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.