Educational Insanity

No point in re-creating the wheel, so I’ve copied the e-mail I sent to my faculty colleagues below (he only difference is that I embedded my teaser video into this post instead of just providing a link):

***

Dearest colleagues,
If I told you that there is an extraordinary educational conference that you can attend at no expense to your travel budget, (or to any other budget, for that matter) and that you could attend largely at your own convenience, you’d listen, right?

Well, beginning on October 13 and continuing through the end of the month, the K12 Online Conference 2008 will be taking place…well…everywhere and anywhere.  As it is written on the homepage of the conference:

The K-12 Online Conference invites participation from educators around the world interested in innovative ways Web 2.0 tools and technologies can be used to improve learning. This FREE conference is run by volunteers and open to everyone. The 2008 conference theme is “Amplifying Possibilities”. This year’s conference begins with a pre-conference keynote the week of October 13, 2008. The following two weeks, October 20-24 and October 27-31, forty presentations will be posted online to the conference blog (this website) for participants to download and view. Live Events in the form of three “Fireside Chats” and a culminating “When Night Falls” event will be announced. Everyone is encouraged to participate in both live events during the conference as well as asynchronous conversations.

To learn more about the conference, I would suggest reading and clicking through this site. Basically, though, presentations are made via prerecorded videos and broadcast at specific times.  There are also opportunities to “meet” and “talk to” the presenters at a webinar called a Fireside Chat.

The schedule of events can be found here.  You will notice that yours truly is one of the select presenters and my presentation airs on Tuesday, October 21 at 12:00 p.m GMT (which, if I’m correct, is 8:00 EST). You can view a “teaser” of my presentation [below], and teasers for many of the other presentations are being added to the conference blog every day.

I can’t recommend this conference enough, and please pass along this information to your students.  This is a FREE conference FOR educators BY educators.  It is a 21st Century conference about 21st Century teaching and learning.

Thanks for considering this extraordinary learning opportunity and I hope to “see” you at the fireside chats!

Yours,
JB

THEME #2 – ECOLOGY

Once upon a time, I started a blog posting series called “Scientifically-Based Blog Posts.” I do hope to pick up where I left off at some point, but the reason I bring that up now is because of how much the study referenced in my first post in that series resonates with my preliminary conclusions about the role of technology integration specialists in West Virginia. In the article reporting their study, the researchers use an ecological metaphor that considers technology as an invading species. Using the example of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes, they conclude that “an ecological perspective can provide a powerful analytic framework for understanding technology uses in schools.” Furthermore, with ecosystems as the lowest level in the ecological hierarchy, Zhao and Frank establish that: (1) schools are ecosystems, (2) computer uses are living species (the “biotic” or living component of an ecosystem), (3) teachers are members of a keystone species (the most important species in an ecosystem), and (4) external educational innovations are invasions of exotic species. I think that metaphor or framework works wonderfully and makes great sense, but positing that computer uses are living species is a bit of a stretch.

The technology integration specialists, on the other hand, might very easily be considered living exotic species that invade the ecosystem dominated by keystone species (teachers). Furthering the metaphor, then, Zhao and Frank assert that the survival of the invading species is determined by two sets of factors: (1) qualities of the invading species and (2) the compatibility of those qualities with the existing environment.

The technology integration specialists each brought different backgrounds to their new positions. Variables upon which backgrounds differ include, but are not limited to: teaching experience, and experience in the school served. Without question, those characteristics were determinative of how well accepted and, ultimately, successful the TIS was in a given school. They are discussed below.

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Many of the principals interviewed during the study noted a negative relationships between age and technological proficiency among the teachers. Newer teachers tended to be more facile with technology and more veteran teachers were less proficient. There were no empirical data to support those conclusions, but multiple principals asserted such a negative correlation. The TISs often suggested a similar relationship. There were certainly exceptions on either end of the spectrum, but for the most part, there was a common assumption of this negative relationship.

The TISs also ranged considerably with respect to teaching experience or experience in education. Some of the TISs were young, relatively inexperienced teachers who demonstrated technological proficiency early in their careers who were tapped for the TIS position. Others were considerably more veteran educators who had caught the technology bug and sought out the TIS position as a way to move beyond the classroom.

The TISs who were more veteran teachers frequently cited their experience in education as a badge of credibility. Teachers more newly come to the profession could accept the TIS as not just a TIS, but a mentor more generally. Also, more veteran teachers almost had to respect their colleague as a model of possibility. When asked how she approaches the teachers who are more reluctant learners, one TIS responded quickly and simply with, “I taught for 25 years!”

Where the survival of the TIS as an invading species was potentially compromised was in the case of the younger TIS working with the veteran teacher reluctant to adopt new, technologically-aided forms of pedagogy. When asked about their approaches with these teachers, the TISs used terms such as “non-threatening,” “careful” and “non-judgmental.” A few TISs spoke of their belief that one factor (of many) in the reluctance of veteran teachers to adopt technology was a fear of being embarrassed in front of the students who knew more than they did. That attitude leaks over into the relationship between a veteran teacher and a younger, less experienced TIS.

EXPERIENCE IN THE SCHOOL SERVED

Thus, considering the age and experience relationship between the teachers and the TIS is important, but where the best candidate for the TIS position is a young, dynamic educator, there may not be much to do other than to remain conscious of the issues. However, in a few instances, a relatively young TIS worked in the same school where they had worked as a classroom teacher in the year or years prior to becoming a TIS. In other words, they were working in the same school but in a new position. Where this was the case, the TIS almost always cited it as a factor working in their favor. That is, they had the benefit of having already established relationships with their colleagues and gained credibility that way, even helping to overcome differences in experience. Additionally, the TIS did not have to spend the time and emotional effort necessary to get to know the teachers as both teachers and learners. In ecological terms, the TIS is not so much an invading species as a known biotic.

At least one TIS, though, cited working in the same school but in a different position as a problem. Whereas as colleagues in the same capacity, teachers were perfectly willing and even eager to share ideas and success stories, when the TIS moved into a staff development position, the interpersonal and professional dynamic changed. Suddenly, ideas and strategies were not being shared as colleagues but in a teacher-learner dynamic. Thus, there are advantages and disadvantages to taking on a staff development position in a school in which she or he worked prior as a classroom teacher. And, like the teaching experience issue, there may not be a “better” or “worse” situation, but experience in education generally and experience within a given school are important factors to consider when assessing the likelihood of “survival” or success of the TIS.

There are other abiotic factors that determine the success of survival of the TIS as an invading species. As Zhao and Frank point out, those abiotic components might include the “[t]echnology infrastructure (network, location of computers, and availability of computer hardware and software), scheduling, the physical layout of the building, and the subjects and grades that teachers teach…” One TIS, for example, worked in a high school with a 4×4 block schedule. He spoke about how difficult it is to teach in a 90-minute block and how teachers were, therefore, eager to learn new ways to engage students.

However, as with any ecosystem, the success or survival of the invading species is mostly determined by compatibility with existing species, especially the keystone species (the teachers in this case). As one TIS stated, the key to success in the position is building relationships.

[NOTE: Apparently there were some folks waiting to read about my preliminary conclusions, including my own mother (hi mom!). So, here's part 1...]

THEME #1: TIME

In analyzing the multiple forms of data collected from the technology integration specialists, principals and teachers, one word that comes up over and over again is “time.” It surfaces in a number of different contexts and in a number of different ways.

TIME (AMOUNT) WITH TEACHERS
One of the real challenges for the technology integration specialists is finding time to work with the teachers. In part, decisions about spending time with teachers are dictated by how the TIS position is structured. For example, for a TIS scheduled into a school one day per week, there is less available time per teacher than the TIS scheduled into one school full-time. However, there are TISs who have part-time appointments who spend more time with individual teachers than many of the technology integration specialists who spend all of their time in a single school. For research purposes, this is largely a “measurement” issue (i.e. the unit of analysis should be the teacher and how much time each teacher spends with the TIS, not the school and how much time a TIS spends in a school).

There is also, however, a related policy issue. Consider the approaches of two different technology integration specialists who each work in one school full-time. One TIS working in a middle school schedules regular (roughly monthly) professional development workshops after school in addition to attending weekly grade-level planning meetings to offer ideas as curriculum and teaching decisions are discussed. This TIS also makes himself available throughout the school day for teachers who have ideas or questions. Another TIS works full-time in an elementary school. He houses himself in the computer lab and makes himself available to teachers who schedule their students into the lab. He passes along ideas to teachers by e-mail and sees himself as a resource that teachers can take advantage of. He says that he can “always drum up business,” but he has not done much of that. The former TIS is clearly spending more time per-teacher than the latter, even though both are assigned to a single school full-time.

Thus, TISs need to be thinking about maximizing time with teachers, even within organizational constraints. One TIS stood out as particularly efficient. She works two days per week in each of two schools. The schools, though, are very small; there are about 10 total classroom teachers in each school. In addition, the county hired a half-time floating substitute teaching position. So, each teacher is scheduled to bring her/his students to the computer lab for one-half hour each day that the TIS is in the school. Each time the students come to the computer lab, the floating substitute becomes the instructor/supervisor. The teacher, who ultimately makes the decision about curricular elements covered in the lab that day while the substitute simply supervises and facilitates, meets with the TIS at that time. Thus, each teacher gets one hour (1/2 hour, two times per week) of one-on-one time with the TIS per week. That floating substitute position seems a particularly cost-effective way to afford teachers individualized professional development time with the TIS.

Many of the TISs offer professional development opportunities in small or large group formats, either before school, after school or during scheduled continuing education days. When probed about these experiences, however, they were almost always de-emphasized. Often, there was mention of low turnout. Some counties began to offer incentives for teachers to attend these group trainings, sometimes to not much avail. One principal, during an interview, insisted that no pedagogical change would come unless the training was one-to-one. He insisted that the TIS embed herself into the classroom with teachers as often as possible. This privileging of one-to-one professional development was common across schools.

TIMING OF PD
Also indicated in the discussion of “time with teachers” is that not only does the amount of time a given teacher spends with a TIS vary, but so does the format of the interactions. Professional development can happen one-on-one, in small groups and as a full faculty. Professional development can happen before school, during the school day, and/or after school. Professional development can also occur online, which changes the relevance of time altogether. Thus, the combinations of professional development opportunities are numerous.

More importantly, though, is the notion of “just-in-time” professional development. The West Virginia Office of Educational Technology has emphasized “just-in-time” training for almost all of their large-scale, statewide initiatives. For example, when the state enters into a statewide contract with a new integrated learning system, all teachers in the state are trained in the new system. Over the course of this past year, many of the schools in the study purchased and installed interactive white boards. Not surprisingly, then, every TIS interviewed spoke of the training they did with the teachers this year on the use of the interactive white boards. Similarly, by virtue of being embedded into the school, the TIS can work with the teachers to offer ideas on how to supplement what they are currently or planning on doing with technology. The one TIS who sits in on all of the common planning meetings is there specifically to offer “just-in-time” training.

This privileging of “just-in-time” training may seem obvious to some, but it stands in stark contrast to the typical practice of offering school- or district-wide training on some aspect of technology that may or may not be useful for a given teacher. It is not uncommon for schools to offer PD workshops on, for example, using spreadsheets. If a teacher has no immediate plans to teach anything for which spreadsheets might work, that learning opportunity is likely to go to waste.

TIME IN POSITION
When West Virginia first started using EETT funds to support the hiring of the TISs across the state, they imagined a sort of “turnkey” model whereby the TIS would train the teachers for a whole year, give them the foundation to move forward on their own, and then move on to another school or set of schools. However, when I first had the opportunity to empirically examine the role of the TIS, through a federally funded study, one of the main conclusions was that the “turnkey” model was not realistic. While the TIS was able to change some attitudes and behaviors of teachers during their first year, the real changes happened where the TIS was able to stay on for a second year. There are probably a number of explanations for this, but TIS repeatedly reported spending their first year learning their new position. Not only were they often moving from teaching kids in classrooms to teaching adults outside the classroom, but many of them were also starting in a brand new school.

During this last set of site visits, many of the principals interviewed either explicitly stated that the grant that funds the TIS should be for two years or they expressed great disappointment that the TIS would have to leave after the first year. Additionally, some of the counties realized the value of the TIS position and decided to devote local funds to support the position beyond the first year.

Two TISs have been working in their county as a TIS for five years now. Their county has been consistently getting grants from the state, but each time for a TIS in a new set of schools. So, these two TISs have been working each year as a TIS but in different schools every year. In some cases, they have been able to return to the school in which they worked the prior year, but only intermittently. These TISs will tell you that they continue to get better as staff developers which is great for the teachers with whom they currently work, but is unfortunate for the schools and teachers that worked with these TISs in their first year or two.

Technological advances outpace curricular and pedagogical innovation. Just because teachers work in a school where a technology integration specialist works for a year does not mean the teachers become so proficient as to become fully independent users and learners of all that is new and possible with technology. That sort of change takes more than one year of work from a TIS.

In sum, a content review of all of the data collected about the role of the TIS and about the facilitation of technology integration suggests “time” as a major theme. Essentially, for a TIS to most effectively facilitate technology integration, she or he needs time to learn the position and as much time, as individualized as possible, to work with teachers. And, to the degree possible, their work should be contemporaneous with newly available technology and with current curricular objectives. In other words, the training should be “just-in-time.”

NEXT THEME: Ecology

[WHERE IN THE WORLD IS JB: Sutton, WV. Gearing up for visit to first 5 schools tomorrow]

So, I’ve arrived in West Virginia, and as promised, here’s the first of this 5-part chronicle. After my visits tomorrow (5 schools in three different counties), I’ll begin my discussion of findings. For today, just an introduction.

My main research question here is this: Does the addition of technology support personnel into a school increase technology integration among teachers?

Ultimately, this study exists at the intersection of lots of issues. This study is about professional development. It’s about leadership. It’s about organizational structures. It’s about the micropolitics of education. My main goal is to ask lots of questions and make lots of observations to add to the data already collected so that I can begin to unpack those issues.

So, for now, if there are school leaders and/or ed. tech. support personnel out there and reading this post, I’d love to hear your initial thoughts and ideas? What are your estimates of how my research question will be resolved?

Tomorrow, I head out to West Virginia for a week of data collection. From Tuesday through Friday, I’ll be visiting 15 schools as part of a statewide evaluation of their Technology Integration Specialist (TIS) program. That program, funded through federal EETT funds, puts specialists in schools to work with teachers to facilitate better integration of technology. It’s not an unusual model, but the implementation varies widely across the state. That allows us to document what works and what does not with respect to facilitating technology integration.

I will be using this space this week to accomplish two things (two birds…one stone…?). First, I will post daily about some aspect of our (I’m part of a research team; this is our fourth set of visits this year) findings. My hope is that I can use those posts (along with modifications based on comments?) to craft an article about the findings of the study. This is my second go-round with this particular program; I was a PI on a federally-funded study that ended a year or so ago of this same program. So, some of the data from which I’ll draw conclusions will come from that earlier study (I’ve got tons of field notes already and visiting 15 schools in 4 days will just add to that mix).

I will miss my family, but I always value the “naturalistic” research endeavors I get to undertake. My reports from the road begin tomorrow. Until then, enjoy a little John Denver (RIP):