Most recent public comments by Rebekah Redmer https://nowcomment.com/users/41287 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106534?scroll_to=1050623 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106534?scroll_to=1050623 Ryan - as someone in higher ed, what do you think about waiving the general ed requirements? If students could demonstrate proficiency, could they then bypass the typical 20-30 "required" credits in order to get into their major courses in which they are studying? How about explorative courses; electives in areas of interest or experiences that can tie into or count towards their degree? Just curious on your thoughts. As for testing out...the state allows in 9-12 primarily as a means for students to progress towards courses or experiences they have high interest in. I agree with your point of an established learning community, totally valuable....does it need to be a traditional structured classroom environment? Effective in terms of evaluation looks different for every student. Two examples: Student 1 - tested out of many courses, opening up a tremendous amount of room for dual enrollment courses during high school. She had so much credit transferred to GVSU, that she graduated in 2 years with 2 degrees and now accepted a fellowship and progressing onto her Ph.D Student 2 - tested out of a couple of courses to make room for Career Tech, specifically auto mechanics. He waived a few courses as well (through a personal curriculum...long story, but the state allows students to waive certain courses for specific reasons). He then found interest in starting his own auto mechanics shop and took some extra business courses in high school, also earning credit for work-based learning (his experience). Graduated with a successful business operating here in GR right out of high school. Personalizing a pathway for each student is key. Both students effectively achieved their goals, and could not have done so without testing out or waiving requirements. Sorry for the long reply...I love sharing student specific stories :) Good stuff Ryan, really like the discussion! Mon, 30 Jul 2018 08:57:54 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106534?scroll_to=1050589 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106534?scroll_to=1050589 Ryan - I hope K-12 schools and colleges look different in the future for students. There is sometimes a ridged approach that is in place because facility feel it is best (having good intentions), based on their assumptions. The word "effective" caught me in your last sentence. Measuring effectiveness can sometimes be obscure, just as Ito referenced with MOOCs. It is a solid topic to discuss for the future of P-20 education. Great points! Sun, 29 Jul 2018 16:30:26 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106534?scroll_to=1050588 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106534?scroll_to=1050588 We are on the verge of change when it comes to traditional teaching and learning institutionally. The unbundling concept can be abstract for some, which could impact student participation (apprehension) and employer acceptance without full understanding or measure of competency. Internationally, I have witnessed credentialing as a successful approach to industry and workforce. The challenge is to get agreements at the state and national levels; for example, competency-based learning and letter grades. Implementing an "unbundling" of content into applied performance demonstrates mastery. Agreements between higher education and K-12 are necessary for students to progress without having a traditional transcript with letter grades. This requires changes in policy, with brave entities taking the leap. Interest-driven learning is powerful. Layering that with schedule flexibility (modifying seat-time) affords students with the opportunity to take a deeper dive into content. One example comes to mind with online learning for K-12. Some students who are a part of Vex Robotics also take anywhere from 2-6 online classes at my school. This allows for them to have flexibility during the day to work on their passion of engineering and preparation for competitions. These students also tend to take additional engineering courses (which are unbundled into projects, along with layering Physics to meet graduation requirements). Taking an approach from a student-centric model, customizing learning for each individual student makes it meaningful as they select their options. Don't get me wrong, there is still oversight and compliance required, but even the requirements are sometimes less "required" in the eyes of the student when they have choice in how they learn the content. Academic behavior is an area of development for students in which teachers can assist and guide. Sun, 29 Jul 2018 13:40:00 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106534?scroll_to=1050587 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106534?scroll_to=1050587 The traditional classroom is structured primarily for delivery of content. I agree that this is no longer a model that is sustainable for future teaching and learning. What could be touched on within this statement is personalization for learning. Teachers, counselors and administrators could perhaps shift their approach to one of facilitator, not just with content, but also with connecting school to careers for students, based on their interest. Guiding students into groups for networking and assisting in highlighting opportunities is a need for students...the "what's next?" that is asked constantly. Content knowledge is important, but the teacher can guide the learning, helping students to find credible resources for information. A couple of examples: 1. More and more students are testing out of high school required classes. In Michigan, any high school student can request the final exam of any course, and if they receive a 77% or higher on it, they earn the credit and can move on. Students want to get to dual enrollment, or take more electives of interest (tech center, work-based learning, etc), and if they self-study and can pass the class by simply taking the exam, it works. 2. Advance Placement (AP) courses are not required to be taken in order to sign up for the AP exam each May. Students who may not have room in their schedule (mostly double-music students in my personal experience) self-study and take the AP exam outside of enrolling in the course. Again, self studying with tremendous resources College Board provides. 3. Homeschooling and flexible learning no longer requires the purchase of expensive curriculum. Open sources such as CK 12 https://www.ck12.org/student/ contains structured content in virtual textbooks which includes virtual interactions and a solid resource for content. I agree with Ito on this point :) Mon, 30 Jul 2018 08:57:54 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106534?scroll_to=1050585 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106534?scroll_to=1050585 This is a very interesting concept to think on. The world we live in has changed dramatically with the advances in technology. The example Mimi Ito describes can be related to teachers (in the profession for 15 + years or so) and students. There is sometimes a relational gap when it comes to technology and learning, with veteran teachers having to re-learn how to shift from being the epicenter (delivering the content) to more of a facilitator of the learning process. Assumptions are made from prior knowledge and experiences; technology ability in some cases can relate to comfort level of use. Students are coming from a time of "abundant connectivity", where teaching staff in K-12 come from a variety of generations, some with more or less connectivity. It is difficult for some to let go of the structure, especially if there is a lack of understanding or knowledge of the technology. This makes for a constant need to keep up with technologies in order to possess a greater awareness of student assumptions. Google is one example that has changed our traditional classrooms. Delivering content in the classroom can also be replicated through searching online. Students searching for information versus a lecture of the same information (using credible sources of course). Mon, 30 Jul 2018 08:51:31 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106299?scroll_to=1048853 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106299?scroll_to=1048853 I agree with Adam regarding Level 1, most PD only pulls feedback from the surface, and directly following the PD session itself. For Level 2, collecting evidence can be done through teacher reflections. It has the potential to be naturally layered in with regular student data review, and along with professional goal attainment and reflection. Although the survey in the appendix is valuable, I would worry about survey fatigue with teachers. Level 3 seems a bit challenging to attempt with staff. Self actualization of specific behaviors can be tricky for any professional to identify. I do think scheduling time between the training and follow-up is important, possibly observational feedback to the teacher (non-evaluative in nature) might be an option for this level. Level 4 has so many layers to it. A solid school or program improvement plan must first be in place...which many not always happen to the depth required for a multi-year initiative. Sun, 22 Jul 2018 22:27:47 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106299?scroll_to=1048852 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106299?scroll_to=1048852 Looking at student data is not inherently done in the classroom (well, maybe by math teachers); it is something we review as a professional practice and purposefully set time aside to do so. It is important, but the qualitative aspect is needed. Typically I find myself working with individual teachers following a PD session to guide with professional goal setting. This allows for the reflection of the "work they already do" and what they can focus on to "improve" and how they will "collaborate with peers" to accomplish or attain their goals. This qualitative focus can be reflective and narrative, with touch-points documented throughout the school year. It is difficult to then observe the WWC recommendations and measure in a way that fits their proposed structure. The impact of PD may not always be measured, and done so accurately. Fri, 20 Jul 2018 12:29:02 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106299?scroll_to=1048848 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106299?scroll_to=1048848 The expectations of WWC standards are high and very structured. Speaking of structure itself, our K-12 institutions may have little ability to meet the standards of review outlined by WWC. Looking over paragraph #8 in this reading, it is very telling of how little time there is for research in the classroom when student focus must always come first. In order to set up an effective PD in the setting of K-12, there must be an administrator or instructional coach assigned to oversee the PD process, implementation and data gathering. Resources from the school would need to be set aside to do so. It is always simple to go into the student management system and pull grade and demographic information for data review, yet determining to initially set out on creating a study is a process, which may be a daunting task after looking over the WWC Handbook. The classroom is an imperfect setting for research and measuring the effectiveness of technology implementation through PD a tough process for sure. Fri, 20 Jul 2018 19:50:34 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106299?scroll_to=1048842 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106299?scroll_to=1048842 Feedback forms at the end of a PD session, or an email survey from Michigan Department of Education at the end of the year, simply get an initial impression of the PD itself. Reflecting on our live class session this week, the feedback tends to be anecdotal in nature. Long term PD measures, as we also discussed this week, typically focus on a snapshot of student outcome data, rather than a long-term look at the effects of technology within a well developed PD program. Correlative, climate, student outcomes and other data points could possibly be identified as measures of the impact the PD had on teaching and learning. Fri, 20 Jul 2018 11:25:05 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105127?scroll_to=1038849 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105127?scroll_to=1038849 I like how Zhao use the words "messy process" in the first sentence. The planning can be fine, but implementation is messy. Identifying factors that facilitate or hinder allows for a list of what to do, and what not to do. Teachers and admin like having something to reference when making innovative leaps. A positive approach can highlight a growth mindset rather than a fixed one. Sun, 17 Jun 2018 18:01:47 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105127?scroll_to=1038832 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105127?scroll_to=1038832 How do we fit more time in for teachers? It is so difficult. Your mention of confidence is a good one Corinne, I totally agree it can sometimes come down to comfort with technology as the main reason for use, or non-use. Sun, 17 Jun 2018 17:22:24 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105127?scroll_to=1038817 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105127?scroll_to=1038817 Great question! Before reading on, one major factor sticks out for me is funding. There are finite resources at times, especially when schools depend on grant funding for general operations, keeping programs viable as best as possible. The teacher knows the impact of this and decision-making within the classroom can be a predetermined mindset when looking to innovate. Others could be lack of professional development, collaboration with other teachers (or time to do so), and possibly basic knowledge of technology as it relates to the content and pedagogy. Sun, 17 Jun 2018 17:20:15 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037361 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037361 You make excellent points Ryan. A teacher vs. admin initiative can each result in the same outcome of time and energy spent with no change made. How does change occur? How do we as educators help move those new ideas to innovate? If you find the answer, let me know...I'll help you write a book and go on speaking tours (: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 18:33:27 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037359 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037359 I agree with you Michelle, participation is an element that would impact research. Accessibility to technology for students continues to be a barrier. Sun, 10 Jun 2018 18:28:14 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037357 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037357 It really depends on the content. MI has not officially adopted the Common Core, yet presents as if it has. The Smarter Balanced assessment is an option for MI districts, and the M-Step assessments (grades 3-11) has elements of Common Core within it. With science, many states are using the Next Generation Science Standards, including MI. As for technology and online learning K-12, MI has been a bit more progressive. The Evergreen Group publishes a K-12 online learning report each year called Keeping Pace which includes information and of all 50 states. They compare policy within each and highlight some key programs for others to view. So the answer, both :) Sun, 10 Jun 2018 18:26:27 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037355 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037355 Agreed :) Sun, 10 Jun 2018 18:17:00 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037354 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037354 This is very real to me in my current position; I navigate policy regularly as it is difficult to fit an online and blended school into traditional practice and accountability reporting. Assessments that are competency-based provide individual student information that goes beyond a test they took one day (or 2) during the school year. Providing schools with computers, but having to dedicate those machines to 3 months of state testing does defeat the purpose. Personalized learning is possible, but does required more resources to be effective. Sun, 10 Jun 2018 18:15:17 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037349 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037349 Many exist and this panel did a good job highlighting from their experiences. Seat time is a good one, our school calendar is dependent on the number of days and hours of instruction required by the state. MI did have seat-time waivers available in previous years, with districts applying for specific criteria, along with a fully detailed plan of how students would learn. Most schools used the waiver for alternative education, yielding low passing rates and eventually the waivers were no longer offered. MI did shift into a new model with what is called 21f legislation, and individual districts must comply with set requirements to provide online learning. I like how Weiss simply states she does not have the answers. I agree with her, there are many misconceptions and finding a way to write policy that allows for innovation is difficult. Popovic states this as well, providing a really interesting way of drafting policy, using the term cascading. Finally, Zolt makes mention of the need to stop viewing technology as an enemy, as well as limitations for access; she then circles back around to encouraging more writing. This too she notes there are barriers when doing so (hard to test/score, takes time). Sun, 10 Jun 2018 18:07:04 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037339 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037339 She referenced Common Core and the key elements early on, stating reading, thinking and communication create the foundation. Her emphasis seemed to also be on literacy, reading and writing, which is what her company is about. Sun, 10 Jun 2018 17:47:52 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037336 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037336 Zolt describes the key elements of the Common Core curriculum. Many states have adopted this, and some have not. Engagement is a continued term heard throughout the panel. She also mentions project-based, authentic and integrated learning. I really liked her description of the book club, matching up students with an adult learning partner. This is difficult to do as many adults are very willing to mentor students, yet with the safety measures schools must monitor and uphold, it can shy away adults willing to get involved as there is a level of liability that is taken on. Sun, 10 Jun 2018 17:42:12 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037329 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037329 What Ms. Weiss describes will take a great deal of effort. Transforming a system can be challenging, especially at the federal level. I like her mention of public/private partnerships, they do work well, but dependent on the region or state in which the private company selects the educational entity. Sun, 10 Jun 2018 17:26:59 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037327 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037327 Zoran's initial statement of looking at education as a data-driven science is difficult to do with the complexity that is involved. He makes a good case of "why games", listing several key items that should be taken into consideration, such as the natural engagement for students, time involved/dedicated, and the platform for large-scale randomized studies. These are valid points and the potential to have adaptive release of content through gaming education is a terrific example of personalized learning. To reach the sale Zoran talks about, there must be accessibility beyond the school day for students. This may be a large barrier, depending on funding and support required. Teachers would need PD and support as well, in order to facilitate and monitor student achievement. This all takes time. Sun, 10 Jun 2018 17:14:37 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037269 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037269 I agree with you Ryan, the federal policies are snail speed compared with the state ed departments. At the state level, it seems like every politician wants to highlight a specific issue/concern within education. This leaves us scrambling constantly in public education (ex. homeschool partnerships, 3rd grade reading law, etc), they literally happens during the school year sometimes :) The federal guidelines must be met, but I always default to the Michigan School Code first. MDE is under-resources when it comes to their technology department...funding could help from the federal level. Sun, 10 Jun 2018 18:26:27 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037267 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037267 It sounds like there is an urgency at the federal level to transform into more of an "engine of innovation" rather than oversight and compliancy. Things do tend to move much faster at the state level and the education departments roll out new initiatives and changes throughout each year. I think it is a great approach to highlight small examples and "shine the light" on schools that are innovating with technology. They can continue sharing and bringing together state departments when good things are happening for students. As for grants, the grant writing process can be tedious with no guarantee of the monitory gift, but there are several offered and technology is infused across departments. In order to encourage new models, moving more quickly in decision making with funding and resources available, at least keeping up with the technology, is difficult, but necessary. Sun, 10 Jun 2018 12:18:05 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037265 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037265 I like your statement regarding "opportunity to improve on their own" as a motivating factor. Providing students with prescriptive content is very powerful! Sun, 10 Jun 2018 11:51:53 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037264 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1037264 Mr. Hughs identifies the efforts his company as one of personalizing learning for students. Working at their own pace, but monitored by a teacher. The short and frequent assessments provided to monitor mastery of content is good in theory, but must include varying depth of knowledge levels and not simply a 5 question multiple choice assessment. Personal learning allows for independent and interest driven motivation. Sun, 10 Jun 2018 18:17:00 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1036835 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104916?scroll_to=1036835 Private companies do possess the capital, as stated by the VP of K12 Inc., but it comes down to how they use this to benefit students and learning. I personally have contracted services with K12 Inc. for over 8 years now and could write a book on how poorly this company is managed. A for-profit mindset is maintained at the expense of enrolling students who are ill prepared for a full-time online school. It was a difficult segment to view as personalizing a leanring environment can be done, but not in a quality way at K12 Inc, with teachers having 400-500 students on their caseloads. At times 3-4 different teachers turn over in a semester...making it so difficult for students, parents and school personnel to communicate with the newest teacher assigned to a course. The intentions of the private company is the essential component; is their drive to make money greater than service to students? What works best in my experience (online setting) for personalizing a learning pathway for students is getting a baseline on their core abilities. The content then can be prescribed for each student and the teacher facilitating and progress monitoring. Assessment benchmarking at various times in the year helps to monitor growth, and allow for adjustments in the content for each student. Thu, 07 Jun 2018 19:29:04 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104694?scroll_to=1035800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104694?scroll_to=1035800 John, I agree. I reflect on Dr. Mishra and the 21st Century Literacies when viewing this, specifically the Meta Knowledge you mention. Good point! Sun, 03 Jun 2018 23:49:33 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104694?scroll_to=1035798 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104694?scroll_to=1035798 Through linking the hypercard images and conducting key-word searches, teachers may have been able to provide extensions of their lessons. As well, student creative play and use connects to 21st Century Learning. The cost and availability at that time may have been difficult to equip schools. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 23:44:41 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104694?scroll_to=1035796 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104694?scroll_to=1035796 Sun, 03 Jun 2018 23:38:15 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104694?scroll_to=1035795 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104694?scroll_to=1035795 The potential for "interaction" was noted in the video. The computer could be observed as more than just a database at that time. It seemed to display the potential for development of interactive learning and engagement through computer use. And yes, I would have preferred a rolodex on my computer :) Sun, 03 Jun 2018 23:37:15 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104694?scroll_to=1035793 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104694?scroll_to=1035793 It was very interesting! The association of Hypercard to a game was very simplistic, yet they knew it provided "information and interaction" at a level that was yet to be understood. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 23:29:25 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104694?scroll_to=1035792 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104694?scroll_to=1035792 This was a terrific throw-back! I was going to find an image link to an erector set from the 1980s, but refrained. I did enjoy the flashing computer screen, not to mention wood paneling in the studio :) The Apple Hypercard allowing interactivity for the user, and so advanced for its time. As stated, it allowed people to become programmers and it was interactive! The complexity of coding was evident in the video, especially when mentioning "thematic threads" for scanning information. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 23:25:19 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035782 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035782 With this more recent study, the purpose is related to opportunity and accessibility to technology. Providing hardware is a terrific first step, but also as noted by the authors, training is critical and school leaders need to "embrace" the immersion, creating time for learning of software and tools as well. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:51:20 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035781 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035781 John, although the study indicated small or no improvement on test scores, state standardized assessments are "one size fits all" and does not adequately determine achievement in the true sense of student knowledge and understanding. Possibly using benchmarking throughout the year in both math and ELA internally may have proved more beneficial. I would be interested to find out further overall course grades, attendance (both teacher and student), student academic behaviors noted and teacher perceptions of the laptop use. It can be a "logistical nightmare" at times, but when properly planned and phased in appropriately, student and teacher technology access 1:1 is quite powerful. Think of no longer having snow days :) Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:47:08 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035775 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035775 The research conducted was experimental, which was longitudinal over the span of 3 years. The authors examined a 2-year cohort, as well as a 3-year cohort following the implementation of 1:1 laptops for both teachers and students. It appeared to be a large group, over 40 middle schools, with 21 of them in the experimental group...depending on the size of the schools, that is a lot of people. Advantages can be the size of the treatment group, it provides a greater generalization on that scale. The research questions also focused on student achievement, but also the effect of technology has on learning opportunities highlighted accessibility for students and teachers. Disadvantages might be the definition of student achievement, limiting to state assessment scores. Also the ability to successfully implement and train teachers to effectively use the laptops for instruction within the treatment schools. Creating the opportunities takes time and planning. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:36:57 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035768 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035768 Corinne, I did find it interesting the students all participated in the same computer lab, unknowing what type of treatment each was experiencing and testing in a separate room. The researchers attempted to make the environment consistent, yet with online instruction such as MCBI, that is precisely the beauty of it, access anytime or anywhere. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:15:55 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035765 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035765 This one was interesting to me, by using the GALT instrument for pre/post testing it seemed to validate an element of educational technology impacting higher level thinking skills. The description of the technology used in this study did appear more engaging, especially with the email feature to the teacher. I wonder about adding one additional layer to include peer-to-peer engagement within the system and how that might relate to the collaborator ISTE standard for students who participated. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:07:00 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035762 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035762 The research conducted was quasi-experimental, using pre and post test data student data for quantitative study, along with student grades. Advantages may be identified through the use of interactive multimedia for instruction, exploring different real world problems with engagement required prior to assessing for understanding. Focusing on student grade data is a simple measure that most understand and can be easily related to student achievement. Disadvantages might be identified with the student computer access; was it limited to class time or did students have continued access beyond class hours (assuming it was during class based on the number of students in the treatment group and access to a computer lab)? The addition of extra credit for participation may have narrowed the test group to the higher achieving students as well. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:59:34 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035750 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035750 This study did focus on student achievement with regards to the 5 tests following the instructional treatments. Keeping in mind this was a study for imagery, MCBI appeared to be void of verbal instruction; although it stated the word "verbal instruction" below the images, it was text and it did not seem to provide the learners with audio for listening. Knowing student learning styles, especially when learning within a traditional environment (which contains quite a bit of verbal instruction), I wonder if the students would have increased their scores on the tests by simply adding the audio? Might have been too advanced and not as easy to do at that time, but curious if it would have impacted outcome. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:06:07 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035747 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035747 This is a good example of TPACK application, taking a look at learning strategies made possible through technology tools and systems. Focusing more on a self-direct system such as the concept MCBI, it positions students to control their pace of learning and processing. Planning and preparation when using educational technology is so important, with the role of the teacher critical in this process to customize an experience for each student. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:55:50 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035736 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104691?scroll_to=1035736 The study was quantitate experimental research conducted using MCBI, with 9 different instructional treatments; the control group (9th) simply taking the 5 tests void of the MCBI experience in the computer lab. Advantages relate to technology use, and potential use for instruction, identifying key characteristics within the MCBI system that allows for visual imagery to "improve memory of spatial information". Disadvantages might be the MCBI system itself as an instructional tool (keeping in mind this was 1989) with limitations of interaction and adaptation as students click through the instructional segments. Feedback was present for the activity questions, but lacked extensions or hyperlinks for students to go deeper into the human heart and its operations. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:33:41 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033155 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033155 I think Erickson undervalues teachers in this segment, making generalized statements about all learners not having critical thinking skills. There are great things happening in schools that could and should be highlighted, rather than assuming the social and emotional skills are not addressed (maybe just in this interview?). Stating amazing teachers "are creative and trained", should be more of a focus, rather than scaling. Sun, 27 May 2018 18:12:40 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033153 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033153 This was a good point, prescribed instruction appears to be a bit linear as she references Skinner. Collaborative skills, as well as other academic behaviors are necessary and ill addressed in some instances within technology systems. It is why the teacher is such an important part of the overall learning experience and academic journey for students. I make mention on occasion that online courses can be beautifully designed and engaging, but void of a teacher, it is simply a digital independent study...teachers are so essential! Sun, 27 May 2018 18:04:30 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033151 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033151 Accessibility and equity for all students to learn and grow is a fundamental issue in our nation, as well as globally. The classroom needs to be extended beyond a traditional building and school day. The percentages were not surprising to hear, unfortunately. Sun, 27 May 2018 17:54:51 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033149 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033149 Charter schools come in two forms, non-profit and for-profit. There are some terrific non-profit charter schools out there (and yes, I am saying this as a 20 year veteran of the public schools). It is the for-profit companies, such as some of the ones run in Michigan (ex. Cyber Charters), who do not have the student at the very center of all decision making...it is the financial bottom line for them. This is a legislative decision that impacts our kids...special interests can have a monumental negative impact on student learning, and then what happens to the student? They return to their resident district to address the gaps in learning. The accountability measures need to be more equitable when there is a profit made by a school. Sun, 27 May 2018 17:45:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033148 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033148 The word efficiency used by Erickson when referencing systems that were established is still a hurdle today. The theory of education and practice can be difficult to bring together, which causes a struggle when it comes to change with regards to management of schools. Taking more time to get it done is not efficient for the school...we need to be looking at individual students rather than a school building. I personally prefer "Center for Learning" over school. Sun, 27 May 2018 17:38:01 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033147 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104456?scroll_to=1033147 This is interesting to me as mentioned by Erickson, the personalize learning options available appear to be student-centered, but as she states, "not much has changed" since implemented. I do not agree with her assessment of "baseless ideas" such as design thinking, they may be in my opinion underdeveloped and lack a solid framework for practice, similar to the ISTE standards. Teachers and school leaders are inundated with technology-driven initiatives, but how is their experience within a traditional classroom different? Are students truly able to move at their own pace? I agree with Erickson on this. Sun, 27 May 2018 20:38:16 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104453?scroll_to=1033036 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104453?scroll_to=1033036 Yes, it does take time for teachers to move from a novice to proficient with technology use, for any system. Finding an area of interest or professional passion (such as the global connections you mentioned) provides a catalyst for teachers to use and spend the time refining their skills. I also like the word "empowering" for students and teachers! Sat, 26 May 2018 15:19:54 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104453?scroll_to=1033035 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104453?scroll_to=1033035 This is a great reference. It is important for teachers to identify the effectiveness of technology within their practices. We discussed time in our previous Zoom meeting, and the lack of it for adequate PD and support for teachers. The mindset of allowing technology to save time is a valid point to be made. In our district, we support all teachers who would like to use Bb to flip or blend their classroom, or even use as a resource. There has been little interest with traditional staff due to the perceived extra work that goes into the training. If they only knew how much time it saves them with their lesson planning, data analysis and reports, curriculum organization and student access, etc., it would be a game-changer for them. I need to do a better job identifying specific communication that highlights effectiveness, and how it enhances their pedagogy, rather than changes it. Sat, 26 May 2018 15:13:34 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104453?scroll_to=1033034 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104453?scroll_to=1033034 The decision does rest, "...on the shoulders of classroom teachers". They want to be and "Empowered Professional" and a "Learning Catalyst" as the ISTE standards highlight. Perceptions of technology and training can become beliefs for teachers. Empowering the incorporation of technology within teacher pedagogy is tricky, but perceived to be valuable when they believe it will help their students learn. How do we as leaders effectively ignite this concept for all teachers? Sat, 26 May 2018 14:58:27 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104453?scroll_to=1033033 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104453?scroll_to=1033033 I remember when teachers were issued computers (mentioned in this section). I thought it was wonderful at the time, yet many of my colleagues did not know where to even begin using their laptop. The IT departments at schools were ill prepared to support, train and in some cases even deploy. We have certainly come a long way since that time! Sun, 27 May 2018 19:55:21 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104453?scroll_to=1033032 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104453?scroll_to=1033032 I agree Corinne, implementing technology standards into assessments is a good idea. I cannot say I am a big fan of the ISTE standards, but identifying the ISTE standards for students along side state content standards can provide teachers with a frame of reference, or even help identify/isolate when looking for technology within the specific curriculum, such as NGSS. Sat, 26 May 2018 14:42:16 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104453?scroll_to=1033031 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104453?scroll_to=1033031 The statement made in this section, "Technology is now considered by most educators and parents to be an integral part of providing a high-quality education" is very true. There is an expectation by students and parents for access to grades, to curriculum, to important and upcoming items, etc. In reviewing the ISTE standards (which we use at my school in combination with iNACOL and Marzano), it would have been helpful when working in the traditional high school as a building leader to be able to point to specific standards for professional growth. One example was the development of teacher websites about 9 years ago, by citing standard 6.b., it identifies the use of technology for student learning, providing access and support outside of traditional school hours. Parents and students have come to expect this standard and share when access by a specific teacher or class is lacking. It is a way of supporting student achievement Sun, 27 May 2018 20:11:24 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104245?scroll_to=1030811 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104245?scroll_to=1030811 I continue to reflect on Dr. Mishra’s statement, “We are preparing for a future we cannot predict”. I love the passion behind the 21st Century Literacies and creativity as an essential foundation for learning. Trans-disciplinary learning is evident as necessary when observing the foundational, meta and humanistic knowledge ideas presented by Dr. Mishra. Making sure the “creativity is useful” is something to navigate in reference to the TPACK framework because it must be “grounded in discipline”. Our teachers must be equipped with the necessary knowledge to practice their art and transfer learning to be student-centered. Sun, 20 May 2018 22:24:25 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104245?scroll_to=1030810 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104245?scroll_to=1030810 I would say the section of “rethinking the roles of teachers”; although it is addressed within TPACK, the teacher-centered shift to student-centered is one that needs the attention of policymakers. There is inadequate training as stated. Teacher preparation programs could come alongside K-12 schools to incorporate some of the resources available on the TPACK website (which is missing the letter “a” within the link in the document…it took me to a weight loss site :) Mon, 21 May 2018 13:38:56 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104245?scroll_to=1030805 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104245?scroll_to=1030805 Good addition John! Student data privacy is constantly on my mind as our students used so many different online learning systems and platforms. Security is a big part of what we all do, and I appreciate your comment! Mon, 21 May 2018 13:27:32 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104245?scroll_to=1030804 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104245?scroll_to=1030804 I would not suggest any of TPACK be deleted, it is all relevant from my vantage point. As for adding, possibly extending the framework into standards for guidance that both teachers and administrators can use. Currently, iNACOL and ISTE provide some for reference, but after experiencing the video from Dr. Mishra this week as well, layering in 21st Century Learning in to standards would be tremendous for educators to springboard off of. Sun, 20 May 2018 21:37:20 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104241?scroll_to=1029749 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104241?scroll_to=1029749 Trans-disciplinary learning is TPACK and 21st Century Learning. Both have the aspect of possessing a “grounded” understanding of individual disciplines, which allows for the NEW process to build off the foundation. TPACK combined is meant to be an integrated framework, same can be identified with 21st Century Learning. When watching this video, I think of Sir Ken Robinson and his book Creative Schools. His passion for creativity is similar to Dr. Mishra’s, describing the importance in development of creativity in our U.S. public schools. It is an inspiring book with wonderful storylines to make his point, yet Robinson does not provide such a practical framework. I enjoyed Dr. Mishra’s video! Thu, 17 May 2018 20:37:38 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104241?scroll_to=1029742 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104241?scroll_to=1029742 There is a creative element within the TPACK framework, but not as predominant as his description of 21st Century Learning. The meta knowledge idea is more detailed and related to creativity specifically. On a side note, this video was such affirmation for me as a school leader. This fall our online program is moving into a vacated elementary building, with such potential for expansion of blended offerings for students K-12. With planning and preparation for the past year, a new K-8 STEAM Tech blended magnet school is launching as a specialized program part of my school. It is project and competency-based, with all core content digital and on-site learning 3 days per week. The “A” for the fine arts is so essential for creativity to be expressed, with dedicated time for students. Fits into the 21st Century Learning definition by Dr. Mishra. Sat, 19 May 2018 18:43:35 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104241?scroll_to=1029188 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104241?scroll_to=1029188 Great point John! I have not looked through the lens of government use. This is very interesting and I wonder if you have any specific examples of the IT systems you might use frequently? I personally work in SEVIS through the U.S. Dept of State for our international student visas, but never really reflected on the portal and system used when doing so (which I will now). Thank you! Wed, 16 May 2018 17:57:55 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104241?scroll_to=1029173 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104241?scroll_to=1029173 I liked how Dr. Mishra described breaking down frameworks into little pieces and identified the most prevalent ones related to 21st Century Learning. There are some similarities that can be associated with TPACK, such as the relationships of big ideas associated with both. TPACK isolates the intersections, whereas 21st Century Learning is more of a circle of connectedness and NEW process that highlights creativity as an essential component. This was a terrific video; so many great quotes to hold onto throughout. Reflecting on the “3 big ideas”, it is affirmation to me personally with the direction our school continues to take and the essential importance related to “meta knowledge” and “humanistic knowledge”. Both can easily get missed in public education when overly focused on the foundational or content knowledge. Wed, 16 May 2018 17:49:10 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103415?scroll_to=1027782 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103415?scroll_to=1027782 Susan - I like your redefinition example of the collaborative synthesis work! Technology tools provide opportunity (my word from last week:) to have greater depth of knowledge exercises within a course. It is transformative in nature. Sun, 13 May 2018 16:22:03 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103415?scroll_to=1027781 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103415?scroll_to=1027781 The SAMR is a good reference tool for pedagogy and looking at it from a teacher professional development aspect, there are a few ways I have been able to “evolve my practice” with teachers. PD for our instructional staff is primarily on Blackboard, with all of the supplemental materials provided 24/7 for teachers. This past year, I have augmented the online PD to equate to fit the requirements of SCECHs (state continuing education clock hours) for teachers to extend beyond the district PD hours and assisting with their recertification process. Additionally, staff meetings were shifted into a synchronous tool (Blackboard Collaborate) rather than face-to-face to accommodate traveling staff within the district; it also provided a recorded session for those to view if they missed the meeting and needed the important information. Both I see as an “enhancement” within dr. Puentedura’s definition. Sun, 13 May 2018 16:22:03 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103411?scroll_to=1027752 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103411?scroll_to=1027752 Susan, I do think education is moving faster than we perceive it to be. The innovative programs available to students are exploding and EdTech is providing a pathway in some cases, causing educators to evaluate all of the archaic systems in place. In the past 5 years, our state has provided opportunity for schools to look at innovation and function outside of traditional school systems. It is exciting times! Thu, 24 May 2018 19:01:31 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103411?scroll_to=1027751 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103411?scroll_to=1027751 I agree with you Michelle. It is so important to provide comprehensive training for teachers, yet the support throughout the first year of implementation is just as important. For the most part, teachers are extremely adaptable and part of the training must identify for them how tool will support learning for their students, and may aid with workload as well. Great point Michelle! Sun, 13 May 2018 16:22:03 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103411?scroll_to=1027750 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103411?scroll_to=1027750 The triple E framework assumes teachers are grounded in good solid pedagogical practices, and the technology tools layer into those practices. It might take a newer teacher (within the first 3 years) some time to gain confidence in their craft before able to add meaningful technology tools to Engage, Enhance & Extend learning. There is an assumption teachers have the time to investigate and properly vet technological tools. With little time provided for PD altogether, mainly structured around state-mandated training, it is difficult from an administrative perspective to layer on the expectations of the deeper dive into technology integration. Guiding teachers through a purposeful process to utilize the Triple E framework, along with an identification of all the tech tools the district is able to provide (possibly creating a repository) would be quite the undertaking…but could be done through long range preparation and incorporating into the school improvement process. For students, there is an assumption of access to the technology tools. Where engagement, enhancement and extension of learning not only captivates the student interest, but also available to them throughout the school day, and extended outside of the classroom. In many cases this is true, but not all students have 1:1 access, or the motivation. As educators, we need to continue to work on student access and interest-driven learning opportunities. Thu, 24 May 2018 19:01:32 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103409?scroll_to=1024294 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103409?scroll_to=1024294 Susan, I agree, research will help with the direction. We are indeed working with a very different learner K-12, and technology is a part of how they simply function. To keep students engaged and motivated, they expect tech-based learning, in fact many parents now interview school leaders as they shop schools and technology is a top expectation (with safety #1). I hope research can catch up :) Sun, 13 May 2018 16:22:03 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103409?scroll_to=1024293 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103409?scroll_to=1024293 I would lean towards Cautious Optimist in relation to the video. This programmatic approach regarding math is delivered through technology as the basis of instruction, but within a traditional classroom setting. This innovative approach to learning or re-learning mathematical concepts also provides students with skills evident through problem solving. This is still slow change (compared to the rapid pace of technology and online learning), but change nonetheless. Sun, 13 May 2018 16:22:03 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103409?scroll_to=1024290 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103409?scroll_to=1024290 Michelle, I agree, there can be an assumption of independence when using a program like Khan. The teacher training and support to guide students towards that independence is important, especially as that "coach" for kids. Sun, 13 May 2018 16:22:03 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103409?scroll_to=1024288 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103409?scroll_to=1024288 It was shared that student engagement with the Khan program was a difficult in the beginning and easy for students to “get lost”, wanting immediate assistance when stuck. Over time, through procedural structure (in my head I think of Harry Wong) a new academic behavior was shaping; the external motivation presented by the staff may have transferred to internal motivation of the student to push through. Students in this program may be specific learners who are productively persisting in the program, with an end-goal of completing. There is a tremendous amount of instant feedback required for students to independently continue, and the technology alleviates constant access to the teacher, as well as allowing for self-monitoring progress. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103409?scroll_to=1024280 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103409?scroll_to=1024280 Good question Susan! In working with high school students, Khan Academy is integrated with their College Board account and used significantly for SAT prep. Although it is not a text book, Khan Academy highlights for students specific math concepts to improve upon prior to taking the SAT. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:04 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103409?scroll_to=1024276 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103409?scroll_to=1024276 The use of Kahn Academy in the math class assumes the students are motivated to use this technology, and self-directed to follow the “3 opportunities” provided when challenged. It implies this learning style and use of technology is appropriate for this group of students, who may have been exposed to these math concepts prior yet did not successfully complete or earn credit. As for teachers, the technology and structure can be assumed there was adequate training in not only using Kahn Academy, but also technology support, progress monitoring and student support. The former principal mentioned this type of learning lab, “changes the dynamic” of instruction, which is an adjustment for teachers who have not been in a 1:1 non-traditional setting. Sun, 13 May 2018 16:22:03 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024144 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024144 Corrine, Professional development is quickly moving into a technology-based expectation. Teachers are expected to do more with less at a staggering rate, and the requirement of PD looming. Personalizing for teaching staff is just as important as personalizing leanring for students. I agree, a shift is occurring :) Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:04 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024143 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024143 Instructional technology has come a long way in the past few decades since this article was written. The progression has accelerated a bit in the state of Michigan, with all state assessments administered on the computer, 21f legislation requiring all schools provide up to 2 online courses to students grades 6-12, the development of blended instruction, etc. Online learning did not exist full-time in K-12 prior to the late 2000’s, and now the number of options for families overwhelming. There is still a struggle with traditional settings, promoting change is difficult to do in education and sometimes feared. Continuing to research and share findings with staff is so important, identifying data that is supportive of the change takes great effort. My setting is so unique and reflecting upon time in the traditional classroom and building leadership, the professional world is much smaller. Keeping up with the expectations of higher education, as well as teacher preparation and development forces individuals to look at the importance of technology, for the future of our students. We have new wine, and new bottles for it. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:04 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024138 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024138 Corrine, The "it" is important and I liked the reference too about what a teacher does with "it" being more important. So many times we see technology initiatives in public education with little or no guidance or teacher professional development. Features of the technology go unused or underutilized for students. The efforts continue and I believe it is getting better, but keeping up with the changes is sometimes overwhelming to teaching staff. It fits with these scenarios. Sun, 13 May 2018 16:22:03 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024137 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024137 The technophile’s scenario is the description of my school, but back in 1993 (minus some of the sci-fi references). Students having 1:1 devices, and a prescriptive learning plan base on baseline assessments throughout the year is standard practice for the online K-12 public school I lead. Teachers are the “coaches” and facilitate, guiding students through content and grouping them into appropriate lessons and teams. With coursework submitted through an LMS, it is graded and posted quickly for students to view feedback, “without the teacher being present”. It is an innovate approach to teaching and learning, yet difficult to communicate the concept sometimes to parents as they contemplate enrollment for their child. Describing a flexible daily schedule does not imprint easily as it was not what they had done in school. Love the statement of, “…fifty-minute periods will be as implausible as dinosaurs in a zoo”; this is so true! Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:04 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024134 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024134 Corrine, I agree how impressive it is to observe someone typing informally or using adaptive technology to type for them! It may be a lost skill in future as technology continues to evolve. I for one am thankful for learning on big old typewriters in 9th grade and see the value in preparation as you do :) Sun, 13 May 2018 16:22:03 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024133 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103405?scroll_to=1024133 The impulse that resonates with me is productivity. I distinctly recall my high school biology teacher using an overhead projector with prepared transparency sheets for us to take notes. She would darken the room for us to have a better view and write additional notes in marker. It was the first time I personally experienced a lesson outside of the chalkboard. You could observe the teacher’s preparation; the notes were organized and could be photocopied for you as well. Attending high school in the late 80’s early 90’s put me right in the middle of this transformation taking place. We observed computers being installed, yet teachers were not quite sure what to do with them outside of word processing, not to mention only one computer lab was available to the entire high school. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:03 -0500