Archive for September 2011

1 to 1 resources

I recently cre­ated a 1 to 1 resource wiki that I hope may be help­ful to some of you . The wiki has the fol­low­ing three pages of resources.

1 to 1 Resources

This page con­tains web­sites, orga­ni­za­tions, and con­fer­ences as well as addi­tional resources per­tain­ing specif­i­cally to 1 to 1.

Teach­ing with Technology

This page links to resources from var­i­ous sources. It is designed so that edu­ca­tors can first select the skill they want to teach and then find tech­nol­ogy tools that will help teach those skills. The resources linked from this page are amazing!

Video Tuto­ri­als

This page con­tains links to video tuto­ri­als of how to use var­i­ous tools.

PLEASE feel free to add resources to the page! My hope is that the wiki will become more robust through your help.

Nick Sauers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is one-to-one?

Unlike many other ini­tia­tives, one-to-one is not a canned program. One of the most chal­leng­ing things when talk­ing to those not famil­iar with one-to-one is com­mu­ni­cat­ing how dif­fer­ently one-to-one can look at dif­fer­ent schools.  In actu­al­ity, one-to-one sim­ply speaks to access to tech­nol­ogy and not other changes that may occur in a school. When tour­ing one-to-one schools, these dif­fer­ences also become very appar­ent. Penuel (2006) iden­ti­fied four out­comes that most one-to-one schools iden­tify when imple­ment­ing one-to-one.  Those out­comes include:

  • Improv­ing aca­d­e­mic achievement
  • Increas­ing equity of access
  • Increas­ing eco­nomic com­pet­i­tive­ness of a region
  • Trans­form­ing the qual­ity of instruction
I would add that under each of these points, there are still many more out­comes schools have sought. For some schools improv­ing aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment has been a focus on one con­tent area while oth­ers have focused on  dif­fer­ent  con­tent areas. For still other schools, increas­ing aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment has meant the adop­tion or imple­men­ta­tion of another  strat­egy to increase aca­d­e­mic per­for­mance in part­ner­ship with one-to-one.
So what does this mean?
Well, for starters it means that there isn’t a cookie cut­ter plan to lay out for edu­ca­tors con­sid­er­ing the move to one-to-one. More impor­tantly, it hope­fully means that schools need to start or at least tie their con­ver­sa­tions to some­thing other than one-to-one. Schools need to first iden­tify exactly what they want to focus on, and what they want to do excep­tion­ally well. Once they have done that, I would guess that one-to-one will cer­tainly help them do a bet­ter job reach­ing their goals. I repeat­edly tell edu­ca­tors that the things stu­dents can do with one-to-one tech­nol­ogy are often unimag­in­able or not eas­ily done with­out the tech­nol­ogy. With that in mind, schools must con­tin­u­ally come back to what their goals are. They can then ask whether one to one will or has helped them meet their goals. They may ask them­selves one or more of the fol­low­ing ques­tions depend­ing on the goals they established.
  • Is one-to-one a tool to increase the amount and qual­ity that stu­dents are writing?
  • Is one-to-one a school’s tool to help level the play­ing field between the haves and the have nots?
  • Is one-to-one the tool to help drive project based learning?
  • Is one-to-one part of the school’s plan to increase grad­u­a­tion rate?
  • Is one-to-one part of the process to trans­form instruc­tion in the school?
  • Is one-to-one part of the school’s focus on 21st cen­tury skills?

Whether you are at a cur­rent one-to-one school or con­sid­er­ing the move,  the process described above should be essen­tial. In order to use one-to-one to move our schools for­ward, we first need to clearly iden­tify exactly what direc­tion we need and want to move!

Penuel, W. R. (2006). Imple­men­ta­tion and effects of one-to-one com­put­ing ini­tia­tives: A research syn­the­sis. Jour­nal of Research on Tech­nol­ogy in Edu­ca­tion, 38(3), 320–348.

Nick Sauers

Is high-speed internet access a right?

Back in July I posted about whether or not high-speed inter­net is a right. Fol­low­ing my post, I was con­tacted by Justin Birch who is very pas­sion­ate about the topic. Justin is  a writer and edi­tor who works to pro­mote the qual­ity and avail­abil­ity of under­grad­u­ate edu­ca­tion in Amer­ica. Enjoy his post. It was much more thor­ough than my post back in July!

High-Speed Inter­net Access is a Human Right

When most peo­ple think about the impor­tance of a broad­band inter­net con­nec­tion, their minds imme­di­ately focus on all of the fun, recre­ational uses of that con­nec­tion: brows­ing video clips, down­load­ing and stream­ing music, social net­work­ing, and so on. How­ever, while these uses are per­haps the most well-known and con­sid­ered, a high-speed inter­net connection’s util­ity goes far, far deeper.

High-speed inter­net con­nec­tions can boost a country’s (or a continent’s) gross domes­tic pro­duc­tion. They can turn plain class­rooms into hubs of cul­tural inter­ac­tiv­ity and learn­ing. Online school­ing can sup­ple­ment con­ven­tional edu­ca­tion or make courses avail­able to stu­dents in remote areas. Fast con­nec­tions can also turn money-losing pub­lic schools into insti­tu­tions prof­itable at the state level and enable them to meet and sur­pass fed­eral aca­d­e­mic standards.

These things and many other fac­tors have prompted the United Nations to con­clude that a high-speed inter­net con­nec­tion isn’t just a lux­ury to be enjoyed by the upper ech­e­lons of soci­ety. The inter­na­tional body recently passed a res­o­lu­tion that declares a high-speed inter­net con­nec­tion to be a human right to which all peo­ple around the world are enti­tled. Fur­ther­more, it defines the removal or ban­ning of inter­net ser­vices in any par­tic­u­lar coun­try or locale to be counter to human rights and the pur­suit of qual­ity of life and per­sonal improvement.

One of the main tenets of this new view of the Inter­net has to do with the inte­gra­tion of tech­nol­ogy and edu­ca­tion in bring­ing greater knowl­edge and cul­tural aware­ness to class­rooms around the globe. While the United States has debated for years the best way to fix its pub­lic edu­ca­tion sys­tem, other coun­tries have grap­pled with sim­i­lar issues: how can more chil­dren be edu­cated with fewer resources and still have a fight­ing chance at being among the smartest peo­ple in the world?

High-Speed Inter­net Access as Indis­pens­able Edu­ca­tion Tool

Stud­ies have been per­formed and the results are in: when chil­dren have access to high-speed inter­net ser­vices in their schools, they per­form bet­ter on stan­dard­ized test­ing and are shown to learn bet­ter and have a greater under­stand­ing of the top­ics they are study­ing. This is due largely thanks to the per­sonal inter­ac­tive nature of things like lap­tops, tablets, and “smart boards” in class­rooms, all of which require a high-speed inter­net con­nec­tion to be viable tools for learn­ing and instruction.

The research into the ben­e­fits of tech­nol­ogy in the class­room goes even fur­ther. It’s well known that many Amer­i­can schools are fac­ing fund­ing crises on an annual basis. States are look­ing to save money, and sadly edu­ca­tion is often the first area to expe­ri­ence fund­ing cuts. How­ever, when high-speed inter­net con­nec­tions and high-tech devices are intro­duced into the edu­ca­tional land­scape, those same schools which are fre­quently los­ing fund­ing actu­ally turn into revenue-neutral schools at the state level. A large num­ber of high-tech schools and school sys­tems actu­ally become revenue-positive, pro­duc­ing a mod­est profit for the state.

The Prob­lem with Attain­ing Edu­ca­tional Broadband

The prob­lem with rely­ing so heav­ily on tech­nol­ogy to trans­form the class­room (and tech­nol­ogy is one of the few things that could truly upend the edu­ca­tional sys­tem and turn it once again into a suc­cess story) is that broad­band costs a great deal of money. That high price is hard to pay when state leg­is­la­tures are cut­ting fund­ing to schools across the board.

In a recent sur­vey, more than half (about 54.7%) of school admin­is­tra­tors admit­ted their broad­band ser­vices were insuf­fi­cient and they fore­saw fund­ing issues pre­vent­ing them from obtain­ing ade­quate access to serve their stu­dents. This prob­lem arises from the fact that most leg­is­la­tors don’t view inter­net access in the same way as school admin­is­tra­tors and teach­ers. Instead, they take the view that the Inter­net is just a fun place to waste some time.

Edu­ca­tors have not fully com­mu­ni­cated just how impor­tant it is that inter­net ser­vice comes to their class­rooms. Most have been murky at best on just how ben­e­fi­cial it is to have a class­room full of stu­dents, each with their own com­puter, explor­ing and touch­ing pieces of knowl­edge and per­son­al­iz­ing it so that it sticks with them long after the test has been passed.

United Nations to Save the Day?

The good news is the United Nations is now pick­ing up the slack for school admin­is­tra­tors around the coun­try and around the world who haven’t been able to fully make their cases. With broad­band inter­net ser­vices now declared a human right, and with its impacts on national GDP and edu­ca­tional fund­ing and per­for­mance now an issue of inter­na­tional law, the class­room may indeed finally cross the dig­i­tal divide and become a suc­cess story once again. Only time will tell, but with the help of the United Nations, it’s likely that many more state and local edu­ca­tional boards will rec­og­nize the impor­tance of a furi­ously fast inter­net con­nec­tion and a firm com­mit­ment to the lat­est tech­nol­ogy in every classroom.

Lack of confidence in American schools

David Warlick’s InfoGraphic-A-Day is a site that I really enjoy vis­it­ing. Maybe it’s because the page is full of info­graph­ics rather than words, and my brain finds that easy to digest after look­ing at many text heavy sites. An image that was recently posted rep­re­sented the lack in con­fi­dence that Amer­i­cans have in pub­lic schools. Sure the image is a bit depress­ing, but it also is very infor­ma­tive. In par­tic­u­lar, one ques­tion and its results really struck me.

Gen­er­ally, do you hear more good news or bad news about teach­ers in the media?

  • Good stories-29%
  • Don’t know/Refused to answer-3%
  • Bad stories-68%
I guess this response doesn’t really shock me, but it can serve as a wake-up call to edu­ca­tors. Gen­er­ally speak­ing, we do a really poor job high­light­ing all of the great things that are hap­pen­ing in our schools. As a teacher and prin­ci­pal, I know that I didn’t do a very good job of that. I always thought there were more impor­tant things to do and good PR would take care of itself. With that said, I don’t think schools can afford to con­tinue to let other indi­vid­u­als and orga­ni­za­tions cre­ate the sto­ries about what is hap­pen­ing in your school. The impli­ca­tions of bad PR may vary by state and school (bond issues, enroll­ment hir­ing, etc.), but PR does matter!
If you work at a one-to-one school, I’d be curi­ous to know if you do a good job shar­ing the “good sto­ries” in your school. Sim­ply by being a one-to-one school, you are in a rel­a­tively small group of schools. For many one-to-one schools, you went one-to-one because you wanted to change edu­ca­tion and rock the boat. So here is my chal­lenge to you.…
Get out there and scream about the great things you are doing in your school!
Let peo­ple know that you are dif­fer­ent, and are work­ing to truly trans­form your school. Use com­mu­ni­ca­tion tools such as face­book, twit­ter, blogs, web­sites, pod­casts, and webi­nars to broaden the crowd you are speak­ing to.  Don’t for­get about tra­di­tional tools such as the news­pa­per, news sta­tions, and your newslet­ter as well. Lets face it, whether you like it or not, PR does mat­ter. You can choose to sit on the side­lines and let oth­ers cre­ate sto­ries about you, or you can craft that message yourself.

The “new” literacy

Dig­i­tal lit­er­acy cer­tainly isn’t a new term.  Wikipedia, yes Wikipedia, defines dig­i­tal lit­er­acy as:

 the abil­ity to locate, orga­nize, under­stand, eval­u­ate, and ana­lyze infor­ma­tion using dig­i­tal tech­nol­ogy.

If you’re read­ing this blog, I’m going to guess that you believe that it is impor­tant to teach our stu­dents dig­i­tal lit­er­acy and tech­nol­ogy skills. If you are at a one-to-one school, I’m also going to guess, and hope, that you don’t believe dig­i­tal lit­er­acy or tech­nol­ogy is some­thing that lives sep­a­rately from other con­tent areas. Unfor­tu­nately, there are some who seem to believe that there is a bat­tle occur­ring between tech­nol­ogy and “tra­di­tional” skills our stu­dents should learn. The belief is that if stu­dents are using tech­nol­ogy, they aren’t learn­ing the other skills that are so impor­tant. The ques­tion below was posted by CNN’s Jack Caf­ferty, and one of the responses to his ques­tion follows.

Where is the U.S. headed if SAT read­ing scores are at the low­est in nearly 40 years?

Jack, it means that they have all got a phone that tweets and chats and takes pho­tos and accesses the inter­net. That is all my grand­kids do these days. I am not sure if they even know how to read.

When I heard that response, I became frus­trated, but it did high­light a belief that I believe many have. That atti­tude is an us vs. them men­tal­ity. Techno­pho­bia vs. Technophilia.

So how do we move beyond that men­tal­ity?  How do we teach grandpa that tweet­ing and online chat­ting are valu­able? Is it worth try­ing to change those attitudes?

The hon­est answer is that there are some atti­tudes we may never change. How­ever, there are many more that we can and should work to change. As edu­ca­tors, we often do a very poor job pro­mot­ing all of the good things that we do and dig­i­tal lit­er­acy is no dif­fer­ent. We also need to be sure that we are truly using tech­nol­ogy to ENHANCE the learn­ing expe­ri­ence for stu­dents. Are the tools that we are using increas­ing the amount of time stu­dents write, read, reflect, col­lab­o­rate, and cre­ate? We also shouldn’t shy away from the fact that it is impor­tant to pre­pare stu­dents for a world that looks a lot dif­fer­ent than it did 50 years ago. That world is full of tech­nol­ogy, and is chang­ing at an extremely rapid pace. Infor­ma­tion is also being pro­duced at an unimag­in­able rate. Our stu­dents need to be pre­pared for that new world!

Nick Sauers

 

Some more powerful technology findings.…

I recently came across an arti­cle that ana­lyzed the impact of a two-to-one class­room which pro­vided each stu­dent and teacher with two com­put­ing devices. The results below reveal changes in the way teach­ers teach as well as an impact on stu­dent learning.

  • Stu­dents scored sig­nif­i­cantly higher on the Cal­i­for­nia Achieve­ment Tests than their peers in vocab­u­lary, read­ing com­pre­hen­sion, lan­guage mechan­ics, math com­pu­ta­tion, and math concept/application.
  • Stu­dents wrote more, more effec­tively, and with greater fluidity.
  • Absen­teeism was cut almost in half.
  • By year four of the pro­gram, the class­rooms had become a “mix of tra­di­tional and non­tra­di­tional.” Teach­ers encour­aged more col­lab­o­ra­tion, altered the phys­i­cal setup of the class, and mod­i­fied daily sched­ules to allow stu­dents more time to work on projects.
  • Tra­di­tional recita­tion and seat-work have been grad­u­ally bal­anced with inter­dis­ci­pli­nary, project-based instruction.
  • Inter­ac­tions among stu­dents and between stu­dents and teach­ers changed.
  • Stu­dents were more engaged in higher-order cog­ni­tive tasks.

And now the rest of the story.…..

The results described above are actu­ally from an arti­cle pub­lished in Edu­ca­tional Lead­er­ship in 1994. The pro­gram described is the Apple Class­rooms of Tomor­row (ACOT) pro­gram which was imple­mented in 1986. In order to pro­vide stu­dents with con­stant access to tech­nol­ogy, ACOT pro­vided stu­dents and teach­ers with two com­put­ers. Because it was not pos­si­ble for stu­dents or teach­ers to eas­ily trans­port their com­puter, they were given one for home and one for school.

The results of this pro­gram are really amaz­ing espe­cially when you think of the lim­i­ta­tions on tech­nol­ogy 25 years ago. Although all of the details of imple­men­ta­tion are not pro­vided in the arti­cle, I’m going to guess that these ben­e­fits occurred because tech­nol­ogy was intro­duced with two key factors.

  • Exten­sive and con­tin­u­ous pro­fes­sional development
  • Ade­quate tech­ni­cal support

It seems highly unlikely that such a large invest­ment (think of com­puter prices in 1986) would be made with­out also pro­vid­ing a major invest­ment in train­ing or tech­ni­cal sup­port. Some may argue that the results are skewed because there were pre­sum­ably great resources allo­cated to this project. I have to admit.…I agree. Com­mit­ting to exten­sive pro­fes­sional devel­op­ment along with pro­vid­ing ade­quate tech­ni­cal sup­port will “skew” the impact of tech­nol­ogy on learn­ing. His­tor­i­cally, schools (includ­ing one-to-one schools) have done a much bet­ter job pur­chas­ing equip­ment than they have pro­vid­ing PD or tech­ni­cal sup­port when it comes to tech­nol­ogy. In order to “skew” your schools results, I’d strongly encour­age you to focus on how resources are allo­cated for one-to-one. Have resources been allo­cated beyond the ini­tial invest­ment to infra­struc­ture and com­put­ing devices?

Nick Sauers

 

 

The “Ridiculist”

If I were to fol­low Ander­son Cooper’s lead and cre­ate a “Ridi­culist” this would cer­tainly be on that list!

I recently spoke with a stu­dent teacher who was extremely excited about cre­at­ing a blog for her stu­dent teach­ing expe­ri­ence. She intended to use her blog as a space to share what she had learned and expe­ri­enced through­out her stu­dent teach­ing place­ment. This sounded like a fan­tas­tic idea to me, and I assumed her coop­er­at­ing teacher and super­vis­ing pro­fes­sor would be excited to have a stu­dent rou­tinely reflect about their experiences. Unfortunately, that was not that case. She was told that she should not blog because it would be a “liability“issue. I can’t repeat my response when I was told this, but it will suf­fice to say I was extremely upset. This is a prime exam­ple of how indi­vid­u­als look at the pos­si­ble neg­a­tives of tech­nol­ogy with­out tak­ing into account the ben­e­fits. With even an ounce of com­mon sense, an indi­vid­ual could eas­ily cre­ate a blog that isn’t a lia­bil­ity. I also think that our uni­ver­si­ties should dis­cuss and demon­strate appro­pri­ate ways to use a blog in the class­room. Isn’t it their role to edu­cate teach­ers about tools that will be RELEVANT when their stu­dents get a teach­ing job? A tool such as a blog that can increase com­mu­ni­ca­tion with par­ents and stu­dents seems like a pretty pow­er­ful tool to me. I have often talked to teach­ers who have had sim­i­lar expe­ri­ences with admin­is­tra­tors who have greatly restricted what they can do. Much of my time is spent work­ing with admin­is­tra­tors who are eager to help their teach­ers enhance stu­dent learn­ing expe­ri­ences through tech­nol­ogy. I truly believe that lead­er­ship is an essen­tial com­po­nent of a suc­cess­ful one-to-one ini­tia­tive, or any major ini­tia­tive for that mat­ter. This exam­ple is just one exam­ple, but it does high­light how far some of our lead­ers really need to move. Their beliefs and fears are so skewed that they not only fail to help their teach­ers, but they actu­ally hin­der the actions of their teachers.

Nick Sauers

 

The big move!

I’m excited to announce that  the next time I blog, it will be from the Blue­grass State! As some of you may know, I’ll be join­ing the rest of the CASTLE team at the Uni­ver­sity of Ken­tucky.  My expe­ri­ence at Iowa State for the past years has been fan­tas­tic, and I look for­ward to con­tin­u­ing that work in Lex­ing­ton. Ear­lier this year CASTLE direc­tors John Nash and Scott McLeod, both fac­ulty mem­bers at Iowa State Uni­ver­sity, accepted posi­tions with the Uni­ver­sity of Ken­tucky. I’m excited to have the oppor­tu­nity to con­tinue to work with them as well as the rest of the team in Lex­ing­ton.

As I make this tran­si­tion, I have spent time reflect­ing on the past two years I have spent at Iowa State after leav­ing my posi­tion as a prin­ci­pal. Dur­ing that time, I have had the oppor­tu­nity to work with amaz­ing edu­ca­tors from across the coun­try. In par­tic­u­lar, I have worked with hun­dreds of Iowa edu­ca­tors who are pas­sion­ate about chang­ing edu­ca­tion. Many of those edu­ca­tors have used one-to-one as a major part of that change. The num­ber of one-to-one schools in Iowa has more than quadru­pled dur­ing that time, and now approx­i­mately 30% of Iowa’s schools have one-to-one pro­grams. It has been an amaz­ing expe­ri­ence learn­ing from and with those lead­ing edu­ca­tors! As I head to Lex­ing­ton, I cer­tainly intend to stay con­nected with those great edu­ca­tors and look for­ward to new partnerships.

Bet­ter get packing.…

Photo credit jbcu­rio on Flickr

Nick Sauers