iOS, Cognition, and the Ghost of Steve Jobs

Despite my best efforts, Steve Jobs' ghost does not actually come and visit me. I never met Steve Jobs nor do I know what he would think. Instead, I am writing about the mythical Steve Jobs that occupies my mind and is loosely based on a guy that used to run Apple.

I am an Apple user, I love my MacPro, iPhone, and most of all my iPad. I also think that iPads are uniquely well-tailored devices for the classroom and talk about it weekly on my webcast iPads in the Classroom from TechEDGE. I love the iPad because it is designed with the human brain in mind. That is what makes it intuitive. In essence what iPads have done  is to reduce cognitive load, allowing the user to focus her attention exclusively on the task at hand. I believe that is the genius of the device and its interphase. I believe it is also the source of the limitations put on certain features including media multi-tasking. That is, some of the things that other devices can do are not really a failing in Apple's design, instead they are a result of a deep understanding of what people need (instead of what they think they need) to be effective users.

Now, however, in an effort to catch up" with Android Apple will be offering "real" multi-tasking on the iPad screen. I think this is a clear case of yielding to people's perception that they are excellent multi-taskers just like everyone believes they are above average drivers. There is mounting research showing that in general most humans are not good multi-taskers. We underestimate the number of times we actually shift attention and pay a hefty price in accuracy and efficiency when we do (e.g here). Until now the iPads would not allow multi-tasking on the same screen (apps can run in the background though). Now with the new features we can.

Adults can make their own decisions, but when we are concerned with using devices effectively in education the need for reducing cognitive load and increasing student focus is paramount. The new feature is an example of what people think they want but really shouldn't have. My mythical Steve Jobs would not let this happen.

Creativity, Coding, and the Adolescent Mind

Matt asked me this week what I thought about the Hour of Code. I answered honestly that I simply do not think it is enough. He continued to make the point that it was a good introduction, I think I made a face.

The bottom line is that introduction is not enough. My analogy is the arts. In the arts we take students to the museum, we believe that it is important, but it does not constitute a curriculum in the arts. If we look at the analogy of the arts even further it can get even more interesting. As I read some of Austin Kleon this week some of his points resonated with me. Young children will create art without reservation when you ask them or even on their own. Wait a few years, by middle school, they will refuse to create saying something like- "I am not an artist" or "I am not creative". This reaction is not a mistake, it is a natural consequence of creating self-concept in different areas. As students mature and acquire experiences they learn what they are good at and what they are less so. Social comparisons play a big role in this development. So by the time they are in middle school most children develop a sense of what they are good at.

The point here is that if we want students to become coders or artists they need rich experiences of mastery and growth in that domain. If they will have them at the elementary years they will have a much higher chance of having a positive self-concept for art and coding leading to a higher probability they will stay engaged.

Hour of code will not create self-concepts of students as artists nor coders, only making it part of school will!

Sleepless with my Chromebook

About two months ago I ordered a Chromebook. It was mostly because many schools around the nation are making this choice including the district my kids are attending. While I had a sense of what Chromebooks are, the personal experience is always best.

I have used the Chromebook multiple times but never extensively. This (very early) morning I needed to grade assignments online and I found myself with only the Chromebook. For the first time I sat at it for an extended amount of time doing my daily work.

It worked just fine. It was a tad slow at times (with heavier graphics) but nothing that was significant enough to consider waking my family to get my mac book pro. It's a very functional machine.

In my discussions with educators and administrators they often mention they like the fact that it is a no nonsense machine. You can do basic work on it, nothing fancy but it works, connects you to the web, lets you do stuff. Students they reason will view it as a learning machine, not a toy. The iPad, on the other hand, is viewed as a toy. We hear the same thing from parents and teachers in multiple countries. That is something I hear fairly often. There is work, then there is play, confusing the two create problems and students will stop learning. Basically, for students to learn we need to remove joy.

Do we really think kids are having too much joy in school that we need to remove it?
Do we really think play is not part of learning?
Do we think that the features that make tablets attractive (not just iPads) portability, creativity, and interface interfere with learning or maybe they actually help?
Do we really think that the dichotomy of work and play is still relevant? Is it in your life?

Why I love teaching in the summer

This post is an ode to summer teaching. As I do most summers I have a full summer load. Many of the people passing me in the corridors are only too happy to remind me that it is summer and a time to take a break especially given that most of us work on a 9-month contract.

I usually reply that I have two sons going to college next year and other acceptable financial comments. The truth, however, is more complicated. I like teaching in the summer. The intensive time spent with practicing teachers and budding researchers is probably the best professional development I get all year.

Most of the students in the summer are practicing teachers who have, for a change, time to reflect and think long-term. Most of what I teach this summer is linked to research methods and inquiry, as a result graduate students are bringing their own content and questions challenging my thinking and adding connections and ideas.

I read, teach, and prep most days- the result is that my brain feels on fire, in a good way.

Five Edu Lessons from China 6 months later

It's been six months since we came back from China. I have blogged about it right after we came back, but I thought it would be good to go back and see what lessons stuck.

1. Competition can be prominent in the public sector. All the schools we visited and many we are still in contact with have a strong competitive spirit. Despite the fact that they are public they compete for a name, local and national awareness and for results. While there are private school in China, the high-value Chinese families put on education makes schools compete for being known as the best to serve their students.

2. The drive for excellence is pushing schools to try out new approaches, technologies, and ideas. Our work started with school leaders admitting that they know things need to change, but they are less sure of how to balance the old and the new. With every change, they worry that it may impact immediate indicators even when it is clear that the change is useful for long-term success. In essence, this is the same problem school administrators face in the US.

3. Teachers are empowered by leading innovative learning ideas (with and without technology). The teachers we met with were young and motivated. The work with us gave them a direction and a sense of efficacy that allowed them to act and evolve as teachers.

4. Class size increases parental pressures. Large classrooms make it close to impossible for teachers to attend to the needs of their struggling learners. As a result whenever a student is struggling parents are left to meet the extra needs.

5. Teacher Evaluation. In contrast with the US, Chinese school systems evaluate teachers based on classroom observations and not student outcomes. The fascinating thing is individual school achievement is extremely important, yet teachers are not evaluated based on it. I believe that the phenomenon has two sources (a) the understanding that individual achievement is rooted in motivation and home practices and (b) the understanding that current measurement systems are not valid enough for comparison across classrooms and schools.

Four things we already know about PD (but need a reminder)

I just finished a week with a fantastic group of educators. Laurie Friedrich, Alison Preston and I ran our fourth iPads in the Classroom workshop. The name of the workshop is inadequate since we had users with all kinds of devices including windows machines, Macs, Chromebooks, smartphones and of course iPads.

The intensive one-week tech workshop is always fun although at the end of each we all experienced the sense of reaching capacity. It also reminds of what we know and often conveniently forget about effective professional development (PD):

1. We need significant time away from the everyday tasks to make significant changes. If you are tinkering with existing structures short workshops can be fine, but if you want a departure from normal you need to take time.

2. We need to work in teams. Shared cognition when learning something new is empowering, supportive and extends the boundaries of what can be accomplished. Even after facilitating numerous PD events (30 presentations and two classes last year) Laurie and I are still learning new things every time.

3. We all need time to practice. Showing isn't enough, everyone must participate in doing and experimenting during the PD. Showing and then sending teachers back is just not enough especially with new technologies that without support can become frustrating and with support are almost trivial.

4. We all need follow-up. That is our next step, making sure teachers have opportunities to discuss and extend what they already know.

Teacher websites are so 2010... and what to do about it

I am working with teachers this week on technology integration. I am seeing a real determination to find productive ways to integrate technology and subject matter (TPCK anyone?). Speaking yesterday during our summary I said "Websites are so 2010", as some are working on a website this may have come off wrong BUT I do stand behind my main point. Businesses have already realized it, teachers and schools are still trying to come to grips with it. Having a website is not enough. To be in contact with our students and families, we have to shift from static web pages to interacting  using social media, texting, and email to reach everyone. This way new content whether analog or digital can reach its target audience.

I can see the justified reaction: Teachers are asked to do more than ever and here is one more thing... and: We might get in trouble...

I believe that this are true concerns. On the other hand:
A good communication plan will make sure that parents and students have the most up to date information increasing the rate of homework completion, assessment success, participation in parent conferences and many more activities that require the collaboration of parents and families. Our hardest to reach families may become much more available and attentive if we use communication channels they use anyway. The potential benefits outweigh the risks and costs.

In short, I believe that the days of sending notes home on paper are numbered. For now we probably should still have them as a backup to ensure equity of access, but I am convinced that the rate of engagement would grow significantly with digital, especially, social channels. Districts (and teacher education programs) should help teachers by providing tools, training, and guidelines that would encourage contact while protecting all stakeholders.

P.S. Can we do away with paper planners for students?

Creativity Moments (a note)

Jeff Bernadt presented today and included a segment on creativity. Creativity is not just a message for us as teachers, it is also for our students as a conscious act. Tell them that it is part of our goal in the classroom.

The main message is that creativity can be in any domain and that it is a local concept.

How does all of this connect to technology? It doesn't have to, but my argument is that technology opens more doors and enables students to create even with lower skill levels.

I still maintain that creativity can emerge only when you have a deep understanding of a domain with lots and lots of practice. Technology can facilitate practice and learning that is guided by the learner that can use the web to increase their knowledge and apps for repeated practice.

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.

It is about Play- Digital and otherwise

I think that most early childhood experts in the last few years have been both amazed and annoyed at the "discovery" of the importance of play to all humans but especially young ones. Play it turns out, is important, maybe paramount, in developing inquiring minds, creative minds that will be flexible enough to deal with the constantly shifting environment kids seem to be growing in. But then again, we've actually known that for a long time.

Since it is summer I have been watching my younger kids at play with friends in and out of the house in a constant movement and social realignment that seems to characterize semi-supervised activities in the summer.

As you can imagine our house has quite a few devices in it for digital creation and consumption. My kids (and their friends when they come) have access to three iPads, PlayStation, three TV's, a Wii, and a laptop computer. As I have shared in the past we do have some rules about digital use. While it is summer we still have strict start and end time, although during the day they have a lot more access to devices.

What I have observed is that kids who grew up digital are constantly shifting between digital and nondigital play activities. They start the morning watching video on YouTube and Netflix a passive waking up activity. As soon as others join in they go outside and play. Yesterday after two days of planning they created a Streetside Sandwiches stand at the corner- an enhanced lemonade stand that they put all on their own including making food items, pricing, choosing location and printing out the menu.

After 4 hours of restauranteurship and a very messy kitchen they all poured back into the house, settled on the couch and played a cooperative game of Minecraft, enhancing the elaborate world they have created together bit by bit over the last few weeks. So what is my point? Well, I have two of them.

First, kids growing up digital have porous boundaries to distinguish different kinds of play. They shift easily from one mode to the next and I do not think they consider one form privileged or more authentic than the other. I believe many adults hold the notion that the physical world is REAL and the digital one IMAGINARY. I believe that for our kids the digital world is just as real and just as imaginary as the analogue one. This is their reality.

Second, given (almost) free reign to choose digital and analogue activities kids move from one to the other based on interest, the participants and other factors. That is, with very little parental guidance they choose well and do not become digital "addicts" as we sometimes worry they might become.

So let's let them play, in and out of digital worlds.

The third most important reason to integrate art and exlporation in schools- amateurism

Amateur is a word used often as a derogatory term. The professional mutters "amateur!" I would like to suggest that schools need to encourage and value amateurism in art, computers, geography what have you. While I think there are many good reasons for that I want to focus on the third most important.

Many have pointed out that there is a growing divide in employment with a growing number of workers working in service jobs. Would I like it if everyone could work for a high tech company with a six figure salary? Yes! Is that likely to happen? Probably not. So while we try and educate everyone to achieve we must remember that it may not be possible for everyone to have a job they are passionate about and fulfilled by.


This is where amateurism can come into place. Schools can teach individuals to engage in meaningful activities that make them whole even and especially when they are not linked to their job and profession. It can offer meaningful lives for all individuals regardless of employment.

The lesson for me is that life is about more than a job, income, and even vocation. If we want informed capable fulfilled citizenry we need an army of amateurs.


Schools can help by letting students dabble, try, and express themselves through visual art, video, and music. And this is the important part: we should do it with permission to stay happy amateurs.

Five things I want to tell parents about iPad use for kids

We have recently finished a parent survey in rural Nebraska about digital technology use. A few things became clear (though not really surprising).
1. All participants had access to the Web in one way or another.
2. All participants had access to multiple devices. The most common were smartphones and tablets with laptops a close third. Over half of the respondents had family access to 4 or more devices.
3. Email, social media, and web surfing were the three most common personal uses.

Parents also worried about device use for children:
The number one worry is inappropriate sites, social media, and interacting with strangers online (27%). A close second is the worry about how children choose to spend their time, namely overdoing device use (19%). Parents were also worried that devices will limit social interaction and creativity (11%) and will not have enough physical activity (8%).

I am a parent and an educator. Two of my kids grew up before the age of the mobile device (well they had a Gameboy) and two are living through this age of mobile digital devices.
Yes my kids have access to iPads. No, they are not addicted and they do spend time outside, in extra curriculars, and playing off line. And, like most parents I am still searching for the best way to manage a balance between device time and opportunities to learn in multiple ways. At the same time I am aware of the opportunities that the devices present to be creative, interactive, and learn about the world. Oh yes and have fun.

So here are some rules I live by:
1. Limit access to devices in both location times and a general time limit. For example we take iPads with us for car use on long trips but never on local drives.

2. No social media until we feel it is appropriate (maturity over age) and safe.

3. On iPads you can easily prevent web access and app store access so kids can't buy anything, although we do not do this. We've had conversations with our kids about what is appropriate and we do not share our iTunes password which means they cannot purchase any app without us.

4. Make it fun to do other things. For that we have to participate, digital devices are a fun alternative when you are bored BUT it does not beat a good game of capture the flag.

5. Maybe most importantly, kids do not have to use "educational apps" to learn or be creative. Many of the apps challenge kids to be problem solvers (the room anyone?), creators (minecraft), or artists. Embrace the learning!

Apple's Folly (in Education)

The news from LAUSD (see here) who is suing Apple and Pearson has made the news and is probably hurting the chances of a large district buying iPads in the near future. Apple is an iconic company and I believe that it has exceptional products that work very well in k-12  and higher ed environments. You can see my reasoning in this short YouTube.

HOWEVER

The fail in LAUSD has to do with two major problems. The first is not directly up to Apple, but instead to the partner Pearson education who offered up a not fully developed product to a large district. The second was the lack of preparation of teachers to meaningfully use iPads in the classrooms. These are common problems that are seen in a lot of tech integration including districts I work with. Adding to LAUSD and other district woes are restrictions on student and teacher uses through management software that prevents students and teachers downloading or accessing certain features. Notice that most of these problems are not directly linked to the Apple product but rather to the way it was rolled out.

It's easy to give advice, but given the PR that Apple gets from failed implementation (definitely at the scale of LAUSD), I have radical suggestions about how Apple may prevent implementation nightmares. I suggest that Apple can use its position to insist on having certain pieces part of any sales contract and be brave enough to walk away from contracts that do not include them. I believe that such an approach actually fits with the way Apple image has been projected- no compromises, we know what is good for you and will insist on it!

Remember this ad?

I believe that the same approach is needed here. Walk away if implementation is doomed (yes I know easy for me to say).

Here are the three elements that I think Apple should insist on when selling in Education:

1. Insist on a reasonable professional development for teachers that goes beyond a single event. Part of the contract needs to be a reasonable plan for supporting teachers for at least one year. This can be part of Apple services (they do it extremely well in some places) or internal to a district or school, but insisting on a funded well designed PD is a must for successful integration (and good press, and renewed contracts). We all know what it should look like (if you don't watch out for our next publication).

2. Insist on minimal or NO management software. The management software has repeatedly failed, updated and still falls short of the quick agile response that people expect from personal mobile devices. I will argue that it will never work because our expectation from mobile devices is inherently different from other devices. Students and teachers are perfectly capable of managing devices like iPads. Insist on the personal freedom to make decisions and learning to be a good digital citizens without external control (rewatch the video). I cannot express how many frustrated teachers I meet during PD that describe in exasperated tones how long it takes to use a new app that we just talked about and will take 3-4 weeks to get to them (if not more). For example an description from a teacher I worked with:

"As easy as it may sound when someone says “oh, that’s easy, there’s an app for that”, when working with public school property, it was definitely not easy to just download the apps I wanted.  After several frustrating, failed attempts at trying to download from the app store, I found out that despite having an apple ID to purchase, download, etc., from the app store, that does not carry over to School owned devices.  There was a protocol for getting an app put on a device that was owned by the district.  Unbeknownst to me there were several steps I needed to follow in order to get a single app downloaded to just one device, and there were three.  I could not simply ‘get an app’ downloaded within minutes like a personal device.  Nor could I just delete one that I didn’t like.  One of the biggest barriers so far was not being able to put the apps on the devices when I needed them. "
 

If you want teachers to use devices and give the product a good name (and repurchases) insisting on full access (even if just to free apps) would be priceless. The note to districts is always the same. If we trust teachers with the lives of 20 priceless six-year olds I think we can trust them with devices. 

3. Make a push for OER (Open Educational Resources). The device gets much cheaper when it is coupled with an excellent free curriculum. OER is on the rise and may very well be a major part of the new No Child Left Behind Act. The move to OER can also pay for the aforementioned professional development. This last bit is not a must in my mind but a strong suggestion that will help use of the great aspects of the device such as iBooks, iTunesU etc.

I love Apple products and think they have great promise in the classroom. That would be my roadmap.

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."

FoF (Fear of Facebook)

At NETA I met many great teachers all interested in finding new ways to integrate technology into their instruction. It was great seeing so many familiar faces, especially since five years ago during my first visit I did not know many of the participants.

One of the teachers who stopped by our poster on thursday afternoon confided: "I know I need to use some of this for my students. I have a facebook page but I never post. People get fired over facebook posts." This comment is not new, I actually hear it quite often from teachers who seem paralyzed by the fear of technology. I actually have even discussed it before on this blog. Thei frustration seems to grow as they seem to be afraid but also pushed to integrate technology. They feel between a rock and a hard place- and thus frustrated.

This time I just got curious about the phenomena and whether there really was an epidemic of social media firings. I used Google to try and ferret out exactly how many teachers have been reported being fired because of social media activity in the last year. For all the media and teacher hype I found very few actual cases of full time teachers fired.

1. In Smithville Ohio a teacher got fired over a post on Dairy farming. He was let go by the local school board but reinstitated (with back pay) after a short court battle. More here and here
2. Texas teacher from Duncanville resigned over an inflamatory tweet here. It was quite extreme and she resigned.
3. Ashley Payne resigned over facebook pics. See here. The main point was that she has resigned and was not fired (unlike most of the headlines)

There were a few cases of substitute teacher "firing" mostly over posting of student photos.

So is there room to worry?
I would argue that anyone needs to be careful about social media and be a good citizen (not just digital).
But
1. Given 3.4 million K12 public school teachers around the country and with most on Facebook the incidence of firing seems to be extremely small.
2. Teachers should not resign without legal council
3. Read your district guidelines especially about posting photos of students

Consult this page from the NEA

Remember that as a prospective teacher you need to excerice more caution.

Do not let this stop you from participating in thoughtful technology integration your students will be missing out.

Fear Factor (iPad edition)

I see this in many districts I work with. As new devices are brought in, someone has the "talk". Do not break them, if you take them home and they break you will owe us. Do not use it for anything personal. They talk about insurance, cost and consequences. They want everyone to take the devices seriously

Every meeting with a new batch of teachers I have a few admitting that the combination of their fears and the threat of insurance has caused them to leave the device in the box, or attached to the charger on their desk.

I am here to say that that talk is destructive and counterproductive. Especially early in new adoption of devices. So e of the educators who are introduced to devices are scared before we say anything. Driving the point home with any kind of threat (percieved or real) drives the teachers on the fence about integration to avoid the new devices. And devices not used are not any better than broken ones.

I understand the concern about costly devices. Three years ago when we got 30 iPads and I gave them to students I was worried. Lost some sleep, but I decided that I will take personal responsibility and try not to scare them off. It paid off big time, with one exception everybody used their device. I am pretty sure that had I started the iPad discussion with a stern warning half of my students would have left them at home (they actually told me that). Recently I worked with teachers on iPad integration and once again half of them did not get them out of the box. Why I asked? Because we do not have insurance yet! Turns out that insurance was to take it out of the building but too late, the fear factor already worked its magic.

So if you can influence this- with students and teachers: make rules but do not scare, do not strike fear, we need these devices in our students lives and ours it is their future and thus our present.

Why am I doing this? (four reasons I work with schools)

This week I met with a colleague from our school district. We had a lovely working lunch/coffee sharing ideas and current projects. I described our main Tech EDGE activities:
    Laurie Friedrich and I have been working with Rousseau elementary at their invitation for over two years. During the time we developed a professional development model that seems to work well and is responsive to staff needs and time frames.
    The UNL elementary education program has developed a class that focuses on tech integration while pre service teachers are in practicum. The instructors are available to teachers as are our preservice teacher. This makes trying new integration ideas a lot easier. It also allows us to reach another six! schools.
    We offer a graduate class in tech integration to practicing teachers who have presevice teachers in their classroom. This class is offered at a great reduction in tuition to teachers and content parallels the one we have for preservice teachers.
   We offer online resources through youtube, iTunesU and beyond.

My colleague looked at me and asked: "Why are you doing this?" This is not the first time I have been asked that, and probably not the last. It always makes me stop and ask myself if in all the activity I have (35 presentations, 74 videos, 60 blog posts, 4 articles all last year) am I doing the right thing? These are my reasons:

1. I work for landgrant institution. Working with our community is a big part of our mission. This is even more true of our college aiming to improve lives and communities across the State. Working with schools let's us have a measurable impact on the future.

2. It allows me to make sure that the teachers leaving our program are truly ready to teach in the 21st century. The teacher we train will potentially teach into the fifth decade of the 21st century. We are responsible for making sure they have a solid foundation for their future growth.

3. I can generate research on tech integration working WITH teachers to figure out what works. This is a new and exciting field and there is much we do not yet know. It is the kind of design work that calls for trrue partnership between practitioners and university faculty generating ideas and measuring impact.

4. It is fun. There is no way around the fact that I love working with teachers, seeing impact, solving problems and coming up with innovative ideas for instruction.

Are Standards an Outdated Approach?

The standrd movement and the Common Core that emerged from it have been with us for so long that we only ask what standards and not whether we should have content standards at all. I am ambivalent about standards. In theory I understand the intent but in practice it often gets diminished to a set of alessons and assessents. The main problem is that a series of standards takes a few years to develop perhaps with the rapid development of new content area, new technologies, and new insights the kind of standards we have now are simply outdated by the time they find the way into classrooms.

I suggest that we need a much more flexible framework of standards perhaps more like the new science standards a framework of principles instead of atomized skills. Yes it'll be harder to show that students reach standards but then again all learning that is worth it is hard to measure. 

Many voices call for mastery learning. I want to challenge that as well. Mastery is not enough, with many skills fluency is the next step. The point is that fluid performance "in the zone" or Flow is the key for expertise. Our goal should be not just for students that can do it, but for ones that can do it efficiently. It is a complex demand especially when discussing 21st century skills that can be demonstrated in so many alternative ways.

I am not calling for abolishing standards but I am calling for continuing to challenge our assumptions and consider our alternatives.

Almost There- Reading Rainbow and Beyond

A few weeks back I had a chance to hear Dr. Twila Liggett discuss her work in the development of Reading Rainbow. In a wonderful walk down memory lane she described some of the more significant moments in the shows history. She recalled shows about incarcerated parents and a post 9/11 show with students from PS 234 (video below). These are great examples of public television and what it can do to help kids and parents understand the world around them and open up to new ideas, concepts, and events.

Reading Rainbow has since shifted to the iPad in a great App but I would argue that Reading Rainbow and other shows like it (few I admit) are not the format going forward. In this age of interactive cheap media we no longer have to wait for someone else to make shows for us. Any child, teacher, classroom, and school can create their own video, show, or review without needing big budget or complicated equipment. In fact most of us have everything we need in our pocket (smart phone) or at hand (iPad, laptop with webcam).

Liggett remembered these emotional moments and how wonderful it was to be within the doing. All of us can be producing not just consuming. All students can feel the emotional well being of creating together, having an audience, and performing to a potential global audience.

Sir Ken Robinson talked about the incredible feeling of being in the orchestra. The modern tools allow every child to be the star of their local Reading Rainbow like show. In fact maybe the future of such shows is like the present for TED talks with local TEDx. Yes we have the main event, but each school or locality can create their own show in the image of the original.

Dr. Liggett  did not draw that conclusion. To be fair it wasn't that kind of an event, she was asked to talk about the past and that she did. It is up to us to seize these lessons from those who have led ed media in the past and make sense of them for our times.

Reading RainbowX challenge anyone?

Measuring Long-Term Impact of 21st Century Learning

I was traveling with my kids this weekend across two states and the majestic views of the plains and the west. If measured correctly at the end of the drive, or even the end of the year, I am sure that there is no measurable impact on their standardized test achievement. Does that means they should stay home? Or conversly that we shouldn't teach 21st century skills.

The same question can be asked about any field trip, shadowing, or performance students are exposed to. Does that mean we should not do them? If the answer is no, we should continue doing these things as a part of a whole child education What then is our verdict about the quality of most of our educational research?


If we focus on short-term simple effects right after an intervention of any kind, we may well be missing two things: the long-term impact (or lack thereof- what Calfee called the poop-out effect), and exploring the impact of hard to measure meaningful activities.

How would we measure the impact of Day of Code, Read Across America, or Project based Learning?

I would argue that we need new paradigms, new instruments, and a vivid imagination exploring what outcomes of note can be. The relationship between researchers, teachers, students, and community members should change. The goal of research should change and become a cooperative endeavor that requires different structures than we have now. For example, a school can have a resident researcher who teaches and conducts a design experiment that serves school goals, as well as increasing our research knowledge. This is especially true of digital and other 21st century skills one's we know very little about. Still thinking about it...

Five ways to help students find the Sweet Read

Today is Read across America day. This morning I watched my son Oren (11) read right after he got up. He is rereading for the ??th time the Percy Jackson series. It made me think about a book or a series of books that becomes a second home to readers- a Sweet Read. It is about the power of returning to a favorite book where the charaters are like old friends that you have known for many years.

When I was Oren's age I had Asimov's Foundation series and later Lord of the Rings. For Erez (now 20) it was Harry Potter, Asaf (now 18) had David Edding's Belgariad. Even as adults I find that Sarah and I are returning to favorites and redefining what is our literary home.

This is an experiece I would like all students to have- a sweet read- that is yours. Here are a few completely unoriginal ideas to help students find the Sweet Read:

1. Read outloud to them. Reading outloud connects readers and listeners to the books in a way that helps new and struggling readers reimagine what the reading experience should be.
2. Provide choice. I learned the hard way that what you love and find a home in does not necessarily mean that others will as well. We all must figure it out for ourselves.
3. Do not judge. The Box Car Children can as much of a literary home as Boewolf. It is after all about comfort and joy.
4. Share you experiences. Share your passion for books, not so they can read the same books, but so they can feel the emotion and excitement in your voice.
5. Library often. (shouldn't library be a verb?)

Full disclosure: In the last five years or so my Sweet Reads are A Hundred Years of Solitude and Bitchfest.

What should Classrooms look like?

Last week I had the chance to speak at the E N Thompson Forum as a warm up act for the inspiring Milton Chen. I decided to talk about what creativity looks like and can look like in Elementary classrooms. To start off I asked my audience to draw what classrooms should look like. The results (I am attaching examples of work in progress) were very interesting.

What was very clear from the work is that most of the people showing up thought classrooms should look very different than they do now.

The question that occured to me was: if there is a growing concensus that classrooms should be more open and integrated why aren't we trying to do something about it? The example of Pegasus Bay in New Zealand sticks in my mind as an option for new schools but I believe that there is much we can do inside older buildings as well.

I believe that with a bit of ingenuity we can do a lot. It is NOT a replacement for excellent teaching but it provides an environment that encourages teacher and students to learn and teach creatively.

Reflections on China Tour II- When the Stakes are High

Here in the US we often talk about High Stakes tests and their impact for example the work by Berliner and colleagues. In China the conversation about High Stakes was very different.

We had lunch on our last day in Shandong province hosted by one of the lead directors of the school district. After the exchange of gifts and pleasentries we had an inetersting discussion which started with his concern for student well being. He relayed that families are putting too much pressure on students to excel within the system, pressure that may harm some students maybe all. At the same both of us acknowledge the immense impact educational success measured by tests can have on individual lives.

We saw the importance of high stakes testing in almost every conversation with teachers and parents. Our research in China (With Stephanie Wessles and Guo Ji) is looking at the interaction between school and family. We had a chance to see the interaction in our first meeting with parents. Teachers took charge and directed parents who, in turn, complied without question. The parents were professionals from a middle class background but they followed teacher's demands. In the US middle class parents would have responded very differently probably actively resisting what they did not like and asking for a voice in the discussion. Here in China it was different and we were intrigued by it. In conversation some have speculated that this was part of the culture and Confusian ideals. Culture may have had something to do with it, though in private conversations and interviews parents were often critical of teacher's actions and did not think that teachers "knew better". The question that emerged was why parents did not resist what they thought was bad practice?

The answer seems to be linked to High Stakes. In China high stakes are meaningful most often to the individual. Starting very early students take tests that are critical for their advancement into the next level. There is a middle school test, high school etc. Each one of these has potentially dire implications for the student and his/her future path. The High Stakes for students and their family (pressure is intensified by the one child policy) create a need to comply. Parents relayed to us: "I do not always agree with the teacher  but I will not say anything because I fear there will be negative outcomes for my child." In the large classrooms (we saw elementary schools with 40-50 students) teachers cannot attend to all student needs. Each parent is keenly aware of the high stakes and the positive role the teacher can play, thus they do not want to rock the boat fearing that their students will be ignored or underserved.

In this case the impact of high stakes testing is a lost voice for students and parents who should be part of the conversation about education. This is not all one sided. This very same situation helped our efforts to integrate iPads into classroom instruction. Not all parents were in favor and a few worried about it but none resisted it This gave them an opportunity to see the impact on their students. After parents saw the impact they were decidedly positive. This is similar to the model Guskey suggested for teachers.

Generation D- the impulse to re-engineer

I was playing a quiet game of Candy Crush yesterday and my 8 (soon to be 9) year old son Itai came and sat next to me. For me, casual games like Candy Crush are a great way to pass a few minutes and do some problem solving. Itai, however, is generation D (digital) child and reacted to the game in a very different way.       

As I was olaying Itai was making suggestions about moves and figuring out how the game worked. Finally he said: "Wouldn't it be great if you could design your own board and could decide where the jelly and chocolate went?" He continued musing: "you could design your own special candy like a cross between the fish and chocolate". His stream of ideas went on as I was playing and I cannot remember them all, but what I do remember is how easily he has focused on the creation side. 

This of course is not accidental. I have been observing in schools and at home the impact of games like Minecraft and Little Big Planet. For adults they are games, but I argue that for kids they create new ways of thinking. As a result generation D maybe growing up the most creative one yet, a generation that has a creative instinct. A generation that idenftifies a problem and doesn't just want to solve it, they want to re-engineer it. The question for us is how do we design schools that cultivate and support this world view?

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. 

Aurora 1:1 or what I learned this morning

Today we had our 13th TechEDGE conference. We spent the whole day with brave teachers in Aurora Public Schools who are integrating technology in a 1:1 iPad environment and agreed to let us come in and observe.

It was great. It was also the first conference that I have participated in (let alone organize) that happened during regular school time with authentic teaching presented.

Here are my three takeaways, not new, but refreshing to hear from teachers:

1. One to one integration does not mean all tech all the time. Teachers integrated analog and digital across lessons

2. Social media is encouraged. I have heard multiple teachers start with "as you saw in my email" or "please post to twitter with the hashtag...". One teacher declared: "it is my job to model digital citizenship on social media. I let them know if they misbehave online.

3. Teachers need to know that what they are doing is special and of high quality. The school admins said that the conference was a great efficacy boost for their teachers.