Putting the Cart Before the Horse: Ubiquitous Computing in the Digital Age

On a recent flight back to San Diego, I read with delight Alan November’s article, Why Schools Must Move Beyond One-to-One Computing. His point was not to move onto the next “techno-fad” as we have witnessed so many times in public education, but to conduct serious soul searching as to why we are committing massive resources to technology initiatives that have yet to prove their worth.

The amount of public funding totaling in the billions of dollars that has been spent for what November calls “$1,000 pencil programs” should cause us all to contemplate, why? Sadly, the overwhelming excuse originates from a misguided attempt to transform a school system overnight into a 21st Century learning environment. As November notes, “Adding a digital device to the classroom without a fundamental change in the culture of teaching and learning will not lead to significant improvement.” Maybe before committing sizable dollars for the next 1:1, 1 to x, or BYOD initiative, we should first consider the human element; namely, a school staff member’s readiness level to partake in the change process.

One of the driving forces behind the 20th Anniversary Edition of the LoTi Digital Age Survey is to do just that—determine those variables that impact an individual’s willingness to change how they teach, how they interact with one another, and how they use digital resources in the classroom. Before committing to the goal of implementing a full-blown ubiquitous computing environment, should we not take time to factor in the possible impact that school climate and teacher perceptions might have on a seven-or eight-figure technology investment? As November and countless other professionals have warned us, the pivotal questions should not surround, “What technology should we buy?” but rather focus more on culture-related issues encompassing teaching and learning as well as human factors that directly affect the change process.

Factors Impacting Effective Technology Use: School Climate—Professionalism

Research abounds regarding the positive impact of school climate on an extensive and impressive list of variables including drop-out rate, achievement, self-concept development, school improvement, teaching and learning, and so on (Center for Social and Emotional Education, School Climate Research). If school climate represents the quality and character of school life, does a strong correlation, therefore, exist between school climate and the manner in which classroom teachers are using digital tools and resources to elevate their professional practice?

In the upcoming 20th Anniversary Edition of the LoTi Digital Age Survey, we ask respondents to rate the following statement from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree:

I am treated as a respected educational professional on my campus.

What implications might their answers have for planning future professional development? I have to be honest; in the past, I have not really given much thought to how educators' feelings about their schools or the colleagues that they work with might correspond to their Level of Teaching Innovation (LoTi). But if we really expect to see change happen, shouldn’t we also investigate the campus underbelly to see what issues really need fixing?

For years, I have heard from schools frustrated by the fact that efforts to promote heightened uses of technology through massive hardware purchases, special technology institutes, and/or technology mentorships did not produce any measurable positive results. Think about it. If a school has the digital resources in place with abundant teacher training and support, shouldn't they have seen some measurable result? Unfortunately, many staff members feel slighted, perceive that they have little or no voice in the decision-making process, or, in general, hate their work environment. Should we really be surprised that teachers who are not involved in campus decision-making processes have trouble implementing student-centered processes in their own classrooms? Should we be surprised that the level of instructional innovation has not increased?

The LoTi Digital Age Survey 20th Anniversary Edition will provide school systems with informative data that explores how school climate factors impact innovative teaching. Understanding those factors ensures that precious staff development dollars can be spent where they are most needed—whether it is a workshop entitled, New Apps for Your Math Classroom, or a session called, Ten Ways to Improve A Positive Work Environment. If the net outcome results in more innovation and achievement, then we have all collectively done our jobs.

This blog post is the tenth in a series of fourteen online entries highlighting factors that impact the effective use of technology in today's classrooms. This series focuses on each of the research variables used to conduct comparative analyses as part of the 20th Anniversary Edition of the LoTi Digital Age Survey.

Factors Impacting Effective Technology Use: Teacher Feedback

For years, I have asserted that the building principal controls the Level of Teaching Innovation (LoTi) on campus. Why you may ask? From a technology integration standpoint, how the building principal prioritizes agenda items for an upcoming faculty meeting, makes recommendations to the school site council regarding next year’s budget, models the effective use of technology within his/her own job duties, offers suggestions for future professional development, and provides quality feedback to staff following a classroom walkthrough or formal teacher evaluation all directly impact the LoTi level on campus.

In the upcoming 20th Anniversary Edition of the LoTi Digital Age Survey, we ask respondents to rate the following question from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree:

I receive useful feedback on the integration of digital resources into my instruction from my administrator(s).

Assuming that the soon-to-be-collected data yields a strong correlation between the usefulness of the administrative feedback that a teacher receives and the Level of Teaching Innovation reported, what do you think are some simple safeguards school leaders can use to ensure quality feedback? I jotted down a few that I have suggested in the past.

• Pose challenging and thought-provoking questions to teachers relating to the use of technology in the classroom such as, "How does your students’ use of Survey Monkey for survey construction promote higher order thinking?" 
• Provide non-threatening feedback to teachers with specific recommendations relating to the use of technology such as, "You might want to consider using the web applet, Sprinter, as a tool to support your students’ understanding of slope." 
• Stimulate collaborative, professional conversations about pedagogy through the gathering of evidence related to technology use in the classroom. 
• Use the anecdotal feedback collected by the entire leadership team to create an agenda for an upcoming faculty or PLC meeting, or for deciding on future staff development opportunities.

Recognizing that elevating the Level of Teaching Innovation is an ongoing process that requires time, school leaders can accelerate the process by providing constant, consistent, and targeted feedback that helps staff improve their collective professional practice and teaching innovation over the entire school year.

This blog post is the ninth in a series of fourteen online entries highlighting factors that impact the effective use of technology in today's classrooms. This series focuses on each of the research variables used to conduct comparative analyses as part of the 20th Anniversary Edition of the LoTi Digital Age Survey.

Factors Impacting Effective Technology Use: Teacher Support

Where or from whom do teachers most often seek support for using digital resources in the classroom? From my experience, most teachers are like submarine captains when it comes to using digital resources in that they (1) make split-second decisions impacting the outcome of their work environment and (2) possess an elevated sense of urgency to make things happen autonomously and correctly.

Try coaching a frustrated teacher who spends hours planning a lesson using his or her classroom mobile devices only to find out that the Internet has gone down prior to the morning bell ringing. Fortunately, the vast majority of educators have contingency plans built into their instructional curriculum that provide viable options should the use of digital tools malfunction at the last minute. Yet, the frustration that follows continued technology meltdowns does not bode well for classroom teachers who don’t know where to turn for assistance. They often end up replacing digitally-charged activities with paper versions that limit student options in the classroom.

Knowing where (e.g., Teaching Channel, YouTube, Kahn Academy) or whom (e.g., student, campus technology specialist, academic coach, grade level teacher, curriculum coordinator) to turn to in cases of short term fixes (e.g., logins, technology glitches) or long term solutions (e.g., migrating to a one-to-one learning environment) is vital to the success of moving teachers to higher levels of technology integration regardless of the measuring stick used (e.g., LoTi, SAMR, ISTE Standards). The 20th Anniversary edition of the LoTi Digital Age Survey will attempt to find correlations between teachers who know their “go-to” person or site for assistance and how they execute technology use in their classrooms.

This blog post is the eighth in a series of fourteen online entries highlighting factors that impact the effective use of technology in today's classrooms. This series focuses on each of the research variables used to conduct comparative analyses as part of the 20th Anniversary Edition of the LoTi Digital Age Survey.