Final Takeaways Reflection

When I began this course and this blog I answered the question am I a technology enthusiast or a technology skeptic. I answered at the time that I am very much an enthusiast of technology. Technology is able to customize every individual student’s education. Technology is able to connect students to parts of the world they would never be able to study otherwise. Technology puts information in the hands of students and allows them to direct their own learning. Technology moves the role of teachers from gatekeeper to coach. Technology isolates students from their peers. Technology makes students less able to focus. Technology makes the system of education obsolete.

The importance of technology in modern day society is undeniable. Students are required to be able to use technology proficiently in order to be successful in the majority of professions. Colleges require students to access technology in order to be successful in class. Imagine writing a detailed research paper without the use of online databases. Sure it is possible, however, it is much more laborious, ineffective and often information is out of date. Just as typewriting replaced handwritten work then computers replaced typewriters and with computers comes unlimited access to new information. Students come to school connected to technology. When they go home they have technology. It is unrealistic to expect students to engage in materials for over six hours without some form of technology.

How can teachers access and sustain students attention in a class? Use the tools available that will reach their students. Teachers and schools should not view technology as an adversary. Teachers should develop lessons around tools that enhance the content and can bridge gaps. Teachers should receive professional development around new technologies and programs that can enhance their practice. Teachers should also receive professional development on theories of technology education such as SAMR and TPACK. In addition to this, more needs to be done in teacher preparation programs to prepare future educators to teach in a changing system.

There are serious concerns with technology. Students face challenges with using programs responsibly and can have negative experiences with technology. This does not mean they should be limited from their use of technology, instead, direct instruction is needed to teach proper use and responsibility. Just as students use to pass notes in class, students often communicate at inappropriate times with apps such as google hangouts. While it is important that students attend to the tasks assigned, teachers should be teaching the natural consequences as they occur in class. Reminding students of their responsibilities as users of technology and the consequences of inappropriate use is the tip of the iceberg. Students need to understand more complex issues such as privacy, cyber bullying, plagiarism and the effectiveness of multitasking.

While I remain a technology enthusiast and have more ideas of how to effectively implement technology within my own teaching I do think it is important to maintain perspective. Technology connects to students to information like never before. It allows students to explore content and interact with it organically and in a hands on fashion. We as educators must realize that students need to be prepared for life outside of school and this includes technology readiness as well as the standard curriculum. It is our job as educators to prepare students with the knowledge of both academics and responsible online learning and citizenship.

Reflection 10/16

What is Personalized Learning?

Personalized Learning is a method of teaching which prioritizes student choice and multiple pathways to develop skills in a student. The idea of personalized learning is to create “a school and classroom culture that engages students to do their best work.” (Blankstein, 2015). Personalized learning recognizes that not every student can learn through a lecture and test model of instruction. It allows flexibility in developing concepts and critical thinking skills within the context of state and national standards. This sounds similar to many classes throughout the country. Project based learning, online course content, choice projects all lend themselves naturally to a personalized learning model.

Another critical piece of personalized learning is feedback. Students and teachers are required to make revisions to work and lesson designs based on the outcomes of student progress. Blankstien and Noguera (2015) describe three criteria for teacher feedback: the feedback must be student friendly, written in language geared towards the audience of the students within the classroom; it must be provided regularly; finally, it must be action-oriented focusing specifically on how to make improvements rather than focusing on what is incorrect.

A final feature of personalized learning is that it requires students to develop an interest in what they are learning. Students choose topics that they care deeply about and work to expand skills around those topics of interest.

What is Adaptive Learning?

Adaptive learning utilizes the idea of individualized learning for students but relies heavily on technology for the customization of student learning. Data is the hallmark of Adaptive Learning with assessments placing students on individualized modules and tracks, every activity is evaluated by computer software and next steps are tailored to projected outcomes. Cheryl Lemke (2013) describes adaptive learning as digital learning that “immerses students in modular learning environments where every decision a student makes is captured, considered in the context of sound learning theory and then used to guide student’s learning experiences, to adjust the student’s path and pace within and between lessons, and to provide formative and summative data to the student’s teacher.” This model provides live modifications for students and allows classroom teachers to monitor not only student progress but actively view and customize lessons that work for each individual student.

Programming within these educational softwares collect data on all of their users creating digital footprints connecting what students struggle with to what strategies lead to success. Seth Stephens-Davidowitz in his novel Everybody Lies Big Data, New Data and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Really Are describes this kind of customization as finding a user’s doppelganger. In his novel he describes data tracking to find user likes and dislikes primarily as it relates to marketing. However, educational programs act under this same guiding principle of finding a similar student pathways and connecting students to a pathway that matches their similar learning style.

Teachers can use this information in a variety of ways. One method would be using a flipped classroom model. This would be where students learn key concepts online then come to class for project based learning or reteaching based on computer feedback. Teachers have access to the information collected by the computers and then can tailor their lessons to the needs of the students. This allows for a distancing of teaching to the middle by allowing teachers to know what students need to work on and what they need to be challenged on.

Can These Two Concepts Work Together?

At first glance, personalized learning and adaptive learning seem very similar. Both stress the need for individualized learning and lessons for students. Both move away from traditional teach and quiz methods of classroom lessons. Both state the importance of feedback for students as well as student centered activities. However, the main difference in these methods is in the delivery of instruction. Personalized learning focuses on interdisciplinary student centered lessons. These lessons are based on what students are interested in and target high interest topics which connect to state and national grade level standards. Adaptive learning meets students where they are (whether that be above or below grade level) and fill in the gaps or challenge the advanced skills students need to work on. Adaptive learning takes instant data of student progress and creates customized tracks with lessons and resources available that the program believes will be most beneficial to student growth. On the other hand personalized learning relies heavily on the student and teacher to develop resources and project ideas that will be engaging and fulfilling. Adaptive learning focuses less on what the state and national standards are and stresses the pacing of learning needs to meet the individual not the other way around.

So, can these concepts work together to create an engaging and 21st century classroom?

Absolutely!

Adaptive learning should not take the place of a traditional classroom but be another tool in a teacher’s toolbox to create engaging and meaningful lessons. Flipped classrooms can utilize both adaptive and personalized learning. A student can gain foundational knowledge at home and then come to class and practice skills through projects and choice activities. Adaptive learning programs can supplement the state and national standards and help raise student interest in topics. The use of gaming, videos, personalized feedback and instantaneous results can lead to students being invested in what they are learning and more invested in what they are learning.

Concerns With Adaptive Learning

One major concern with adaptive learning is the issue of data collection. While it is amazing to create student profiles complete with what resources, lessons and modifications have been most successful for different types of learners educators should be cautious in what information is being collected stored and used in the future.

Another concern is the risk of over utilizing technology at the expense of individualized face to face teaching. Teachers should not change their classroom models to only utilizing adaptive learning with students in a silent circle on laptops, tablets and chromebooks. There is an appropriate balance necessary between screen time and face to face lessons. Not only this but online classrooms and programs do not work for every student. It is important to recognize that student performance with one tool is not indicative of their academic abilities.

Additionally, one major drawback of adaptive learning is the reliance on technology. Many students do not have reliable access to technology or internet which may make utilizing these programs outside of the classroom difficult to impossible. Additionally, many schools struggle with old and out of date infrastructure such as bandwidth limitations or old technology which limits the ability to effectively utilize adaptive learning.

A final, major, concern is that of student engagement. A good teacher knows when students are disengaged and has strategies on hand to negate this. A computer program may be able to recognize that a student is disengaged but, depending on what is causing the disinterest, may not be able to help the student get back on track. Furthermore, as with any technology, there is the risk of students not only being disengaged but actively off task. Having different web browsers up such as google hangouts or youtube while working on the computers is a problem within the education system. Students need to be able to be engaged without the distractions that come along with the benefits of technology.

Final Thoughts

If I had unlimited resources and were a policy maker I would try to find a way to evaluate different adaptive learning programs on the market. One fear I have within education is the commercialization of our students and education system. Companies actively market educational products to schools throughout the country and the effectiveness of these tools is mixed. While there are amazing engaging and beneficial programs there are also those put together hastily to try and maximize profits. A panel similar to the National Literacy Panel could examine popular adaptive learning programs and evaluate which are not only research backed but proven effective for students. I would like to see further use of adaptive learning and personalized learning in schools. Overall, teachers need training in these techniques and need to be able to see what these lessons can do for student success. Teachers should participate in lesson studies observing successful classroom models for ideas of how to implement these strategies in their own teaching.

 

What do you see as the greatest benefit of personalized and adaptive learning? What are some drawbacks or concerns that you still have?

References

Blankstein, A. M., & Noguera, P. (Eds.). (2015). Excellence Through Equity: Five Principles of Courageous Leadership to Guide Achievement for Every Student. Corwin Press.

Educause. (2017). 7 Things you should know about… Adaptive learning. Retrieved from: https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2017/1/eli7140.pdf.

Educause. (2017). 7 Things you should know about… Personalized learning. Retrieved from: https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2015/9/eli7124-pdf.pdf.

Lemke, C. (2013) Intelligent adaptive learning: an essential element of 21st century teaching and learning. Dreambox Learning. Retrieved from: http://www-static.dreambox.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/white-paper-intelligent-adaptive-learning-21st-century-teaching-and-learning.pdf.

Stephens-Davidowitz, S. (2017). Everybody Lies Big Data, New Data and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Really Are. New York, New York: Harper Collins.

Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Really Are

Here are links to the sound cloud of my review of the critiques and my youtube video about my prediction for what Seth Stephens-Davidowitz will do next. Please let me know your own thoughts and predictions!

 

Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/user-800773497/summarization-of-reviews-for-everybody-lies-by-seth-stephens-davidowitz

Youtube: https://youtu.be/aZh-fzWCDn8

Book Review Everybody Lies Big Data, New Data and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Really Are by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz.

Would you search your embarrassing question or racist thoughts if your employer could read what you were thinking? If your parent or spouse could read it? Most likely the answer would be no. Google is viewed as a secret confidant for millions of users everyday searching for the mundane to scandalous of information. However, Google is not keeping your secrets as much as you would think. As Seth Stephens-Davidowitz describes in his book Everybody Lies Big Data, New Data and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Really Are Google and other websites are tracking their users deepest and darkest secrets and, according to Stephens-Davidowitz, these searches can tell us about who we truly are.

Sociologist Erving Goffman is most well known for his Symbolic Interactionist view of society comparing life to a theater performance. In his theory of impression management he describes portraying our role in a society not as it truly is but as we wish it to be (Kivisto, 250). Stephens-Davidowitz echos this theory throughout his novel. He describes Facebook profiles projecting the perfect loving relationship but google searches expressing discontent in relationships. How does this apply to the sociological theory? Consider the selfie revolution. When a person takes 50 of the almost identical photo which do they post on social media? Certainly not the one with a double chin or a person’s eyes closed. When making a tweet is it going to be how awful a person’s significant other is or will it be of the sweet flowers? Is a person going to post a picture of their messy kitchen or the fancy dinner? All of these are impression management. In our everyday life people utilize this same principle. When asked about difficult and intricate tasks how many people describe the ease at which it was completed? Stephens-Davidowitz mirrors Erving Goffman’s theories in describing how people answer survey data versus their true online identities. Just as people in Goffman’s theory may not even be aware of their true selves, Stephens-Davidowitz suggests that big data can reveal information people cannot even admit to themselves. Many people do not want to admit to being prejudice yet may make searches that reveal their true feelings.

The major areas of big data analyzed throughout the novel were Google, Facebook and PornHub.  He also researched other websites such as well known hate website Stormfront. The author described each of these areas as a final frontier of data mining. He goes on to describe the amazing revelations that can be acquired from the data fields. One major area discussed is sexual preferences. Stephens-Davidowitz describes the difference in surveys in which respondents reported sexual preferences and the data he has found in his research mining data sites. Overall, he stated that people lie about their sexual preferences. Whether it be in choosing a partner to frequency and kinds of intimacy. He responded that this kind of data is the dreams of theorists such as Sigmund Freud and that big data can prove more about theories of sexuality than ever before.  Other areas that Stephens-Davidowitz stated could be determined through data mining included detecting abuse, political race outcomes, racism and prejudice. Focusing in on politics Stephens-Davidowitz describes the impact of hidden racism and prejudice in the 2016 election of now President Donald Trump. Stephens-Davidowitz wrote that the areas of the country where polling showed Hillary Clinton would win but Donald Trump ended up winning all of the poll data had been incorrect. The difference he stated could be accounted for when looking at racist searches on Google. Those regions which ended up swinging towards Donald Trump also had higher rates of racist searches.

Stephens-Davidowitz also describes ways that websites can utilize the free data provided by users. He describes A/B trials where a website will show users different interfaces: different titles to an article, different color ads ect. The website then conducts an unannounced experiment on the users to monitor what is most effective, namely, what gets the most clicks and traffic. These A/B trials are happening all over the internet without the knowledge or consent of users. These trials allow websites to better get to know their audience and taylor their marketing to what those viewing the website are most likely to click and enjoy.

Overall the research by Stephens-Davidowitz promises to be a new age of research. One of the biggest challenges of data collection is that people can not be counted on to be honest with the respondents. When asking questions that yield difficult or embarrassing information can interviewees be truly trusted to give honest responses. Instead of asking survey questions which can be skewed by lies, Stephens-Davidowitz suggests utilizing big data for the honest answers.

While Stephens-Davidowitz creates an image of a new frontier of research with many possibilities he does briefly discuss limitations. Specifically, he mentions the need for caution in using the information from big data to make decisions. In addition to this, he also describes causation and correlation. He specifically talks about being able to draw causation from big data where oftentimes it is not possible to move beyond a correlation. One major issue with this is there is no evidence that big data is accurate. While the data does provide interesting insights it is difficult to prove the accuracy of the information. While Google search trends are interesting they do not necessarily show a person’s deepest darkest desires. In addition to this causation is very difficult to prove. In the summer when ice cream sales go up vandalism also increases. Does this mean that ice cream causes vandalism? Is there some other cause besides ice cream that could be accounted for? Ice cream sales also correlate with summertime, summertime is associated with more freetime for which children may have more unstructured time and thus resort to vandalism. The question is does the ice cream cause an increase in vandalism or does unstructured downtime cause an increase in vandalism? Big data may be inaccurate. How many of the searches pulled as data were from morbid curiosity or other reasons aside from how a person truly feels? The fact of the matter is that big data does show promising signs of new research opportunities. It is important to look at internet data critically and to not assume that just because it shows a trend that it is reality.

A final critique of big data is the issue of privacy. Users of the internet should be wary of how their information is being handled. Many people turn to the internet to get answers or seek out information they cannot address in the “real world.” With the rising of tracking, data breaches and sensitive information being compromised daily the need for secure browsing has never been more prevalent.  Users should be able to browse the web without it being aggregated and sold to the highest bidder. Users should not be subjected to evaluations and testing without their consent. Users trust that they can use a website and have their information either not be collected or treated with respect and not sold. There is no opt into having your data shared anymore, that information is now available to the highest bidder.

References

Kivisto, P. (2011). Social Theory Roots and Branches. New York, New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Stephens-Davidowitz, S. (2017). Everybody Lies Big Data, New Data and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Really Are. New York, New York: Harper Collins.

Reflection 9/23

 

Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

When asking my coworkers about the word disruption this week, all of them gave negative responses to what is a disruption. Examples of noisy students, an interruption of progress, a breaking of a train of thought or classroom lesson. When asked about disruptive innovations teachers viewed the ideas as dichotomous and were unfamiliar with the applications of disruptive innovation within education.

Michael Horn (2013) in his lecture Disrupting Class and the Future of Learning describes disruptive innovation as bringing an innovation that redefines a measure of performance and allows access for non consumers. He then describes in detail who are non consumers of education. Two major groups mentioned are students who drop out of school and students who seek advanced classes in a school with limited options. Not only are there non consumers in education but the very structure of education is in need of evaluation. Larry Cuban (2015) describes the paradoxes of the educational system where “public schools have been expected to both conserve community values and traditions while simultaneously giving children and youth the knowledge and skills to make changes in their lives, communities, and yes, in those very values and traditions they absorb.” Schools are filled with standardization while educators know that all students learn at different rates. Schools know the way of factory modeled education does not work for every student yet are trapped in an ineffective system with no clear direction for reform. This is where disruptive innovation can create change for students and the entire system of education.

Technology has a major role in creating disruptive innovations within the educational system. Online courses such as Edgenuity, which provides courses in world language as well as programs in credit recovery, allow students to work at their own pace and access either remedial or advanced coursework. Students at risk of dropping out of school can attend courses from home through digital learning options. Students who are diagnosed with serious medical conditions can attend courses with their peers via robots such as the VGo (see this article from last year: http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/news/ci_31392673/r2-d2-is-r2-d2-class-today). The biggest advantage of disruptive innovation is the ability to engage students who are otherwise being left behind in the educational systems currently in place.

A challenge of disruptive innovation is that those leading the current system are often left behind or replaced in an era of change and disruption. But as Stephen Gould stated in his discussion with Susan Patterson and Jack Gillett (2017) “if you want to avoid disruption, be an innovator.” Those within education should not shy away from change because it is different. Rather, we are charged with examining the structures around us and finding solutions to problems within our schools and communities. Michael Horn called for student centered education and Jack Gillett echoed this sentiment in his discussion of the 1 teacher and 30 kids model of education. Technology can not only reduce class sizes but fundamentally change the structure of teacher lessons. Horn describes how technology has reinforced the teacher led chalkboard “all eyes on me” model of teaching from overhead projectors to smartboards teachers have largely been in control of their lessons and either unwilling or unsure of how to move towards the student centered model.

The questions for those within education remains how do we engage the non consumers of education? How do school leaders get buy in from the teachers in their building to try and implement more student centered lessons and use disruptive innovations in their daily practice? Furthermore, how do we prepare both students and teachers for the new and developing technologies that will continue to change the structures of education?

References

Cuban, L. (2015). Some Thoughts about Change, Innovation, and Watching Paint Dry. Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice. Retrieved from https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/some-thoughts-about-change-innovation-and-watching-paint-dry/.

Edmentum. (2013, March 6). Disrupting Class – Part 1: Disruptive Innovation Theory. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3krjGC82i4&feature=youtu.be.

Edmentum. (2013, March 6). Disrupting Class – Part 2: Past Examples of Disruptive Innovation. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz3ItJDEuQw&feature=youtu.be.

Edmentum. (2013, March 6). Disrupting Class – Part 3: Disruptive Innovation in Education. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX2hOF5YkfQ&feature=youtu.be.

Edmentum. (2013, March 6). Disrupting Class – Part 4: Blended Learning [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TGmqeWprqM&feature=youtu.be.

Jasinski, P. (2017). R2-D2? Is R2-D2 in class today? Sentinel and Enterprise. Retrieved from http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/news/ci_31392673/r2-d2-is-r2-d2-class-today.

Patterson, Susan. (2017). Disruptive Education. [Audio file]. Retrieved from https://soundcloud.com/susan_patterson/disruptive-innovation.

Reflection 9/16/18

In their article “Talking Back to Theory: the Missed Opportunities in Learning Technology Research” Sue Bennett and Martin Oliver (2011) state that theory “has a role to play in creating coherent, bonded scope for the work… the use of theory requires engagement, not just application.” (186). In examining the theories of technological education there are two major theories that have been frequently cited and applied: TPACK and SAMR. The remaining questions for those within education are: what are these two theories and how does one apply them and engage in them through their professional practice?

TPACK

The TPACK model according to Valarie Shinas (2017) is a plan for pedagogically sound content instruction using technology. TPACK is a combination of technological, pedagogical and content knowledge. Common Sense Knowledge (2014) explains that, traditionally, a teacher combines what they know about a content area and how they teach that content area to create a sound lesson, this is known as PKC. TPACK then takes this understanding and examines how tools can enhance a teacher’s lesson and deepen student learning. In a TPACK model teachers can redefine lessons they have done in the past and build into them new technologies that can take student engagement and learning beyond what is possible in low tech lesson.

SMAR

SAMR is a technological theory and focuses on the use of technology as a Substitution, Augmentation, Modification of Redefinition. Ruben Puentedura (2014), the creator of the SAMR model states that through using the SAMR model educators take a lesson and asks “how can I do this better?” It involves taking what an educator was already doing and significantly modifying it but keeping the heart of the lesson.

Sue Cusack (2017) explains that this model involves two major areas enhancement, via substitution or augmentation, or transformation through modification or redefinition. The enhancement stages of the SAMR model focus on enhancing lessons with tools similar to those available without technology, for example using quizlet for flashcards instead of index cards. Those in the transformation stages create lessons that would not otherwise be possible without the technologies available. An example of this would be utilizing skype to call in a specialist to speak with students.

Application to My Own Practice

Through the videos and readings from this week I have been reflecting on both TPACK and the SAMR models of thinking. I have found that the SAMR model resonates with me as a Special Education Teacher. Jason Hilton (2016) examined both models in his article “A Case Study of the Application of SAMR and TPACK for Reflection on Technology Integration in Two Social Studies Classrooms.” The results showed that “SAMR appears to most easily connect to the student-centered design in that each activity is examined for specific opportunities to imbed technology.” (72). This fits with my goals as a Special Education Teacher in creating accessible and student focused lessons so that all students can be successful. I found that the SAMR model was easier to understand and implement in my daily practice.

An instructional move I have already put into place under the guidance of the SAMR model involves students with significant reading disabilities. These students are often provided small group read aloud assessments throughout the year as part of their individualized education plan (IEP). I was thinking about how we could improve this practice as it often is problematic. First, an adult such as a paraprofessional must be available. Then, a room must be available. Once in the small group, students all work at different paces but must wait until every student finishes before the next question is read. All of these and other factors make the process difficult for students and teachers to the point that many students do not properly access this accommodation. This got me thinking about how can we create a transformative technology for students in this situation. At the same time I was thinking about how much outdated technology is sitting in peoples bureau drawers or collecting dust in their houses. I realized a simple solution would be for a teacher to record a read aloud selection on an old device, such as an ipod, and students could simply sit in class and listen to the recording. This would solve many of the common read aloud problems. A designated adult would not have to leave the room, students could remain in class with headphones to take the exam. Students can move at their own pace rewinding and replaying questions as needed. Additionally, the recordings could be in multiple languages so multilingual speakers could access the material. This would not even have to be limited to assessments but really any in class worksheet could utilize this feature.

In thinking about this I proposed it to our school principal. She was completely on board and we are currently planning a technology drive to try and get old ipods for every classroom. We then will explore other financing options such as donorschoose to fill any gaps. In the meantime I already tested this out with one of my own students in a resource setting for his vocabulary quiz. The first we he received a 10% on his quiz without a read aloud. He retook it with me reading the exam and received a 70%. This week he took his vocabulary quiz with the questions recorded on an old ipod and received a 78%. I spoke with him after the exam and he reported how much easier it was for him to take the quiz through the ipod and he stated he would like this option in his other classes. I am looking forward to getting the technology drive underway and implementing this idea schoolwide, however, I think the most difficult part of this task will be getting teacher buy in to see this as something easier, not as one more thing to do. What recommendations does anyone have on how to generate support for this idea? What stage would you consider this idea on the SAMR model?

References

Bennet, S. & Oliver, M. (2011). Talking back to theory: the missed opportunities in learning technology research. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 179-189.

Common Sense Education. (2014, November 3). Introduction to the TPACK Model. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmRw_wARuMk.

Common Sense Education. (2014, November 3) Ruben Puentedura on Applying the SAMR Model. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6j8soDYoaw.

Hilton, J. T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on technology integration into two social studies classrooms. Social Studies, 107(2), 68-73.

Patterson, Susan. (2017). TPACK and SAMR. [Audio file]. Retrieved from https://soundcloud.com/susan_patterson/tpack-samr.

 

Reflection 9/9/18

In examining the development and use of technology both professionally and personally I would consider myself a Technology Enthusiast. I feel as though my particular age group had a unique upbringing in that children of the late 80s and early 90s grew up with monumental changes within technology. I saw life before the wireless internet and cell phones but also was in my formative years when these technologies developed and were popularized. Due to this I have always been receptive to learning new technologies and have used technology naturally throughout my life as it has become available.

In my everyday practice as a special education teacher I used technology daily in my classroom. As a teacher I utilize my computer for goal tracking and behavior monitoring. I create lessons utilizing PowerPoints, YouTube videos and online textbooks. Additionally, I have incorporated interactive computer programs and phone applications such as online flashcards, vocabulary games and query code multiple choice cards which students use regularly. Many of my students have chromebooks and I have computers in my room. This allows me to edit and correct student work in live time. Students ask questions via online chats and work on online classroom prompts interacting with one another digitally both in school and at home. These tools used in my class are also described in the chapter The Technology Enthusiasts’ Argument by Collins, A. and Halverson R (2018), they describe how simulations and games using technology can be helpful to students. They state that technology allow “simulated environments that embody the kinds of knowledge and skills that the learners will need in the real world.” Furthermore, “these simulations take on a new dimension when players interact with one another in online play.” Students are connecting with one another like never before and as educators we can tap into this connection to allow students to create deeper understandings of concepts while working together.

I see the future of education being inseparable from technology. Even the most technology resistant teachers must concede that students are connected with technology. As educators we must meet students where they are and for better or worse they are with technology and gadgets. Additionally, in the workplace students are expected to be competent using technology. Preventing students from having a technologically rich learning experience can actually hinder their prospects for future careers. In the article Technology in Education: An Overview Benjamin Herold (2016) echos this sentiment in describing the role of 1-to-1 student computing. He states that one main goals of 1-to-1 student computing is “helping students to become technologically skilled and literate and thus better prepared for modern workplaces.”  The future of education can no longer afford to be textbooks and paper tests. There are so many more ways to teach that will better engage students and allow for more individualization and customization.

While the future of education is full of potential there are many hurdles educators and building leaders must overcome. One major obstacle as Herold mentions is the issue of infrastructure. Schools are requiring major upgrades to their buildings to allow so many student devices on their network. In particular bandwidth upgrades have stalled progress in many districts. Additionally, technology can not be seen as a blanket solution to the problems within an education system. As Will Richardson (2013) explained in his article Students First, Not Stuff  “it’s not about the tools. It’s not about layering expensive technology on top of traditional curriculum. Instead, it’s about addressing the new needs of modern learners in entirely new ways.” The idea that we are preparing students for jobs that have not been invented stresses the need to identify what students will need for the future and to create a curriculum to fit the student not the other way around.

Herold stated another concern for technology is that the research of improvement and success from students utilizing technology is mixed and not clear cut. However, as educational leaders it is important to create unbiased opinions and continue to do research of methods that promote success for all learners.

For teachers wary of utilizing the growing technology available to them consider the following quote from Michael Wesch’s TED talk The End of Wonder in the Age of Whatever: “It’s certainly a good lesson to recognize that a lot of times your barriers to learning are actually things you already know. Sometimes unlearning is the road forward to learning.” While it is difficult to examine teaching practices and evaluate if techniques need to be updating, it is still pivotal to critically examine what other best practices are available.

For teachers who are already utilizing technology and those who believe in the future of education through the use of technology consider the following questions: How do we measure success in students who are using technology? What standards are we using to evaluate online programs and tools? How do we avoid unnecessary spending of, as Richardson states, “the next shiny, expensive new object that gets marketed as a learning device?” How do we evaluate what tools will help our students and which just make the job of teaching easier at the expense of student learning?

References

Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2018). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. Teachers College Press. (chapter 2).

Cornell Center for Teaching Excellence. (2013, October 3). Michael Wesch: The End of Wonder in the Age of Whatever.

Davis, M. (2017). The future of classroom technology: Five ed-tech experts weigh in. Education Week, (35). Retrieved from http://ezproxyles.flo.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.496922517&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Herold, B. (2016). Technology in education: An overview. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/technology-in-education.

Richardson, W., & Postman, N. (2013). Students first, not stuff.Educational Leadership, 70(6). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar13/vol70/num06/Students-First,-Not-Stuff.aspx.

 

What do we do to help students be ready?