Chapter 9

Chapter 9 addresses the role corporations play with schools and integrating technology.

The relationship between schools and corporations should be mutually beneficial. In simplified terms, businesses have the money while schools offer positive P.R. and potential consumers. When the two sides manage to work together, both can reap great rewards. More often than not the partnerships fail for reasons such as poor marketing, over commercialism, of just plain ignorance (Richards, 2001).

I found it interesting Richards noted that the type of corporation influences what the agenda of the corporation is (Richards, 2001), and that really is true! Few businesses are going to donate money to a school without something in return. That something can vary from looking for good citizens and potential employees (good) to using schools as a means to exploit marketing opportunities (bad) (Richards, 2001). While money is a powerful aphrodisiac, it is our responsibility as educators to follow the code of the NEA and see that activities are responsible and educational, not irresponsible and exploitative.

I do have one real world example of a business partnership I have experienced in my brief teaching career, albeit on a tiny scale. This year I contacted Caribou Coffee about supplying free coffee and paper products for a "Poetry Cafe" in the library at Chancellor for my Creative Writing kids to read their poetry (ala the various coffee houses). Caribou happily obliged and really did not ask for anything overt in return....although their logo was on the cups, napkins, creamers, spoons, and coffee machine. To me that was a fair trade: free product that added legitimacy to my poetry reading environment in exchange for some logo recognition.

Incidentally, before anyone attacks me for turning today's youth into javaheads, we also offered an array of 100% fruit juices, bottled water, fruit, and other healthy alternative snacks. The coffee was mostly for the "coffee house effect" and the adults (although many kids do hangout at Starbucks, et al., and did have a cup). This is also just a twice per year event: once in January and then again in April (Poetry Month).

Anyway, bottom line is corporations and schools can work together (corporations certainly have the capital that schools need to build great things!), we just need to make sure that the dollar signs do not blind us to what is "right" for the kids. As long as nobody is being exploited or discriminated against, business/education partnerships can work.

Resource:


Richards, J. (2001). Strategies for Creating Successful Corporate Partnerships. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (Eds.). Technology in its Place: Successful Technology Infusion in Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Chapter 5: Staff Development for Technology Integration in the Classroom

Summary and comment on Chapter 5 of Technology in its Place

Chapter 5 discusses different approaches to staff development and integrating technology in the classroom. The author briefly discusses some approaches from the past that didn't work, such as holding workshops or offering computer literacy classes (Collier, 2001), and instead focuses on four new approaches that should work better towards achieving the goal of seamless integration.

Approach #1: Technology Mentors
The mentor/student relationship is a time-proven method of success in many lines of work, and the same can hold true for integrating technology. Collier writes that "technology mentors are a valuable resource in planning staff development for technology integration" (Collier, 2001, p 63) and this makes sense because the mentor is the expert that can streamline the process for the newbies. Mentors have "been there" and "done that" so they can offer sage advice to those new to technologies in an intimate environment.

Approach #2: Student Involvement
Often times the students know more about available technologies than many teachers, especially teachers from generations bygone...so why not use the students as a resource? Collier mentions that "...students are facile with technology and can provide help with troubleshooting and just-in-time technical assistance" (Collier, 2001, p 65). I actually used this approach in a class recently. My Humanities students were in the Computer Lab working on various film projects. I had a student that was becoming frustrated with MS MovieMaker due to her unfamiliarity with the software. I am not a pro at using MovieMaker either, so I polled the class as to who could help and demonstrate to me & Lauren how to get the application we needed accomplished. After a few quick unsolicited commentaries as to the negative merits of MovieMaker versus other more expensive options, I had a student come over and instantly offer a 60-second tutorial that saved time and enlightened myself and others.

Approach #3: Teacher Leadership and Student Technology Competencies
This approach involves creating a "team" of cross-curriculum teachers to determine attainable technology goals while working collaboratively with technology specialists (Collier, 2001). I viewed this as being the best of both worlds: a tech specialist working with classroom teachers from the trenches. The classroom teachers can "keep it real" as to what types of technology the kids need and teachers will actually use, while using the knowledge of the specialist to make it work in a cost-effective and timely manner.

Approach #4: Inquiry and Action Research for Technology Integration
This is the "teacher as a researcher" approach to staff development (Collier, 2001, p 68) and involves teachers as explorers. By taking a hands-on approach and researching the available technologies, teacher are able to determine first-hand what students may encounter during their research. Collier wrote that this approach "strengthens the student research approach in a number of important ways (including) providing formal instruction in keyboarding, guided research, and structured note taking" (Collier, 2001, p 69).

The chapter closes by discussing the role of administrators in the process and assorted resources for staff development. Collier notes that "each of the four approaches underscores the need for strong administrator support to make possible a complex aspect of systemic change" (Collier, 2001, p 69) and I think that is the case for most changes occurring, technological or otherwise. Without the support of the administration, it is very difficult to achieve positive results because the often the teachers and administrators have different priorities.

Resource:

Collier, C. (2001). Staff Development for Technology Integration in the Classroom. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (Eds.). Technology in its Place: Successful Technology Infusion in Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Chapter 3: Technology For Urban Schools

My summary and thoughts on Chapter 3: Technology For Urban Schools: Gaps and Challenges

Chapter is a discussion about bringing technology to urban school districts. In my mind, Chapter 3 is basically broken up into three sections: the nuts and bolts of urban technology integration, the teachers who use the technology, and two models/case studies.

The first section deals with the challenges and problems that urban schools face when trying to become technologically competent. I'm sure it is no coincidence the chapter opens with three words: "technology is expensive" (Gallagher, 2001, p 31). Money (or lack thereof) will always be an issue, especially to schools in poor or underprivileged areas. The articles goes on to discuss the importance of Internet connectivity to education ("every school needs high-speed Internet access") (Gallagher, 2001, p 32) and addresses other "behind the scenes" concerns that urban school districts have to address when becoming technologically competent. Basically it boils down to installing compatible wiring, adequate funding, and dealing with/managing the time it takes to accomplish such a major transformation.

The second section addresses the teachers and students using the technologies. Obviously we need people trained to use these technologies as we implement them, and the author notes that "many urban areas struggle to find enough certified teachers...(and) consequently many teachers in urban schools are not well versed in the latest teaching methods or the appropriate use if technology" (Gallagher, 2001, p 33). Equally, if not more important, is that the technologies are used in an appropriate educational manner, or as Gallagher writes "students need access to the technology and opportunities to use it as part of their educational process" (Gallagher, 2001, p 34).

The third and final section offers two models of urban technology integration, including the Chicago public school system (CPS) which is the third largest school system in the nation (Gallagher, 2001). The models show how complex the process can b. The CPS, for example, has been working on the transformation since 1990 (Gallagher, 2001). But while it is a costly and time-consuming task, it is still a necessary process if we expect our kids to compete in the modern technologically dependent world. As the conclusion so poignantly summed up: "we need to find a way to provide technology to these urban schools...(because) the cost of graduating class after class of students unprepared to meet the needs of today's and tomorrow's workforce will be far more expensive" (Gallagher, 2001, p 41)

Resource:

Gallagher, E. (2001). Technology For Urban Schools: Gaps and Challenges. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (Eds.). Technology in its Place: Successful Technology Infusion in Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Chapters 2 & 4

My summary and comment on Chapters 2 & 4 of Technology in its Place: Successful Technology Infusion in Schools:

Chapter 2: Curriculum Planning for Technology-Rich Instruction

The chapter opens with a discussion of technology planning. LeBaron notes that "the systematic improvement of learning, teaching, and curriculum depends not only on the presence of an effective plan, but also on the participation of many stakeholders in the design and execution of the plan" (LeBaron, 2001, p. 17). I do think there can be a risk of "too many cooks in the kitchen" when everbody is making decisions, however in the sense of technology and education, I have to agree with the author that the more stakeholders get involved (teachers, admins, parents, etc), the better the chances that the integration will be focused and will succeed.

LeBaron goes on to say that planning for the integration of technology is a six-stage, progressively narrowing process:

• Create a shared vision
• Assess curriculum needs
• Describe goals and outputs
• Define key inputs
• Assign responsibilities
• Evaluating and assessing results (LeBaron, 2001, p. 19)

The next key point that LeBaron makes is one I really support: "budgeting should be the consequence, not the instigator, of planning" (LeBaron, 2001, p. 19). This is backwards from the way that many schools determine their technology budgeting, and that is the reason a lot of schools fail to meet their technological potential. You have to determine needs first, then once you know exactly what you needs are, budget accordingly so that you can meet your goals. I think a lot of schools would argue that this is unrealistic given the realities of funding, however I do not think they can argue with the need to define needs so you can set clearly defined goals.

The rest if the chapter elaborates on the six-stage process mentioned above, and closes with a list of resources for technology planning in the curriculum. Ultimately this chapter is a good reference for schools looking to develop a plan for technology integration.

Chapter 4: Technology and Learning: Getting the Story Out

Chapter 4 discusses how learning in the technological age is more than memorization. This is at the heart of the Teaching and Designing for Understanding concept, that students should be actively involved in lessons and build knowledge by exploring, collaborating, and asking questions. A key point mentioned is that technology itself doesn't improve learning or thinking, it is the teachers who use their creativity to make technology work to it's potential (Jarvela, 2001).

Motivation is the next area discussed, which is at the heart of any engaging, enriching lesson. The author Jarvela tells how technology can be used in a myriad of ways to support and enhance student motivation. A lot of this chapter to me seems to be a plea to the public and the "powers that be" to embrace technology and sell the idea that it is the future of education. The first two sentences of the conclusion seems to support this assertion:

"Why should the public invest its scarce resources in technology for education? Perhaps a more relevant question would be to ask how we can support the development of students' knowledge and skill to cope in a changing society." (Jarvela, 2001, p. 54)

Translation: If we don't financially support technology in our schools, how can we expect them to compete in the changing technological real-world?

Resources:

Jarvela, S. (2001). Technology and Learning: Getting the Story Out. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (Eds.). Technology in its Place: Successful Technology Infusion in Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

LeBaron, J. (2001). Curriculum Planning for Technology-Rich Instruction. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (Eds.). Technology in its Place: Successful Technology Infusion in Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Chapters 3, 4, and 5

My summary of Chapter 3, 4, and 5 from Teaching for Understanding with Technology by Wiske, Franz, and Breit:

Chapter 3: Generative Topics and New Technologies

The chapter opens with a discussion of how teachers determine what topics they need to teach for understanding. The authors felt that topics that generated interest and rewarded sustained inquiry were worthy candidates, and coined the term "generative topics" for these types of lessons (Wiske, Franz, Breit, 2005). Regardless of the discipline, generative topics are topics that share key features such as:

• Connection to multiple important ideas within and across the subject
• Are authentic, accessible, and interesting to students
• Are fascinating and compelling for the teacher
• Are approachable via multiple entry points
• Generate and reward continued inquiry (Wiske, et al, 2005)

The chapter goes on to describe an example of a generative topic lesson that was successful in incorporating technology - a creative math lesson (math traditionally tending to be a non-technological arena outside of overheads and calculators). My feelings on this chapter is it can open the eyes to educators that feel technology integration is limited to research, but really the lesson was born by being creative in a subject that too often becomes the "domain of the worksheet". The teacher that created the lesson didn't focus on technology initially; as the kids became engaged and interested, then the technologies became a necessary component (work processing, digital camera, etc.). Creativity is the key to creating generative topics, at least in my opinion.

Chapter 4: Understanding Goals and New Technologies

This chapter opens with a discussion of lesson goals. The authors note that unless teachers are explicit and clear with their goals, students are unlikely to achieve them (Wiske, et al., 2005) and many teachers become confused how to achieve their goals using technology beyond a superficial basis. The chapter goes on to elaborate on the importance of defining goals how to involve technology effectively to achieving these goals. The key, I think, is to create the goals and objectives first, then examine how technology plays a role. That way there is a lesser chance that the technology itself becomes the unintended focus, rather than a compliment to a goal-oriented lesson. This is an important distinction to acknowledge. Beyond the technology aspect, however, the majority of the chapter is repeat information for anyone that has taken Foundations of Education and other similar graduate Education courses.

Chapter 5: Performances of Understanding and New Technologies

This chapter reiterates how the Teaching for Understanding model works and looks at introducing new technologies to the equation. New technologies can "enhance and enrich performances of understanding in many ways" (Wiske, et al., 2005, pg. 64) which include supporting collaboration and peer learning (Wiske, et al., 2005). The authors also expand on the notion that new technologies should be used as a tool to get students thinking beyond the basics, creating an enriching, intellectual experience in which all the lesson goals are met and beyond. The key aspects of this Performances of Understanding model are summarized as:

• Developing and demonstrating understanding of target goals
• Stretching the learners mind
• Building via introductory performances, guided inquiry, and culmination performance
• Incorporating a rich variety of entry points that appeal to multiple intelligences (Wiske, et al., 2005)

The chapter also has a discussion of on-line classroom collaboration. This is not meant to mean on-line course such as ITEC 545, but instead incorporating the on-line community with our classroom students. Examples cited in the chapter include an art class sharing their works with other school mates via the Internet and a class teaching students how to communicate on-line and express themselves clearly with those from other cultures.

Finally the chapter closes with thoughts on extending innovation with colleagues...in other words, becoming a technological leader and sharing our knowledge. Many teachers are so swamped with their day-to-day activities that the thought of adding technologies to the mix is daunting. One suggestion the authors noted in their example was getting teachers involved in whatever means is comfortable to them. Perhaps just observing or taking part is a non-technological aspect of the lesson to see how the easy the technologies are to use. This non-threatening means is an excellent suggestion, however many seasoned teachers are notorious control-freaks with egos that will not allow them to sit on the sidelines. Based on my experience, I expect many teachers would be "too busy" in this regard...which is too bad because they are the ones that can benefit the most from an introduction to classroom technologies.

Resource:

Wiske, M.S., Franz, K.R., & Breit, L. (2005). Teaching for Understanding with Technology. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

No Child Left Behind

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to me is an Act with great intentions, but with unreasonable goals, resources, and expectations.

I am a teacher and a parent, so I can see both sides of the equation. As a parent, obviously I want my kids to go to schools that have high expectations, with excellent teachers that are held accountable for teaching every kid the things they need to learn. However as a teacher, I see and experience the unrealistic expectations placed on educators by NCLB. Under the federal law, all students are expected to be reading and doing math on grade level by the year 2014 , including special-education students and foreign-language speakers who are just learning English (Zuckerbrod, 2007). No matter how well I teach or how I vary instruction, my two inclusion classes are full of kids that are going to struggle to pass the various tests based on their special needs or language barriers. This "one size fits all" testing mentality is one of the big criticisms of NCLB, as it does not factor that different children learn in different ways and therefore should be tested by different methods (NEA, 2007). How can we have IEPs that individualize education, then turn around and expect everyone to pass one test with identical standards?

The pressure on teachers and administrators is also intense. If groups of students fail to meet their specific goals, entire schools are labeled as needing improvement, and otherwise excellent teachers and principals are in danger of losing jobs (Zuckerbrod, 2007). Teachers are already notoriously underpaid (at least when you factor in time after-school and buying supplies) and this type of pressure is not going to attract the best of the best coming from our colleges.

Then there is the issue of resources. NCLB is a bit of a Catch-22: if you do not meet the standards, school lose federal funding; without federal funding, schools have a difficult time getting the resources to improve. The funding issue is such a hotbed, that in 2005 the NEA and several school districts actually filed a lawsuit against the DEA, charging the government with creating an unconstitutional, unfunded mandate (Brown, 2005).

So the NCLB is a great idea on paper...but is too narrow and unrealistic long-term. If it is going to last into the next decade, some sweeping changes need to be made that consider multiple intelligences, special education, and other factors.

Resources:
Brown, M. (2005). No Child Left Behind Critics Say Law is Unfair. Medil News Service. Retrieved February 22, 2007 from http://mesh.medill.northwestern.edu/mnschicago/archives/2005/07/leaving_no_chil.html

National Education Association. (2006). 'No Child Left Behind' Act/ESEA. Retrieved February 22, 2007 from http://www.nea.org/esea/more.html

Zuckerbrod, N. (2007, February 13). Rethinking No Child Left Behind. The Seattle Times. Retrieved February 22, 2007 from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2003566743_nochild11.html

My Social Bookmarking Site!

http://del.icio.us/dsbarber

List of my classmate's Blogs, my teaching links, my band links, and other assorted fun stuff.