Last month when we were first introduced to our Major Project, it didn’t take me long to decide on a topic. As I mentioned in my previous post, I’ve been a participant of the Connected Educator Project for the past three years, which has had a great impact on my development as a teacher. When discussing this with Trevor Kerr (who also happens to be a colleague at St. Kateri), we both saw an opportunity within the current framework of the Connected Educator Project to create a resource that could help to make an already amazing project, even better. As a result, due to our shared interest and passion as Connected Educators, we have decided to work as a team for our Major Project. The Inspiration for our ProjectSince our last unit included an interview by Bart Cote, who discussed the Connected Educator Project, I won’t go into great detail about the project, but rather provide a brief history that served as the inspiration for our major project. Over the past three years, the number of participants involved has significantly increased on yearly basis. In the beginning, the Connected Educator Project consisted of 28 educators who possessed a strong relationship with technology, and were from diverse teaching background that reflected all grade levels. In its second year, that number increased to 66 participants, with the majority still quite comfortable with technology. However, in the present year, the number grew to a staggering 130 participants, which created more diversity with regards to the overall experience and relationships with technology. With this trend in mind, it’s obvious that these numbers show no signs of slowing down anytime in the near future. This growth signals an increasing amount of educators who are becoming more comfortable incorporating technology into their own pedagogy, which is a strength for the division. However, when comparing the number of participants in the project to small size of the Education Technology Department, it became clear that there are going to be potential roadblocks, specifically in relation to training and professional development that could arise for new Connected Ed’s in the future. In the earlier rounds of this project, new participants were provided with multiple opportunities for training and professional development to help ease their transition into becoming a Connected Educator. These full day PD opportunities provided training and opportunities for meaningful growth and collaboration with fellow Connected Educators. Unfortunately, face-to-face PD has been significantly decreased for recent participants due to ministry budget cuts and the sheer number of people in the project. In the present year, the division is only able to provide two half-day sessions throughout the year for participants who are new to the project. While this is an unfortunate situation, both Trevor and I saw an opportunity to create a resource that would help bridge the PD gap and help ease new participants into the project. What is our Project?As mentioned above, professional development and training for new connected educators has been dramatically reduced since the beginning of this project. With this in mind, Trevor Kerr and I have decided to develop a self-guided professional development resource that can be utilized by new participants of the Connected Educator Project, as well as other teachers in the division. While anyone would have access to this resource, the primary focus would revolve around the Grade 6-8 level, as this is area in which we have the most experience. This resource, or “Connected Educator 101” as we have tentatively titled it, would be broken down into five important areas to aid in the integration of these devices within a classroom setting. These areas of focus would be:
Each of these areas would include detailed explanations and instructions (both written and recorded) for the set-up and utilization of these tools. Sections detailing technological tools would also contain student work samples to give connected educators a deeper understanding of the application for each tool. The format that we’ve decided to utilize in order to deliver this content would be the creation of our own web page. The Benefits of our ProjectDue to the decrease in professional development, new participants are coming into the project with less training and limited opportunities for growth compared to previous years. In addition, with the expansion of the project, many of the new connected educators are still at the developing stage in regards to their relationship with technology. This inexperience, coupled with the expectations of the project, could create a lot of unnecessary stress for teachers at a very busy time of the year. To make matters worse, there is currently little to no resources that have been created to bridge the professional development gap left by these budget cuts. The combination of all of these aspects were the motivation behind creating an easily accessible, self-guided professional development program to help ease teachers who are new to the Connected Educator Project, as well as those who are beginning to dip their toes in the technological waters.
1 Comment
I found this week’s content particularly engaging, as I was able to draw on personal connections between the technological innovation within Sun West School Division as well as Regina Catholic Schools. While each division has a different approach to educational technology, it was easy to find many similarities in the positive outcomes that each initiative provides (which we will get into later). However, one underlying theme that was evident in both divisions was the focus on engagement for all parties involved, as well as the amount of trust given to teachers and students in order to make these projects successful. With this in mind, let’s take some time to examine each division’s initiatives a little deeper: Regina Catholic Schools: In Bart Cote’s interview, he talks at length about the Connected Educator Project within the Regina Catholic School Division. This is a project that I am very familiar with as I have been a participant since its inception three years ago. As Bart explained, this project allows teachers to create a 1:1 environment within their classrooms, which is something that has truly empowered me as an educator. This means that from the first day of school until the last, each student in my room has access to, and is responsible for their own division supplied device. Overall, this project has not only revolutionized the way my students learn, but also the ways in which they are able to demonstrate it. Each day students utilize a variety of tools meet their individual learning needs and are no longer hampered by limited access to technology within the building. From a leadership perspective, the Connected Educator Project has been very successful due in large part to the Democratic/Participative approach that the Education Technology department has taken. Instead of viewing this as just “another way to deploy technology into schools”, the leaders understand that the teachers in the classroom, and not the technology, are the integral component to the overall success of the project. This sentiment was often echoed by our leaders in meetings, as we are consistently reminded that this project is about "more than just the devices”. In many of the PD sessions Connected Educators attend, we are provided with information that the leaders feel may feel benefit us, and we are able to take what we need and find ways to implement it uniquely within our classrooms. This might include different technological tools or apps, examining the ISTE Standards, the SAMR model, 21st Century Learning, other PD opportunities etc. Rather than instruct us on how they want us to utilize the technology, we are empowered to find our own ways to meaningfully incorporate it within our own pedagogy. Another aspect of the Connected Educator Project that I believe reflects the Democratic/Participative style is evidenced through the many leadership opportunities available for participants within the project. As Bart mentioned, once a Connected Educator has completed their first year within the project, they become a mentor to one or two new applicants the following year. This mentorship program demonstrates the trust the department has in its educators as it delegates leadership to these individuals to help new Connected Educators adjust to the program and help make their transition as smooth as possible. There are also various opportunities for Connected Educators to voice their opinions on the project as each year, participants are encouraged to provide honest feedback with the department to help improve the project each year. In addition to these surveys, there are also “Visionary Leadership” positions that participants can apply for, which provide them with more leadership responsibility within the project and the ability to work with a committee to shape the future of the project moving forward. When looking at this project, it’s not hard to see Democratic/Participative Theory in action as these opportunities align perfectly with the definition as explained in the article from Unit Two, “They encourage creativity, and team members are often highly engaged in projects and decisions. Democratic leaders make the final decisions, but include team members in the decision-making process” Sun West School Division As Guy Tetrault explained in his interview, the Sun West School Division is currently employing a “Personalized Electrically Blended Learning” (PeBL) program for technological integration within their division. This innovative approach is far different from the traditional model that we’ve witnessed in schools for centuries. Instead of classroom instruction that relies solely on in-person interaction between educators and students, the “PeBL” model is a blended approach that combines personalized learning (facilitated through the use of technology) with face-to-face instruction. Like the Connected Educator Project, this model is also based on the notion of establishing leadership in others, but also recognizes that the trust between teacher and student is paramount. This idea is summarized perfectly by Sun West as they explain on their website that the “PeBL” initiative is a “learner-centred process that supports the gradual and deliberate transfer of responsibility between educator and student”. The “PeBL” model is something that I spent some more time exploring in depth this week as “Blended Learning” is an approach that I’ve been researching and implementing over the past few years within my own classroom. In 2014 I started out my Blended Learning journey by transforming the way that I typically taught Math by "Flipping my Classroom". Essentially this means that I no longer teach the content at the front of the room, and instead my students learn online through the use of educational videos prepared by me that are housed on our Flipped Math Website. These videos, which are prerecorded, typically range anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes and are generally viewed at home. Then, the following day, what used to be viewed as “homework” is instead accomplished at school during class time with me. The major benefits of this approach is it allows for more personalized interactions with students during class time (instead of lecturing at the front of the room) and it provides students with the opportunity to work at their own pace through the content. Another blended learning project that I’ve found particularly empowering for my students has been Genius Hour. In this inquiry-based learning project, students are provided with one hour a week to learn about something that they have a passion for, or want to learn more about. The learning is typically achieved through the use of a technological device to research and gather information about their topic. The major emphasis of this project is not a final product or presentation, but rather on the documentation and reflection of their learning journey throughout the duration of the project. To me, this project aligns perfectly with one of Sun West’s principles of personalized learning, which is “giving students voice and choice”. Image One I’ve selected Image One as I believe it relates with the goals of the Connected Educator Project, (which I also happen to be using a spring board for my major project) but more on that later! As I mentioned earlier, one message that is relayed to all participants is that the project is about more than just devices. The focus of the technology that educators are being supplied with needs to help students achieve outcomes, rather than becoming the outcome as suggested in the image. While it is certainly valuable to have students learn new programs and software, the utilization of technology needs to extend past that. As educators we should not be assessing what technology students are able to use and how proficient they are with it. Instead we should be focusing on how those tools are able to help them achieve success in within their learning. Something else that struck me when I viewed this image was the comparisons it draws to the SAMR model that Bart Cote mentioned. When looking at the left column, many of these ideas, such as “making a prezi” or “creating wordless” are at the Substitution or Augmentation level. While there is certainly nothing wrong with engaging with technology at these levels, it’s important to understand that not all learning opportunities need to be restricted to this end of the “SAMR Swimming Pool”. As educators wade into the deep end of the swimming pool, many of the answers listed in the right column demonstrate the results that can be achieved through utilizing technology at the Modification and Redefinition levels. As an educator with a passion for teaching with technology, I found this weeks content quite interesting, specifically the readings that dealt with the issue of student personal devices in schools. While many of the articles presented opposing viewpoints and varying solutions, one thing was abundantly clear - this issue won’t be going away any time soon. Over the past eight years, I’ve witnessed the evolution of policies regarding personal devices, and have been part of many discussions searching for effective solutions to deal with them at a school level. In staying true to the spirit of this unit, I’ve broken down the issue of BYOT within schools using the metaphor of a play. The Issue: BYOT (Bring Your Own Technology) In my division (Regina Catholic Schools) there is no longer a question IF student personal devices belong in schools, but instead how to ensure they are being utilized appropriately and effectively. With so many devices in our classrooms each day, the battle we face as educators is how to ensure students are using these devices responsibly and not for personal use during class time. When looking at this issue from an elementary perspective, the students involved are Grade 6-8 students as they are the only ones allowed to bring devices to school. The Main Dramatis Personae Students: Grade 6-8 students, provided they sign a “Personal Electronic Acceptable Agreement” form, are given the opportunity to bring their own personal devices to school. While side effects may trickle down to lower grades, the primary issues revolve around students at this grade level. Teachers: Tasked with finding ways to effectively utilize student technology within their classrooms and ensure they are not being used inappropriately. Administrators: Supporting teachers, and providing direction with how BYOT is utilized within their buildings Parents: Responsible for reading and signing BYOT forms that are sent home and supporting teachers if issues arise. Props The specific types of personal electronic devices allowed are typically decided by administration, but often include: phones, ipods, tablets and laptops Scene Personal devices could be found anywhere within the school setting. Some examples are classrooms, hallways, lunchrooms, playgrounds etc. Conflict The main conflict that arises as a result of BYOT in schools is ensuring students are using their personal devices to supplement their education and not for personal use. A common side effect that takes place in schools is the use of social media, specifically apps like Snapchat and Instragram. These can be a major conflicts, as students have capability to take photos and post them to their social media, both with and without the consent of other students. Not only is this a privacy concern for the school, but can also lead to other issues such as cyber-bullying. Another common side effect of BYOT is the use of texting in class. This modern day version of “note passing” can be a major issue and distraction for students. The Plot Twist: Turning Conflicts into Successes As mentioned earlier, the adoption of BYOT into schools is something I’ve experienced from the beginning of my teaching career, and as a result I’ve learned what does and doesn’t work to combat this issue effectively. Below are a few of the insights I’ve gained while embracing student devices in the classroom: 1. Education. As mentioned in many of the articles this week, a common reaction to combat inappropriate use of student devices is to simply ban them from school. This was something that was debated at many of the meetings I’ve attended and was thankfully never agreed upon. Simply banning devices is a short-sighted and reactive plan that ignores the most powerful tool we have - education. Instead of making their devices a taboo topic, we can use education and digital citizenship to teach them how to use them appropriately and responsibly. Through meaningful lessons and concepts that are reinforced throughout the year, we can turn our students into digitally literate citizens to help eliminate issues before they happen. 2. Clear Routines and Procedures. It is incredibly important to establish clear routines and procedures for the use of personal devices within the school. Taking the time to write these out, send them home and go through them with the students, ensures everyone is on the same page. It’s also very important that educators take the to review these as needed throughout the year. In my experience, some of the most common procedures revolve around when students are allowed to use their personal devices, and when they need to be put way. An example in many classrooms is the use of a double sided image of a device, one with a regular side, and one with an “X” over it. This is typically placed on the whiteboard and when the image displays the regular side, students know they are able to use their personal device. Consequently, when the “X” is facing students, they understand that their personal devices should not be out. 3. Providing Students with Specific Opportunities for Personal Use Even the most responsible students will be still be tempted to use their devices to check messages, snapchat or scroll through their Instagram account throughout the day. Heck, find me a teacher who’s never used their phone for personal reasons while they’re at work and I’d be amazed. Instead of tirelessly attempting to police this issue, providing students (who have earned the privilege) with opportunities for use, may be a more effective approach. This would involve the explanation to students that as a result of responsible use during class time, they will be allowed to use their devices during specific times throughout the day. Some of these times may include: recess, lunch, or during tech and talk breaks, provided they are using their devices appropriately. This notion of compromise was also highlighted in the in Macleans article “Should schools welcome cell phones in class?”, when exploring personal device use at recesses. The author, Michelle McQuigge, summarizes the benefits of this approach by writing, “Such an approach strikes the right balance [and] it still gives teachers the flexibility to tap into the technology for their lessons while limiting distractions among students”. 4. Outlining Clear Consequences It is also important to have clear consequences in place for students if they are not using their devices responsibly, or neglecting the terms of the “Acceptable Use Policy”. The consequences should be something that have been agreed upon beforehand by staff and are consistently applied throughout the building. An effective consequence that has been implemented in my buildings has been the “Three Strike” approach. With this approach, if a student is caught using their devices inappropriately, the device is taken away on the first offense and returned at the end of the day. If the student is caught a second time, it is taken to the office and parents are required to pick it up and have a discussion with the administration. Should the student continue the behavior a third time, the device is taken away and is no longer allowed at the school. The Bottom Line While there can most certainly be conflicts that arise due to student devices in schools, when looking at the bigger picture, the positive side effects far outweigh the negative. Through taking a proactive approach to this issue, we are enhancing learning through integration of technology into classrooms as well as providing more opportunities to educate our students in becoming responsible digital citizens.
|
Matt BrescianiI'm a middle years teacher in Regina, Saskatchewan, working towards a Masters Degree in Education. Archives
April 2019
Categories |