Tag Archives: research

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!

State department educational policy advocacy: “Evidence-based” or puffery?

I teach. What's your superpower?

One of the Iowa Department of Education’s favorite phrases is ‘evidence-based,’ as in “schools and educators should be adopting ‘evidence-based’ practices.” That makes sense on its surface, right? So when the DE issued a press release today touting two Iowa districts that had adopted the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching’s (NIET) Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) – which focuses on teacher leadership and performance-based teacher compensation – I started digging around in Google Scholar for research about the program. I don’t live in the world of teacher leadership/compensation and thus don’t know much about TAP other than that it appears to support the DE’s policy proposals this legislative session (and that Dr. Brad Buck, an amazing school leader that I greatly respect, is the superintendent of one of the two districts). For all I know, TAP could be amazing or it could be puffery

What did I find?

And, of course, on its web site I found research from NIET itself claiming that TAP is awesome. Indeed, there’s a plethora of publications on TAP’s web site from NIET; agencies such as the Milken Family Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, or the Gates Foundation that have funded TAP; and ideologically-oriented educational organizations. But despite TAP’s claims of ‘a decade-long track record of growth and success in raising student achievement in high-need schools‘ (page 19), the evidence from independent researchers is decidedly more mixed and leans much more pessimistic when it comes to student learning outcomes.

So is TAP ‘evidence-based’ or puffery? Given the greater preponderance of negative findings by outside, independent scholars, it appears to be extremely arguable. Given that uncertainty and its own call for ‘evidence-based’ practices, should DE be basing its 2013 education reform package on the TAP model? (and should it be touting the model via press releases to the Iowa public and media, which know even less about all of this than I do?)

We already know that DE is willing to ignore decades worth of peer-reviewed research when it conflicts with its policy advocacy (see, e.g., recent incidents regarding 3rd grade retention and cutting elementary school recess). I don’t know if TAP falls into this category of willful blindness or not. But I am wondering if the studies listed above were ever presented to those in decision-making positions so that they could make a truly informed decision.

I hope that the initiatives go well for the two Iowa districts that are trying TAP. Their educators are going to invest a great deal of time, energy, and money in the model. Hopefully they will see the results for which they are striving. Until I see further independent research supporting TAP (send it if you’ve got it; maybe I missed some!), right now I’m less sanguine about whether we should be basing tens of millions of dollars statewide to implement the model here in Iowa.

Got any thoughts on this?

[Note that there's also a bigger question here that's always worth considering: What should we do if/when our own governmental agencies fail to apply the same standards to themselves that they wish to apply to us?]

Image credit: What’s your superpower?

Publishing in a print journal is only minimally ‘public’

Let’s face it. “Publishing” one’s work in a print journal that languishes on a dusty shelf in an academic library is a fairly minimal definition of making something public. So the real issue here is that we are simply not accustomed to our work being discussed in public. Ever. Period.

Alex Reid via http://www.alex-reid.net/2012/10/twitter-academics-and-the-public.html

Parents believe that technology can improve students’ learning

research from the CEA showed that three-quarters of U.S. parents of students in grades K-12 “agree” or “strongly agree” that technology greatly improves students’ learning experiences, and that two-thirds “agree” or “strongly agree” that they personally have seen their children benefit from educational technology implementation.

Further, more than half of respondents from the general public “agree” or “strongly agree” that K-12 students should be provided a computer for their education, the research showed.

via http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2012/10/ed-tech_among_five_tech_trends.html

When children are simply taught

studies have found that when children are simply taught, they don’t explore and test multiple hypotheses

[In one study of preschoolers,] an experimenter held a toy that had four tubes. Each tube did something different — for instance, one lit up and one made a squeaking sound.

In one case, the experimenter accidentally made the toy squeak by bumping into it and then left the room. The children experimented with the toy and figured out the three other features.

But when the experimenter made the toy squeak on purpose and then handed it to a child, he or she simply repeated what the experimenter did and never explored the toy’s other features.

via http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/science/scientific-inquiry-among-the-preschool-set.html

“Time on task” is less important for higher-level understanding and creativity

the nature of the task helps to determine the relationship between time and achievement. It turns out that more hours are least likely to produce better outcomes when understanding or creativity is involved. “How much is learned by rote is a direct function of time and effort,” acknowledges literacy expert Frank Smith. “But when the learning is meaningful we learn much faster. . . . Having to spend long periods of time in repetitive efforts to learn specific things is a sign that learning is not taking place, that we are not in a productive learning situation.”

Sure enough, researchers have found that when children are taught to read by focusing on the meaning of the text rather than primarily on phonetic skills, their learning does “not depend on amount of instructional time.” In math, too, even the new-and-improved concept of “engaged” [time on task] is directly correlated to achievement only if both the activities and the measure of achievement are focused on rote recall. By contrast, there is no “linear positive relationship for higher level mathematics activities, including mathematical applications and problem solving.”

Alfie Kohn via http://www.joebower.org/2012/08/limits-of-time-on-task.html

Teachers are only part of the student learning equation

Here’s a slightly-modified version of a comment I left over at The Des Moines Register regarding teachers’ impacts on student learning outcomes…

Sure, what happens in the classroom matters. But peer-reviewed research shows over and over again that between 2/3 and 4/5 of student achievement is based on non-school factors. Schools only contribute about 20% to 33% to students’ overall learning outcomes.

In addition, teachers are only part of the school equation. They’re the most important part, but non-teacher factors such as administrators, curriculum, other students in the school, available learning resources, and so on also impact student achievement. So teachers are responsible for about half (or so) of the school impact, but the rest lies outside their domain.

When you add all of this up, good teachers clearly are absolutely critical to student academic success. But their overall impact on student learning falls around 10% to 17%. Other in-school and out-of-school factors account for the rest. What this means is that – the occasional tale of heroic, exceptional teachers and schools aside – we should be making state and national policy based on what the research shows generally occurs, not exceptions, anecdotes, personal intuition, or unsubstantiated policy/political claims. And we definitely should not be holding teachers 100% accountable for outcomes for which they’re only 1/6 to 1/10 influential.

We need a much broader (and smarter) conversation about what it means to educate our nation’s children.

Image credit: Bigstock, Teacher and students

What does the research say about school one-to-one computing initiatives?

CastleLogo 300dpi 400pixels

Today’s resource is a re-issue of an older version. Last November we rolled out our first CASTLE brief. We’ve now got a new, much better template for our briefs so here’s the revised edition, authored by Dr. Nick Sauers, 1to1 Schools, and myself:

If you downloaded the old one, please use this one instead! Our second brief is in the works and, as the CASTLE Briefs web page notes, we’re actively soliciting ideas and authors. If you’re interested, get in touch!

[Continuing what I hope will be a month-long wave of resources for school leaders and the programs that prepare them…]

The promise of the digital

The promise of the digital is not in the way it allows us to ask new questions because of digital tools or because of new methodologies made possible by those tools. The promise is in the way the digital reshapes the representation, sharing, and discussion of knowledge.

Mark Sample via http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1-1/conversations/building-and-sharing-when-youre-supposed-to-be-teaching-by-mark-sample/.


Switch to our mobile site