Technology Planning

Many schools today are approaching technology in a piecemeal fashion: each year a few new devices are added... laptops, desktops, net books, handhelds... the list goes on. In some cases, IT support people can connect the devices in seamless manner. In many schools, however, the diversity of the technology is staggering. In these cases, data can usually be shared seamlessly through cloud computing (Google Docs, Zoho, or other web-based document sharing), but software versions, account information (how on logs on), ans even operating systems may vary. My own school is an excellent example: Our users have access to Windows XP (moving to Windows 7 is planned), Macintosh OS 10.5, and several versions of Ubuntu.

(A slight diversion from the theme of this post: This diversity is a good thing. If students and teachers simply learn which buttons to click on a single ICT system then we must question how “technology literate” are; just like we would have to question the literacy of someone who could use only one series of books or the numeracy of someone who could answer only one type of math problem. My opinion is that a diverse computing experience prepares all to be more flexible and thus more competent and confident users of computers.)

Clearly such a diverse computing environment does pose some difficulties. Whereas most students will quickly adapt to the different interfaces and will understand the differences in capacity of different systems, adults (teachers especially in my experience) find it difficult to understand that not all computer systems are created equal and that different systems may provide identical function, some provide similar function, and some provide quite different functions. Even more difficult for some adults to understand is that the newest computers may not be the ones that provide the most useful function for a particular job.

The question of who is responsible for what in these environments always comes up; and I have been observing some difficulties in this area recently. Reflecting on these difficulties has led me so some conclusions:

Step #1: Curriculum leaders (this groups includes technology coordinators, administrators, technology committees, team leaders, department leaders, and curriculum experts) decide “What is the technology we need?”

The answer to this question is phrased in terms of capacity to plan, create, and implement curriculum and instruction; not in terms of devices or software. So, “access to word processors and spreadsheets” is reasonable for this group to answer, but “Microsoft Office” is not.

Step #2: School and technology leaders (this group includes technology coordinators and administrators) decide how to provide the curriculum and instruction capacity defined above. These decisions are limited by budgets, enrollment, existing infrastructure, and similar considerations.

Step #3: Technology leaders and technicians obtain, install, and maintain the hardware, software, and connectivity that provides the curriculum and instruction needs defined in Step 1 and that meets to constrains defined in Step 2. This becomes the hardware, software, and connectivity that educators can expect.

Step #4: Educators have the responsibility, then, to learn how to use the systems developed and installed in Step 3. Educators who bring students into a computer room for class must know how to log on and use the system. (Simply sitting back as others troubleshoot minor problems or ignore instruction from technicians as they show how to log on or save is malpractice; even if the teacher proclaims, “I am not good at computers.” )

Of course, the essential connection between each step (and also that connects the last step to the first, making this cyclic not linear) is communication. Curriculum leaders must communicate with school and technology leaders who must communicate with technicians. Technology leader must communicate with everyone as they are at the focus.

If the systems does not work it is the teachers who will know first, but they must first understand what the purpose of the system is and how to operate the system (and they must play an active role in learning both the purpose and the operation of school ICT systems). If the system does not work, then school and technology leaders must believe teachers and work to fix the issues in a timely manner. Finally, all must understand that the system (including decisions made at every step) are local systems with idiosyncrasies and  nuances that are unique; just because ICT worked in a certain way in another school (or industry) does not mean it will work the same in this school.

Technology Planning...

Many schools today are approaching technology in a piecemeal fashion: each year a few new devices are added... laptops, desktops, net books, handhelds... the list goes on. In some cases, IT support people can connect the devices in seamless manner. In many schools, however, the diversity of the technology is staggering. In these cases, data can usually be shared seamlessly through cloud computing (Google Docs, Zoho, or other web-based document sharing), but software versions, account information (how on logs on), ans even operating systems may vary. My own school is an excellent example: Our users have access to Windows XP (moving to Windows 7 is planned), Macintosh OS 10.5, and several versions of Ubuntu.

(A slight diversion from the theme of this post: This diversity is a good thing. If students and teachers simply learn which buttons to click on a single ICT system then we must question how “technology literate” are; just like we would have to question the literacy of someone who could use only one series of books or the numeracy of someone who could answer only one type of math problem. My opinion is that a diverse computing experience prepares all to be more flexible and thus more competent and confident users of computers.)

Clearly such a diverse computing environment does pose some difficulties. Whereas most students will quickly adapt to the different interfaces and will understand the differences in capacity of different systems, adults (teachers especially in my experience) find it difficult to understand that not all computer systems are created equal and that different systems may provide identical function, some provide similar function, and some provide quite different functions. Even more difficult for some adults to understand is that the newest computers may not be the ones that provide the most useful function for a particular job.

The question of who is responsible for what in these environments always comes up; and I have been observing some difficulties in this area recently. Reflecting on these difficulties has led me so some conclusions:

Step #1: Curriculum leaders (this groups includes technology coordinators, administrators, technology committees, team leaders, department leaders, and curriculum experts) decide “What is the technology we need?”

The answer to this question is phrased in terms of capacity to plan, create, and implement curriculum and instruction; not in terms of devices or software. So, “access to word processors and spreadsheets” is reasonable for this group to answer, but “Microsoft Office” is not.

Step #2: School and technology leaders (this group includes technology coordinators and administrators) decide how to provide the curriculum and instruction capacity defined above. These decisions are limited by budgets, enrollment, existing infrastructure, and similar considerations.

Step #3: Technology leaders and technicians obtain, install, and maintain the hardware, software, and connectivity that provides the curriculum and instruction needs defined in Step 1 and that meets to constrains defined in Step 2. This becomes the hardware, software, and connectivity that educators can expect.

Step #4: Educators have the responsibility, then, to learn how to use the systems developed and installed in Step 3. Educators who bring students into a computer room for class must know how to log on and use the system. (Simply sitting back as others troubleshoot minor problems or ignore instruction from technicians as they show how to log on or save is malpractice; even if the teacher proclaims, “I am not good at computers.” )

Of course, the essential connection between each step (and also that connects the last step to the first, making this cyclic not linear) is communication. Curriculum leaders must communicate with school and technology leaders who must communicate with technicians. Technology leader must communicate with everyone as they are at the focus.

If the systems does not work it is the teachers who will know first, but they must first understand what the purpose of the system is and how to operate the system (and they must play an active role in learning both the purpose and the operation of school ICT systems). If the system does not work, then school and technology leaders must believe teachers and work to fix the issues in a timely manner. Finally, all must understand that the system (including decisions made at every step) are local systems with idiosyncrasies and nuances that are unique; just because ICT worked in a certain way in another school (or industry) does not mean it will work the same in this school.

The End of Integration

In the last year or so, I have come to cringe whenever I hear the phrase "technology integration." Originally, it meant a very specific type of education. In recent years, any activity in which kids are in front of computer screens is called "technology integration." Even activities very different from what was originally envisioned as technology integration (or teaching with computers) is labeled integration, and as we have named every "kids-front-in-of-screens" activity as technology integration the care we take in planning to make sure we are using technology to study authentic and complex problems has taken less attention as well.

(Yes, I understand this is not true of every school... but I think in the last decade... as we have been increasingly measured by tests, we have seen the return of proposals to use computers to teach to the test, and that is taking us away from what we as middle school educators know and what educational technologist learned back in the last century.)

Next month, I will be giving this presentation at VTFest, the annual educational technology conference in Vermont:

Dipity

Here is a web site that can be used to "fancy up" your classroom:

http://www.dipity.com/

With Dipity, you can create timeline... just like any other timeline you create, but this one is online and at each date, you can attach files (word processor files, presentation, pictures, even link to web pages and YouTube videos). Your timeline can be shared with others (who can be given permission to edit), and because it is a web site, anyone can access it from anywhere.

Now, I am not trying to promote this (or any) business... I am only trying to point the NELMS community to tools I find and that have been helpful in my work with middle school populations.

Reflexivity

In recent months, I have been thinking about the idea of reflexivity. The term originates in sociological research and it refers to the effects of researcher on the society being studied. (Basically the researcher affects the society, and so any observations must be interpreted in a manner that recognizes the research did influence the observations.)

Some technology scholars have begun using the idea to think about technology in the world. In this research, scholars seek to understand how information technology influences our understanding of thee "things" we do. For example, scholars are researching how information technology is reflexively influencing how humans perceive banking and our expectations of how we access and manage our money and information about our money.

I am thinking we need to start looking at the reflexive interactions between information technology and the way we use information technology. We can see how new technologies emerge from changes in technology itself and in changes in how humans use technologies. We can think of these as "industry push" and "market pull."

I have been using this graphic to illustrate reflexivity:

As we consider the future of our schools, these reflexive influences must become a more important part of our thinking. Information and computer technology is changing how we interact with others and how we access, manage, and create information. Relevant schools will be reflexive schools.

The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains

Nicholas Carr is a well-known writer about information technology issues. When judging his latest book, The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, by the cover, one would presume the author will take a decidedly anti-Internet stance. One predicts the authors will tell how terrible the Internet is, how it is destroying our children, and ultimately our civilization. Instead, Carr gives a researched and reasoned account of what the Internet does appear to be doing to our brains, as well as an equally reasoned strategy for recognizing the effects and creating strategies to continue to be a productive member of society.

From Carr's account it is clear that our brains do work differently now... shallow thinking... click and change... new ideas each minute... scan the page... back to where you started... oh yeah.. hey, that's cool, I wonder if?

You have seen it in your students, you have seen it in yourself. The “mile-wide-and-inch-deep” approach to information is a permanent part of our society, and for educators, we need to do two things:

First, adapt. Just complaining that the Internet is ruining everything is a sure way to irrelevance. Changing your style (your instruction, your expectations, your willingness to deviate from the lesson plan) to help students make sense of what they learn and how they learn it is essential today.

Second, get deep. It is clear that today, more than ever, educators need to give students experience developing expertise through extended study and engagement. Students need support and encouragement to learn in the “pre-Internet” way. Reading books and long articles, writing essays and long papers.

Carr recounts the story of how he finished his book: He retreated to his second home in Colorado (it appears writing books about information technology is a more profitable avocation that teaching), turned off his cell phone, disconnected from the Internet; and then finished his thinking and writing. Maybe we can follow his lead: use the Internet to gather information, to live and interact; and then retreat into ourselves to make sense of it all.

We need to do both today.

Rethinking Education

One of the themes I will develop on this blog can best be described as "rethinking education." We know the world is changing (the content we teach, the populations we teach, the culture for which we prepare youngsters...). We know from a range of education observers that schooling as we know it is based on old ideas and that increasingly these ideas are leading to school experiences that are irrelevant. This is all contributing to public discourse on how we can overcome our institutional inertia.

I believe educators have been silent in this discussion for far to long, so this will be my forum for pointing the NELMS community to resources to help each member be a strong voice for what we know 21st education should look like. After all, middle schoolers have a long experience with the practices others are now advocating!

Ken Robinson is well-known for his comments on creativity and educational practices that promote creativity (especially his TED Talk on how schools kill creativity). A student recently pointed me to a more recent talk he has given on the obsolete educational paradigm. This version has an interesting visual representation also:

I must say I enjoy today's Internet... My students and I have had our choice of streaming video watching the events in Chile.

NELMS Tech Blog Renewed!

Greetings NLEMS friends old and new!

From 2007-2009, I blogged for NELMS on technology issues... some may recall my attempts to connect middle school theory and practice to computers and information technology.

In May 2009, I ended the blog as I had to dedicate some months to completing my dissertation research. As I am approaching 12 months with my degree, it seems time to get back to my keyboard and renew connections with NELMS friends.

In the coming weeks and months, I will begin posting again; and I look forward to reading your comments, corrections and questions. The NELMS community has terrific energy, and I hope I can do it justice and make my simple contributions.