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.

Chapter 10: Using Technology Appropriately

My summary and comment on Chapter 10 of Technology in it's Place: Successful Technology Infusion in Schools:

Chapter 10 opens with a discussion of information literacy, or the ability to find and use information (de Lyon Friel, 2001). I agree with the author when she states that information literacy it is "the keystone to lifelong learning" (de Lyon Friel, 2001, pg. 126) because to me, the ability to grow as an independent thinker is correlated to the ability to search for answers, understand and process new information, and then make intelligent, productive decisions based on the data. Whether you are a teacher, a construction worker, or a politician, your ability to succeed is tied to your ability to problem solve efficiently. You have to know where to look and how to interpret and apply the various sources of data.

Chapter 10 also deals with a lot of issues that educators face when using technology, especially in regard to safe and responsible use of the Internet. While some issues are no brainers (citing sources and anti-plagiarism), other areas are not so cut-and-dry. It is very difficult to find a middle ground on issues such as censorship and 1st Amendment/intellectual freedom. While I feel few would argue that some form of a filtering is in our children's best interest, there will always be those who feel that any form of censorship is wrong, and it should be the parent or teachers responsibility to monitor Internet use. The problem with this type of thinking is that it is unrealistic to think that a teacher can monitor 20+ kids, while simultaneously helping individuals that are struggling and assessing student progress. The filtering of content is to assist teachers in this manner, sort of act as a virtual assistant. I admit the filtering systems are not perfect. For example, I had a Humanities student preparing a presentation on the artist Marcel Duchamp. Because of the filtering software at our school, he was unable to view one of Duchamp's more famous works (Nude Descending a Staircase) because the word "nude" triggered the filter. But when you look at the image, it is far from obscene (see below - source: wikipedia, 2007)

But even though I see the limitations of the filtering software, I still feel it is a necessity. I'm confident that software developers will fine-tune things in the coming years so that filters can be a little more flexible.

The topic of acceptable use policies (AUP) closes out the chapter. In a nutshell AUPs are the list of what you should not do while using computers at school. The author states that a school system AUP should "set the conditions under which the computer network may be used" and "will leave no confusion about what the network rules are" (de Lyon Friel, 2001, pg. 133). Every school system has to have an AUP, especially in our current legal climate. The author notes that AUP's can be used to "generate productive communication among staff, students, parents, and the larger community" and "can be a starting point for collaborative teaching and discussion of personal responsibility" (de Lyon Friel, 2001, pg. 134). While this may be true, to me that is really just a smoke screen for the real intent of AUPs: to give the school system leverage in a legal sense. Nothing wrong with that, but I just think it's a little comical to try to call AUPs a teaching aid. An analogy to me would be to say fighting in school can be used as a means to bring students, parents, teachers, and administrators together in a collaborative setting (conference) to discuss personal responsibility issues. :) But any AUP is 99.9% common sense: use your work e-mail for work and professional matters only, use the school network and resources for teaching and education-related matters only, don't send obscene materials via the Internet or Intranet, etc. But it's not just that way in education. Virtually every business has acceptable use policies that dictate what you can or cannot do with computers at work. Companies (and schools systems) have to protect themselves in case employees act irresponsibly using work-related equipment. By signing an AUP, the individual takes responsibility for their actions. Some might consider it a little Orwellian, but if you don't pay for the ISP and don't own the equipment, you can't expect to have free reign. If you keep private and personal matters at home, AUPs are no big deal.

Resource:
de Lyon Friel, L. (2001). Using Technology Appropriately: Policy, Leadership and Ethics. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (Eds.). Technology in its Place: Successful Technology Infusion in Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc..

Chapters 7 & 8

The following is my interpretation of the key points of Chapter 7 and 8 of Technology in it’s Place: Successful Technology Infusion in Schools:

Chapter 7: Definition of “leadership”, the evolving role principals as leaders and facilitators, and the eight (8) step development process for change.

Chapter 7 opens with a discussion of the role of the principal in regard to the implementation of technology. The authors Arelado & Perry write that principals need to be leaders as schools grow technologically and are “expected to help teachers overcome obstacles and integrate technology into their instructional practice” (Areglado & Perry Jr., 2001). This is an important distinction from the “traditional” role of principals as manager that merely implement school policies and directives (Perry &Areglado, 2001). Unfortunately, not all principals have embraced the evolving role of leaders in the technology arena. The principal at my school is definitely cut more from the “traditional” mold, or at least that is my perspective and the perspective of the teachers I have spoken to. While she does make sure that we have resources available, she pretty much leaves it up to the library and IT staff to identify our needs and see that the technology is being utilized. My theory is that her bias against technological leadership is a comfort factor: she is from a generation that did not have technology like we have today so she is more comfortable passing the buck to people who are trained in those technologies. She also has been a principal for many years, which may have resulted in her getting set in her duties. I am inclined to think the current and next generation of principals will adopt the role of technological leaders more readily.

I found the next section of the chapter particularly interesting. It talked about the difference between “managers” and “leaders”. The authors refer to a guy named Zaleznick that defines management as being “tough-minded problem solvers, dedicated task completers, compromisers, bureaucrats, and protectors of the existing order of affairs” (Perry & Areglado, 2001). Leaders, on the other hand, “have personal and active attitudes toward roles, develop fresh approaches to long-standing problems, are comfortable with high-risk, are intuitive and empathic, and create turbulence to intensify motivation and produce unintentional outcomes” (Perry & Areglado, 2001). The authors seem to feel each is mutually exclusive and I’m not sure I buy into this separation. To me it's too simplistic. What about the bureaucrat that takes risks and/or is somewhat intuitive? Certainly the authors are not suggesting these types of hybrids do not exist? I get their point about the traits that go into a good leader, but I do not believe managers and leaders are mutually exclusive.

Finally the chapter closes with the eight (8) step development process for change: Establish urgency, create a guiding coalition, develop a vision/strategy, communicate the vision, empower employees, generate short-term wins, consolidate gains to produce deeper change, and anchor change in the culture (Perry & Areglado, 2001). Anyone that has been in a position of successful leadership should have been familair with at least most of these steps. In laymans terms: rally the troops around a new idea, get others involved and excited about the idea, create attainable short-term goals for motivational purposes and for visible progress, and once the idea is rolling, make it a part of the daily routine.

Chapter 8: The real-world politics of technology integration, the role of the media, and the issues shared by the major stakeholders of technology in schools.

Chapter 8 opens by discussing the local, state, and Federal politics involved with technology integration in our schools. It is basically a battle of varied interests and varied agendas. The author Zimmerman points out that at the local level, the public does have some say in the decision making process (Zimmerman, 2001). As in any political arena, the key to getting noticed at the local level is by making enough noise that those higher up the food chain take notice. The authors talks about creating grassroot campaigns as an effective way to bring attention to concerns...e-mails, letters, position papers, and testifying (Zimmerman, 2001). The author cites several examples of (initially) small organizations that made big changes in the technology/education landscape and shows how a grassroot operation works in the real world. Similar to the leadership thoughts in the previous chapter, I believe this type of philosophy is not limited to the technology arena. But in regard to educational technology, the information is eerily timely considering the recent cuts in funding that are on the table.

Obviously the media plays a major role in public perception. The author notes how "one negative news story or comments by a key decision maker about educational technology has the potential to rally the unconvinced" (Zimmerman, 2001). But then again the same argument could be made for either side. The media is just another cog in the propaganda machine.

Finally the chapter closes with a listing if the different issues shared by major stakeholders in educational technology. Rather than list them individually, I'll summarize the list as making sure that technology in the schools have a definable need, are used properly, stay current, and are necessary. Any peceived deficiencies become fuel for the opposition to poke holes. cut spending, and argue for change.

Resources:

Areglado, R.J. & Perry Jr., G.S. (2001). The Computers are Here!: Now What Does the Principal Do?. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (Eds.) . Technology in its Place: Successful Technology Infusion in Schools. San Francisco, CA:Jossey- Bass Inc.Zimmerman, I.K. (2001).

Building Public Support: The Politics of Technology Transformation. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (Eds.). Technology in its Place: Successful Technology Infusion in Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Chapter 1 & 2: Teaching for Understanding with Technology

My interpretation of the key ideas in chapters one and two of Teaching for Understanding with Technology by Wiske, Franz, and Breit are as follows:

Chapter 1 Summary: Defining what it means to "understand" in an educational-technological context, exploring how the process of understanding works (an active process), and how teachers can pass this type of knowledge on to our students.

Civic preparation, cultural assimilation, and academic achievement are all admirable benefits of education (Wiske, Franz, and Breit, 2005) however ultimately the purpose of the traditional teacher-pupil relationship is to pass on knowledge. The increasingly complex nature of society, technology, and educational philosophies these days has made the process much more complex and difficult. How do we know if our kids really understand what we're teaching?

The authors define "understanding a topic" as "being able to perform flexibly with the topic - to explain, justify, extrapolate, relate, and apply in ways that go beyond knowledge and routine skill" (Wiske, et al., 2005) - which to me basically means education as a whole is an ongoing evolving process, not a cut-and-dry, black-and-white concept. There are many more options these days in terms of what to study and how to deliver content. We need to "cut the fat" to determine what is worthy of understanding, define what students need to grasp from a topic, and come up with an ongoing assessment that can authentically demonstrate their understanding (Wiske, et al. 2005). The chapter closes by outlining the framework for this Teaching for Understanding model, which follow five steps: Finding topics that are authentic and engaging, clearly defining goals, active creating/thinking that demonstrates understanding, and ongoing assessment with collaborative/shared reflection.

In terms of my own experiences, looking at the five steps outlined in the chapter, I have applied some of the concepts in my classes. Fostering intrinsic motivation is a goal for me in every lesson. I always try to create frameworks that offer relevance and authenticity (current and/or real world events, popular cultural icons, etc). I also make sure that my kids understand WHY they are going to perform a task or complete a project, so they understand it is not busy work.

Typically the next phase for me is to let the kids explore and go their own routes to finding answers. I act as a guide or reference and I allow them via trial and error to come up with solutions (to me this is active/creative thinking). Allows me room to differentiate or customize a lesson if a student is having difficulty achieving the objectives.

As for assessment, I usually assess my students in two ways: 1) did they participate in the "process" and buy into the lesson and 2) did their final product reflect the goals of the assignment. To me this would be ongoing assessment (at least the process grade is) although the authors might argue my second form of assessment is too narrow.

Finally, I typically have my kids performing different reflections during the process - usually during and after. An example of ongoing-reflection would be my Humanities classes that are currently completing group film projects (either stop-motion animation, a silent film short, or a mini-documentary). Each class I ask every individual (not group) to complete a reflection that asks various questions about the day -- might be what they accomplished during that class, their goals for the week, vision behind their film, or about the characters/settings they will be using. It covertly forces the groups communicate and ultimately streamlines their process to achieving their goal on time (the finished film).

Chapter 2 Summary: Defining "new technology" in the schools and what the "new technology" classroom looks and feels like.

The authors define new technology as "any new tools for information and communication beyond the ones traditionally used for teaching and learning" (Wiske, et al., 2005). The authors note that the classroom that utilizes this type of technology is quite different from the classroom of old - not only visually, but also procedurally as the focus turns from textbooks and worksheets to the students' experiences and interests (Wiske, et al., 2005).

IMHO a lot of the information in this chapter is obvious for anyone that has worked with technologies in the classroom. Textbooks, for example, in which every student has the same information presented in the same model, are nowhere near as flexible as the same information presented over different databases using different perspectives to appeal to different learning styles. That's more or less common sense. While there still may be room for some textbook activities (in-class readings for my English classes come to mind), ultimately the times have changed with advent of new educational technologies and our educational philosophies and techniques need to reflect and embrace those changes.

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

Chapter 1: Using Technology to Enhance Student Learning

What follows is my interpretation of the three key points of Chapter One of Technology in its Place: Successful Technology Infusion in Schools. The chapter, titled "Using Technology to Enhance Student Inquiry," discusses Ablilock's view of the teacher/librarian relationship, the role of the library in research, the distinction between simply "reporting" and "researching", and the nine steps of effective, enriching student research.

Key Point One: Librarian/Teacher Partnership and Creating a Research Center
Debbie Abilock writes about the importance educators and librarians to work together as a team to design activities that foster authentic student learning (2001). The goal of every teacher/librarian team should be to transform the library into a virtual "research center" that uses technology is multiple ways to answer multiple questions posed by problem-based learners (Abilock, 2001). At the heart of problem-based learning is the ongoing reflection that students encounter in the research process (Abilock, 2001). A research center provides all the necessary components for student to answer and reflect on questions such as: "What am I missing?", "Are my conclusions supported?", "Could I find contrary evidence?" (Abilock, 2001).

Key Point Two: Research vs. Report
Abilock makes a point to define research and differentiate between a "report" and "research". A "report", Abilock writes, is nothing more than reporting previously stated information while "research" is a process - asking questions, analyzing information/data, and drawing conclusions (Abilock, 2001). This is an important distinction for both teacher and students to understand.

Key PointThree: The Effective Research Process
Abilock uses an example from a program at Nueva Middle School in California to show educator the nine (9) stages of effective research: Defining, Focusing, Planning, Gathering, Organizing, Analyzing Data, Drawing Conclusions, Forming Convictions, and Evaluation the Process and Product (Abilock, 2001).

Sorting these nine stages into smaller groups, she summarizes Defining/Focusing/Planning as the three necessary components for clarity and rigor in their research (Abilock, 2001). Too often students dive into research without a clear understanding of what their hypothesis is and what questions they hope to address and answer. Defining the hypothesis, focusing on what they need to answer, and planning their course-of-action ensures that the students have a better and ultimately clearer picture of what they exactly they are researching (Abilock, 2001).

Gathering/Organizing/Analyzing Data are the next trio and this group represents the information gathering phase. Once students have a clearer understanding of what exactly they need to research, the next phase is to accumulate all the information possible surrounding their hypothesis, sorting relevant information and discarding less relevant data (Abilock, 2001). As the students accumulate data, the process nurtures students to develop additional questions, gain expertise, and anticipate problems or opposition to their hypothesis (Abilock, 2001).

Drawing Conclusions and Forming Conclusions is Abilock's next phase. This phase reminds students that research is analysis of information, not a report (see above), and that the product of research displays integrity (Abilock, 2001). Students write out on paper their discoveries and findings and support any conclusions in-writing with the aforementioned data analysis (Abilock, 2001).

Finally Evaluating the Process and the Product is the last phase in which students reflect on their research and ask critical questions such as: "What sources worked?", "What sources did not work", "What could have I done differently?", etc.

Resource:
Abilock, D. (2001). Using Technology to Enhance Student Inquiry. In LeBaron, J.F. & Collier C. (Eds). Technology in its Place: Successful Technology Infusion in Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.