Moving the Planet's Instructional Technology Agenda Forward: :) :) :)

"Ah Ha's", Insights, and To Do items from Spring 2019 Semester

It turns out that my students this semester (Spring 2019) did, in fact, give me great food for thought. I found my mind racing continually as I read through their assignments and responded to them. With the semester behind us,  I am left with a ‘To Do List’ of follow up items that I very much value as I see it as providing me guidance in further work in developing my own body of knowledge and belief concerning the ways that Technology will continue to deepen and make more effective and meaningful the work that K-12 teachers do with their students.


Here are some of the items I want to pursue as I move forward:

1. My course’s 1^st and 2^nd assignments has students listing all of the different ways that they see technology being applied and impacting the work that goes on in classrooms... from the instructional point of view. They produce a table in which to list and explain these. Actually I invite them, as well, to add to my own table, having done this exercise on my own now for years and sharing much of my own work with them. It occurs to me now, several semesters into the activity that in the aggregate (my work and that of my students) can be transformed into something of a checklist that school-based people may use to take the measure of their own understanding of ‘the fit’ and function of technology in improving instruction.
   
   Perusing articles, Facebook posts, and engaging in endless conversations with educational generalists, I am constantly struck by how many of today’s educators feel that they know Instructional Technology, while in reality, they know only a very narrow slice of it. The checklist I hope to develop will help interested educators see the broad totality of Instructional Technology and measure where their own knowledge and activities figure on that check list.
   
   
2. One of the advances in thinking about teaching and learning that I’ve witnessed and immersed myself in over the years is UDL (Universal Design for Learning). Consequently, as part of my EdTech Leadership Courses, I have students read, reflect and respond on it. I find, however, that while they do the assignments, many still have difficulty in actually envisioning how UDL can be part of what teachers do. I think that while UDL sounds like some inspiring batch of new ideas, my students (some of them) can’t quite make the conceptual paradigm shift that it brings about.
   
   The stumbling blocks I see in their assignments have to do with the practicality of implementation; as they see it, the differentiation and personalization of the learning experience that they feel is implied, will require infinitely more work on the part of teachers – this, I surmise is a carry over from other school initiatives they’ve seen that, while well intended, really do require a significant increase in work of  teachers.
   
   What the students don’t see is that a) the intention of CAST (Center for Applied Special Technologies – the organization that originated UDL) is for classes to apply technology to this (and other issues) thus making it practical. Further, CAST in later years has included thinking about the goal of making students “master learners”, students who take control of their learning processes, thus taking on, eventually, a good share of the workload to personalize their learning experiences. Finally, UDL requires the shift away from instruction directed at the average student, a very longstanding body of belief that has dominated traditional education for many years. My students tend to see UDL as directed (and I know this goes far beyond just my students) at Special Needs Students, which is, in my opinion, taking a revolutionary paradigm and attempting to squeeze it back into the box so that they can be comfortable in their understanding again. Most importantly, though, is that they miss the understanding that if we educators take each student as a unique individual, the concept of learning that is “good enough” fades away. Never mind special needs students, imagine how much further the mainstream students may go, if a ‘the sky’s the limit of what any and all students may learn’ is adopted. Part of understanding UDL, I feel, is ‘getting’ that by accepting student performance that is up to the level of a standards as perfect, we are actually limiting all students, even, and perhaps especially the bright and conscientious ones!
   
   Essay or article idea: UDL clarity / what students can’t picture: the student as 'self-diversifier', role of technology, etc.
   
3. Best Practices in the age of Technology – a deeper look...
   My assertion is that one of the indicators that we are indeed deep into the Digital Shift, the transition from a print-based platform for teaching and learning as the dominant one, to one in which digital resources are the dominant format, is that instructional best practices are now technology-supported, involve the use of digital. To my surprise I found that some of my students (all of them, by the way, are in-service teachers) and already holders of bachelors level teaching degrees and certificates, aren’t really that familiar with the term Best Practices, which seems to me to be a rock solid basic part of the field.
   
   Further, I had an interesting exchange with a student who countered my assertion, stating that no, not all best practices involve technology… and, of course this student is correct... there are some best practices (when looked at from a certain angle)  that  do not require tech… However, I think that’s seeing the phenomonenon of best practice in something of a vacuum… Yes, some do not strickly speaking require digital, but knowing the field of instructional practice as I do, I think one would be hard pressed to find teachers who are comfortable with technology who wouldn’t choose to extend the richness and efficacy of all practices by adding technology to them to make them better. At any rate, I will be writing further on this soon – researching the state of best practice, examples given by professional organization of current best practice, etc.
   
4. New Developments in getting resistant teachers onboard with technology
   Nearpod, etc. The goal of most developers is to put on the market items that change the equation; that make teaching richer and easier… but also that their digital resources be more and more intuitive and user friendly!

During the course of this semester I spent a few days at an event staged by Nearpod for its “Pioneers” (teachers who are among the early adopter, enthusiastic sharer of the resource with colleagues). I had heard of Nearpod and its reputation as an easy to use and highly popular resource. As an Education journalist at the event I probed the conversation to get at the core of what the appeal is. Among other threads, the one that most impressed me is how Nearpod apparently makes technology easy and simple to use, functioning as something of a simplifying entry portal for many teachers. The conversation about teacher resistance has been going on now fo over twenty years and one of the perennial reasons for it, so often cited is difficulty and discomfort with the newness and unfamiliar aspect of technology. It was very encouraging to see this surmounted by a focused resource. I’ll be looking further into this resource and seeking out others with the same promise - FYI - My publicshed article on Nearpod: https://edtechdigest.com/2019/03/01/professional-development-transformed/

Some more items to be further explored and written about...

5. A.I. Are we all conjuring up the same meaning when we say the term “Artificial Intelligence”? How far along are we? Is this ‘Education Fiction’? or is it here already in some forms and places?
   
6. PD… The new PD, a NON-episodic workshop variety of PD… I’ve already started an article titlted Giving Up on the Dead End Hope for the Holy Grail!
   
7. Research Projects – In reviewing the body of research projects turned in (20+ pages), I can see that my students (and I infer their peers, globally) are long on knowing a body of specific Technology Integration Practices and Resources, as well as how they might best be implemented in real classrooms. What appears, as well is that they are short on understanding processes by which to determine instructional needs and to match those with good choices of  practices/resources in response to needs determined. I think the situation can be represented the following flow chart

5. 
   
   
   

-