Over the winter break, I had quite a bit of time to revisit television shows that I enjoy. One of the shows that I found playing over and over again on several different channels was the somewhat addicting show Kitchen Nightmares starring British chef Gordon Ramsay. For those who have not seen the show, the premise of the show involves Ramsay and his quest to turn around a struggling restaurant and/or  a struggling family. While the plot can be somewhat formulaic (I find the BBC version of the show much more entertaining and less like FOX reality television) there is still a fair amount of entertainment watching the foul-mouthed chef transform a restaurant. Typically, Ramsay helps to create a menu that is usually described as simple, fast, and fresh.

When I returned to school after the break, as I sat in lesson planning sessions, it dawned on me that there may be some value of Ramsay’s mantra when it comes to educational technology. As I listened, I heard a lot of great ideas piled on top of each other to create a very large scale and lengthy project, I realized I might have been watching a “classroom nightmare”. When I use the word nightmare, I am not implying that the ideas were bad, but rather there were too many good ideas and not enough focus.

When trying to integrate technology into classrooms, we often fall into the trap that more technology is better.  If you shared a project where students used Google to research, wrote an outline in Microsoft Word, recorded their voice into a Voki, and embedded that Voki to a Glogster, most people would believe that it was an impressive project based on the amount of technology being used. However, when you dissect what learning objectives are taking place, the fact of the matter is the students are researching, organizing, and demonstrating knowledge or understanding. The question becomes, do all of those elements as well as the time it takes to complete them overshadow the learning objectives?

This is the trap of the classroom nightmare. Each of those components alone help students meet those objectives, yet when put together, it can dramatically impact how well those objectives are met.

CC via Flickr by gordonramsaysubmissions

Ramsay’s mantra of “simple, fast, and fresh” can help to avoid these kind of classroom nightmares.

Simple

In the show, chefs create overly complicated menus and dishes that in end diminish the quality of food and the restaurant itself. In the classrooms, teachers are tempted to create overly complicated lessons and projects when using technology in the classroom. Ramsay’s solution is to simplify the menus and focus on quality rather than quantity. This solution can be equally true in the classroom. By going back and focusing on the learning objectives, teachers can create simple lessons and projects that are focused. By focusing the lesson on a particular skill or tool, the student can achieve a single learning objective with greater success then if it was combined with several different types of objectives. For example, when researching a particular topic, a teacher might allow students to use Google search and use Google Docs to record notes. The problem with this lies in how much exposure the students have had to these tools. This lesson falls into the classroom nightmare trap if the students are learning about those tools simultaneously while still trying to process new information in the research. If the objective was to research new information, then a simplified lesson might still use Google Search, but it would most likely be broken into two smaller pieces where there is some pre-teaching of Google Search, and then the focus would be on the quality of the information itself. If the students didn’t have exposure to Google Docs, then it might just be better to use note-cards or a process the students are familiar with as to not draw the focus off of the research. Then it might be appropriate use a second lesson to accomplish the next objective of organizing and understanding the research where students might use Google Docs. By breaking down and simplifying the tasks based on objectives, the student is more likely succeed.

Fast

One of the goals of a restaurant each night is to turn tables, and on the show Ramsay stresses that by creating a simple menu that will allow for faster preparation, thus more customers. Fast does not mean that quality should be sacrificed, but rather it should allow for more opportunities for high quality. In the classroom, the same concept of doing something quickly applies. By keeping lessons simple and short, there will be more opportunities for different types of learning. For example, too often lessons or projects involving technology are so complex that they span several hours or class times. The duration of the project not only lessens the impact of the learning objectives, but also takes away opportunities to create new lessons or find different ways to reinforce and practice concepts.

Fresh

Above all, Ramsay preaches keeping things fresh. Frozen or processed food not only doesn’t taste good, and ultimately won’t draw people to the restaurant. The same can be said for keeping things fresh in the classroom. Outdated lessons and irrelevant content hurt student engagement and motivation. When integrating technology, lessons can also become stale if students consistently use a single tool isolation. For example, if a student only used Microsoft Word for composition and editing, there is a high likelihood that the student will lose the motivation to use and be creative while using the tool. However, by using different tools for composition and editing such as Google Docs in conjunction with Microsoft Word and Apples Pages, the student can use each tool to help meet different learning objectives. Where Microsoft Word can be great for individual composition, Google Docs can provide an incredible collaborative experience in both composition and editing. Apple’s Pages can do well with composition, but can serve as a great publishing tool using the ePub format. Each of these tools can be used for slightly different objectives in addition to basic composition. By keeping the tool and the content fresh and relevant, students will be more motivated to use the technology tools to accomplish their tasks.

Like the restaurants, many teachers start out with the best intentions when planning lessons. However, technology has the ability to distract teacher from their learning objectives. Technology provides many amazing opportunities for creativity, collaboration and communication, but some times it provides too many opportunities. Remember, less can be more. The next time that you plan to integrate technology into a lesson, remember your objectives and ask yourself: “Is it simple, fast, and fresh”?

I have always found TED a valuable resource for new ideas and inspirations. So it was no surprise that I was inspired when I saw this video in 2009. The following is a clip of David Merril, an MIT grad student who helped to create tiny computerized cubes that can be stacked, shuffled and played with in your hands.

Immediately I was inspired by the possibilities of the interactive cubes and envisioned them in the hands of students in the classroom. The demonstration showed rather intuitive electronic cubes that interacted wirelessly with a computer, in addition to interacting with the other cubes. I was excited to see the way kids interacted with the cubes in the demo, and I found the Sifteo website to sign up for more information.

At the same time, my school principal and I had been looking for tools to be part of an creativity and innovation lab in our school. We both thought it would be worth trying the cubes, and we signed up to purchase them when they became available. We ordered a set of 6 cubes, and they arrived at the end of last year.

Initially the software offerings were not much, and some of the games cost money to purchase in addition to several free games that came with the software. We decided to wait until the fall to roll these out with students, but we struggled to find how we could introduce them to a classroom. However, one of the recent changes to the Sifteo software was the addition the Creative Kit, which allows users to create their own activities. While Sifteo offered the software SDK to users to create and submit games, the offering of the Creative Kit allows for teachers to customize their activities, as well as offering an opportunity for differentiation.

At this time, the Creative Kit is limited to mostly sorting activities, but there is a lot of potential to this concept. First and second grade teachers in our building are excited at the potential of using these cubes for an independent student center.

We brought in several 2nd graders after school to act as a focus group. The kids were excited to play with the new tool, and worked together to figure out how to use them with limited instruction. We designed two different levels of spelling activities for the students, and we were concerned how having a small group of students would work together on the activity. Would we have to instruct students on switching the person who is using the cubes? Surprisingly, the students worked well together sharing the cubes and working cooperatively.

One thing that I found especially interesting was when the fact that we had the answer sheet sitting on the table during the activity. Because we were using a random list of 2nd grade words, we were concerned that they wouldn’t know the all the words, so we allowed them to check the answer sheet if necessary. One of the girls picked up the sheet, checked her answer, and quickly turned the paper over. I asked her why she turned it over and she said, “I wanted to challenge myself”. I thought that comment exemplified how the students took to the cubes; they wanted the challenge. They wanted to not only learn how to use the cubes, but they wanted to excel at the lessons.

This type of student motivation and engagement were enough to convince to teacher to roll these out in their classrooms after winter break as a student center.

While I have seen Sifteo marketed as a toys and educational tools, I feel like as the software evolves these can become a very powerful tool for students. One feature that has not yet been included but was shown in the initial video was using the Sifteo cubes to control objects and elements on the computer. For example, they showed a child interacting with a virtual story where the cubes represented different story elements. This could be an exciting feature for educational purposes for a wide range of our students.

This is a very encouraging product, but it still has a long way to go before it can become a ubiquitous tool in our schools.

Several years ago, I became frustrated by hearing of teachers lessons that were derailed by technology problems. Things like the wireless dropping connection, a website not loading correctly, or a camera unable to download pictures had the potentiality to stop a lesson dead in its tracks and discourage teachers from being creative. The fear of something not working overshadowed the possibility for rich lesson.

The same type of problems occurred when students would be working on projects, and they were faced with any kind of problem outside the scope of the directions. The students would just stop work, raise their hand, and wait for someone to come and help them on to the next part of the project.

While these cases aren’t true for all students and teachers, they occurred enough to look at what could be done to empower both to overcome those issues. Around the same time, schools were exploring different avenues of both student enrichment and empowerment. Having done some research on the web looking for programs for students and technology, and talking to both our student and staff, we created Tech STARS (Student Technology Advocates and Resources).

The purpose of this program would to empower students as leaders and advocates for technology, while providing them training on troubleshooting and other tools used throughout our curriculum. We decided that lunch-time would be the best time for this club, and while I work between buildings, I would travel during lunch to help run these sessions.

In order to keep the numbers manageable, we decided that 2-3 students per classroom would be the most that we could accommodate. We also encouraged teachers to select students who filled out a slip expressing their desire to become a Tech STAR, rather than teacher choosing the “most responsible” students. To help encourage students to sign up, I created this video as a commercial to be shown in the classrooms.

The response to both the video and the concept were overwhelming. It was particularly gratifying to see that students who don’t typically volunteer were eager to join. I had several parents approach me at an open house this fall, either thanking me for having their child in the club, or telling me that their child couldn’t wait until after break to have a chance to be at Tech STAR. I even had a parent come to me and told me that their child made it a priority to come find me over his classroom teacher at open house just to show off his new iPhone 4s.

The sessions for Tech STARS take place during lunch recess time and online using Edmodo. Edmodo is a website that can be best described as Facebook meets Moodle. The website allows me to create a course for Tech STARS where I can have discussions, video resources, polls, and quizzes. This has become an incredibly important tool for the club.

Typically, the sessions include some type of hands on experience for the students. For example, students got to see what the inside of a computer looks like, or practices taking pictures with new digital cameras before teachers received the cameras in the classrooms. They have also created helpful posters using Comic Life to model examples of the right and wrong ways to use computers. These sessions have been enjoyable, but often do not provide enough time to explore anything in great detail. That is where Edmodo has come in.

Using badges that I have created in Edmodo, I have created an incentive system for students. After each session, as an assessment for that particular topic, I create a 3 question “basics” quiz focusing on the most important elements of that day’s concept. The students then have the option to take that quiz, and earn a “basic badge” for that topic. There are no grades for Tech STARS, yet over 70% of the students take these quizzes to earn badges on their profile.

In addition to the basic quizzes, students can take “expert” quizzes. These quizzes come before the lesson, and include video or web resources that in essence teach the concepts that we will using in the following lesson (much like a flipped classroom). The students can then take the quiz in which they need to get 7/10 on the first attempt to be an expert. Over 50% of the students attempt these quizzes each week. Students are also encouraged to participate in discussion questions, as well as posting their own tech questions to the group in Edmodo.

We have begun to work with teachers when designing lessons where the Tech STARS can help teach or support the various technology components that they have learned. For example, students who used the new Kodak Ze1 cameras first in Tech STARS were able to help teach their class how to use their cameras for a lesson back in the classroom. One student even wrote a letter to his teachers asking them to use Edmodo in their 5th grade classroom, providing examples of how it may be used. Those classes are scheduled to start using Edmodo this month for their reading groups.

So far, we have been very excited by the early results of the Tech STARS program. There is tangible evidence that the students are using this knowledge in their classrooms, and the teachers are using them as resources.

I would love to hear about any similar programs and experiences, or answer any questions about how Tech STARS works. Leave your comments below.

Over the past several months, we have been implementing the TPACK Professional Development framework (as outlined on this site) in several schools. To help introduce this process, I have created a slideshow to outline the goals for the framework. Several schools are using the framework in its entirety, while others have chosen parts to implement this year.

The goal of the framework is to provide teachers with a focus on objectives, a method to evaluate technology tools, and the time to apply to their curriculum.In addition, we have chosen to use this framework as a year-long process in addition to supporting our school improvement goals. This framework sets out to accomplish the following goals:

1. Create shared vocabulary and experiences for teachers

2. Make sharing relevant for all

3. Deliver focused technology professional development

4. Make technology integration easy.

Ultimately, the process involves a shift in teacher thinking. Rather than “toolcentric” thinking, where lessons begin or are heavily influenced by a technology tool, the framework puts an emphasis on the importance of “objective-focused” planning when looking to integrate technology.

We have already seen signs of success as we are moving towards the application piece of this framework. Teachers have begun to use “affordances and constraints” when choosing a tool for their lesson. There have also been times when teachers have concluded that the use of technology would not be needed to meet their objectives.

By practicing this evaluation technique, teachers do not feel forced to use the technology. Rather, they have more ownership of the technology components when integrated into lessons because they understand how it will help students meet the objectives of the lesson. They have also become more conscious of the skills that students need to use the technology, and to not let that overshadow the original learning objectives.

Ultimately, while we have chosen several focus tools to help drive this professional development, the goal is for teachers to apply this process to other tools throughout the year. This process, has already begun to shift the focus off of simply using technology for technology sake, and started meaningful discussions on the role of technology in the classroom that we will carry on throughout the year.

Now that teachers have a working knowledge about a handful of technology tools because of the Focus Tools and they are able to identify the pedagogical strategies in which the tools can be integrated,  they can now look at the curriculum content to find ways to integrate the technology.

In order to do this, we will use a model developed by Judi Harris and Mark Hofer at the College of William and Mary. To help teachers use TPACK, they created a series of content-based activity types to help create awareness or the range of learning activities that are matched with digital and non-digital technology. Their primary focus is on teacher planning. They believe that, just as I have illustrated with the tool analogy, that many teachers fall into the trap of what they call “technocentric” planning. This type of tool-first planning, often ignores or short changes the pedagogy and the content. Through their research, they have come up with countless types of learning activities. However, the learning activity types fall into three distinct categories.

The first category is “Knowledge Building Activities”.  These are activities, as the name implies that focus on the process not only acquiring knowledge, but deepening understanding as well. Example activity types for Knowledge Building for social studies are: reading text, group discussions, field trips, and simulations. It is important to note that Harris and Hofer have developed learning activities that are specific to the different content areas. In addition to identifying the activity types, they also provide examples of possible technologies. So for reading text, students could use web sites or electronic books.

This is where the previous trainings and concepts that I have discussed can be applied. The activity-types and possible technologies are merely examples of how teachers can integrate technology into the lessons. What makes these especially powerful, is when coupled with ability to evaluate tools with affordances and constraints, teachers are able to determine whether or not the recommended tool fits their learning activity.

For example, if they activity type was to read text for a social studies lesson, the teacher could choose to use a website/websearch, eBook, or their textbook. Each of these tools comes with their own affordances and constraints. A textbook will often contain a limited amount of text with a typically narrow focus depending on the subject. However, the textbook is written at an age appropriate level and contains content that in most cases linked to content-area standards. Websites offer a variety of information from a wide array of view points. Students can use these sites to study a topic at great depth. They also allow for inquiry based learning and self-discovery for the student. Yet, many of these sites are not written at an age appropriate level. Depending on the source, the information may not always be accurate. Lastly, because of the amount of information, it may be overwhelming to the student. While this example may seem tedious, it is important to illustrate that using technology is not always appropriate and depends on the goal for the activity. This type of thinking reinforces the importance of teacher planning when creating lessons that blend technology, pedagogy, and content.

The second and third categories for learning activity types are “Convergent and Divergent Knowledge Expression”. These are learning activities that provide students the opportunities to demonstrate and express their understandings. Convergent knowledge and divergent knowledge, a distinction first made by Hudson (1967) , focus on the type of knowledge that can be assessed. Convergent knowledge is more facts and numbers, is more concrete, and typically is knowledge that a teacher wants all students to have learned. Whereas divergent knowledge is more broad, but more can be more creative and open-ended. Once again, when planning, it is important for teachers to determine what type(s) of knowledge expression they expect from the students, and Harris and Hofer provide examples of compatible technologies. The same process applies to these activity types as well. Teachers should be able to evaluate the affordances and constraints of the technologies when planning for these types of activities.

Examples of convergent knowledge expression activities might be: answer questions, create at time line, or take a test. Examples of divergent knowledge expression activities are: write an essay, draw a cartoon, generate questions, or to design an exhibit. In each of these activities, technology is suggested, but only necessary based on the teacher’s objectives for the students.

These activity types are the final step in this process of professional development for TPACK and Systemic Integration. In collaborative planning, teachers should be able to articulate the activity types and learning objectives for their students in a given lesson or unit. In co-planning with technology specialists, librarians, administrators, or fellow teachers, suggestions for technology can be made and evaluated.

For more information, and a list of the activity types, visit http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/.

Previous TPACK and Systemic Integration Posts:

Part Five

Part Four

Part Three

Part Two

Part One

References:

Harris, J.B., Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416. (.pdf)

Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). “Grounded” technology integration: Planning with curriculum-based learning activity types. Learning & Leading With Technology, 37(2), 22-25.

While much of the focus thus far has been on the tool itself, it now time to look at how to begin integrating them into the curriculum. Looking back at the tool analogy, it is import to remember the absurdity of walking into a room with a power drill and asking what you can use it on. Rather, the more effective method would be to identify the task first, then apply the tool based on what it is you are doing.

To understand how technology can be integrated into the curriculum, I have started simplifying technology integration into the 4 C’s of technology integration. In that, nearly every technology tool that students would use would fit into one of these basic categories: (Content) Consumption, Communication, Collaboration, and Creation. Instead of solely examining the tool, we can use that knowledge as we identify what it is we would like our students to do. The following are an explaination or examples of the 4 C’s.

Consumption of Content: This refers to how students consume content. Are the students using textbooks? Are the students consuming content from mixed media sources like YouTube, Wikipedia, Discovery Education or eBooks? Not only are the types of content important to consider, but also the devices we use to consume them.
How students consume content can impact the pedagogy we use to teach the content, and the technology affords many different possibilities and constraints.

Collaboration: Many of the current web-based (cloud) tools available make collaboration relatively easy and seamless. These sites and tools allow students to work together both synchronously and asynchronously, as well as from home and school. In addition to web-based collaboration tools, the instructional strategies we use in the classroom could allow for individual tools to be used in a collaborative way such as iPads, Mimios, and Flip cameras.

Communication: Technology affords our students to reach a larger audience than ever before. It also makes it possible for students to connect with others around the world. Using technology tools to communicate, share, and publish to different audiences is an important part of a student’s education. Students may use technology to chat with others, email pen-pals, or publish stories and art online for the world to see. Communication can also include discussion boards, reflective blogs, and commenting other people’s work.

Creation: Using technology to create allows students ways to demonstrate and apply what they have learned. Students can use the technology tools to create, publish and share using a wide variety of multimedia options. Technology tools can allow us to differentiate performance assessments and appeal to students multiple intelligences.

Once teachers are able to identify the 4 C’s, the next step is to begin to apply the technology tools. Teachers may note that many of the focus tools fall into more than one category. This step is critical as it moves the focus off of the tool, and encourages the teachers to be able to determine how a tool would be used.

The final steps in this plan for systemic integration continues to build off of the 4 C’s, and will focus much more on the learning activities. It will also refer back to the affordances and constraints as allows teachers to see how technology and pedagogy relate, and how to determine the best tool for the task.

Part Four

Part Three

Part Two

Part One

Once the focus tools are selected, the next step is learning how to learn about and evaluate those tools. To begin, each of the focus tools should be defined. This definition should be detailed enough that someone would have an idea of what the tool is and how it can be used, but concise in that it does not overwhelm a user. The definition should also be shared with students and parents, or made available online for easy access. By creating a simple definition, it begins to create a shared vocabulary that can be used at both home and school.

Any example definition of Google Apps for Education could be: “A suite of online applications that are designed to allow people to collaborate in real time, or share documents, spreadsheets, or presentations with each other. Users can log-in using any Internet connection to access their files”.

This is an overly simplistic example of Google Apps, but it features key words that explains what the software can be used for, as well as how it can be used. The definition references documents, spreadsheets and presentations, which are the main features of Google Docs. In addition, it makes reference to the fact that you can access your information from anywhere with an internet connection, which lets you know that the software doesn’t reside in a computer lab or classroom and can be used from home. Lastly, it talks about the fact that Google Apps can be a collaborative space and allows people to share their documents or work. Google Apps may have more features than what is listed in the definition, but this is a starting point for explaining the basic and core functions based on how they are used in a particular school.

Once a definition has been created for the focus tools, the next step is to introduce the idea of “Affordances and Constraints”. For each tool, there are features or aspects of that tool that makes it particularly useful, while there may also be features that make it more difficult to use than others. This is the beginning of the evaluation process.  By first defining the tool, and now determining the affordances and constraints, teachers are building the capacity to evaluate other tools in the future.

When determining the affordances for a tool, it is important to use the following questions to help identify what they are:

• How does it support 21st Century skills?
• How do students and staff access the tool?
• How flexible is this tool?
• Can it be used to publish/share content?
• Is it multimodal?
• Does it allow of accountability/assessment?

These questions allow for teachers to craft a list of affordances that a particular tool offers. Once again, this list should be shared the same as the definition. By creating this list, it will help teachers apply a tool based on a task, and to determine which tool would be the most appropriate. Conversely, the same can be said by creating a list of constraints. The same set of questions can be used to help determine the constraints of using a tool. Additionally, it is also important to identify how much background training or knowledge students and staff need to use those tools. Some tools do require a good deal of setup on the back-end to use them seamlessly in a lesson, and that may affect how the tool is integrated.

This method of evaluating tools is something that should be continued throughout the year, and encouraged when doing any kind of collaborative lesson planning.

Now that the tools have been established and an evaluation method has been developed, I will no longer focus on the tool. As I mention in Part 1, this framework is designed to deepen the understanding of how technology relates and affects pedagogy, and vice versa. It also puts the focus of integration on the learning task or activity, rather than the tool. However, I believe in order to get teachers to that point, it is important to begin on a common ground. Focus tools allow us to begin at a common ground and takes the onus off of having to teach too many tools. In the next post, I will begin to look at how technology can be integrated into the curriculum.

Part 3

Part 2

Part 1

With the advent of Web 2.0 technology and the increasing affordability of mobile devices, it seems that the choices for educational technology tools are virtually limitless. While, this provides teachers with unprecedented access to technology tools, it also creates a challenge for systemic integration of technology. To go back to the tool analogy of hanging a picture with a hammer and nail, with the current technology, it would be as if there were thousands of choices of the type of hammer and nail to accomplish the task. While the variety may be helpful to some and offer a great deal of choice, it makes it difficult to choose which tool might be best. The same can be said for educational technology. When there are too many choices, it becomes difficult for teachers to select the best tool for the task. Some teachers may enjoy the wide amount of choices, but some may feel overwhelmed, and are less likely to integrate because of that.

Source: http://www.devwebpro.com/web20-logos/

To help alleviate this problem, I am proposing a set of “focus tools” for each school. Focus tools would be a series of 3-5 tools that a school can identify for use across the entire school. These focus tools will help to focus professional development and curriculum planning. The focus tools can be chosen based on the following criteria:

1. Ease of use / Prior Exposure
2. High flexibility
3. Affordability / Access

The first criteria of a focus tool is that it must be something that has a relatively low learning curve. It should be something that teachers and students should be able to use with little or no training. Wikispaces  is an example of a tool that is easy for both staff and students to use. Essentially, the most important components of using a wiki are “edit and save”. Obviously, a wiki can be far more robust, but by mastering those basic functions, both teachers and students are able to use a wiki. By selecting a focus tool based on the ease of use, it allows for faster adoption of the tool, and less classroom or professional development time for training. The second component of this is that it may be important to select a tool that staff and students had had some prior exposure to. While they may not have used the tool extensively in the past, it may help that they are at least aware of the tool and its capabilities. Just because a tool is easy to use, it does not guarantee that teachers will be able to evaluate the tool for its affordances and constraints, or that they know how to integrate it into the curriculum.

Secondly, the tool should be one that is highly flexible. Mitch Resnick describes these types of tools by saying, “Technology needs to provide us with a low floor (an easy way to get started) and a high ceiling (lots of possibilities for taking things even further). There also needs to be wide walls, so that projects can be extended into other domains”. When selecting focus tools for a school, this is an important consideration in that it is important to not select a tool that is typically only used for a limited purpose.

Lastly, the tools need to be something that are affordable, or something that a school has wide access to already. For example, while iPads may be more affordable than laptops, it would be unwise to select that as a focus tool unless the school already had a great deal of iPads, or enough to logically accommodate most lessons. Another aspect of access, is does not deal with the question of how many, but rather how accessible the tool is to students. Applications or tools that are only available at school, or  for that mater a particular location in the school (e.g. a computer lab), would not be a good choice as a focus tool because the access is limited. Tools that are available to students and staff from home and school would make ideal focus tools based on the availability and access, and would be far more likely to to be used by students and staff.

Based on these criteria, I would recommend that the entire staff of the school be involved in the selection of these focus tools. This would allow for shared decision-making, but it would also provide an opportunity for discussion and evaluation of these tools, thus laying the groundwork for the on-going professional development for the year. By identifying these focus tools, it will help guide professional development for the school year. Trainings can be offered on those particular tools, and they can also be used to help facilitate future professional development experiences.

By selecting a small selection of focus tools, it also helps in building common vocabulary and common experiences amongst the staff. Curriculum planning meetings can focus on those particular tools, and the resources and lessons created can be used more universally amongst the staff. Sharing sessions can be built into building meetings or professional development days that highlight both the successes and the struggles teachers may have had while using these tools. However, because there is a common understanding or implied usage of the tools amongst staff, they may be more likely to assist in troubleshooting and brainstorming of ideas than before.

It is important to not that these tools do not limit teacher’s ability to select alternative tools. Rather, by focusing on how to evaluate the focus tools and apply them to learning tasks through professional development, teachers will be more likely to use those skills to identify alternative tools that fit the learning task.

Next, I will introduce how these focus tools will become the guide for professional development and how we can begin to build teachers capacity for evaluation and how they can be integrated into curriculum.

Part Two

Part One

The Analogy

In order to set the stage for our professional development, I begin with an analogy to help illustrate how we would like teachers to re-frame their thinking.

Imagine if you were asked to hang a picture on the wall. In order to do so, you are presented with three tools: a hammer and nails, a wrench, or a circular saw. Which of these tools would you choose?

Of course, most people would select the hammer and nail as the appropriate tool. However, the next question is how did you know it was the right tool? Do you use that tool every day? Did you take classes on how to use that tool?

The reality is most people don’t use that tool everyday, yet through exposure to the tool or previous experience, they realize that it is the right tool for the job. There is a basic understanding of the tool and task at hand that allow people to determine which tool is best. In addition, the task itself is relatively straightforward, and the tool is rather simple in nature allowing it to be easily selected. By focusing on the task at hand, the selection of the tool is pretty simple.

Looking at technology integration in schools can be quite the opposite experience. Through purchases of new hardware, or exposure to various types of software, educators often begin their planning with the tool first, instead of the task. Pressure from administration, peers or parents have teachers looking at how they can integrate the hot tools like an iPad. I have seen professional development focused entirely on how tools work rather than what types of tasks the tools can be used. Which is not to say that the professional development is of poor quality or a waste of time, but it leaves educators to make their own connections and apply these tools on their own.

Going back to the analogy, imagine walking into a room with a power drill and asking “what can I use this on today“? The idea seems rather silly, but in reality that is how many educators approach technology integration. In order to change this mindset, the focus needs to be brought back to the task, rather than the tool.

As with the tools for hanging a picture that are not used on a daily basis, there are many tools that teachers do not use on a daily basis but still have a basic understanding of what the tool is. The next step to this is to deepen the understanding of the tool, how it can be used, what it tasks can be used for, and how that tool can be used in conjunction with other tools.

For example, if you were once again asked to hang a picture, only this time you were given three tools: hammer and nail, a level, and a tape measure; would you know how to use all three together? The task itself is still the same, however you are now able to use different tools together to achieve the same task. However you might think using three tools to hang one picture may be overkill, and that is a very important evaluation to make. The amount of work, time and energy to using all those tools to accomplish a simple task might not be worth it. Although, if the complexity of the task changed, and you were asked to hang three pictures, using multiple tools together might become necessary.

Both the complexity of the tool and the task have an effect on each other. This is an important relationship between tool and task. The skill of being able to evaluate both of these relationships while planning leads to effective integration.

This analogy illustrates the direction of our professional development and our ultimate goals for the year. In the next post, I will look at a way in which we plan to address the technology tools in our district in order to streamline professional development and create common vocabulary amongst staff so that we may begin laying the groundwork for understanding the relationships between tasks and tools.

Introduction:

Throughout the next school year, our district has chosen to use TPACK, a framework developed by Matthew Koehler & Punya Mishra 2006 out of Michigan State University. The framework sets out to address and analyze the intersections between three areas of knowledge (Technology Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge, and Content Knowledge). While they admit on their website that none of these are new concepts, the idea of studying the relationships between each of the areas is relatively new.

Source: http://tpack.org/

Essentially, TPACK goes beyond looking at each of these areas in isolation, rather it tries to explore the complex relationships between each of these types of knowledge. Most importantly, it encourages educators to explore and understand these relationships. If an educator has a grasp or understanding of these relationships, it is more likely to lead to effective and purposeful technology integration.

TPACK provides our district with the framework for educators and administrators to recognize the importance and relationship between technology, pedagogy and content when planning professional development experiences. Traditionally, much of the professional development in the district has focused on only one of these areas, and has not explored the how it relates with the other two areas. For example, teachers may have been offered classes on Wikis or provided with professional development on differentiation. While each of these trainings may have been successful in teaching about the particular topic, teachers were left to make connections between these areas on their own. Teachers with a good deal of experience teaching and a strong grasp of pedagogical strategies, may have an easier time integrating technology, but may struggle if they do not have much knowledge about a particular technology tool. Whereas a “tech-savvy” teacher with less teaching experience may struggle to find ways to use various tools in the classroom.

In addition, teachers receive different trainings throughout the year, but many are not exposed to the same training. For example, a grade-level team may be exposed to a certain strategy while receiving professional development, whereas another team may have learned about a particular technology tool. While each team has the opportunity for growth, the organization as whole usually does not. There are limited amounts of time to share what has been learned outside of grade level teams, and typically the knowledge gained remains within the teams.

Lastly, our district has done a phenomenal job of providing teachers and students with access to technology. In addition, our teachers are exposed to a wide variety of tools through in-services and conferences outside of the district. However, with this access and knowledge comes the idea of of overexposure. Teachers are finding there are many different tools available for a task, and because of this, many are unsure of which is the best tool. Teachers are free to explore on their own and use a variety of tools, but this is limited to those who are truly interested about learning on their own and experimenting. When these tools are shared with staff, many of the teachers are left to wonder the tools apply to what they are doing in the classroom, or are overwhelmed by the amount of resources available.

It is from these dilemmas that I have developed a framework and a series of guidelines that address the idea of systemic technology integration. In meeting with teachers and administrators from various districts and experience levels, I believe that the following series of post will address many of the concerns and problems with technology integration in schools. Over the next few weeks, I will discuss the various components of this framework and how they can be implemented in any school district in order to maximize the effectiveness and provide a means for systemic technology integration.