Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Culture change - we must provide support from the top to allow change from the bottom....
http://www.districtadministration.com/article/online-course-control-education
My two big thoughts on this piece - culture and guidance. Ed tech is changing the culture of education. This is a conceptual change - and we know that conceptual change is hard. The second is the guidance. What I'm seeing is a disconnect between administration and the feet on the street. A disconnect between what administration sees as guidance and support and what the teacher sees as guidance and support.
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Friday, May 13, 2016
Surprise Face: Popularity of tech programs and student outcomes are not necessarily linked.
via Ed Week (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/05/11/popularity-of-ed-tech-not-necessarily-linked.html)
And it's really not a surprised face.
I fear I have a confirmation bias reading this article.
The article suggests that highly adopted technology programs are not necessarily highly effective technology programs. This is because easily adopted technologies do not require changes in the way teachers teach. Technology is substituted for a different research, but the teaching is still fundamentally the same.
Technology seems to have the most impact on student outcomes when teachers have the ability to rethink they was they teach. It takes time, it takes some freedom to safely experiment, and it takes some resilience to give up some of our conceptions of education. Trying to force that from the top down is difficult.
The next question is - should be requiring all teachers to teach with technology in deep ways (let's say, the ITSE standards). I'm willing to argue that there are some very, very good teachers who may not benefit from the use of technology. Technology does not make you a better teacher. If there is a teacher who is really uncomfortable with integrating technology but doing a great job otherwise, why mess with it?
Grass-roots. Teacher-driven. Supported by leadership. Time. Time. Time. That is what every study seems to show.
And it's really not a surprised face.
I fear I have a confirmation bias reading this article.
The article suggests that highly adopted technology programs are not necessarily highly effective technology programs. This is because easily adopted technologies do not require changes in the way teachers teach. Technology is substituted for a different research, but the teaching is still fundamentally the same.
Technology seems to have the most impact on student outcomes when teachers have the ability to rethink they was they teach. It takes time, it takes some freedom to safely experiment, and it takes some resilience to give up some of our conceptions of education. Trying to force that from the top down is difficult.
The next question is - should be requiring all teachers to teach with technology in deep ways (let's say, the ITSE standards). I'm willing to argue that there are some very, very good teachers who may not benefit from the use of technology. Technology does not make you a better teacher. If there is a teacher who is really uncomfortable with integrating technology but doing a great job otherwise, why mess with it?
Grass-roots. Teacher-driven. Supported by leadership. Time. Time. Time. That is what every study seems to show.
Friday, May 6, 2016
Education one of states' top issues...
Top Public Policy Issues by State (according to journalists)
Education reform is pretty low on this list - most mention funding, teacher evaluation, tenure, more funding....
Education reform is pretty low on this list - most mention funding, teacher evaluation, tenure, more funding....
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
Professors hate online education. To save colleges, they have to learn to love it.
Via the Washington Post
There is still a stigma around online education. For many faculty, online education is not much different than the old correspondence course with students interacting only with content. Where is the intellectual development that only takes place with human contact (ala Vygotsky)? If you cannot physically see the student, how does one know if they are truly the ones participating in the course?
In Lucas's opinion piece, he argues for a larger embrace of online learning as a saving mechanism for higher education. MOOCs as a moneymakers. Online content as moneymakers. Flipped classrooms as moneymakers.
Some of his arguments are tarnished by my experience teaching online (N=1). My experience at one of the more reputable online universities was both a frustrating and incredibly rewarding one.
What makes online teaching really exciting? In the higher ed world - that we have the ability to reach students who would otherwise be unable to take a class and engage with them. In the K-12 space - that we can show kids a world beyond their own walls and inspire them.
What is it not? Easy or better..... yet. We are still talking about online education in terms of the overall "no significant difference" issue. Teaching can be bad no matter where or how it takes place. Personally, I think it is easier to be a bad online teacher because of how much work and effort it takes. There will always be a small percentage of students who are highly motivated and eager and don't really need the teacher even as a guide. However, a larger proportion still needs the intervention and touch of a teacher. We are seeing more and more come out about the emotional needs of students and how to regulate learning into a strictly cognitive realm sets many students up for failure.
Ultimately, this makes me wonder if the future of tech in education is based primarily on scale - does it allow us to scale up (MOOCs) or allow us to scale down (personalized learning with deep interactions)? Both at the same time seem to be in conflict.
There is still a stigma around online education. For many faculty, online education is not much different than the old correspondence course with students interacting only with content. Where is the intellectual development that only takes place with human contact (ala Vygotsky)? If you cannot physically see the student, how does one know if they are truly the ones participating in the course?
In Lucas's opinion piece, he argues for a larger embrace of online learning as a saving mechanism for higher education. MOOCs as a moneymakers. Online content as moneymakers. Flipped classrooms as moneymakers.
Some of his arguments are tarnished by my experience teaching online (N=1). My experience at one of the more reputable online universities was both a frustrating and incredibly rewarding one.
What makes online teaching really exciting? In the higher ed world - that we have the ability to reach students who would otherwise be unable to take a class and engage with them. In the K-12 space - that we can show kids a world beyond their own walls and inspire them.
What is it not? Easy or better..... yet. We are still talking about online education in terms of the overall "no significant difference" issue. Teaching can be bad no matter where or how it takes place. Personally, I think it is easier to be a bad online teacher because of how much work and effort it takes. There will always be a small percentage of students who are highly motivated and eager and don't really need the teacher even as a guide. However, a larger proportion still needs the intervention and touch of a teacher. We are seeing more and more come out about the emotional needs of students and how to regulate learning into a strictly cognitive realm sets many students up for failure.
Ultimately, this makes me wonder if the future of tech in education is based primarily on scale - does it allow us to scale up (MOOCs) or allow us to scale down (personalized learning with deep interactions)? Both at the same time seem to be in conflict.
Monday, May 2, 2016
National Education Technology Plan
http://tech.ed.gov/netp/
Press Coverage of National Ed Tech Plan
EdWeek 1/6/16
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/01/06/us-ed-tech-plan-calls-attention-to-digital-use.html
Tech & Learning
http://www.techlearning.com/blogentry/10087
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)