds to it achievements (win 500 games, get a perfect score). We could structure those in more meaningful categories, imagine an achievement for knowing all the characters in Othello or all the multiples of 9, or the features of the table of elements. Points also work to motivate users, you get points even if you lose (although less) making sure that your effort is always rewarded. In short QuizUp activates all the short reward cycles that make us persist at game based tasks.


Feedback in QuizUp is exceptional. Beside the obvious leader boards, levels and points there are a slew of ways to get feedback. After each game you can study the questions and your responses, you can also see a graph comparing your score and you opponent's. The dash board is the most brilliant piece of design in the game. As you can see on the right one of the main dashboards shows you the areas you have been participating in and the level in each. It allows in one glance to see where the user had put the most effort and how well the user have been doing overall.

QuizUp has some challenges as a learning idea as well. The format of multiple choice works well for this kind of work but it does limit the sophistication of questions as they relate to different levels of learning (think Bloom's taxonomy). In my own participation I figured out I actually think through my responses through the first 15-20 levels. After that my responses are increasingly automatic as I have seen most of the available questions and must activate my mnemonic devices and memorization based on repetition.

So how does it fit into 21st century learning? Well:
1. It is a great way to develop basic knowledge
2. It is a great way to develop fluency (word recognition, basic math facts, historical facts). This will allow the teacher to focus on more meaningful material in class
3. Taking away the time element can help in some cases.
4. Have enough questions in any bank to remove straight forward memorization except when it i the goal (say multiplication facts).
5. The complexity of the question is up to the author, even in a multiple choice format you can get sophisticated thinking
6. If students can actually create questions it becomes a much more sophisticated task (the feature is available)

Confessions of an iPad Addict

I use my iPad excessively, or so I'm told. I can't even claim to be a social user. At the same time I divide my technology use between my iPads, laptop and iPhone. In the past month I have paid attention to what exactly I do with my different devices and I present what is an unscientific view of my device use.

As I look at the chart the first thing that becomes clear is that my iPhone is just my backup device. I really use it only when my other devices are not there, are out of charge, or if it is the only device with connectivity.

I use my computer for writing, analysis, and in class. Other uses on my laptop are mainly a result of the fact that I am already on the device. For example if I am already writing I will use my computer for email but I will almost never switch to my computer for handling email.

I use my iPad for media consumption, social media, and media production. In class I use both computer and iPad in equal amounts but LMS work happens more my laptop since many of the functions including file upload and grading are not available on the iPad.

What I think the data shows is that for heavy users like me there is no one device that can do it all. The iPad can become a lot more central (though it does represent more than 60% of my technology use) if it had a good file management system and better LMS interphase that allowed me to use the grading feature on my Blackboard.

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.