Most recent public comments by Corinne McCabe https://nowcomment.com/users/41058 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050312 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050312 While I understand your thinking about Mishra's model not being focused on communication and collaboration, I think that he presents a more balanced model of 21st Century Learning. I see your point regarding the emphasis in this article. Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:42:30 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050311 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050311 Meaningful learning is rooted in realistic, relatable experiences requiring a shift in thinking and planning from schools. This relates to Zhao's ideas about an ecological framework which consists of adaptation and coevolution. Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:39:40 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050309 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050309 As adults, we connect with individuals who we may think are like-minded via social media, some even growing personal learning networks (PLNs) to advance our own learning. Why shouldn't students have that same opportunity? I believe gaining insight from others is so important in the learning process and technology provides students with the capability of making those connections around the world. This is the epitome of redefinition in the SAMR model and what Mishra refers to as "meta-knowledge." Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:15:51 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050307 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050307 The most significant learning typically comes from what Ito described as a "passionate interest." I think schools need to focus on interest-driven learning opportunities (genius hour, passion projects, etc.). When students are truly engaged, they are motivated to push themselves to learn and apply what they are learning. Fri, 27 Jul 2018 11:03:51 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050306 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050306 I think unbundling content from instruction makes it more accessible, but as Ito stated--the already highly educated are the ones seeking it out. This makes me think that instruction or some sort of facilitation is still necessary. I do think offering some sort of credentialing makes the time invested in MOOCs worthwhile in the eyes of the student. Who doesn't want to earn those digital badges to embed in their email signature?! Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:03:04 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050305 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050305 I believe that without some base of knowledge (or cross-referencing skills), determining reliable sources of information can be difficult. I agree with Ito's statement in that we need to help our students learn to connect, evaluate and synthesize the information they are seeing. If we do that, we are setting our students up for success regardless of the subject-matter. Thu, 26 Jul 2018 19:44:52 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050303 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050303 I fully agree with your comments, Adam. I'd like to add that the teacher now needs to shift his/her role to facilitating the exploration of information. It's more important than ever for teachers to help their students analyze information to determine its credibility. Thu, 26 Jul 2018 19:27:16 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050302 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050302 It is interesting to think and realize that students today have never experienced the world (or learning) without access to the Internet. This reminds me of the time a kindergartener asked me a question, and my response was, "That's a great question! How might we find an answer to that question?" Another kindergartner shouted, "Ask Siri!" That stopped me dead in my tracks and made me consider their world and how it has always included technology as a learning tool. Thu, 26 Jul 2018 23:31:15 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106298?scroll_to=1049635 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106298?scroll_to=1049635 ...they are always an issue--especially in education! Mon, 23 Jul 2018 16:32:21 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106298?scroll_to=1049634 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106298?scroll_to=1049634 I have to agree with you, Ryan. The idea of using the two approaches in unison makes the most sense. And like you said, just because someone marks a PD session as valuable, does not necessarily mean that they have transferred their learning into practice. Mon, 23 Jul 2018 16:31:35 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106298?scroll_to=1049632 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106298?scroll_to=1049632 Hi Ryan, I have found that if I build in time for participants to take the survey as part of the PD session, they are much more thoughtful in their responses (and they actually complete it). Every time I've sent out a survey link after a PD session, I struggle to get responses. Mon, 23 Jul 2018 16:29:05 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106298?scroll_to=1048851 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106298?scroll_to=1048851 As a professional development leader in my school district, I have found that all parts of this framework are important. Collecting data around satisfaction is easily done through the use of surveys (and "repeat customers"). In my school district, we offer LEAD courses (non-mandatory PD classes on a variety of topics). I tend to develop some of those courses based on the needs and requests of my staff. I consider them successful when I have teachers asking me to develop more courses. Moving into level 2 can also occur through surveys or brief assessments. I think this data can also be collected through observations and discussions with teachers. Learning is actually part of our coaching cycle, and my job allows for me to reflect with teachers on their learning. I believe Level 3 is more difficult to evaluate, although it is most important because it is where the "change" occurs. Change in practice would be the evidence at this level, and might be evidenced through observations. In my role, I have to walk a fine line...if my teachers feel I am "observing" them to evaluate, all trust will be lost. Typically, our administrators are the ones looking for change. I just quietly observe and collect data in my mind for further PD opportunities. Finally, the ultimate goal of all professional development in education should be to positively impact student learning. However, there are so many factors which go into student achievement that it would be very difficult to attribute successes to one PD. But, what if instead of doing one-and-done type PD, we focused on one topic and went in depth with that one topic over the course of a year. Could we then say that it is more likely the PD attributed to student growth? Fri, 20 Jul 2018 12:01:38 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106298?scroll_to=1048849 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106298?scroll_to=1048849 I think observation, reflection logs/journals and interviews/discussions with teachers about their practice is the an effective way to determine value of ETPD. There is this lack of trust and autonomy that comes with the word "evaluation," which makes everyone uncomfortable. For example, teachers feel judged by having to "prove" their effectiveness as teachers. I think there needs to be a shift in thinking among the way evaluations of teacher effectiveness occur--then we might see teachers being more willing to reflect, share and grow. Fri, 20 Jul 2018 11:50:57 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106298?scroll_to=1048846 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106298?scroll_to=1048846 If we want teachers to implement technologies in meaningful ways, they must be prepared to do so--this includes understanding the scope of said technology. Fri, 20 Jul 2018 11:41:36 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106298?scroll_to=1048845 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106298?scroll_to=1048845 The notion of participants being, "assigned entirely by chance and have a nonzero probability of falling into in each group," in a school setting where student needs are typically for student placement purposes could prove very difficult. In addition, longitudinal studies would need to be completed and that could be difficult, particularly in areas with transient populations. Fri, 20 Jul 2018 11:38:15 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106298?scroll_to=1048841 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106298?scroll_to=1048841 ...teacher requests for follow-up with a support (i.e. instructional coach, assistant principal, principal, other support staff) might also be an indication of successful PD. Fri, 20 Jul 2018 10:57:47 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106298?scroll_to=1048840 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106298?scroll_to=1048840 While I think there is value to the typical end-of-session surveys, I do not think evaluation of professional development (PD) should stop there. Just as we expect students to transfer learning to their practices, we should expect teachers would do the same (if the PD were effective). The trouble is in finding ways to measure the actual impact of PD, rather than the immediate satisfaction of a PD session. This is where I believe qualitative measurements might be helpful. Observations, interviews with teachers as follow-up, team discussions, etc. could all serve as evidence that a PD session (or sessions) was successful. Mon, 23 Jul 2018 16:29:05 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105127?scroll_to=1038407 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105127?scroll_to=1038407 Couros (2015) explained, "Innovation is often used as a synonym for technology (which it is not), or to describe something that is simply “new”. Innovation can happen in all areas of our world today, both inside and education." That being said, one is being innovative when he or she does something new or makes something better that makes an impact. I think we throw around the word, "innovation" quite frequently in education (it seems to be the current buzzword). For example, in my district, a few of our school libraries were remodeled and renamed as "Innovation" Centers. I find this extremely interesting considering they are still being used in the same exact way that they were before the remodel--just with brighter colors, more windows and a few pieces of technology. I do not see teachers bringing their classes to these centers to do anything they couldn't do in their own classroom (or to simply check out books). Demanding "innovation" would prove to be pretty difficult since there is no one clear definition. Thu, 14 Jun 2018 18:30:21 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105127?scroll_to=1038406 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105127?scroll_to=1038406 While one might assume teachers entering the field of education would already possess strong technology skills, this is often not the case. Many universities provide minimal coursework on educational technology. In addition, the limited coursework rarely focuses on pedagogy over the basics. I often wonder why this is the case, when we have frameworks in place in which pedagogy is such a large component. The good news is that I believe both proficiency and pedagogy are things which can be taught (although the latter would prove a bit more difficult). However, I am not fully convinced that social awareness is a skill which can be taught to mastery. I think knowing where to go for support can be learned, but can having "the ability to negotiate the social aspects of the school culture" be taught? I'm curious to hear what others think. Thu, 14 Jun 2018 18:18:11 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105127?scroll_to=1038377 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105127?scroll_to=1038377 By Dr. Zhao and his colleagues shifting the conversation to focus on the "conditions" for technology innovations, they shift the focus from student achievement to the creating an environment conducive to innovative practices. Having an awareness of the conditions under which technology innovation is successful would allow for adjustment (adding or removing conditions) within the classroom. Thu, 14 Jun 2018 17:29:52 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105127?scroll_to=1038375 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105127?scroll_to=1038375 I believe some of these factors might include: Time (or lack of time) - In a nation were student scores drive teacher evaluations, state/federal funding and success, teachers feel the pressure to "cover" the curriculum and technology integration might be looked at as something "extra." Confidence (or lack of confidence) - The more comfortable teachers are in their own technological capabilities, the more likely they are to use them with their students. I am curious to hear others' ideas, and to keep reading! Sun, 17 Jun 2018 17:22:24 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104915?scroll_to=1037278 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104915?scroll_to=1037278 Zolt's description of assessments as, "low pressure, high yield," is a bit different than Hughes idea of mastery. Zolt explained that the authentic task of writing about reading presents students with an opportunity to demonstrate multiple skills within the single task of writing letters. Sun, 10 Jun 2018 13:04:24 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104915?scroll_to=1037277 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104915?scroll_to=1037277 I agree and would add: problem-solving, collaboration, engagement, simulated experiences, hypothesizing, creativity and solution-focused. Sun, 10 Jun 2018 12:50:20 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104915?scroll_to=1037276 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104915?scroll_to=1037276 I believe education has been moving toward a data-driven approach. However, the question lies in the type of data being used. We use assessment data to drive instruction. We have this issue in education of "teaching to the test" because teachers are evaluated on their "data." There is value in data, but I agree with George Couros (2018) who tweeted, "I think that "data-driven" says something immensely different than "Data-informed" (https://twitter.com/gcouros). Sun, 10 Jun 2018 12:48:17 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104915?scroll_to=1037270 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104915?scroll_to=1037270 John, I also agree with you about a "hybrid approach" to teaching and learning. I currently teach in a district where every student has been provided with a device (K-2 receive iPads, 3-8 receive MacBook Air computers). The devices follow them throughout their career with us. Even though we have provided the devices, I still see equity as being a barrier. Some students take their devices home and some do not (this is a parent choice, but if the device gets damaged, there is a cost). This leaves teachers not willing to try changing the face of homework (to more engaging activities) because not all students will be able to participate. Some students who have multiple devices in their homes already are more familiar with use, others are not. Just providing a device is not enough to relinquish the barrier of equitable opportunity for learning. I'm not sure what the answer is and I fear that equity will always remain a large barrier. Sun, 10 Jun 2018 12:31:01 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104915?scroll_to=1037268 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104915?scroll_to=1037268 The Department of Education recognizes that what we're doing in education is not working. The DoE is looking at state-level policies versus national-level policies and reconsidering how programs are implemented. They are encouraging the creation and use of Open Education Resources (OER) in an effort to address equity; also equitable access and opportunities to learn for all students. Finally, the DoE is using research on "what works" to determine next steps. There are countries who are "doing" education well. There was no mention of studying those countries' educational systems. My question is...why aren't we looking at high-performing countries and studying their education systems? Sun, 10 Jun 2018 12:18:45 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104915?scroll_to=1037266 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104915?scroll_to=1037266 Hughes sums up his description of personalized learning with the statement, "No two students are experiencing the same thing..." I would add the phrase "at the same time." Students may not be moving through the curriculum together, but they are all moving through the same curriculum. Providing interventions (deficit-based or for enrichment) is one way they are providing a layer of personalized learning, but what about the majority of the students who don't "need" interventions or enrichment? Is their learning personalized? Isn't this just differentiation? I believe there has to be a layer of interest-driven learning in order for learning to truly be personalized. The description provided by Hughes still implies that students take a test to demonstrate mastery. In "personal" learning students determine how they will demonstrate mastery. There are blurry lines that exists between personalized learning, personal learning, differentiation and individualized education. How do we clearly define those lines? Sun, 10 Jun 2018 12:00:53 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104915?scroll_to=1037263 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104915?scroll_to=1037263 The interesting part about this is that typically, families need internet access to sign-up for free internet access (oh the irony!). We have opened up our front office computer for families to come in and sign up. I'd love to have stations set up at a curriculum night, or other school-wide event, for families to access this opportunity. However, what we've found is that many of those families who would benefit from this service often don't attend after school activities because the parents are working. There has to be a way to make it more equitable. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/07/comcast-expands-10-low-income-internet-plan/ Sun, 10 Jun 2018 19:41:56 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104915?scroll_to=1037262 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104915?scroll_to=1037262 Several private local companies provide our students with space in their buildings to come and access wi-fi. This was a partnership set up between the local businesses and the school district. In addition, several private companies have become involved in some of our problem-based learning initiatives by offering authentic feedback on students' ideas, some even offering rewards (albeit ice cream, but nonetheless). Sun, 10 Jun 2018 19:42:26 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104694?scroll_to=1035666 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104694?scroll_to=1035666 This use of technology puts teachers in the position of providing multiple means of engagement and representation (UDL) for their students. In addition, if students had access to this, they could create stacks to demonstrate their knowledge or understanding of a topic and build connections among content. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 23:38:15 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104694?scroll_to=1035665 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104694?scroll_to=1035665 Keeping in mind that this was pre-WWW, I found it interesting that they described the ability to "modify" already existing content and that hundreds of stacks were already shared on a "server." This seems to be moving through the SAMR model without SAMR being developed yet! Sun, 03 Jun 2018 23:29:25 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035662 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035662 Again, I have to go back to how we, as a nation, measure student achievement. Technology can allow students to create and innovate, but that probably won't show up in a standardized test. How can we change the way we assess students to reflect the positive impact technology provides? Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:20:58 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035661 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035661 This is where I struggle to attribute success (or lack of success) to the interactive media. There is no controlling for the experience level, characteristics or nature of the teacher of the control group. We all have had teachers who are extremely engaging and motivating, and those who were not so much. I find this to be a limitation of the study. Thoughts? Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:16:06 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035660 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035660 ...technology is available, does not mean it is being used effectively or in an "innovative" manner. Our classrooms are fully one-to-one and vastly different in their technology use. We have found that to be highly dependent on the teacher and their comfort level with technology and their mindset. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:12:40 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035659 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035659 This claim made by the researchers confuses me. How can the effect be statistically insignificant, but the predicted effects be positive? Don't we use the results of a study to make our predictions? Am I misreading? Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:09:24 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035658 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035658 With each new or innovative (for the time) technology, engagement increases. Should we be looking more at the effects educational technology has on engagement and motivation, rather than its effects on student achievement? Wouldn't an increase in engagement and motivation naturally produce an increase in achievement? I'm curious to hear others thoughts. Technology is not a magic potion. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:57 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035657 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035657 I find it interesting that in 10 years time, the technology went from merely being a visual aid to including "interactivity." In 1989, the visual aid was simply graphics, text and sound...in 1999 the technology added animation and video (and I'm sure better graphics). Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:02:23 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035654 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035654 The researchers used a quasi-experimental design with "intact groups." This could affect the internal validity of the research because participants were not randomly assigned to the experimental group or the control group. In addition, I'm not sure they can disregard the outside factors as we know it has been proven since that the actual teacher accounts for 30% of variance in learner achievement (Hattie, 2003). Reference: Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers Make a Difference, What is the research evidence? Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), 18. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=research_conference_2003 Sun, 03 Jun 2018 16:59:04 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035653 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035653 Combining the instructional strategy of redirection from the teacher with the MCBI program makes it difficult to attribute any increased learning to the MCBI program. Could it have been more effective to do this research in multiple steps? Sun, 03 Jun 2018 16:47:17 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035650 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035650 In this study, an experimental design was used with treatment groups and a control group. While this design is effective in determining the effects of a treatment, it is difficult to do in the field of education. Many times, this is due to the fact that there are so many other factors to consider when exploring student achievement. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:15:55 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033194 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033194 Applying "managerial and industrial logic," as Erickson puts it, to classrooms has been happening for over a century. Often referred to as a "factory model" of education, this has been going on for years. It began in the 19th century during the boom of the industrial revolution. However, we are not in an industrial revolution anymore and our goal should not be to "produce" workers. Sun, 27 May 2018 21:06:57 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033192 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033192 I do not know enough about charter schools, as I've spent most of my teaching career in the public school system. However, I did spend two years teaching in a prestigious private school on the north shore of Long Island, New York. This school hand-selected its students and charged $18K for nursery school, $20-31K for K-5 (depending on grade level) and almost $33K for middle school. They are ranked in the top 3% of elementary schools in America and within the top 5% of elementary schools in New York. This is because of what students bring to the table. Sun, 27 May 2018 20:57:22 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033188 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033188 Erickson explained that the goal of schooling tends to lean toward efficiency and management of classrooms and schools to teach the most students in the most "effective" ways. However, schools continually dismiss the research on how children (and adults for that matter) learn. I cannot tell you how many schools have "banned" recess because it is "not an efficient use of time" only to mandate "structured movement" breaks of 3-5 minutes each day (which must be part of a teacher's schedule. Out goes responsive teaching and a focus on students needs! Sun, 27 May 2018 20:43:49 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033187 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033187 Hi Becky, I also agree that what is being referenced as "student-centered" is not necessarily true, but I find that with lots of educational jargon (personalized learning, differentiation, etc.). I have to pose the question, if all students are being assessed with the same grade level standards (Common Core or otherwise) is it ever "personalized" learning? Sun, 27 May 2018 20:38:16 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104453?scroll_to=1033001 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104453?scroll_to=1033001 ...I concur with the notion that it takes time for teachers to reach higher-levels of use. In thinking about where we were 5 years ago when we began the one-to-one roll out, with teachers simply using (or not even using) the devices for word processing purposes, to where we are now with teachers collaborating with other teachers in Kuwait, I can confirm that it took time. It took time for the teachers to get comfortable with the technology, time for the teachers to learn the technology, and time to further develop and change the type of professional development being provided (from how to use, to how to integrate). I cannot say that every teacher is using the technology in this way, but more and more are moving toward the ISTE standards of "Leader," "Designer," and "Collaborator" by empowering their students by designing authentic learning experiences with a global audience. Sat, 26 May 2018 15:19:54 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104453?scroll_to=1032999 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104453?scroll_to=1032999 While we have adopted the ISTE standards, they are not assessed or heavily studied, discussed or understood (at least in my district, and we are one-to-one). Ask any grade level teacher about the Common Core State Standards and most will be able to tell you exactly what the expectations are for each standard. Learning targets (based on the CCSS) are required to be posted, every lesson is expected to address one or more of the CCSS, and teacher evaluations are now tied to student performance of selected state standards. However, if you ask teachers about the ISTE standards, most have heard about them but would have to look them up. Even the teachers who would be considered "highly effective" at technology integration (again, in my district) do not regularly reference the ISTE standards. They simply exist. They are not assessed by the state or tied to evaluation, therefore they are easy to dismiss. Please don't get me wrong, I am not saying that we should assess more...but maybe if we used some of the ISTE standards in our design of assessments, we might see some higher-level integration practices. Sun, 27 May 2018 19:42:07 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104245?scroll_to=1031323 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104245?scroll_to=1031323 After watching Dr. Mishra's video, it is clear that TPACK was the beginning. As educational technology continues to evolve, so will the frameworks to evaluate and integrate the technology. I believe this is the beauty of Dr. Mishra's work...he continues to evolve it into something better. Isn't that the definition of innovation? Mon, 21 May 2018 13:42:26 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104245?scroll_to=1031322 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104245?scroll_to=1031322 Becky, I had similar thoughts as I was reading through the Horizon report. I am so glad you stated that this topic needs to grab the attention of the policy makers. Inadequate training, along with resistance, and a full understanding of the TPACK framework has been encountered over and over again in my district. Most educational policy makers have not been in a classroom in the last ten years (or ever), so there is a huge disconnect. Do you think this will ever change? Mon, 21 May 2018 13:38:56 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104245?scroll_to=1031320 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104245?scroll_to=1031320 John, I think your idea of adding the "S" for security is an important idea. While I think we tend to lump it in with Technological Knowledge, it is so important to separate it. In the education world, we often think of content knowledge as math, geography, science, etc. and digital security and safety get overlooked (or thought to be someone else's responsibility). Mon, 21 May 2018 13:27:32 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104241?scroll_to=1030412 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104241?scroll_to=1030412 In my mind, TPACK is the beginning of trans-disciplinary thinking. It is one framework which includes pedagogy, a factor that is often disregarded when it comes to integration of technology. I believe 21st Century Learning takes TPACK to the next level by recognizing the importance of trans-disciplinary thinking in teachers and students. Sat, 19 May 2018 19:01:16 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104241?scroll_to=1030411 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104241?scroll_to=1030411 ...the frameworks are all often used in isolation. Be it SAMR or TPACK, we too often (at least in local districts) ignore the "cross-pollination of disciplines" to the point where we are creating separate "STEM labs" instead of optimizing every learning environment. This decision, I'm afraid, will only further the isolation of these important intersections. Sat, 19 May 2018 18:57:35 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104241?scroll_to=1030410 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104241?scroll_to=1030410 TPACK encourages teacher creativity in using technology to enhance pedagogy. I came across Dr. Mishra's article on this very lecture in which he states, "The TPACK framework emphasizes the importance of teacher creativity in repurposing technology tools for make them fit pedagogical and disciplinary-learning goals" (2012, p. 14). The difference in the 21st Century Learning framework is that the focus is on both the teachers' creativity and the students' creativity. Reference Mishra, P., & Deep-Play Research Group. (2012). Rethinking Technology & Creativity in the 21st Century: Crayons are the Future. TechTrends, 56(5), 13–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-012-0594-0 Sat, 19 May 2018 18:51:20 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104241?scroll_to=1030409 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104241?scroll_to=1030409 Hi Becky, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard the leaders in my district use STEM and STEAM interchangeably (which frustrates me to no end!). Without the "A" we continue to have, "poverty of the imagination." Sat, 19 May 2018 18:43:35 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104241?scroll_to=1030408 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104241?scroll_to=1030408 It seems to me that TPACK is just a small piece of 21st century learning. 21st Century Learning, in educational terms, takes into account the "whole" child/student/learner. Whereas TPACK typically focuses on the technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. What TPACK is missing it the "humanistic knowledge" which is extremely important, particularly as we encourage students to collaborate and communicate with other learners around the world. Sat, 19 May 2018 18:02:13 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103412?scroll_to=1027747 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103412?scroll_to=1027747 I love that you said, "In other words, learning first and then technology." In fact Dr. Kolb wrote a book entitled, "Learning First, Technology Second" in which she stresses the importance of quality over quantity. Kolb (2017) stated, "The instructional choices that teachers make when integrating technology will determine how deeply students are embedded in the learning process and their long-term retention of the content goals in the experience" (p. 49). Working in the government sector, are you able to apply pieces of this framework in your setting? Sat, 12 May 2018 17:34:14 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103414?scroll_to=1027562 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103414?scroll_to=1027562 Since I don't have my own classroom of students, I will explain how I worked alongside a teacher to move her through the SAMR model. Typically, this teacher has her students write reading responses after they complete a book. Having her students use a Google Doc to type their responses was her way of incorporating technology (substitution level). We worked together to think about how to move her students into augmentation by having the students share documents with her to provide feedback. Next, we began providing them with choices on how to complete their responses (including, recording a video or audio response via PhotoBooth, iMovie, Voki or Vocaroo) (Modification). Finally, we set up a blog for students to share their responses with the world (Redefinition). We have been tweeting the blog out and tagging the authors of the books students read. Sun, 13 May 2018 22:39:21 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103412?scroll_to=1027479 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103412?scroll_to=1027479 In my district, we do "Tech Walk-throughs" to collect data on technology use. My concern is that this sends the message that if you're not using technology, it is bad. Does anyone else have to collect data on tech usage? If so, what type of data collection tool do you use? Fri, 11 May 2018 11:17:37 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103412?scroll_to=1027477 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103412?scroll_to=1027477 While I agree with this statement, it does assume that those integrating the technology have a solid understanding of strong pedagogy which is not always the case. Too often, we have teachers just taking what they've always done and making it digital. This is where I feel professional development is often failing our teachers. The PD often focuses on new tools, rather than on how to use those tools to enhance teaching and learning within the context of strong instructional practices. Fri, 11 May 2018 11:15:08 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103412?scroll_to=1027472 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103412?scroll_to=1027472 This part of the framework assumes engagement and compliance are synonymous. It also implies that students need to work with others to be actively engaged. Fri, 11 May 2018 11:10:14 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103408?scroll_to=1024112 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103408?scroll_to=1024112 John, I feel that many districts have taken this approach to technology integration. Technology should enhance teaching and learning and pedagogy cannot be tossed out. This use of Khan Academy demonstrated use of technology to enhance teaching and learning. Sun, 06 May 2018 12:46:58 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103408?scroll_to=1024111 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103408?scroll_to=1024111 The use of Khan Academy is not replacing the instructor, it is changing his role to more of a facilitator. This provides students with the opportunity to try and apply their knowledge and problem-solving abilities before seeking assistance. It is scaffolding at its best. However, without the teacher's established culture, students would not be as likely to take those risks. Sun, 06 May 2018 20:28:20 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103408?scroll_to=1024107 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103408?scroll_to=1024107 Whether the intrinsic motivation to learn coming from within each student or the teacher finding ways to motivate his students through the climate of the class, motivation is the piece that holds it all together. Sun, 06 May 2018 12:39:31 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103408?scroll_to=1024105 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103408?scroll_to=1024105 At this point in the video, this particular use of Khan Academy assumes students "want to learn" and are motivated intrinsically. This structure also allows students to take risks in problem-solving without fear of failing. They can choose to use hints or try without knowing that those hints will always be there if they need them. With relation to teaching, I believe this use of Khan Academy assumes the teacher has built relationships with his students and has established a culture of safety in his classroom (otherwise students would not be raising their hand for help). Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:04 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103408?scroll_to=1024100 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103408?scroll_to=1024100 Hi John, I agree that students are more engaged when they take control of their own learning. My concern is the stigma that comes with raising your hand for help. Many students, particularly of middle and high school age, do not raise their hand when they need help because they are embarrassed. This is where classroom culture comes into play. In this type of environment it would be important to build a culture of safety and growth mindset. There are also tools out there that allow students to virtually "raise their hand," such as ClassKick. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:04 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103408?scroll_to=1024098 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103408?scroll_to=1024098 Using technology in this way assumes that the students will, in fact, use the hints or ask for further help when needed. This use also assumes that the teachers will be able to provide alternative instructional strategies as requested, and close monitoring. Sun, 06 May 2018 12:26:47 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024086 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024086 I believe when this article was written, Cuban was correct. Traditional instruction in traditional classrooms was winning, and a few devices were being thrown into classrooms without much direction for teachers or students. However, over the last 2 1/2 decades, technology has evolved immensely. We can do so much more that word processing. Students and teachers are making global connections, coding their own video games, learning from hospital beds, and printing designs in 3-D to just name a few ways technology is being used in our schools. We are also shifting the way we provide professional development to teachers by doing away with "sit-and-get" trainings or "one-and-done" sessions. We are using technology to leverage the availability of PD through blended learning opportunities and building personal learning networks (PLNs) through social media tools like Twitter and Instagram. While it was slow to get going, technology is changing the way we learn, teach and grow. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:04 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024085 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024085 I feel like this has been the approach taken by many school districts, including my district. We began by having computer labs, then computer carts available for teachers to "check-out." Now, with all of our students having devices, and a multitude of educational resources, teachers are focusing on how best to use the technology. In fact, our district has been focused on using technology to enhance and personalize learning for students while the teacher is providing direct small group instruction to other students. While the stated message to teachers has been, "What a teacher does with it [technology] is more important that what the it [technology] is," the actions of the school district imply that use is required and how it is used is documented (Cuban, 1993). Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:03 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024084 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024084 In thinking about my own education, I had a difficult time identifying (or remembering) the three impulses described. I'm sure they were present, but nothing stands out to me other than the requirement to take typing classes in high school. I feel the sole purpose of an entire semester of keyboarding was to prepare me for the future (college, employment, etc.). I'm actually grateful for it now. However, I'm amazed at the adaptability of students who do not have keyboarding skills. I was sitting next to a student recently who struggles with spelling, but wanted to do a Google search for how-to videos. As I was getting ready to write down the words so he could type it, he simply clicked the microphone icon and spoke his request. He used the technology to overcome any hurdle he might face through typing. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:03 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024083 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024083 Even though this article was written in 1993, and there are many schools which are now 1:1 with devices, equity remains a significant issue. My district went 1:1 about 5 years ago. Students in grades 3-8 are allowed to take devices home with parent permission and for a small insurance fee. However, many parents choose to have their students leave their devices at school for several reasons, including: limited or no internet access, fear of damaging devices, can't pay insurance (went from $150 to $50 to make it more equitable), or being unable to supervise student. I'm curious if others see similar trends in equity. Sun, 06 May 2018 11:04:25 -0400