Author: sylviamartinez

Sylvia Libow Martinez is an education change agent, writer, speaker, consultant, engineer, maker, and mom.
Posted on

Don’t blame the kids

David Warlick writes one of the most popular blogs in the education and technology space. He has inspired quite a few educators to take a harder look at technology. David often writes about how students are using technology outside of the classroom in ways that surpass their use inside the classroom.

But today’s blog, Be Very Careful about Student Panels, is a real shame that may do damage in the effort to create opportunities for authentic student voice. Warlick relates an experience where he was hired by a school district in Pennsylvania to keynote a day-long celebration of their new laptop program. After the keynote he moderated a panel of 12 students (four times too many).

The problems began even before the students took the stage. First, three students, “…apparently panicked at the crowd of teachers and fled out a side door.” Next, the remaining nine students didn’t perform as anticipated.

First of all, these were bright kids. They were funny and they were compelling — the kind of students any teacher would love to have in their class. But I could tell pretty early that things weren’t going where we wanted them to. My first question was, “How many of you use IM, text messaging, social networks, video games, etc.” The all raised their hands for IM and text messaging, and most raised their hands for Facebook (MySpace seems to be passe now). Only one, and finally two then three, admitted to playing video games.

I realized that many of the questions that I’d planned were not going to work, because I wanted us to learn what these kids were learning from their outside the classroom information experiences and how they were learning it. Instead, we learned that they all spent all of their time doing homework and considered video games a distraction, and the few minutes they spend with Facebook, they consider to be mindless interactions.

David analyzes the problem:

We had the “A” students who were enrolled in AP classes. These were the kids we don’t have to reach, the kids who do what they’re told and who have learned, from many years in the classroom, to tell us what they think we want to hear.

So, what is David’s solution? Just make sure you prep the kids to repeat your message:

But I know now that you have to be very careful in selecting the kids, and you might even consider holding a pre-meeting with the panelists to orient them to what you’re looking for. You want to get out of the classroom and you want to talk about (learn from) the information experiences that are distracting to them and disrupting to us. We want to learn about those experiences.

This is so wrong on so many levels.

  1. Student voice is not about kids talking. It’s not about having them parrot your message, even if you think your message is “subversive”
  2. Students do have opinions and different life experiences that adults can learn from. But we can’t expect them spill their guts in front of an audience and to trust a stranger who shows up for a few hours and will never be seen again.
  3. This cannot be fixed by simply picking different kids. Sometimes unconventional students will give you a better “show” but isn’t student voice about ALL students? Can’t we learn something from Type A students AND at-risk students?
  4. Student voice comes from action. It’s developed as adults and students work together, build trust and accomplish something real that’s worth sharing with an audience.

Now, a prominent voice in educational technology is warning everyone to “be very careful about student panels” – what a great excuse not to even try.

Kids shine when they share their work, and they get better at it when caring adults work with them to support their project development. They should be praised for real accomplishments and the ability to articulate them, not what happens to fall out their mouths. It’s a failure of adults not to create those conditions EVERY DAY.

Article coverI hope that some of David Warlick’s readers will take the time to read Sharing Student Voice: Students Presenting at Conferences. It’s a 12 page PDF based on decades of experience from Generation YES educators and experts on enabling student voice. You can find it, along with other free resources on the Generation YES website.

In it, there is a special section specifically about student panels. I blogged about that section a while back, because it’s such a misunderstood topic. David, I hope you read it before you attempt your next student panel.

Sylvia

Posted on

Blending models of technology professional development

This is the third part of a series of blog posts inspired by the book, Meaningful Learning Using Technology: What Educators Need to Know And Do by Elizabeth Alexander Ashburn (Editor), Robert E. Floden (Editor) (Amazon link) and specifically a chapter Fostering Meaningful Teaching and Learning with Technology: Characteristics of Effective Professional Development written by Yong Zhao, Kenneth Frank, and Nicole Ellefson of Michigan State University Michigan State University (MSU).

  • Part 1 was about the book in general and the 4 key factors found in effective technology professional development.
  • Part 2 was a more detailed exploration of the 4 factors and specifics about the findings related to the GenYES model.

This third post explores why these models are excellent examples of technology professional development and the lessons that can be learned from them.

The researchers for this book chapter identified “four large-scale efforts that were shown to be effective in affecting teachers’ use of technology.” These are:

1. The Project-Based Learning Multimedia Model (PBL+MM)
2. The Galileo Education Network Association (GENA)
3. Project Information Technology (PIT)
4. The Generation Y Model (previous name of the GenYES model)

These four models represent some of the best professional development models for technology use in K-12 classrooms. They also have some elements that can be studied, adapted, and used by anyone. These are all complex models with many elements, so I apologize in advance if I’ve shortchanged any of the descriptions. I invite corrections and additions.

The Project-Based Learning Multimedia Model (PBL+MM). Also known as Challenge 2000, this model focused on specific professional development that helped teachers use technology tools with students to create multimedia projects in core content classes. It also had a strong peer-based community for the teachers and taught teachers skills needed to successfully teach project-based classes. Book available through ASCD.

More information: Unfortunately most of these sites are no longer in operation.  PBL+MM website. SRI evaluation. Exemplary rating by USDOE Expert Panel of Educational Technology.

The Galileo Education Network Association (GENA). This is a project out of Alberta, Canada. From their site: “Galileo is about teaching for deep understanding. Galileo supports teachers to design inquiry-based projects in which students use the digital technologies of their time in creative and thoughtful ways.”

More information: GENA website.

Project Information Technology (PIT). This project was conducted in the Netherlands in the early 1990’s. Teachers were grouped into areas of expertise and met six times a year to work on common projects. Findings showed that teachers were most influenced in their use of technology by their peers. I couldn’t find much online about this project besides the homepage of the lead researcher, Dr. Betty Collis.

The Generation Y Model. This model uses students as trainers and support systems for teachers. Students and teachers plan and create technology projects for the teacher to use in their classroom. The model uses specific curriculum for the students that is also project-based and models collaboration techniques for students.

This model was recently renamed the GenYES model (since Gen Y children have grown up past K-12 age) and is the model that I’m most familiar with!

More information: GenYES website. NWREL and other independent evaluations. Exemplary rating by USDOE Expert Panel of Educational Technology.

Similarities and differences
You can immediately see similarities in these models:

  • Emphasis on project-based learning and constructivist pedagogy
  • Teaching teachers pedagogy AND technology at the same time
  • Establishing a community that was valuable for the teachers as they practiced new skills
  • Focus on student learning and student created projects
  • Emphasis on open-ended technology tools that foster creativity and student choice. These models do not train teachers to use “drill & practice” or test-prep software with students.
  • Little “tool” training
  • Technology strongly connected to curriculum and teaching needs.
  • Intensive time commitment – none of these are “hit and run” trainings. All involved long term support for teachers in the classroom or very close to the classroom. Teachers didn’t have to wait around to ask questions or consult with colleagues or experts.

Differences

  • Where the training/support takes place – Gen Y and GENA works with individual teachers, PIT and PBL+MM had larger meetings and trainings.
  • Community building – Gen Y establishes students as participants in the support community, while others relied on meetings. These days I would think that building online community would be a key component.
  • Who did the training/support – in general, GENA provided visiting mentors for extended periods, while PBL+MM relies on peer teachers and peer collaborations. Gen Y relies on student/teachers partnerships mediated with virtual coaches.

Recognition by US DOE
It’s also interesting that two of these models (the US based ones) were both named as the only exemplary models of educational technology by the US Department of Education’s Expert Panel in Educational Technology in 2001. This panel was convened to determine “what works” in educational technology, and they selected 134 models to explore in depth. Only two of these models were named exemplary, the highest rating: Generation Y and Challenge 2000. Both these models were also part of the Technology Innovation Challenge Grant program in the late 1990’s.

Using these models
Schools, districts and service centers looking at these models may wonder if they can be implemented and what it costs. Do you have to hire Generation YES to have an effective student-led support system for teachers? Do you have to hire GENA if you want teachers to design inquiry-based projects for students? Of course not. No one owns the idea of kids helping out, or project-based learning. All the research from these projects is available on the web and in books like this one. You can design your own program tomorrow, and maybe someday somebody will be writing about your model!

What schools may decide to pay for is materials, training, and support that organizations like Generation YES and GENA can provide. It’s hard enough to implement innovative programs that tackle big issues like technology integration combined with project-based learning AND invent it yourself.

Summary
By combining these exemplary models, you can provide teachers with expertise, peer coaching, and student support. Create multiple ways to support teachers, rather than multiple technologies that confuse teachers. Teachers could get support in their classroom from students, in informal, local events with peers, and in more formal trainings with experts.

It’s easy to see how a technology professional development program could strive to implement the similar aspects of these programs. It’s not as typical that a district or regional center will implement a blend of professional development designed to balance out the strengths and weaknesses of any one professional development model.

I work in many schools where teachers come to trainings exhausted after a week of serial trainings in one technology after another with no bridge between them. This can only serve to convince teachers that technology is simply piling on, instead of providing a coordinated effort to build 24/7 support for teachers.

By providing teachers with a blend of support, community, and opportunities that tie together philosophically, they can learn and use technology tools that work for them and their curriculum with confidence.

Posted on

What the research says – effective technology professional development

Yesterday I posted about the book, Meaningful Learning Using Technology: What Educators Need to Know And Do and a specific chapter about the factors of effective technology professional development. Today I’d like to go into more detail on the research results.

The chapter, Fostering Meaningful Teaching and Learning with Technology: Characteristics of Effective Professional Development paints a compelling model of how to create more comprehensive professional development offerings by looking at more than one type of professional development solution. No “one stop shop” professional development is going to be as effective as a blended model.

Let’s take a look at the four factors they found to be effective:

  • Time to experiment and play
  • Focus on student learning
  • Building social connections and learning communities
  • Localizing professional development in the school and classroom

Time to experiment and play
The research not only supports giving teachers time and support as they use new technology, but also supports learning outside of designated workshops. “Professional development experiences should not be limited only to instructional sessions or organized events. They should also include activities in which teachers engage all the time. Thus schools should develop a culture instead of a program of professional development.” (emphasis mine)

They discuss how each of these models offers a different, but equally beneficial form of supportive experimentation for teachers. “In the Generation Y model, teachers had multiple opportunities to explore the use of technology with their student technology guides, who in turn could support teachers in solving any problems they encountered.”

So optimal conditions for teacher technology use include more than just one kind of time for teachers to experiment, and not just in special training facilities. Teachers who feel that their use of technology is just an opportunity for them to fail in their classroom will not be happy users. But teachers who feel that they have all kinds of support for their efforts will be more willing to take a step into the unknown. Creating a culture where the expectation is that everyone can be both a learner and a teacher lessens the risk of failure for all.

Focus on student learning
“Technology professional development that is directly tied to student learning allows teachers to learn not just how to use computers but to develop new beliefs about their value for teaching.”

Although this seems obvious, there are many technology professional development sessions that focus on administrative software, or on the other end of the spectrum, teaching teachers how to use technology for personal purposes. The belief is that if teachers start using technology somehow, in ANY way, they will gradually start to transition to using it appropriately to enhance student learning. However, this study points to this as not being true, or at least, not a long-term strategy for success.

Building social connections and learning communities
Creating multiple social and learning communities for teachers increases the chance that their needs will be met anytime, anywhere. Other teachers, online communities, staff, and students can all form mutually supportive learning community. “The perception that there is help available helps offset teachers’ concern about “costs” — that they may have to spend lots of time troubleshooting technology problems or get stuck.” The advantage with including students as part of a teacher’s learning community is immediacy. There are very few other models that give the teacher such a just-in-time support system.

Localizing professional development in the school and classroom
“Teachers need to be able to see immediate benefits of using technology without having to wait for a a long period of time. Additionally, teachers need to develop a good sense of what they have access to in their immediate environment and familiarity with policies and procedures for obtaining technology and technical assistance in their schools.”

The problem is that local professional development is expensive. It’s much more cost effective to bring teachers to a training facility, hold the training, and then send them back to the classroom, with as much follow up as you can afford. However, these issues are lessened by looking to students as part of the solution.

Summary
This chapter is a strong, research-based call for widening the definition of technology professional development. Workshops alone are not enough. Learning communities alone are not enough. Learning to teach with technology has to happen in the classroom with more support for teachers, and different kinds of support. No one program is going to have the success that several complementary programs will have.

These results may be useful to teachers and technology coordinators who wish to show that the GenYES model of student support for teacher professional development can be part of a valuable and effective professional development plan. I’ve collected all the GenYES related material from this chapter along with citations and the recommended action into a two-page PDF. In the PDF, you will find quotes that can be used in grant applications or other proposals needing research validation of the GenYES model.

In the next post, I’d like to discuss the models that these researchers chose, and why I believe that these four models represent an excellent balance that all technology professional development programs should strive for.

Sylvia

Posted on

Fostering Meaningful Teaching and Learning with Technology

I’d like to share a book with you about technology professional development. Meaningful Learning Using Technology: What Educators Need to Know And Do by Elizabeth Alexander Ashburn (Editor), Robert E. Floden (Editor) (Amazon link)

In this book, national experts use concrete examples to describe specific knowledge, beliefs, and strategies that will enable teachers and district leaders to support meaningful learning using technology. Chapters examine the intersection between course content, types of technology, and the supports and professional development required to effectively implement technology in the K–12 classroom. (From the publisher)

“This book provides both practical and scholarly insights about how teachers’ technology use can help students to master deep content and sophisticated skills. Practitioners, policymakers, and researchers all will benefit from the ideas in this volume.” – Chris Dede, Harvard Graduate School of Education

“These chapters offer innovative insights for restoring meaning to learning. They show that the answer to ‘How can new technologies support inquiry?’ lies not in the hardware or software, but in the beliefs and values of students, teachers, and administrators. These findings are essential for anyone interested in the potential of new learning technologies.” – Bertram C. Bruce, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Many educators are looking for research that shows “what works” in technology professional development. This book is an excellent starting point for discussions about new strategies and best practices. In one chapter, GenYES was one of four models selected for correlation to key dimensions to successful K-12 technology professional development. GenYES and the other models were selected as “… large-scale efforts that were shown to be effective in affecting teachers’ use of technology.”

Fostering Meaningful Teaching and Learning with Technology: Characteristics of Effective Professional Development
Written by Yong Zhao, Kenneth Frank, and Nicole Ellefson of Michigan State University Michigan State University (MSU), these researchers studied four “large-scale efforts that were shown to be effective in affecting teachers’ use of technology”:

1. The Project-Based Learning Multimedia Model (PBL+MM)
2. The Galileo Education Network Association (GENA)
3. Project Information Technology (PIT)
4. The Generation Y Model (previous name of the GenYES model)

Based on data collected from hundreds of teachers, the study determined that several key factors positively influenced teacher’ use of computers.

Study Findings – Key Factors of Successful Technology Professional Development

  1. Time to experiment and play. “Use of computers was positively correlated (.3) with the extent to which a teacher was able to experiment with district-supported software.”
  2. Focus on student learning. “Teachers’ use of computers was positively correlated (.4) with the extent to which the content of professional development was focused on student learning.”
  3. Building social connections and learning communities. “Computer use was positively correlated (.2) with the extent to which teachers accessed other teachers’ expertise.”
  4. Localizing professional development. “Computer use was positively correlated (.2 for each) with the extent to which professional development was provided locally, either in the classroom or school lab.”

The study outlines why and how these models support each of these factors. Unfortunately, I can’t reproduce the entire chapter here, but there is a bit of it online at Amazon.com (the chapter starts at page 161). Buy the book!

In the next few blog posts, I’ll explore these factors in more detail, and the specific results for the GenYES model.

Sylvia

Posted on

Student Contest – Open Source Software Development

The Google Highly Open Participation Contest

Google has announced a new effort to get young people involved in open source development. Student contestants will have the opportunity to learn more about and contribute to all aspects of open source software development, from writing code and documentation to preparing training materials and conducting user experience research.

The contest is open to students age 13 or older who have not yet begun university studies. Students will learn about all aspects of developing software – not just programming – and be eligible to win cash prizes and the all important t-shirt!

Get started here, or read the Official Contest Rules and the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. Get ready to have some fun!

Posted on

Extreme social networking

This just in: the first Personal Genome Service.

spit kit
Spit kit

No longer will you have to rely on Shirley McLaine to find out that you have an Egyptian princess or a Russian nobleman in your past. You can find out for sure and maybe they’ll come pay you a visit. 6 degrees of separation? No longer is it just a party game ending in Kevin Bacon, it’s going to be on the web, searchable, representing the web of humanity via the latest web 2.0 technology. You’ll have cousins showing up by RSS in your genome/blog reader.

The process begins, disgustingly enough, with spit. You purchase a $999 “spit kit” and you supply the requisite DNA. The company, 23andMe, tests your saliva and posts the results on their site, where you can use “…our interactive tools to shed new light on your distant ancestors, your close family and most of all, yourself.

OK – I’m on Twitter (smartinez), Facebook, and Linked In. Probably a bunch more I’m forgetting right now. Apparently I’m a 2.0 kinda gal and I’m liking all the connections. But these pale in comparison to the possibilities of being connected by luck of the gene. As they say, you can choose your friends, but you can’t choose your family. Seems like a link too far, but maybe that’s just old geezer talk. Still, I’m not springing for the thousand dollars yet…

Welcome to the Brave New World! (and Happy Thanksgiving!)

Sylvia

Photo credit: Guy Kawasaki

Posted on

Meet a real Bee Movie Maker

Bee Movie StillTired of being deluged by advertising about cartoon bees? Have your students meet a real bee movie maker and neurobiologist Brian Smith. Something for everyone here – from bee vomit to bee dancing, just the thing for middle school! (Article | Podcast)

Arizona State University sponsors a terrific website called “Ask a Biologist.” Since 1997, the site has answered questions from K-12 students and teachers about biology. Now it is podcasting! These range from interviews with an expert on tiger beetles, nanotechnology, and of course, bee movies.

Arizona schools! You have a special opportunity for a student to be choosen as a co-host for the Ask-A-Biologist podcast show. More details here.

Posted on

Learning to write collaboratively

Weekly ReaderFrom Google Docs:
Teach Collaborative Revision with Google Docs

Revision is a critical piece of the writing process—and of your classroom curriculum. Now, Google Docs has partnered with Weekly Reader’s Writing for Teens magazine to help you teach it in a meaningful and practical way.

Focusing on group work, peer editing and revision skills, Google For Educators offers a tutorial, several articles, and PDFs on using the collaborative features of Google Docs in the writing process.

A link not to miss is The National Council of Teachers of English powerful statement of  Professional Knowledge about the Teaching of Writing. These guidelines can inform teaching practice using technology – blogging, wiki use, or collaborative documents by focusing on the writing process, not the tool.