To understand what the model classroom looks like in 2020 we have to understand what the average classroom in 2008. In the past six years there have been multiple advancements in the classroom. In 2008, Classrooms had already started the shift to student centered learning, but the technology seen in the classroom was limited to laptops, or in most cases a solidary teacher computer. Two new technologies had just emerged the year before that would begin to change education. The first was the iPhone, and the second was the netbook. Six years later, smartphones, thanks in large part to the iPhone, are a dominant part of teenager’s and adult’s lives. Netbooks paved the way for tablets, which now are the basis of a lot of school one to one programs. The last six years have been ripe with innovations.
“The Horizon Report 2008 Edition” proposes a picture that is eerily similar to what the average student experiences, or will experience very soon in the classroom. The 2008 report lists much more basic pieces to technology like broadband and video. It also lists collective intelligence solutions like Wikipedia. The report also mentions social operating systems that have evolved like Edmodo and Schoolology. These pieces have evolved beyond the simple idea the report proposes in 2008. “The Horizon Report 2008 Edition” described the attributes of technology to “make it easy for people to share interests and ideas, work on joint projects, and easily monitor collective process” (pg. 14). This idea in 2008 was simple, but has evolved to a include collaboration on apps through the iPad and other devices. The evolution of this simple idea is not complete and the 2014 report takes these concepts and new ones as potential game changers for the classroom of 2020. The 2013 Horizon report lists 6 key trends that should make their way into the classroom by 2020. Like 2008 report, this report focuses on collaboration as a piece of the overall process. Since broadband has been widely adopted the concentration has shifted to other ways to improve curriculum delivery. The report breaks these adoptions down to near term, mid term, and long term. Near term, or within the next year, are topics like cloud based computing and mobile learning. Cloud computing is the next step to collaboration. Allowing for the plethora of different devices and ecosystems that exist now in the consumer world. Weldon (2013) stated that the move to the cloud is tied to the need for “remote access, save money in licensing fees, and help students share their work” (para. 1). According to the author this seems to be a forgone conclusion as two major steps have paved the way for this shift to happen. The classroom of 2020 will be almost entirely cloud based, as the diverse ecosystem of technology now will only increase as time goes on. Students will collaborate on projects in the classroom, and outside of it as the interconnectedness of student learning communities begin to globalize. This is a shift in thinking from the traditional projects to actual projects that create a product. Students will learn and explore beyond word and excel documents producing films and music online, and creating 3D models that can be printed on demand. This collaboration will not stop there. It will also include mobile learning. Mobile learning is the application of smart phones and other devices into the learning environment. This adoption of consumer devices like cell phones helps to leverage consumer technology that is already saturated in the market. Johnson et all (2013) stated that currently there are already classes in “app development and programing being taught to K-12 students in school and after school programs” (pg. 4). This will be a requirement for the student of 2020. Educational literacy classes have already started to move and the increase in the technology proliferation will only spur the need to make programming a part of the average students portfolio. Mobile learning will have a profound impact on how the student is evaluated inside and out of the classroom as well. Experiments like the one done at the University of Michigan help to look at how we evaluate student performance. Basu (2012) suggests that this ‘gamefication’ approach to learning helps to “increase student motivation or engagement” (para. 6). Basu also shows that the grades in the class have had a small increase in the university class studied. This blending of the mobile culture and education can have seriously profound results. I imagine students will be playing games and learning at the same time outside of school, while exploring the deeper concepts inside of school. The horizon report also states the use of open curriculum will increase. Currently this is just textbooks created using tools like iBooks Author, and iTunes U. However, this will evolve through the use of the near term adoptions with both collaborative pieces and mobile learning creating a dynamic and interactive learning environment. This environment can be tailored to the teacher and student needs. Teachers can collaborate with each other share ideas and interactive lessons that are accessible on all devices through a simple web browser. The result is a truly dynamic system that is student specific and the teacher taking more of a facilitator role. The teacher becomes more of a mentor and content guide through the process helping support students in their quest for knowledge. Traditional textbooks, which districts spent a lot of money on, will take a backseat to open curriculum that districts will share and collaborate on. The open curriculum and mobile learning solutions are just part of the overall wave of tech focused curriculum. Learning analytics is poised to help districts and teachers tailor that curriculum to student needs. This moves beyond just test scores, and measures data that gets a better picture of who the student is and where they are in the learning process. Johnson et all (2013) says that the “widespread adoption of learning and course management systems has refined the outcomes of learning analytics to look at students more precisely” (pg. 4). This refinement of data will help to increase the effectiveness of teachers allowing them to zero in on the learning outcomes and individualize student lessons. This will help to “customize curricula and suggest resources to students” (pg. 4). Offering the piece that open curriculum is missing now. This analytical nature however needs to be as open as possible and this information shared with both students and parents. They need to understand the path that they are on. In 2020, a dashboard interface to simplify what the parent sees and help guide the parent when the child is at home will be a must. Data now is complicated and grades do not necessarily predict higher scores on tests. This data could be shared to show where the student is cognitively at and where they need to be at to get to goals defined by the student and parents. At a high school level this could be extremely powerful, as it could give parents a window to where their child is at to get ready for college entrance tests or vocational assessments. Simplified reporting could even get parents an idea of where the student is and how close they are to completing requirements to graduation. The farther term pieces of technology that will be implemented in the classroom are the virtual and remote laboratories and 3D printing capabilities. The virtual world is important, but it is also important to be involved in real scientific endeavors as well as creating something in the physical world. 3D printing helps students with creativity and critical thinking, as well as helps to illuminate the design process. Johnson et all (2013) mentions the Replicator printer. It is described as a “relatively affordable at under $2,500, the MakerBot has brought 3D printing to the masses” (pg. 28). A crowd funded project on Kickstarter is redefining that concept and offering a cheaper option for 3D printing. This new printer, The Buccaneer, has exceeded the funding goal, but has brought more than just a sub $500 printer to the market. It also brings an interface that works through the iPad. The Buccaneer allows for a simplified interface that is user friendly and makes printing objects a much simplifier affair. This stands to do for 3D printing what the iPhone did for smart phones. This technology seems to be moving rapidly, and with some work will find its way into classrooms like the 2D printer before it did. Part of the benefit of utilizing technology is that it can allow for experiences that would be too expensive for a field trip or would cost too much money for the equipment. Currently, virtual laboratories like PHET from the university of Colorado allow for students to do experiments and learn by inquiry. This however is just the beginning. PHET is completely a virtual experience, and while that it great kids need to be involved and doing research collaboratively that is based in the real world. Remote labs allow for that. Johnson et all (2013) describe the benefits of remote labs as allowing students to conduct labs “numerous times with greater efficiency and precision” (pg. 5). This allows for students to learn and experiment with many more resources than schools have to offer. The classroom is in the middle of a classroom renaissance. Technology like cloud computing, 3D printing, virtual labs, and open curriculum are just part of the overall change that is happening in technology. Combining these resources together helps to create a new environment where the data collected is used more effectively before, and students get opportunities with technology that are just being developed now. Basu, K. (2012, May 18). University of Michigan professor explores innovative grading @insidehighered. Retrieved May 3, 2014, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/05/18/university-michigan-professor-explores-innovative-grading#sthash.sbpLfUYb.dpbs Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada V., Freeman, A., and Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC Horizon Report: 2013 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from: http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2013-horizon-report-k12.pdf The Horizon Report 2008 Edition. (2008, January 1). . Retrieved May 3, 2014, from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2008-Horizon-Report.pdf Weldon, D. (2013, April 3). the Journal. Microsoft 365 or Google Apps for Education: Which Way Do You Go? --. Retrieved May 3, 2014, from http://thejournal.com/articles/2013/04/03/microsoft-365-or-google-apps-for-education-which-way-do-you-go.aspx?=THECL A Student Information System, or SIS, is a powerful way to not only manage data, but use that data in a meaningful way. As Darby and Hughes (2006) stated districts have a deep “desire for anytime, anywhere access to data” (para. 1). This new frontier of data sharing has brought forth a variety of systems to help manage that data. My current district TEAMS by Prologic and Eduphoria to offer a suite of functions to help not only manage student information but also manage district operations as well.
I conducted four interviews by email to determine how the system works and how the district uses these systems to help manage that massive data demand for each system. One of the things that I discovered was how fractured the data was in the district, as well as the rift between both the administrative technology personnel and the end level users. The four interviews consisted of; Matt Flood, Technology Director; Karen Smithson, Principal; Michael Samuelson TEAMS support; and Keisha Vicks director of food services. My interview with Matt Flood director of technology functioned as a way for me to understand the systems that were in place and the overall cost of the software. Floods shared with me the complete functionality of TEAMS was available to the district, but not all the modules were being used. When I asked other users including Keisha Vicks, and Michael Samuelson they confirmed that both the food service and financial departments did not use the TEAMS suite of software. Either person did not share the reason for this. Vicks said that her system interfaces with TEAMS to get data on users, but operates independently. The reason for this may be as simple as finding a solution that works and then applying it to work with the new architecture. TEAMS was implemented my first year of teaching in 2009. Electronic management of the food services division happened well before that. The Purchasing department is currently managing a changeover to the TEAMS system using the business modules from TEAMS. Districts have to evaluate the effectiveness of options like TEAMS and the cost of changing over systems that currently are working. This process is one that is very delicate. Costs have to include migration of data to a new system. The older the system that is in place the harder this transition becomes. Slowly, the district is aggregating the data into one source. Human resources uses Eduphoria for forms and basic functions, they are also using it to help manage professional development. My first year the district used Escworks to manage professional development, but Eduphoria offered a lot more functionality including online learning modules. This transition for district resources to Eduphoria has taken 4 years from when we were first showed Eduphoria in 2010. The user experience is really important. Districts have to manage the cost of SIS with the user friendliness of the interface. There are all levels of users. Karen Smithson, the principal that I interviewed, has used TEAMS at different districts. This user experience for TEAMS is extremely complicated. Karen walked me through how the management process worked for her. She describes the entire experience as complicated and extremely extraneous. She says that she has to make 5 different selections for each job she does in TEAMS, and for each of the four modules that she uses she has to remember the tricks for each one. My own experience with TEAMS suggests that while the functionality is there, it is extremely laborious to do certain tasks in TEAMS. Due to the laborious nature of these tasks, Smithson said that often principals have forms printed out for approval. This seems to be counterintuitive, as printing out and using a paper-based system goes against using the digital resources in the first place. A dashboard and some updates to the system would be a great start to improving the overall experience. Eduphoria is fairly easy to use, and does not suffer from a lot of the same problems as TEAMS. The end user experience is still fairly limited as access to other functions and reports are locked down on a campus level. Eduphoria’s largest problem is that each system is separate from the others. While they can talk to each other you cannot access multiple features from one page. This means that you have to compartmentalize tasks. Eduphoria does not have a dashboard for many of their modules, but does have one for their home module that is customizable. The home module allows you to click and go to the module that you need to help streamline the work process. There is less overall frustration with this toolset, and a little more flexibility in the way that teachers and administrators can access data. Costs are an overwhelming concern, but so are finding the right data management tools. Goose Creek CISD has a lot of money that is tied up in management, but as appetites change for data analysis there is an increasing movement to brining the data to more manageable levels. Users have been spoiled with the ease of use of technology and the ability to customize features in their own lives. This becomes an extremely important feature moving forward. The district of the future needs to balance user flexibility with cost, and provide an environment that is both robust and easy to navigate. References: Darby, R., & Hughes, T. (2005, October 1). The evolution of student information systems. THE Journal. Retrieved on November 17, 2009, from http://thejournal.com/Articles/2005/10/01/The-Evolution-of-Student-Information-Systems.aspx?Page=3 f Technology Plan evaluationReflection Technology has become a key aspect of the 21st century district. Goose Creek’s technology plan was set up in 2009 and has been revised, and is a document that does not receive a lot of attention by teachers. In fact, until this assignment, I was not aware that a technology plan even existed. The plan is extremely similar to campus improvement plans that are specific for each campus. The plan places a lot of emphasis on growing technology within the district. Like Moore (2006) the district is considering “how technology can accelerate or advance the strategic goals of the district” (pg. 8).
This vision requires a lot of collaboration between the educational technology department and the curriculum and instruction department. These interactions between the Curriculum and Instruction division and the educational technology department are extremely important. The budget for infrastructure is also a key component to the overall plan and paying for internet usage becomes a large part of the budget where the actual money for outside professional development is limited at only $31,970.86 for staff development (York, 1). Like a campus improvement plan the technology plan should be a vision for the use of technology in the district. The vision for that technology implementation in the classroom has changed markedly over the past 5 years, and while the plan has changed significantly as technology has advanced. The interview with Steve Koester that happened after the initial review of the technology plan helped to shed light on what the district plans on doing to help usher things in for the next century. My interview with the technology director helped me to realize the plan not only for high school but for the other grade levels as well. I do not have a lot of experience with how technology is implemented with other grade levels. I was very curious about other levels outside of high school. In elementary school students are separated into small groups. These groups get technology time every week. 5th grade becomes a time where students get to take home a laptop. More formal education with technology starts in 6th grade, while social studies classes use laptops a lot in class for 6th through 8th grade. High school, until this last year, has primarily only given access to technology in computer labs for classes and laptop carts used by teacher request. Next year however, teachers and students will have 24/7 access to iPads starting next year when the new high school 1:1 initiative is put in place. This massive change next year has forced the district to not only reevaluate their plan for high school technology, but also to reinforce their infrastructure. The addition of a larger broadband backbone is one that shows the expansion of the network resources is important. Goose Creek CISD states that there is a committee for Network Access and Restriction, but it lacks any stakeholders to help assess those topics. This is extremely troubling, as there does not seem to be a problem with excluding stakeholders that are in the classroom. The collection of data also seems to not be complete as the district relies on the Star Chart to help determine needs of the district, but does not look at overall proficiency of teachers in the district. This combined with more anecdotal data gathering seems to need a lot more data to help determine the course of the district, as well as the proper utilization of technology. I actually did learn a lot about the district and their views on technology. The plan has changed a lot since its inception. One to one initiatives have gained massive traction since I started in 2009. It is important for the district to reevaluate this plan and make sure that the plan for all students and teachers is in place to create an environment where technology is used effectively. Goose Creek CISD has a lot of resources available to them and to the teachers in the district. The district is has combined a strong infrastructure with a commitment for the future. Steve Koester and I talked about how the district is supporting the learner and the educator in the final part of our talk. He talked about the inclusion of a new software program called AirWatch that would allow for the district to share resources and even provide Internet filtering while at home. This secures the devices and reduces the risk of collaboration between devices. This helps the technology infrastructure people at the district breathe a little easier. Programs like these also reduce the cost of implementing iPads, as apps can be shared and then taken back from a device when a student moves away or graduates. As an educator, it is important to know the technology plan for the district that you work for. If I had taken time to understand the vision and the goals for the district, I feel that I could have been more constructive in helping to support those goals. Often teachers are left with a sense of frustration about technology or lack of it. If a teacher takes the time to understand the district position it becomes a lot easier to operate within that framework that the district provides. Technology as a tool for education is still a relatively new idea in education. As with anything else, a new idea is like a plant that needs to be allowed to grow, but also may need to be pruned back once in a while. The successful implementation of technology depends on a lot of factors. The infrastructure is just as important as the educational support. References: Moore, R.J. (2006, August). The five best accelerators in school. School Administrator, 63.7, p. 8. York, T. (2012, June 29). Goose Creek CISD Technology Plan. Retrieved April 17, 2014, from http://schools.gccisd.net/users/0038/docs/GCCTech%20Plan_%202012%20-%202014.pdf Reflection: An Interview with Don Speck Teaching has changed a lot in the last 24 years, and almost quarter of a century. Don Speck is a retired teacher from Galena Park ISD that subs at my school and is married to the Algebra and Pre-Calculus teacher who is right next door to my classroom. His experience in the field of education expands from the classroom to technology support roles. Twenty four years in education has seen some rapid changes. Texas alone changed tests TAAS launched in 1990 to TAKS, and finally to STAAR. The level of the questions increasing in difficulty with each iteration of the test. While Don Speck worked in the classroom a few hundred miles away I attended first grade that year. Our experiences with technology were different, but there are some glaring similarities. Money still plays a large roll in technology and its implementation. My experience at a school that can afford to buy iPads for its students is vastly different then the schools down the road that could only afford a few computers per classroom. As technology has become cheaper to buy and a larger emphasis has been placed on it there is now a larger percentage of schools that are placing technology in the classroom. Today tablets, phones, laptops, and computers are commonplace in the classroom. These electronic devices can be both educational and unwarranted stowaways in the classroom. My experience with iPads and technology rich campuses that are going paperless is a far cry from the classroom that Don Speck describes in 1990. He started in a rural school district with an overhead projector, filmstrips, and no Internet. Classroom technology had not really seen much of a revolution in terms of student interactivity. Speck makes a good point of technologies use was more about record keeping and less about instruction. 1990 marked the introduction of Microsoft Windows 3.0. This was the beginning of the home computer revolution, and was a place where only a few districts could afford computers. My experience in the first grade classroom closely mirrors Mr. Speck. Technology was not as present in the first grade classroom as it is in current classrooms. There was not a computer in my classroom and we spent a lot of time practicing writing and reading instead of learning technology skills. Galena park was a small district and so was the district that I spent the first formative years of my education in. The experience that I had in the first grade classroom was devoid of technology. When I returned home I got to spend a little time on video games. This is something that Speck echoed in the interview, stating that only played video games and did not have access to the technology that they do now. The learning environment was also exceedingly different. Chalkboard style lectures dominated his classroom, while student participation in learning was not as prolific as it is today. Speck also makes the claim that the use of PowerPoint for lectures has actually gone against the student-centered classroom and made it easier to create lectures. The prevalent teacher driven model still exists especially in teachers that are not as experienced in the classroom as others. This technology teacher driven model though is not in favor much anymore and the classroom is moving to decentralize technologies role from a passive observer to a more student driven model. Speck talks about discovery learning using web quests and generating group projects as trends he has seen in the classroom today. Speck emphasized that the biggest invention over the past few years has been the personal handheld electronic devices that are always connected to the Internet. Wirelessly having access to that large resource of information radically changes the instructional paradigm. Web 2.0 furthers the goal of interactive education by providing web-based resources that extend beyond the traditional poster. Technology also comes with a negative, and it is this negative that Speck helps to put into focus. He listed several downsides to all of this technology and the one that I have had the most experience with is glitches that result in wasted time in the classroom. The other problem is the ever-present distraction of personal devices as much as they are a source of knowledge. In the interview these disadvantages of distractions come up a lot. Student behavior is so much more divided now that the distractions are not left at home. In 1990 if the student wanted to watch a video they had to wait to get home. Now however that student can watch it on Netflix making monitoring the technology the student uses even more important. The last 24 years has resulted in a massive shift of teaching to a student driven model that relies heavily on technology that was used until recently only for administrative purposes. Students have not changed but the ability to access information. In 1990 you had to go and look up information in a book or memorize an equation or look it up. Now each student has a device in their hand that can help to answer questions and look up information faster than ever before. As teachers we have to allow for this shift in society by changing our practices. Speck imparted through his words a need to find balance between education and all of the distractions that exist out in the world. Transcript of interview |
AuthorNick Strickland is a Physics teacher at IMPACT ECHS persuing his degree in Educational Technology Leadership at Lamar University. ArchivesCategories |