The Professional Development Hat - Solutions

I'm not quite ready to walk away from the article I discussed yesterday. I really only touched on the identification of the problem and the goals for solving it. The article did contain some suggestions for ways to get the PD ball moving and keep it in motion. The authors expressed a few ideas I really questioned though. I would love to see a follow-up article to find out if these strategies worked. (Similar to yesterday, this does not reflect all their suggestions, just the ones that stuck out for me.)

1. Practice logs – the idea here is to have teachers fills in practice logs to reflect on the new practice they used and provide feedback on what worked, what didn't, and if further support is needed. When I read this, I immediately thought of first year education reflections and thought "there is absolutely no way anyone is going to do that faithfully enough to make a difference." More the point, if one of the obstacles is getting teachers to look at technology as a help, not a hinderance, is throwing more paperwork into the mix really helping the situation?!
   
2. One way to motivate teachers to use technology is to mandate it – REALLY? After our class discussions this week on how motivation depends largely on autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Mandating that something be used totally strips away the motivating factor of autonomy. It also takes away the motivating factor of mastery. Why would you want to get better at something you aren't really interested in? As for purpose, that doesn't seem to be a strong motivator here either. It is hard to recognize the purpose of something that has been funnelled down to you. It is even more difficult to understand your purpose in the task when you were never consulted about it. The point is, I have HUGE doubts that this whole mandate idea would work.
   
3. Offer pay increases or extra technology to those who use it – First off, the same motivating factors come in to play here. Research shows that big rewards tend to result in smaller achievement. Not to mention the fact that this logic is totally backwards. How is giving the people who buy into technology more technology going to help the people who are resisting it? If anything, this model is going to create animosity between the haves and the have-nots and the whole issue of technology is just going to get lost in the politics! Talk about a slippery slope.
   

I am filled with complaints and resistance to their ideas, but of course I have no alternative suggestions. It seems I make a better critic than a creator. Despite my criticism, I think there is truth at the heart of these suggestions: motivation is key. As ETs, we need to look at how people are motivated and use that to our advantage. Maybe we need to adopt the system Atlassian uses (find out more about it from Dan Pink's talk on Drive.) and give our teachers unstructured time two or three times per term to just play around with things. Give them time to sort out what they like, what they don't, what works, what doesn't, etc. Give them time to develop some mastery, autonomy, and purpose and just see what happens as a result!

Rodriguez offers a quote about the importance of Technology PD that I think sums things up nicely: The Office of Technology Assessment (1995) states, "Helping schools to make the connection between teachers and technology may be one of the most important steps to making the most of the past, present, and future investments in educational technology and our children's future" (p. iii). Definitely some food for thought, I'd say!

The Professional Development Hat - Goals

Professional development (PD) is a huge part of the ET's job. ETs need to find out what kind of PD is needed in the division, research those topics, either design a PD opportunity or seek out someone who has the expertise, present the PD, evaluate post-PD behaviour and implementation...it's a big job!

I've been thinking a lot about what Donna and I discussed in her interview about how teachers are comfortable with their own use of technology, so what kind of PD do we offer to take it to the next level. It seems to be the big question on a lot of people's minds as of late...with no obvious answers in sight. I did some poking around on the internet last night and came across an article by Ginger Rodriguez that explored the Critical Issue: Providing Professional Development for Effective Technology Use. The article provided some interesting research into what PD should look like for it to be most effective and some of the obstacles that stand in the way. I'm only going to comment on the things that really stuck out for me, so please do not consider this a comprehensive review of the article. That being said, I strongly recommend that you read it; they've got some interesting stuff to say!

1. Teachers should become fearless in their use of technology – I think this is a great articulation of the ultimate PD goal. Fear is a definite obstacle for technology usage in my school/division. I really don't think the fear is the technology itself but more looking like you don't know what you are doing that is the problem. Teachers pride themselves in being knowledgeable about a variety of things, so putting that at risk is a big deal. I think this whole idea is something that ETs need to be aware of and sensitive to. Just because we are ready for the technology, doesn't mean everyone else is.
   
2. Transform thinking of technology as software, hardware, and connections into being tools for teaching and learning. As ETs, we need to help teachers realize that technology doesn't need to be considered another add-on to the list of things to include in our day. If we can help teachers to realize that technology can be used as a teaching tool like a text or a handout, some of the fear mentioned above may dissipate and the "integration" of technology will become second nature instead. Hopefully.
   
3. Technology PD has to deviate from our traditional one-shot model – Technology is ever-evolving and it seems that as soon as you learn a program and get comfortable using it, it changes. For that exact reason, technology PD needs to be an ongoing process with repeated instruction and plenty (LOTS) of practice time. Within the article it said that 15 live or videotaped demonstrations on a topic resulted in modest-sized change in practice. At first I was totally shocked by that. Then I got thinking, aren't we taught that I student needs to see/hear/interact with a concept something like 50 times before it sticks. Well duh, shouldn't that same idea apply to teachers? The article also pointed out that substantial change in practice take 4-7 years in a resource-rich school and even longer in schools that lack resources. Good to know for us ETs! It's good to remember this when we aren't seeing the enthusiasm and results we had hoped for.
   
4. IT support needs to be immediate for teachers to stay engaged in the process – I think we can all appreciate this one. My division is quite vast and our IT department is quite small. As such, malfunctions take time to be addressed. Our in-house technology leader is able to fix/troubleshoot small issues, but most of the system is locked down, so we are pretty limited to what we can fix. In that same realm, new technologies need to be tested before implementation is encouraged (or, GASP, mandated). Have we learned nothing from Windows?! Make sure it works or people will get frustrated to the point of not wanting to use it.
   

If nothing else, Rodriguez has really helped to focus what needs to be accomplished by professional development in technology. Technology is such a large topic it is hard to know where to focus our professional development efforts to make the most significant impact.

Interview with Donna DesRoches (Pt.1)

Donna is the Ed Tech guru for Living Sky School Division and she graciously accepted my request for an interview! In this meeting, she shares a bit about what her job entails, some of her favourite technologies, and provides an important tip for us budding Ed Techs! Thanks so much to Donna for sharing her insight with me (and you)! Due to technical limitations,this interview will be posted in two parts.

No hat, just ponderings re: Technology Integration

I've been doing a lot of thinking about something a colleague recently posted in a discussion on reluctance in technology integration in schools. He said that perhaps the key to success is pulling people into technology instead of pushing them. He suggested that instead of making people buy into an idea, we should let the people who already accept the idea encourage others by sharing how easy/useful it is for them. Hopefully, by hearing how wonderful other people think it is or seeing the difference it makes in their classroom, the reluctant ones will come to accept the ideas well. At the time, I thought it was a really inspired idea. After thinking about it for a few weeks and interacting with people who are reluctant technology users, I've changed my mind. Sometimes people really do need a push, even if they don't realize it.

It was sharing my internship experience with someone that recently really got me thinking about the whole push vs. pull argument. When I requested my internship placement, I put heavy emphasis on the fact that I wanted to teach the primary grades. It was what I knew, loved, and was comfortable with. Everyone wants to have a positive internship experience and in my mind, a primary placement guaranteed a positive experience for me. You can imagine my trepidation when I received notice that I would be in a grade 6 class. I was terrified. Those middle years' kids were bigger and meaner and scarier. I went into my first week of internship expecting the worst from the students AND myself. I was out of my element and so had little confidence in what I was doing. After a somewhat bumpy start, I discovered that I loved teaching middle years. The independence the students were able to use was something I wasn't used to working with and neither was the ability of the students to form opinions and share thoughtful discussion. I was floored. And every day since then I have been so thankful that the universe pushed me out of my comfort zone and allowed me the opportunity to experience something I never knew I could love. If that push wouldn't have come, I'd probably be singing "Itsy bitsy spider" and sewing sock puppets, never realizing what I was missing.

If I hadn't been pushed to try teaching middle years, would I have done it? I doubt it. It's this realization that has me questioning the power of "pull". I knew people who loved teaching middle years, I knew people who wouldn't have taught anything BUT middle years, but did that make me want to do it? No. I chalked it up to a difference of opinion. The pull of hearing great things about how much people loved teaching middle years' kids, did not make me want to try it. I had to be pushed into it. I think technology is the same.

If we as ET's are really serious about integrating technology, we're going to have to push a few people out of their comfort zone to do it. However, we also need to be there to support them in their efforts and make the experience as positive as possible. I also think that we need to be selective about what we push and when we push it. Pushing someone into trying something that is way beyond their ability level or pushing something that hasn't been tested (and proven) will probably end with undesirable results.

I'm not saying that every push will have the same results as my internship experience, but sometimes it also takes being pushed out of your comfort zone to shock you into re-evaluating your practices. Teachers are supposed to adapt the best practice to educate students. Sometimes that best practice isn't going to fit into your comfort zone. So when resisting that push, you need to consider why you are resisting. Is it because you really don't think it will help educate your students or because you are comfortable doing things the way you've always done them?

The Software Recommender Hat

Websites featured in this presentation:

http://www.mathletics.ca/

http://www.geogreeting.com/

http://www.software4schools.ca/

The Technology Integration Hat

One of the main jobs of an educational technologist (ET) in any setting is to assist in integrating technology. In reality, just about anyone can "integrate technology" into their classroom without the help of an ET. (Having a computer in the class so students can play computer games during free time counts, right?) The ET's real job in the realm of integration is to help teachers use technology in engaging and meaningful ways. Sounds easy enough, but a lot of classroom technology is used to present an old idea in a new way (not very meaningful OR engaging). In order to get to the meaningful and engaging use of technology, ETs have to help teachers transform their teaching strategies to facilitate the best use of the technology available. Not sounding so easy anymore, right? Fear not!

To get teachers headed in the right direction, ETs need to provide the tools (and support) to help teachers ask themselves a key question when they use technology in a lesson or assignment: "Could this task have been completed without the technology I used?" If the answer is yes, chances are their attempt at integration missed the mark.

Imagine this scenario: A grade 5 teacher asks her class to give a report on animal habitats by researching facts on the internet and then presenting them with PowerPoint.

So let's try to evaluate this task on its meaningful integration. Was technology integrated into the lesson? Absolutely. Was it a task that used technology for technology's sake? Possibly. Now consider the key question: Could this task have been completed without technology? I do believe a resounding "YES!" is in order here. This task is no different than the traditional task of sending kids to the library to research facts in books and then create a poster showcasing their findings. In other words, it's a new way to complete an old task.

So how do we fix it? One idea is to use rubrics or checklists to help teachers evaluate their use of technology. One example comes from Bernajean Porter. In her presentations at IT Summit 2010 in Saskatoon, Bernajean led a few discussions that dealt with the meaningful integration of technology in schools. (See the synopsis of her presentations here. "All Technology Uses are NOT Equal" and "Extreme Make-over" are the presentations I refer to in this post.) During Bernajean's presentation, she gave participants a rubric entitled "H.E.A.T.ing UP™ Student Performance Tasks for Transformational Learning". (The rubric itself is copyrighted but I'll give you the gist.)

Each time technology is used in the classroom, the teacher can evaluate how much transformational learning the students were engaged in by circling the objectives they met. For example, under Higher Order Thinking, if the task mentioned above was designed to help students become familiar with internet searches and PowerPoint and the point was not really to learn about habitats, then the lesson would be focused on technological literacy. (This is fine in moderation, by the way!) If the point of the task was to have students research facts and report back about them (ABOUT being the operative word), then the assignment would fit into the adapting technology level. However, if students were required to make meaning of animal habitats by USING the facts they found or, even better, produce information of their own about animal habitats, then we would be looking at transformative learning. With just a quick glance, teachers are able to see how their use of technology measures up. They are also able to consider how to take an existing idea and transform it to create higher learning and more meaningful use of technology for their students.

Of course, transforming the strategies and practices a teacher is accustomed to will take time. Encourage teachers to start small with one or two lessons a year and build from there. Trying to change too much too fast just might have the opposite effect and result in teachers avoiding technology integration all together.

For more discussion and a few examples, check out Jeff Utecht's post on Evaluating Technology Use in the Classroom or Sun Associates webpage.

Wondering how to offer Professional Development to get everyone on the same page? Here's an exploration of the issue that might give you some ideas!

The Hat Box

The position of Educational Technologist is not an easy one to define. Wikipedia offers the oh-so-helpful definition that "An educational technologist is someone who is trained in the field of educational technology." How insightful! A definition like that is probably more helpful when the area of expertise has more concretely defined parameters. For example, What's a firefighter? A firefighter is a person who fights fires. Well, that's a fair definition because I know (or at least have a general idea of) what that means. I know what a fire is and I have a reasonable understanding of what it means to fight a fire. However, when the field of educational technology is best defined by change, using the term to explain the job of an educational technologist is not terribly helpful.

The best place to find out what is expected from an Ed Tech on the job is to check out a job posting. In reality, each Ed Tech position is going to be different from the next because the needs of each school/division/corporation are going to depend of their current level of technology integration and their vision for future integration. After perusing several job postings available on line (and there are a lot of them!), there seems to be at least some common ground in each post. Regardless of what audience is involved (elementary/high school, post-secondary, etc.), the basic must-haves of the position seem to be the same.

As a side note: There were corporate listings available on many sites under the heading of Educational Technologist, but I'm going to stick with the education setting for now. We'll touch on the corporate possibilities of the position later on.

Educational Technologists are expected to:

• Work with teachers to implement technology into the curriculum.
  
• Arrange and/or provide teachers/staff/students with technology training and professional development.
  
• Recommend and/or purchase software, hardware, and other resources.
  
• Identify trends in technology that supplement curriculum and teaching strategies.
  
• Maintain/Oversee the technology integration plan of the school/division.
  
• Create/Collect learning resources for teachers, staff, and students.
  
• Evaluate new and existing programs and strategies being used to integrate technology.
  
• Maintain resources and equipment
  
• Troubleshoot software/hardware issues on site
  
• Provide input/insight on ways to increase teachers' use of technology
  

  .
  

Quite the diverse list of duties, non? And that's just the tip of the iceberg; many jobs will require additional responsibilities! Also, bear in mind that each of those duties comes with its own list of more specific expectations. However, this list definitely gives a starting point for filling our hat box. Over the next 5 weeks, we'll take a closer look at each of these responsibilities and what hats are required to fulfill them. In the end, we should have a hat box twice as diverse as Mr. Dressup's tickle trunk!