Tag Archives: higher ed

K-12 tech integration versus higher ed: Flipped?

[I’m one of five Digital Pedagogy Faculty Fellows this year at the University of Colorado Denver. I’ll be sharing my thoughts all year on this experience, starting with my time at the Digital Pedagogy Lab in Vancouver, Canada.]

Just a quick thought…

In K-12, we struggle with access. Most schools are trying to get more technology into their classrooms. It’s not a given yet that students will have regular access to digital tools and adequate bandwidth in their learning spaces. That said, most schools have expectations of teachers that they will integrate technology into learning experiences whenever they can and provide often-mandatory professional learning for instructors on how to do that with the students in their classrooms.

It seems to me that the opposite is usually true in higher education. Bandwidth is pretty robust on most postsecondary campuses and most students are bringing computers of some sort with them to college. Access seems to be less of an issue. That said, institutional expectations of instructors for technology integration in classrooms are fairly low. Professional learning opportunities for faculty are mostly invitational rather than mandatory and tend to focus more on moving courses online than on how to use technology with students in face-to-face classroom settings.

In short, access and expectations regarding usage are flipped:

K 12 v Higher Ed

[download this image]

Agree? Disagree? What is your experience?

[cross-posted at Thinq.Studio]

Is there room for creativity and sharing in a professional preparation program?

Shannon Falls

[I’m one of five Digital Pedagogy Faculty Fellows this year at the University of Colorado Denver. I’ll be sharing my thoughts all year on this experience, starting with my time at the Digital Pedagogy Lab in Vancouver, Canada.]

I help prepare principals and superintendents. Like other educational leadership programs across the country, my program is supposed to prepare teachers and administrators to take on new leadership roles. Students come to us with expectations that they will learn how to be successful in new, usually very challenging, administrative positions. Sometimes we do that well, sometimes we don’t. 

One of the biggest complaints about many educational leadership courses and programs is that they’re too theoretical and not practical enough. This is true. Many of us faculty aren’t as connected to the day-to-day work of practice as we should be. The most common rejoinder – particularly from research faculty (folks who literally are paid to think) – is that narrow, time- and context-bound leadership preparation doesn’t foster graduates’ ability to work in different settings or across varying policy and practice eras. Both sides are right.

I wonder if there’s a third dimension – beyond the thinking v. practice dichotomy – that’s also worth considering. When I think about the times in my life when I feel most energized and ‘in flow,’ many of them revolve around opportunities to be creative. I write, I take photos, I create slides and presentations, I design a new course or workshop experience… and I usually share those publicly with others. As I was driving up and down the Sea to Sky Highway yesterday attempting to capture the natural beauty with my camera, I began to wonder what skills and talents, interests and passions, and professional and hobbyist expertise the students in my new Boulder principal licensure cohort will bring to our collective learning experience. And whether they feel as energized when they do those things as I do when I do my stuff (no matter how amateurish).

Can we bring in students’ “outside,” perhaps non-education-related, expertise and experiences into a professional preparation program that’s designed to get students ready in real, practical ways for incredibly complex and demanding jobs? I’m not sure, but I’d like to try…

[cross-posted at Thinq.Studio]

If we’re not irrelevant, what are we?

As I look across the presentations and workshops and keynotes that educational leadership faculty are sponsoring and facilitating, outside of a few isolated pockets I don’t see much evidence that we’re having wide-ranging and substantive conversations about the need for students to:

  • engage in deeper and higher-level learning instead of spending 80% to 85% of their time on regurgitation and recall of low-level knowledge items (that can be found via smartphone voice search in seconds);
  • possess greater agency and ownership of their own learning in order to foster engagement and self-directedness instead of being directed by teachers and schools toward control and compliance;
  • have opportunities to engage in authentic, meaningful learning activities instead of isolated, disconnected-from-the-real-world classroom assignments; or
  • utilize digital technologies in academic- and work-productive ways that go far beyond social uses or mere replication of analog instructional practices.

I rarely see or hear educational leadership faculty talking about the profile below of high school graduates, even though these student life skills are absolutely foundational to schools’ and policymakers’ current college and career readiness efforts:

College and career readiness

I rarely see or hear educational leadership faculty talking about these components of ‘future ready’ schools:

10 building blocks

We are preparing instructional leaders for P-12 schools but I rarely see or hear us talking about how to help preservice or practicing administrators understand how to (re)design school structures, curricula, units, lessons, and instructional activities to move in the directions noted above. [indeed, I have some doubts that most of us faculty would even know how] Even though social justice is a deeply held belief for most of us, we rarely discuss the intersections of that concept with changing workforce readiness needs or how the inequities of students’ digital access are extended and exacerbated when it comes to students’ digital usage. I don’t see most educational leadership faculty having broad and rich conversations about how technology has and will transform almost everything, what ‘college and career readiness’ or ‘personalized learning’ even mean these days, or what our roles are as faculty, parents, community members, and citizens to deal with all of this.

We do a great deal of research and teaching on interesting and important topics. We speak out against the marginalization of underserved and underrepresented groups. We talk a lot against federal and state policy. But we rarely foster ‘future ready’ policies, instructional and leadership practices, or school organizational redesigns. When we talk about student voice, it’s primarily within the frame of empowerment within local, not global, contexts. We talk marginally, if at all, about furthering students’ global awareness. And so on…

I really like my educational leadership faculty colleagues. They’re whip-smart, thoughtful, well-meaning, and kind and are engaged in some fascinating work. I learn lots every time I get to interact with them. So maybe ‘irrelevant’ is not the right word for what we do because it sounds too pejorative. But it sure seems like there are enormous, important, gaping holes in our conversations that we educational leadership faculty decline to fill year after year…

Visibility and reach: Journal articles v. blog posts

Back in 2008 I raised the questions:

Why would anyone who wishes to actually reach educators and hopefully influence change in schools not be blogging?

Also… why haven’t more faculty caught on to this?

Eight years later, I thought that I would share a couple of recent tables that I made in order to illustrate this point further. The first table is the number of academic citations that I have received on the top 20 things that I have written or created (according to Google Scholar). My citation numbers are decent if not spectacular; they’ve been enough to get me tenure at several of our nation’s top research institutions.

2016-10-27journalarticles

[click here for a larger image]

The second table shows the number of page views and comments that I have received on my top 20 blog posts.

2016-10-27blogposts

[click here for a larger image]

No comparison in terms of reach, visibility, interaction, and (hopefully) impact. The percentage of university faculty members who are blogging – although better than it was 8 years ago – is still incredibly low. We pay the price in terms of public and policymaker awareness of and attention to our work.

Are our definitions of ‘college readiness’ too high?

B

David Freedman said:

The College Board has suggested a “college readiness benchmark” that works out to roughly 500 on each portion of the SAT as a score below which students are not likely to achieve at least a B-minus average at “a four-year college” – presumably an average one. . . .

How many high-school students are capable of meeting the College Board benchmark? This is not easy to answer, because in most states, large numbers of students never take a college-entrance exam (in California, for example, at most 43 percent of high-school students sit for the SAT or the ACT). To get a general sense, though, we can look to Delaware, Idaho, Maine, and the District of Columbia, which provide the SAT for free and have SAT participation rates above 90 percent. . . . In these states in 2015, the percentage of students averaging at least 500 on the reading section ranged from 33 percent (in D.C.) to 40 percent (in Maine), with similar distributions scoring 500 or more on the math and writing sections. Considering that these data don’t include dropouts, it seems safe to say that no more than one in three American high-school students is capable of hitting the College Board’s benchmark. Quibble with the details all you want, but there’s no escaping the conclusion that most Americans aren’t smart enough to do something we are told is an essential step toward succeeding in our new, brain-centric economy – namely, get through four years of college with moderately good grades.

via http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-war-on-stupid-people/485618

Similarly, ACT estimates that only about 28 percent of recent high school graduates meet its alleged ‘college-readiness benchmarks’ in all four subjects of reading, English, math, and science.

For the record, the 6-year graduation rate in 2013 for first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began at a 4-year postsecondary institution in fall 2007 was 59%. Not all of those graduates have B- averages, of course. But, nonetheless, perhaps these definitions of ‘college readiness’ from SAT and ACT are too stringent?

Image credit: B, Nadège

The educative effect is greater when students do something than when something is done to them

Lecture

Ron Byrnes said:

There should be a corollary to the admonition [to students], “Bring energy for learning; be interested and engaged,” such as “Faculty will resist talking at you. Instead they will capitalize on your energy for learning by developing personalized learning environments characterized by meaningful interaction.”

Deborah Meier argues in The Power of Their Ideas, “Teaching is mostly listening and learning is mostly telling” (1995, p. xi). Likewise, Decker Walker contends in Fundamentals of Curriculum, “The educative effect is greater when students do something than when something is done to them” (1990, p. 479). University faculty rarely apply these aphorisms because they think of themselves first and foremost as mathematicians, philosophers, and psychologists who also happen to teach. Consequently, scant time is spent thinking about whether conventional teaching methods are working. Even less time is spent crafting alternative ones; as a result, a talking at students status quo prevails.

via http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=17818

Academic publishing in two sentences

Time it took my article to appear in print: 3 years.

Time it took this blog post to appear online: 5 seconds.

[P.S. Not trying to pick on JSL; they’re great. This is an issue endemic to most of our print publications in higher education…]

ADDENDUM: Time it took to edit this post four times: 3 minutes. Time it would take to edit a printed journal article post-production: ha ha ha ha!

Journal of School Leadership

Universities are selling degrees, not skills and competencies

Andrew Barras says:

Universities aren’t selling skills and competencies, they are selling degrees. That creates a disconnect between them and their customers. The ones that resolve this disconnect are the ones that will survive the next 10 years.

via http://educationstormfront.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/an-example-of-how-degrees-matter-less

Open source scholarship is a radical transformation for researchers

Alex Fink says:

Open Source Scholarship is a massive attitude and orientation change for scholars. What’s it really about, in my mind? It is about transforming a history in academia of using secrecy, privacy, and private ownership of ideas into one of shared, participatory, co-designed and developed, public, and free work. It is about – especially because I’m at a public institution – helping to build a commons, while simultaneously attempting to dismantle the histories of oppression that knowledge generated in universities has been used to promote and the limited knowledge systems we’ve propagated. Open source scholarship is a radical transformation in the universities’ relationship with ideas, in scholars’ relationships with students and colleagues, in relationships with communities. It is an explosion of the concept of “inside” and “outside”, of “expert” and “lay”, of privileged knowledge and everyday knowledge. Whether or not academics and universities want it, this is the coming world. More and more people will be empowered to use and conduct research, it will be available and evaluated more broadly, and the state of knowledge will be opened up in new ways we can’t yet even predict.

via http://www.hastac.org/blogs/alexanderjfink/2013/11/16/open-source-scholarship-github-academics-next-steps

Principal 2.0 (new book!)

Principal 2.0

Remember last September when I made available for free my most recent book chapter, Supporting Effective Technology Integration and Implementation?

Well, that chapter’s still available to you for free, but I’m pleased to announce that the rest of the book is now available as well. Featuring a diverse set of authors, perspectives, and topics, there’s something for everybody in Principal 2.0: Technology and Educational Leadership.

Here are the chapter titles and authors (including all 4 CASTLE directors!):

  • Foreword: Ready Set Go! with Educational Technology, Governor Beverly Perdue
  • Introduction: Making the Case for Principal 2.0, Jennifer Friend and Matthew Militello
  • Augmenting Educational Realities, John Militello
  • The Role of For-Profit Firms in the Educational Ecosystem, Michael J. Schmedlen
  • Generation X Meets Generation Y: Reflections on Technology and Schooling, Jennifer Friend and Alexander David Friend
  • Zen and the Art of Technology in Schools: Multigenerational Perspectives, Matthew Militello, Ronald Militello, Dominic Militello, Luke Militello, and Gabriel Militello
  • Digital Storytelling for Critical Reflection: An Educational Leadership Story, Francisco Guajardo, Miguel A. Guajardo, John A. Oliver, Mónica M. Valadez, and Mark Cantu
  • Engaging Youth Voice: Collaborative Reflection to Inform School Relationships, Processes, and Practices, Christopher Janson, Sejal Parikh, Jacqueline Jones, Terrinikka Ransome, and Levertice Moses
  • There’s an App for That: 50 Ways To Use Your iPad, April Adams and Jennifer Friend
  • Student-Owned Mobile Technology Use in the Classroom: An Innovation Whose Time Has Come, Tricia J. Stewart and Shawndra T. Johnson
  • Affective Learning Through Social Media Engagement, David Ta-Pryor and Jonathan T. Ta-Pryor
  • The Central Texas Community Learning Exchange Digi-Book: Fostering School and Community Engagement Through the Creation of a Digital Book, Lee Francis, IV, Mónica M. Valadez, John A. Oliver, and Miguel A. Guajardo
  • Leaders Online: Enhancing Communication with Facebook and Twitter, John B. Nash and Dan Cox
  • Balancing Effective Technology Leadership with Legal Compliance: Legal Considerations for Principal 2.0, Justin Bathon and Kevin P. Brady
  • Connected Principals: In Pursuit of Social Capital via Social Media, Candice Barkley and Jonathan D. Becker
  • School Leaders’ Perceptions of the Technology Standards, Matthew Militello and Alpay Ersozlu
  • Supporting Effective Technology Integration and Implementation, Scott McLeod and Jayson W. Richardson.

A big thanks to Drs. Matt Militello and Jennifer Friend for inviting me to be a part of this publication. Happy reading!