Technology in urban schools

Eileen M. Gallaher examines the gaps and challenges which exist in urban schools having access to computers in the classroom that are wired to the Internet. This examination is conducted in Chicago Public Shools where many schools are being modernized. The federal E-rate program, which provides funds to assist low-income schools to build the infrastructure needed to support a LAN and to ensure Internet connectivity, is touted as a major force in this movement. Additionally, a component of the E-rate program forces the often-neglected set-aside of certain monies for periodic computer and software upgrades.

Although no direct examination is made of the challenges faced by rural schools, they are alluded to in the conclusion. Here, Gallaher writes that “(N)ational surveys show that the schools least likely to have classrooms connected to the Internet are urban schools” (LeBaron & Collier, p. 40). This is corroborated by a recent article in neatoday which described the situation in rural schools as a setting where, among other things, (T)he students benefit from a low student-teacher ratio; access to technology (there’s nearly one computer for every student, all with wireless Internet connections); a built-in tutoring system…; and a sense of community” (Long, p. 38).

On technology literacy in the teacher population, the situation described in the article is similar to that at our school. “Even if schools are wired and have equipment, the appropriate use of these tools is not evident. Large-scale professional development programs are not in place to change teaching styles” (LeBaron & Collier, p. 35). What is most discouraging, however, is that few of the teachers in our school see the benefit of bringing their students to the computer lab. A quick perusal of the Computer Lab sign-up sheet reveals that it is always the same teachers who are bringing their students to the Computer Lab.

Gallaher describes the tension which exists between using funds for technology and/or technology improvements and using school funds for the more immediate benefit of securing additional personnel. A similar situation presents itself where I teach. Over the last couple of years a steep increase in the Hispanic population of the school has made this debate real. On a positive note, the difficulties presented by this new reality are prompting a new openness on the part of the administration to experiment with the potential benefits offered by the use of technology. Desperation may actually lead to changes for the better.

Sources:

LeBaron, J. & Collier, C. (Ed.). (2001). Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Long, C. (2006, November). Pioneer spirit. neatoday, 25, 3, 38-41.

The future of on-line learning

On-line learning is providing a vital service to learners with busy schedules, to schools facing staff, resource, and financial shortfalls, and to expanding horizons. Pulkkinen and Ruotsalainen (LeBaron, 2001) examine a pilot project for on-line learning which occurred from 1996-1997 and took place in Europe. It was primarily centered around the Lego Dacta Construction Kit involving the manipulation of Lego robots from afar. The unusual nature of this project was that groups of distance learners were to manipulate the materials from remote locations.

Problems encountered along the way are exposed. These included lack of time, lack of guidance, unclear expectations, technical difficulties with Internet connectivity and the unreliability of the Lego lab which resulted in the latter not being used very often, It would be easy from this article to conclude that on-line learning on an international scale is a pipe dream. However, if one considers Clayton Christensen’s analysis of the manner in which disruptive technologies shake and eventually overtake the industries, one gains a better perspective. In his book, The Innovator’s Dilemna, Christensen explains how new ways of doing something revolutionary at first encounter many “bugs” or “kinks” that need to be worked out. However, over time, there is improvement to this new technology and, in time, it becomes competitive enough for the traditional way of doing things to be abandoned. I believe that this is the case with distance or online learning.

On the other hand, there is the argument that distance learning cannot make up for the social interaction which occurs in a F2F (face-to-face) traditional environment. In 2000, Money Magazine conducted a survey of the top Fortune 500 companies, asking top officers what they valued most in their employees. Loyalty and interpersonal skills ranked highest. In addition, a great deal of the literature in the field of psychology has condemned the anonymity of the Internet and the affect that it has on childrens' social skills. This raises critical questions regarding the effectiveness of teaching and learning via the Internet and the long-term effects on interpersonal communication skills (www.teAchnology.com).

What does all of this mean for the future of distance learning? Pulkkinen and Ruotsalainen’s conclusion, based on survey data of the participants , was that these courses work best for students who are already by nature organized self-starters. In light of advances, this conclusion seemed rather outdated. Today the thought is that with adequate preparation and scaffolding, all learners can be successful with on-line learning.

To conclude, Lloyd Armstrong, provost at the University of Southern California, describes the future of on-line learning in this excellent way:

Novel, highly individualized, nonlinear pedagogical approaches and additional technological developments such as virtual reality have the potential to enable IMDL (Internet-mediated distance learning) to bypass the traditional lecture course in terms of learning efficiency and understanding of subject. And, like other disruptive technologies, IMDL possesses benefits not found in the dominant teaching paradigm. Among these are ease of asynchronous access, low marginal cost for additional students, opportunity to take courses from a variety of sources, and the flexibility to respond to multiple learning styles. Major efforts are being made to understand how to create virtual communities of IMDL students so as to preserve and enhance the benefits of peer interaction. The resulting experience certainly will be different from that found in the classroom of the great teacher. However, in the end, IMDL may well provide a competitive or even superior way to learn for many students (Armstrong, 2000).

Sources:

Armstrong, L. (2000, November). Distance learning--the challenge to conventional higher education. Change, Retrieved October 18, 2006, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1254/is_6_32/ai_67884312

LeBaron, J. and Collier, C. (Ed.). (2001). Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

teAchnology. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from Is Distance Learning Feasible for K-12? Web site: http://www.teAchnology.com

Planning for technology integration

LeBaron, chapters 2 & 4

In order to reach the lofty goal of improving both the teaching and the learning through technology, schools must deliberately set out to incorporate technology into the curriculum in a purposeful and productive manner. As the word “deliberately” connotes, a good amount of deliberation must occur before this can occur. As the word “deliberately” denotes, a good amount of focused and determined movement is also involved. And, in an ideal world, the deliberation will lead to the deliberate motion.

All of this implies planning. Planning for deliberation. Planning for the outcome of the deliberation to be set into motion. “Planning establishes goals and sets the evaluation criteria by which they are measured. It drives activities, shapes relationships, and provides a scaffold for a shared vision of how curriculum should promote learning” (LeBaron, 2001). Once a shared vision has been agreed upon, all things become possible.

Without a shared vision, however, an organization will flounder. Its associates will all be pulling in a disjointed manner. Everyone’s energies will be directed toward their own perceived aims of the organization, or, worse, their private goals. This diffusion of energy will, thereby, ensure the eventual failure of the organization.

In a school environment, the first element which must be examined is what is the educational philosophy all stakeholders wish to pursue. In order to select an appropriate philosophy, the staff, the school population, the community, the guidelines imposed by the state and the county, and the physicial restrictions imposed by the facilities, must be part of the decision. The educational philosophy espoused will then guide budgeting, curriculum planning, and technology integration issues.

LeBaron cites four basic educational philosophies, which he borrows from Pratt and Eisner, which can guide curricula decisions. Essentialism, which basically holds that the focus should be on the three “Rs.” Cultural perennialism, which holds that the school’s goal is to transmit the culture. Individual fulfillment, which is the belief that the goal of the school should be to maximize each student’s potential. And social transformation, which holds that the curriculum should be designed so as to change the society. In addition, he discerns a mode of technology integration for each philosophy espoused.

With an educational philosophy in place as the foundation of the shared vision, a perception of “what should be” is formed. Armed with this invaluable knowledge, a survey ascertains “what is.” To get from “what is” to “what should be” will then form the course to be pursued. This endeavor is cyclical in nature, requiring periodic re-evaluations, so that the movement of all is channeled within the guideposts provided by the philosophy—helping to turn the theory into practice.

Internet access puts knowledge at the disposal of everyone. “However, learning for understanding does not result simply from access to knowledge” (LeBaron, 2001). Although use of technology can motivate and spur inquiry, this is merely a first step. Research finds that working collaboratively on a “big theme” is most effective. One drawback though is that there are few thematically-based lesson plans available. Perhaps this is due to the traditional lines drawn around each subject matter.

The Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (MCREL) knows the value of standards in teaching and learning content. “Clear standards provide clearer expectations for students and the possibility of better communication among teachers, administrators, parents, and the larger community. Without such a common format, even the basics of a school system can break down” (Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning, 2006). MCREL is planning to find commonality in the various subjects’ standards and raising them all to an equal footing.

Students are stakeholders—the largest stakeholders—in schools. As such, they should have a voice in planning for the school’s shared and evolving vision. This will spur them on to taking control of their own learning, to formulating their own personal plans for growth. They should be guided with clear standards. Having a stake in their education, insisting that technology be accessible to them, and constantly re-evaluating “what they should know” and “what they know,” students will join the ranks of other stakeholders in planning for technology integration in our schools.


Sources

LeBaron, J. and Collier, C. (Ed.). (2001). Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

(2006). Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from MCREL Web site: http://www.mcrel.org/standards-benchmarks/docs/purpose.asp

Understanding by Design with Technology

Wiske, Franz, and Breit, Ch. 3-5

In designing lessons that will develop a deep understanding of the material, teachers must consider several points. First, how can the material be introduced in a manner that will generate interest and thus engage the students? Second, how can students go beyond being cognizant of the learning goals the teachers have set for them and actually internalize them? Third, how can students authentically demonstrate their internalization of the goals? Fourth, what role can technology play in enhancing student understanding? Finally, how does it meet the state, local and national laws as they pertain to the No Child Left Behind legislation enacted in 2002?

In Chapter 3 of Wiske’s Teaching for understanding with technology, an elementary school teacher elicits excitement about patterns and symbols through the use of quilt blocks as a new one is posted each day to form a pattern. Students keep a photo journal which documents their observations and class discussions. The thought processes elicited by the journaling helps students develop the mentality of a mathematician. This is an excellent way for students to realize metacognition. In addition, a website allows students to share their work with their parents. Involving parents is always beneficial. Not only does this allow for parents to be drawn into the learning process, it also allows them to see the value of providing schools with the technology to make such an interaction possible.

In Chapter 4, a water habitat project is described wherein elementary students record field data at a local city park and go on to share their data through a global project. Students are naturally engaged by the project due to its physical proximity to their lives and they value accurately recording their findings since it will go beyond the school’s walls. Crucial in developing the lesson plan is for the teacher’s “understanding” goals to be made explicit. Understanding goals allow students “to make connections, create a solution, or apply knowledge in a new context. Another important feature of understanding goals is that they define coherent connections between any lesson or learning activity and broader overarching goals” (Wiske, Franz, and Breit, 2005). This is echoed by Wiggins and McTighe in their book, Understanding by Design, where they write: “…teacher-designers must help students uncover not just facts or concepts but the big ideas” (Wiggins, and McTighe, 1998).

In Chapter 5, students virtually team up with other classrooms to develop the concept of caring through their art and writing. This exchange culminates in a Global Art Show. Students communicate worldwide—sometimes impeded by the language barrier. Fortunately, though, art can often be understood without the benefit of translated documentation as art is a language unto itself. As the authors write: “(B)y collaborating beyond the context of their own classroom, students gain a deeper understnading of universal relevance and varied interpretations….” (Wiske, Franz, and Breit, 2005).

It is interesting that in all of these learning situations, the assessment has not been formal—or at least not formally described. This is in direct contradiction to the strict testing requirements devised by the federal government in light of the No Child Left Behind Act. As a matter of fact, on a U.S. Department of Education website, it is written that: “Too many of our nation's schools have not measured up because our measures for success have been ineffective. That's why under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which passed the U.S. Congress with strong bipartisan support, states are required to use a method of measuring student progress that teachers use in their classrooms every day—testing” (www.nclb.gov, 2003). None of the anecdotes above mention formal testing—much less the type recommended by the government. Indeed, such formal testing would seem anathema to all manner of “deep” understanding that students achieve as a result of the projects described above.

In my quest to offer activities which bring students to a deeper understanding, not only of the material, but of the overarching goals, I have concluded that it first and foremost needs to “grab” the student’s attention. Another fashion in which to lure students into a project is to offer them the freedom of choice. Therefore, I have opted to engage students in the design of a Webquest relating to a cultural topic of their choice--within the purview of the curriculum’s coverage. Development of the Webquest would need to be guided by a rubric and an explicit statement of overarching goals for the project. Research would need to be conducted using the Internet. And, finally, posting these Webquests on the school’s website would make each student’s product universally accessible, thereby lending great importance to its accuracy and authenticity.

Sources:

(2003). No child left behind. Retrieved October 5, 2006, from U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.nclb.gov

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wiske, M., Franz, K., & Breit, L. (2005). Teaching for understanding with technology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.