WARNING: May Contain Explicit Integration of Technology

Tweet

It may seem counter-intuitive but as technology use seems to be increasing in all aspects of our lives, the desire for schools to have a subject devoted to technology seems to be decreasing. More and more schools seem to be embracing what is most typically called a technology integration model rather than a full, curriculum driven subject called 'Technology.' Firstly, when people refer to Technology Integration, really what people are referring to is electronic or digital technology.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="307" caption="Thing Never Overheard in an English classroom: "Ok, class, turn to page 37 of our book of hand tool poetry""][/caption]

You don't get people thinking about the best way to seamlessly integrate the use of a hand drill into an English or Science class. However, at NIST and in the MYP Technology curriculum, Technology could refer to ICT, Design Technology, Food technology, Textile Technology, or any other interpretation that suits a school given it's resources and needs. The MYP course is intentionally vague in its description of what exactly technology means to make it more accessible to a range of schools regardless of if they're in a wealthy European city or in a poorer African country. So for those that argue whether it should be referred to as integration of technology or embedding of technology, I ask you this question first: What exactly is technology?

Ask anyone to define technology and see what kinds of answers you get. Now, take a trip around the internet and search for a definition of technology and I'm willing to bet that very few of your informal replies look anything like the results online. I found one definition on dictionary.com to be rather interesting:

Technology is "the total knowledge and skills available to any human society for industry, art, science, etc."

The idea of this definition makes it sound like technology is, by definition, simply integrated as part human society. If this is true, then why shouldn't it fit seamlessly into the day-to-day life of a school? Well, there are a few problems with technology integration but the main problems, it seems to me, boil down to time (or the lack thereof). Last week, I posited in another blog post that the main obstacle for integrating technology is that teachers themselves do not have the confidence or skills to bring technology effectively into their lessons. It's not that these teachers aren't smart enough to use the technology, they just don't have time to invest in trying unfamiliar technologies and they're afraid that if the technology fails them then the lesson is lost.

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="500" caption="Are You Ready for the (Technology Integration) Matrix"][/caption]

How can teachers that haven't yet grasped how to use certain digital technologies effectively integrate them into their classrooms? On that note, with available technology changing and evolving so quickly, how do you set standards for yet-to-be-introduced technology? Not questions that are easily answered but The Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) is an interesting place to start. What first struck me about TIM is that it is not just a matrix for students' technology skills but an interdependent matrix which takes into account characteristics of students' learning, plotted against a teacher or school's level of technology integration. Students' use of technology is broken into five fairly broad categories (Active, Collaborative, Constructive, Authentic, and Goal Directed) and the level of integration in the classroom is dependent more upon the curriculum and the level of technology integration in the classroom (ranging from Entry to Adaptation to Transformation). This doesn't mean that if a teacher doesn't understand a particular technology, then a student can't be sitting under the Transformation column of the matrix. While a teacher knowing about technology for use in the classroom would certainly help, a simple willingness to allow students to explore and try new and unfamiliar technologies could help push a classroom closer to the transformation column on the matrix. In this case, despite not being familiar with a specific technology, the teacher just needs to take on (and be comfortable with taking on) the role of facilitator. According to this article by Michael Sunnarborg,  "Facilitation makes the learners responsible for their own learning."  This opens up the whole conversation of the changing role of teachers from holders of knowledge to facilitators of learning which is an important one but not something I'll get into here.

For some, TIM may seem a little too vague and unfocused or perhaps just a bit too hard to quantify what a school meeting these TIM standards actually looks like. If you're in that boat, then there are ISTE's NET standards. The NETS  have been widely adopted across the United States and are spreading worldwide. According to the ISTE site, "the NETS are not subject-matter specific, but rather a compendium of skills required for students to be competitive and successful in a global and digital world." They have devised standards for not only students but also teachers and administrators. Unlike TIM, these standards are not explicitly plotted against each other though there are a number of implied connections between the three sets of standards. As it is impossible to establish ultra-specific goals (e.g. student should be able to use a header and footer in Microsoft Word), they have set up their standards as overarching statements (NETS for students example) rather than specific skills. These skill statements are supplemented by more age specific profiles of how these might look in a given grade or year level.

My school is in the process of reviewing how we ensure that our community (students, teachers, administration) are meeting digital literacy standards and both of these methods have been considered as models to base our standards upon. Overall, I really like the way that TIM interconnects student and teacher learning but as a more practical approach, the NETS are probably easier to interpret by a wider range of people. One thing is for sure, whether a school offers a curriculum Technology course or not, if we want students to finish school with effective essential digital skills, explicit time needs to be devoted to teaching these skills by all teachers, regardless of which subject they teach until, ironically, these skills become so natural that you can't imagine a time when people did anything different.

Technology Waits for No Man

Tweet

Last month, we went to Northern Ireland and spent lovely Christmas with my wife and her family. Her one sister has an 18 month old daughter (let's call her M). Despite only being 18 months old, M can string together some pretty long sentences for someone her age. She'll often demonstrate this by picking up any stray mobile phone and pretending to have a conversation with someone on the other end.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="280" caption="Flickr Photo by emerille"][/caption]

"Hey Nanny. How's it going?" she'll say. Cute stuff, indeed. Whenever she would get bored with fake phone calls, she'd want to browse through pictures on the phone (usually ones of herself, the vain wee thing). Her mom's phone is a touch screen and she flips through the pictures seemingly intuitively (and gets frustrated when she swipes her fingers on Nanny's old Nokia brick phone and the picture doesn't change to the next one in the album). I was reminded of this as I read through Dorian Love's article about explicit teaching of ICT in schools.

Love acknowledges that yes, an 11 month old baby can swipe their fingers to manipulate an iPad and that it may take an adult a while longer to work the device properly but ultimately, given some time, it's the adult that is going to be capable of doing the more complex tasks. The same goes for teenagers. There is this perception that because teenagers have grown up with computers and have never known any different, they are automatically proficient in their use. In my experience though, I think the only difference between teenagers' and adults' ICT skills comes down to fear and willingness. Teenagers aren't afraid to make mistakes on their computer (as I'm sure those in school Tech Support departments can attest to). Most teenagers are infinitely familiar with the wonder that is Crtl(or Cmd)+Z. There's always a way to undo something you've done. And if not, screw it, they can just try it over again. Adults, in general, tend to be more apprehensive when faced with learning ICT skills. Much like learning a new language, three key factors may give youth an advantage when trying to learn ICT skills:

1. Adults generally have less free time and thus less time to devote to learning something new


2. Adults have less motivation to learn it (as they didn't grow up with these technologies, many adults may not developed an appreciation for them and look to know only as much as society deems necessary)


3. Peer pressure. If an adult isn't technically adept, their peers understand and may be accepting but if a kid doesn't know how to use technology, the ridicule from peers could be venomous

The unfortunate problem that arises here is that these adults that are apprehensive about using technology are the very same ones that are responsible for teaching it to the students. A couple of months ago, Emma Mulqueeny wrote a post titled, "My ICT teacher can’t mark my homework" in which she recounts a tale of a student who nearly failed their ICT project because they wrote an iOS app using Objective-C programming and the teacher could not mark it because the teacher could not understand it. This is a bit of an extreme example (as most people that can program effectively are probably more likely to do that rather than teach) but the sad fact is that there are many, many teachers that still struggle with things like writing a blog post. These same teachers are quite possibly being asked by their schools to have their students write blogs for their classes and yet they can't adequately use a blog themselves.

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="272" caption="Flickr Photo by Pink Sherbet Photography"][/caption]

This reminds me of another recent trend that's been circling the education sphere on Twitter and that's #pencilchat. The concept behind this meme is simple; take a complaint or concern about technology use and replace the technological term with 'pencil.' For example, take my sentence above. "These same teachers are quite possibly being asked by their schools to have their students write with pencils for their classes and yet they can't adequately use a pencil themselves." Seems ridiculous, doesn't it? Well, in many respects, we're getting to a point where a teacher not being able to use a reasonable level of technology is somewhat ridiculous.

In a recent class with my Year 10s, I had what seemed like a fairly straightforward lesson planned but over the course of the lesson, I had an online survey that didn't load, a hyperlink on the class portal that was dead and a Google doc that wouldn't open properly. Sounds like a disaster class but I had with a back-up survey (always be prepared, kids!) and both the link and the Google doc problems were easily fixed in no time while I had the students discuss what we had been learning. I kept my cool and the lesson was barely affected.

All it takes is time. Dedicated time for teachers to use technology, make mistakes with technology, learn from their mistakes and lose their fears towards ICT. Once they've lost the fear, then teachers can start to take bigger risks and try new things live with their students right in class.  Teachers can lead by example and demonstrate that it's alright to make mistakes. Not everything is going to work right the first time but keeping your cool, finding another way of making it work and sharing those learning moments with your students.