Sunday, May 3, 2009

Clarifying H.E.A.T.

The H.E.A.T. rubric was created to help gauge the level of student output in the learning process. Whereas LoTi (Level of Teaching Innovation) represents teacher input (i.e., how a teacher plans, executes, and evaluates a learning experience), H.E.A.T. represents the net effect of the output as measured by Higher order thinking, Engaged learning, Authentic connections, and Technology use.  Each of the categories comprising H.E.A.T. constitute separate and unique dimensions of digital-age learning. This post helps to demonstrate the unique characteristics of all four categories.

Higher order thinking refers to a student's level of cognitive processing (e.g., analyzing, synthesizing) within the learning experience; Engaged learning refers to the purposefulness of the learning experience. Authentic connections represent the level of real world application while Technology use illustrates the seamless integration of digital assets. To illustrate this difference, I have included three sample activities involving the novel, Of Mice and Men. Each sample has the same student level of cognitive processing, but varying levels of student engagement, authenticity, and technology use in the learning process.

Sample 1 - Literature: Of Mice and Men

Task: At the end of the story, George kills his only friend and companion and all of his dreams die with him. Do you think that George was right in his actions? Think carefully about the events in the story and then put together evidence for your decision using Inspiration.

Higher-order Thinking: 

Student learning/questioning at analysis level 

Student learning/questioning at synthesis/evaluation levels 

Engaged Learning: 

Students report what they have learned only 

Authenticity: 

The learning experience represents a group of connected activities, but provides no real world application

Technology Use:

Technology use is directly connected to task completion involving one or more applications 

Sample 2 - Literature: Of Mice and Men

Task: You and your partner are the co-casting directors for the movie adaptation of the novel, Of Mice and Men. The studio executives have invested heavily in this movie production and it is critical that your team select the "best" actors to assume the role of George and Lenny. Submit a proposal to the studio as to the two actors your team would recommend for the upcoming movie and provide justification for your selection. You are also advised to include your team's rubric that outlines the criteria used in your decision-making process.

 Higher-order Thinking: 

Student learning/questioning at analysis level 

Student learning/questioning at synthesis/evaluation levels 

Engaged Learning:

Students given options to solve a problem; collaborate with others 

Authenticity: 

The learning experience provides limited real world relevance, but does not apply the learning to a real world situation 

Technology Use: 

Technology use is directly connected to task completion involving one or more applications 

Sample 3 - Literature: Of Mice and Men

Task: One of the main themes in Of Mice and Men focuses on violence. The number of reported cases of acts of violence in the United States has risen by 10% from 2007 to 2008. Are reported acts of violence in your community higher or lower than the national average?  How aware is your community about these acts of violence?  Is there a particular profile for an individual susceptible to acts of violence? Did either main character from Of Mice and Men fit this profile? Your task is to conduct an information search about acts of violence in your community and then take action (if any action is needed) relating to this topic for your community. In other words, you decide what action is needed in your community, justify your decision, and then take action!

Higher-order Thinking:

Student learning/questioning at analysis level 

Student learning/questioning at synthesis/evaluation levels 

Engaged Learning:

Students help define the task, the process, and the solution; collaboration extends beyond the classroom

Authenticity: 

The learning experience is directly relevant to students and involves creating a product that has a purpose beyond the classroom that directly impacts the students 

Technology Use: 

Technology use is directly connected and needed for task completion and students determine which application(s) would best address their needs 

The above examples illustrate the symbiotic relationship among each of the four constructs comprising the H.E.A.T. rubric. They also show that the level of one construct does not necessarily dictate the level of another (e.g., Higher order thinking and Engaged learning).

Defining Teach 2.0

Teach 2.0 refers to a set of instructional methodologies (e.g., collaborative problem-solving, cooperative learning, issues- based instruction) that have demonstrated the greatest success among today’s digital natives when used in conjunction with Web 2.0 resources. Unfortunately, many classrooms are still encased in Teach 1.0 methodologies (e.g., didactic instruction, sequential and uniform teaching materials, traditional forms of assessment) which tend to minimize the potential impact of today’s Web 2.0 collaborative technologies (e.g., GoogleDocs, Blogger, Wikispaces) on student learning.

Many of the Teach 2.0 methodologies have their genesis in the Social and the Information-Processing family of teaching strategies popularized by Joyce and Weil’s book, Models of Teaching. The Social family refers to specific teaching methodologies that generate a collective energy through learning communities called synergy. These strategies which also align with 21st Century Skills (e.g., critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, collaboration) include: cooperative learning, group investigation, and role-playing.

All three strategies involve students working collaboratively and cooperatively to solve real-world problems while improving their ability to interact successfully among diverse groups. Consistent with these methodologies is problem-based learning which is a student-centered strategy that requires both collaboration and personal reflection to solve a personal or social problem. The Experiential-based Action Model (EBAM) with its focus on student awareness about a problem leading to students taking authentic action is an excellent representative of problem-based learning.

The Information-Processing family of teaching strategies represent instructional models that address the individual’s innate nature to make sense of his/her world. These strategies include: inquiry-based instruction, synectics, and the scientific method. A by-product of these methodologies is students’ heightened ability to ask questions, develop hypotheses, generate creativity thinking, and seek solutions

Teach 2.0 is not a new instructional methodology, but an organic blend of proven methodologies that have proven most successful and pervasive in governmental “think tanks,” business and industry, and within the scientific community. Applied to public education, they represent the key to public schooling’s successful transition into digital-age learning using Web 2.0 technologies that ultimately equip students for the challenges in the 21st Century workforce.

Monday, March 30, 2009

What is a 21st Century Educator?

Recently, I received an email from a colleague working at an elementary school concerned about budget cuts that were going to reduce her allocation for new technologies on campus. Her main concern was "How can you be a 21st Century educator without the necessary hardware, software, and peripherals"

I believe we first need to back up a bit and analyze what we mean by a 21st Century educator. A cursory review of the 21st Century Skills generated by the Partnership for the 21st Century reveals that two-thirds of the broad categories do not necessarily demand the use of technology (i.e., Learning and Innovation Skills, Life and Career Skills).


A 21st Century educator is one who is able to harness the "available" technologies in his/her classroom to engage students in higher order thinking and make authentic connections between the content and the student. I refer to this phenomenon as H.E.A.T. (Higher order thinking, Engaged learning, Authentic connections, and Technology use). Too often, the focus is exclusively on the acquisition of more hardware with only tacit attention given to dynamic instructional strategies and authentic learning in the classroom.

I invite anyone to review the NETS-T (National Education Technology Standards for Teachers) that define the 21st Century educator. These standards similarly emphasize the tenets of 21st Century Skills and Themes and H.E.A.T. If a campus does not have an advanced technology infrastructure, my advice is to focus on H.E.A.
(Higher order thinking, Engaged learning, Authentic connections) so that when more funding becomes available, your teachers will be ready to harness the new technologies at a higher LoTi level that will subsequently produce more H.E.A.T. in the classroom and improved student achievement.

May the LoTi Be With You!

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Interpreting the new NETS-T

While facilitating a recent LoTi Mentor Certification Institute, I was attempting to provide a quick and succinct summary of each of the dimensions comprising the National Education Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) because these same dimensions form the backbone for the new LoTi Digital-Age Survey Professional Development Priorities. The five dimensions embedded in the NETS-T include: Digital Age Work and Learning, Digital Age Learning Experiences and Assessments, Student Learning and Creativity, Professional Growth and Leadership, and Digital Citizenship and Responsibility

In their current format, the new NETS-T can be a little overwhelming for many classroom teachers. Unfortunately, if teachers cannot comprehend and internalize these standards, then there impact on promoting 21st Century teaching and learning will be minimal at best. In an effort to provide greater clarity to the new NETS-T, I offer the following short-cut explanation for each dimension:

•Digital Age Work and Learning: This dimension represents an individual’s PCU or Personal Computer Use level. Digital age Work and Learning is about knowing about and using digital age tools effectively in a global and digital society.

•Digital Age Learning Experiences and Assessments: This dimension comprises the LoTi level of an individual in terms of how he/she designs, develops, and evaluates authentic learning experiences and assessments incorporating digital tools and resources. LoTi represents the teacher Input of the learning experience.

•Student Learning and Creativity: This dimension focuses on the amount of student H.E.A.T. generated from the lesson in terms of creativity and innovation in both face-to-face and virtual environments. H.E.A.T. represents Higher order thinking, Engaged learning, Authentic connections, and Technology use. H.E.A.T. constitutes the student Output of the learning experience.

•Professional Growth and Leadership: This dimension addresses the Professional Development resume of the individual as both a participant and facilitator of continuous improvement efforts relating to promoting and demonstrating the effective use of digital tools and resources.

•Digital Citizenship and Responsibility: This dimension encompasses both the protocols and procedures addressing Internet Safety and Communication as well as the equitable use of digital tools to promote and sustain a student-centered approach within the learning environment.

Similar to using a well-articulated and student-friendly rubric for students to self-assess their academic performance, it is pivotal that educators possess the same understanding of the NETS-T to gauge their own professional performance within their respective learning communities.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

LoTi Look-fors

To date, my colleagues in the field and I have conducted thousands of classroom walkthroughs or snapshots, peer observations, and pre-post assessments to gauge the LoTi Level in classrooms. Over the years, certain tendencies associated with the different LoTi (Levels of Teaching Innovation) levels continue to surface that can aid us in our data collection quest.

Provided below are some of these rules. I begin each rule with the same lead-in that the comedian, Jeff Foxworthy, uses as he begins his “ You know you’re a redneck when…” routine.

1. You know it’s a LoTi 2 or below
when the teacher's description of the lesson focuses more on the technology than on the critical content.

1. You know it’s a LoTi 2 or below when the teacher's description of the lesson mentions that the students will be creating a PowerPoint presentation, poster, or a diorama.

1. You know it’s a LoTi 2 or below when the teacher mentions the use of a KWL chart as an integral part of the lesson.

1. You know it’s a LoTi 3 or above if the teacher mentions student engagement with one or more complex thinking strategies such as problem-solving or decision-making.

1. You know it’s a student-centered learning experience when students are giving options or personal input into two out of the three components of the learning experience (i.e., Content, Process, Product).

1. You know it’s a LoTi 5 when the learning experience involves some type of two-way collaboration with "experts" beyond the classroom that leads to authentic problem-solving by the student(s).

These simple rules can help clarify the LoTi level of any classroom learning experience ranging from the lesson plan to the actual execution of the lesson with the express intent of fostering continuous improvement and digital-age learning.

Monday, March 2, 2009

Bringing the H.E.A.T. to LoTi

The original LoTi Framework was first conceptualized, in part, based on the works and inspiration of the Concerns-based Adoption Model (CBAM) Model (Hord, Rutherford et al., 1987) and the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow research (Dwyer, 1994). I owe a great debt of gratitude to these early pioneers in the fields of change research and technology implementation.

The continued evolution of the LoTi Framework over the past 15 years has also benefitted from the input of current educational practitioners working in school systems throughout the United States. This post acknowledges their valuable insight and contribution to the transformation of LoTi as Levels of Technology Implementation to Levels of Teaching Innovation.

My close confidants, Dr. Carol James,
Co-Director, Center for Innovative Education, at Kean University in Union, New Jersey and her husband, Lester Ray, an Apple Development Executive with Apple Computer, Inc. have provided countless hours of great conversation and critique of the LoTi Framework since its initial launch in 1994.

Dan Cherry, formally consultant to the New Hampshire Department of Education and currently an accomplished writer, trainer
extraordinaire, and classroom teacher in New Hampshire was the original architect of the infamous “LoTi” Sniff Test. This sniff test instrument has enabled thousands of state, district, and building level educators better understand the nuances of the LoTi Levels (e.g., Exploration, Infusion, Integration).

My next acknowledgement is not to an individual, but to a special cadre of New Jersey school administrators who helped evolve the concept of H.E.A.T. (Higher order thinking, Engaged learning, Authentic connections, Technology use). Using a “lava lamp” as their metaphor, they successfully articulated how student learning experiences (represented by the lava lamp bubbles) can rise to a higher level inside the lamp based on the amount of H.E.A.T. applied to the lesson.

Finally, special kudos goes out to a friend and colleague,
Liz Storey, Executive Director of the Green River Regional Educational Cooperative at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green. It was Liz who helped clarify the connection between LoTi and H.E.A.T. using an Input/Output Model. According to this model, the LoTi levels represent the Input (i.e., the various levels at which teachers plan and execute their lessons); H.E.A.T., on the other hand, represents the Output (i.e,. the degree of impact that the learning has on the students). This Input/Output Model provides a much need conceptual framework to understand the impact of digital-age learning on student outcomes in the classroom.

I owe a special debt of gratitude to these individuals and others who have made important contributions to the progress of the LoTi movement and its use as a research instrument, school improvement model, and diagnostic tool in schools worldwide.


David C. Dwyer. "Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow: What We've Learned," Educational Leadership, April 1994, pp. 4-10.

Taking Charge of Change by Shirley M. Hord, William L. Rutherford, Leslie Huling-Austin, and Gene E. Hall, 1987. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

LoTi Leadership Symposium - HISD

Provided below is agenda for the LoTi Leadership Symposium.

• Student Involvement vs Student Engagement
• 212 Degree Teaching
• H.E.A.T.
• H.E.A.T. Rubric
• LoTi Framework
• LoTi Implementation
- Assess
- Plan
- Implement
- Sustain
• 5 C’s of Instructional Leadership
• LoTi Next Steps

Please leave a comment about any questions from today's program.

Chris Moersch
LoTi Executive Director

Important Links:
• LoTi Connection
• LoTi Classroom - online learning
- Enter User ID: lotiguest
- Enter Password: lotiguest
• LoTi Lounge
- Enter User ID: lotiguest
- Enter Password: lotiguest

Resources:

Video Samples - Early Childhood Level
• Early Childhood - Lifelong Learning
• Early Childhood: Science - Worms
• Early Childhood: Math - Counting
• Early Childhood: Social Studies - Community
• Early Childhood: Science: - Zoo Trip
• Early Childhood: Science: - Exploring Balls and Ramps

Video Samples - Elementary School Level
• Elementary Math: Fractions
• Elementary Science: Food Chains
• Elementary Science: Ecology
• Elementary Science: Space Day Design Challenge
• Elementary Science/Math/Language Arts: Weather
• Elementary Science: Electricity
• Elementary Math: Tessellations
• Elementary Science: Weather
• Elementary Science: Maui's Coral Reefs-Echinoderms
• Elementary Science: Stopping Distances
• Elementary Science: Monarch Butterflies
• Elementary Science: Solar System
• Elementary Science: Ecosystems
• Elementary PE: Pulse Rates
• Elementary Math: Luxury Hotel
• Elementary Science: Hermit Crabs
• Elementary Science: Iron Oxide Experiment

Video Samples - Middle School Level
• Middle School Math: Stock Market
• Middle School Math: Archimedes Spiral
• Middle School Language Arts: Literature Review - Tuck Everlasting
• Middle School Science: Properties of Matter
• Middle School Science: Air Pressure
• Middle School Science: Elements Commercial
• Middle School Science: Science Journals

Video Samples - High School Level
• High School Technology Elective: Video Editing
• High School Math: Pythagorean Theorem
• High School Math: Geometry in the Real World
• High School English: MacBeth
• High School Social Studies: Theodore Roosevelt and Progressivism
• High School Physics: Projectiles
• High School Science: Starry Night Simulation

Additional Resources:
• 21st Century Learning Revisited
• HEAT Observation Form
• LoTi Sniff Test
• LoTi Framework
• Next Steps Action Plan Sample

Research:
As requested, I have included the citations from "Current Research" from last week's program.

A. Technology use coupled with effective instructional strategies can improve student achievement.

Center for Applied Research in Educational Technology (CARET)
LoTi Connection
The George Lucas Educational Foundation
eMints National Center

B. Technology increases the complexity of the tasks that students can perform successfully, raises student motivation, and leads to changes in classroom roles and organization.

Baker, E. L., Gearhart, M., & Herman, J. L. (1994). Evaluating the Apple classrooms of tomorrow. In E. L. Baker H. F. O'Neil, Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 173-197). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. (1990). The evolution of teachers' instructional beliefs and practices in high-access-to-technology classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.

Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K., Middleton, T., Morocco, C.C., Remz, A.R., & Zorfass, J. (1993, September). Using technology to support education reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

C. Technology can enhance both what and how children learn when used in conjunction with: (1) active engagement, (2) participation in groups, (3) frequent interaction and feedback, and (4) connections to real-world contexts.

Roschelle, J.M. Pea, R.D., Hoadley, C.M., Gordin, D.N. and Means, B.M. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children, 10:2, 76-101

Papanastasiou, E., Zemblyas, M., & Vrasidas, C. (2003). Can computer use hurt science achievement? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12 (3), 325-332.