Originally uploaded by robynejay

At one of the sessions at which I presented at AERA, a conversation arose around the issue of tech. support in schools. Neal Strudler, who’d done research on the issue 20 years ago, mentioned that the tech. support personnel he studied then spoke of “working themselves out of jobs.” I’ve heard that phrase from tech. support personnel at the higher ed. level. Strudler said that such a goal was idealistic and, as it turns out, unrealistic. I wondered (out loud, of course) whether it really is an unrealistic goal in the information age.

You see, I learn GOBS through my Web 2.0-based personal learning network. I consider Twitter, my Bloglines account, etc. my tech. support. SO, what if tech. directors / tech. support personnel in schools made it their professional goal to make teachers learners? What if the job description of ed. tech. support personnel was to facilitate professional learning networks? By teaching teachers how to learn as I (and others in my PLN) do, they might just work themselves out of a job.

What do you think?

Tags: AERA, education, support, technology

So, the “hot” theory around ed. tech. academia is TPACK (the artist formerly known as TPCK).  It only came up about 17 times at AERA, and John Hendron happened to capture a quote from a paper about the theory on his blog. You can read and learn just about all you need to know about this theory here (nice use of a wiki, BTW).  The basic idea is that before now, teachers needed content knowledge (CK; i.e. what to teach), pedagogical knowledge (PK; i.e. how to teach) and PCK (how to specifically teach what you teach).  Now, in the digital age, to successfully integrate technology, teachers also need technological knowledge (TK).  Furthermore, by adding TK to the mix, the result is a three-ringed circus…err…Venn diagram with TPACK sitting at the intersection of all three domains of knowledge.

I find the theory interesting and it’s consistently being refined based on empirical evidence.  I wonder, though, about the CK part in the information age.  Certainly there’s some utility/value to teachers having some CK.  But, how do we reconcile CK with the known benefits of inquiry-based learning and other offshoots of constructivism?    And, what of CK in a standards-based climate where “what to teach” is predetermined?  Maybe, in the graphical representation of TPACK, the CK circle needs to be made considerably smaller?

 I’ll have to go read the papers and articles about TPACK more closely; perhaps there are some answers in there.  I’ll likely say more down the line…

Tags: constructivism, integration, technology, TPACK

So, AERA is good and interesting and all, but check this out…

Went to a bar last night with some colleagues.  We sat around two tables next to three tables that had “reserved”  placards on them.   About 1/2 hour after we got there, we found out for whom those tables were reserved:  Francis McDormand, George Wendt (NORM!!!), David Morse and about 4 or 5 other people who were surely actors as well but who I could not identify (I needed my wife there; she would’ve known them all).  I hope I didn’t stare too much; I tend to get a little starstruck.

Tags: AERA, celebrities

Whew, none of the anti-ed. tech. folks have found my last blog post (yet).

Anyway, my AERA 2008 journey began today.  Here are some thoughts:

*Federal grants for educational research:  student achievement is the bottom line.  If you don’t propose to study anything that can’t be linked to student achievement, don’t bother applying.  One prof. who has multiple ED grants even suggested that they don’t expect to find any effects on student achievement from the program they’re investigating, but it’s in the proposal.  I guess if you want to be on the gravy train, you’ve got to play by the rules of the game.  My only wish is that rather than student achievement, the bottom line was learning.  But, I don’t make the rules…maybe someday?

*Cyberbullying:  I look forward to reading the papers from this session that I attended.  I think it’s really important to frame the issue properly and I suspect there are some good ideas in the papers.  I didn’t necessarily hear anything new or exciting in the session, but who can really say anything meaningful in 15 minutes?  My take?  I think we need to consider whether cyber-bullying is really all that different from what has already been going on forever.  I don’t want to imply that “kids will be kids,” but I’m not convinced that cyberbullying is in addition to more traditional forms of bullying.  We need to document empirically whether what we know happens in the hallways, on the playgrounds, etc. is still happening or whether it is being replaced by cyberbullying.  Also, we need to make sure that educational policymakers at all levels don’t respond by shutting off access to cyberspace.   When kids bully each other at the mall, do we close the malls?  For lack of a better cliche, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.

*Gaming: went to a session chaired by Chris Dede (one of my heroes…I actually introduced myself to Dede and felt a bit like a groupie, but I’m glad I did it).  Unfortunately, the work that was being done around the River City Project was way over my head (and the presenter didn’t time his presentation well and had to finish up in warp speed).  He was talking about data mining, but pretty much lost me at hello.  The other projects under study were interesting, but I didn’t get a sense of the purpose of the researchers.  A study of whyville.net seemed interesting, but I didn’t hear anything that blew me away.  Regardless, I still remain intrigued by the learning potential within MUVEs, but I just don’t have enough time right now to dig any deeper than my own current surface learning.

*Finally, got to meet fellow blogger Justin Bathon, he of the Edjurist Accord.  Good to meet you f-2-f Justin, and I’ll be following your rising star in the Law & Ed. sky.

 Off to some receptions tonight (free food, cash bars) and then some fun around NYC with my academic friends/colleagues!

Tags: AERA, cyberbullying, gaming, grants, NYC

This is what I get for playing around with the NAEP Data Explorer: 

So, the use percentages are a bit depressing.  But, it gets worse…much worse…

This is 4th graders, 2007, and, yes…the score for the group of students who report daily or almost daily use of computers at school for math is (statistically significantly) lower than all of the other groups.

The smart thing may have been to tuck these findings in my back pocket and walk away.  But, I’d bet that if we controlled for a bunch of demographic variables and even a baseline math score, those differences would disappear.  I’ll have to dig a little further…

Tags: achievement, computers, math, NAEP