Showing posts with label SAMR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SAMR. Show all posts

Monday, October 22, 2018

Instructional Technology Teacher Professional Development without Substitute Teachers

Like many schools across the country, our district often has a shortage of substitute teachers. Sometimes there aren't enough reserve teachers available to cover teacher absences due to illness, let alone cover trainings that take place during the school day. In the past we would offer teachers instructional technology trainings and staff development during the school day. Starting last year began eliminating this practice to reduce the overall need for reserve teachers and this year plan to use zero reserve teachers. 

As I've written about in the past, one of the reasons I believe our 1:1 program has been successful is because of our ongoing, sustained professional development. We are now in the eighth year of 1:1 and still providing all of our teachers with about nine hours annually of professional development related to technology. Whether teachers are in their first or eighth year teaching students with 1:1 devices, they attend multiple training sessions per year. The reason we provide continual staff development for our teachers is to help them use technology in ever new and innovative ways to deepen learning for students and make it more meaningful (see Beyond SAMR Ladders and Pools: A Framework for Teaching & Learning).

To make this happen without reserves, our instructional technology coaches are providing this staff development before and after school as well as online. Sometimes principals replace one or more monthly staff meetings with staff development sessions. This was the case last week at both our Middle School East and High School. At each site, teachers had the option to choose from a menu of options, including instructional technology sessions. Pictured are two high school mini-sessions last week, one on formative assessment with Pear Deck held in the newly remodeled Loft space and the other on Strategies for Improving Feedback in the Online/Blended Environment for teachers in our Tonka Online program. Last spring I wrote about 14 different technology mini-sessions from which high school teachers could choose in place of a staff meeting. Staff at all our sites are asked to attend about two hours of face to face meetings before/after the school day related to instructional technology staff development. 

In addition to face to face sessions this year we are expanding our online instructional technology staff development so all teachers will take two hours of training per semester equaling four hours of training this year. This past summer we increased our online technology related offerings for teachers to 18 sessions and had over 20% of our staff take at least one session using our learning management system, Schoology. Some of these same sessions will be offered once again and our instructional technology coaches are busy creating further sessions for teachers. 

We also offered extensive technology related face to face trainings in August. We have been providing these August trainings since 2005 and the options certainly have increased since that time. Teachers are asked to take at least two summer classes so they end up with about three hours of training in the summer. In the end all these training options add up to the same number of instructional technology training hours we have asked teachers to complete since our 1:1 iPad program began:
3 hours: August training classes online/face-to-face
2 hours: Face-to-face instead of staff meetings or before/after school
4 hours: Online training modules
9 hours: Total 
In addition to these nine hours of instructional technology staff development, teachers can and often do meet with their instructional technology coach or media specialist for additional help and/or to work further on a project. All of these options and work have made it possible to continue to support our teachers and advance their work with students helping to improve the ways that technology enhances learning and teaching. 

Related posts:
                        Posted by at No comments:
                        Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

                        Monday, June 11, 2018

                        Beyond SAMR Ladders & Pools: A Framework for Teaching & Learning-- ISTE June 26, 2018



                        At ISTE in Chicago on Tuesday, June 26 from 4:15-5:15pm I'll be presenting Beyond SAMR Ladders & Pools: A Framework for Teaching & Learning with our Director of Teacher Development, Sara White. The day before I'll also be presenting a short teaser at ISTE Bytes, on Monday, June 25 from 8:30-9:30am. Here's more info:
                        You'd be hard pressed to find an educational technology leader unfamiliar with the SAMR scale. The concept of differing levels of technology integration with stages of use in education is not new. Over the past few decades, we've had various acronyms like ACOT, RAT, TPACK and more. With SAMR, we've seen analogies like ladders, coffee, pools, and wheels. One of the limitations with each of these is they really just focus on technology, sometimes pigeon holing a technology tool or app into a specific level, when instead the focus needs to be much more broad. For example, even though a green screen end product might look great, students might simply be at the basic level of learning. And looking beyond technology, what about the four C’s, authentic real world learning or global learning?

                        Four years ago in Minnetonka Public Schools we stopped referencing technology scales and acronyms and developed our own framework for teaching and learning. We found great benefit from reflecting on all areas of teaching and learning, too. Now conversations about technology not only include the levels of complexity, but also to what extent students are thinking critically, communicating, what they are creating, if their experiences were authentic, personalized, collaborative, and global. It all fits together as part of the conversation and bigger picture of instructional best practices.
                        The Minnetonka Framework for Teaching & Learning
                        Each of these other areas of instruction and learning have their own levels and stages, too. For example, you can say that your students are collaborating, but is it at the basic level of talking with a neighbor about their answer to a problem or a higher level of collaborative skills involved in negotiating and resolving decisions about what information is most important for a group presentation? Because of this, we developed a larger framework for instruction overall. There are eight dimensions on our framework, and each has its own levels of complexity (similar to SAMR levels). 

                        The Framework shows "how often modest adjustments to lesson design and learning environments can significantly elevate students’ opportunities to learn. It provides educators with a launching point for planning meaningful, engaging instruction for learners who already live in a complex information society in which the nature of work is rapidly changing. Teachers can create places of learning that engage students at high levels and lead to deeper understandings by intentionally planning learning experiences with these strands in mind." Framework Overview document

                        To develop this comprehensive framework Sara coordinated the work and efforts of teacher and administrator teams who worked to identify and compose the definitions and levels for each level of complexity on the Framework, as well as write an overview document and create guides of about 10-15 pages that detail each of the Framework's eight dimensions. (View the draft guide for Authentic & Real World Learning). Sara also scripted an overview video that we showed our staff  during back to school workshops a few years ago:


                        Our Framework now guides our curriculum writing with dimensions and levels being identified in our UbD units. It also is the focus of our staff development, including technology. Our instructional technology coaches meet with teachers and do trainings focusing on strands of the Framework. Teachers meet in roundtables to discuss how they are designing instruction around different dimensions of the Framework and how technology integrates with these other areas. They also discuss the progress they are making on their technology goal for the year which is tied in with another Framework dimension. These goals are shared with the instructional technology coaches and their building principals. 

                        The Minnetonka Framework for Teaching and Learning has helped us move beyond SAMR ladders and pools to designing student experiences for meaning, engagement, and deeper learning. In fact, our teachers haven’t even heard of SAMR. Come discover a way to design and implement a roadmap for teaching and learning alignment and move beyond simply focusing on technology implementation toward successfully creating more meaningful, deeper and engaging learning experiences for students. If you'll be at ISTE in a few weeks, please join me on Tuesday, June 26 from 4:15-5:15pm.

                        Learn more about Minnetonka Schools and Technology Integration:
                        Posted by at 1 comment:
                        Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

                        Monday, April 3, 2017

                        Why Does Higher Ed = Lower Tech? Will Colleges & Universities Catch Up to K-12 Tech Integration?

                        Last week I took time off to visit colleges in New England with my oldest daughter, a high school junior. She has looked at schools close to home as well but is also interested in going to school in the Northeast. We attended overview programs and went on tours at seven different campuses in five states at public, private, and an ivy league school. It sounds like a lot of traveling, but since states are small in the Northeast you can easily drive between them in an hour or two.

                        I thoroughly enjoyed the time with my daughter and doubt I'll ever have another week with just her on a trip. We had a lot of time to talk, drove around five additional campuses, stopped at area sites, skied in Vermont, and went to some Diners, Drive Ins, and Dives, a favorite way to experience new restaurants. This is an exciting time for us as parents--exciting to think about the next chapter in our daughter's future--as well as scary to think about her leaving home and how we will pay for it!  The programs I heard about, campus life in general, dining options, recreational facilities, and many of the buildings we toured were amazing and made me want to go back to college myself! There are even apps now to let you know when your dorm's washer or dryer is available or how long the line is at the coffee shop!

                         Most of the schools we toured had one or more newer facilities that were designed with collaborative workspaces in mind and flexible furniture. This was good to see. It's promising that these latest best practices in teaching and learning are being incorporated in higher ed, too. It did seem to be pretty rare and for the most part, limited to newer buildings and not the normal setup for most buildings with classrooms we toured.

                        A typical classroom with desks in rows.
                        The projector was in use for a PPT lecture.
                        Most students had a device on so I took a picture.
                        One of the most surprising things to me was the traditional looking classrooms with rows of desks or anchored seats and tables in lecture halls, and lots of chalkboards! I haven't seen a chalkboard in our schools for a long time, yet they are still in use in higher ed! I did see dry erase whiteboards and often saw classrooms with projectors and a screen that could be pulled down. We saw very few projectors turned on during classes in session as we walked through buildings. Even more surprising was the number of students who I saw with paper notebooks, pens and no technology on their desk. It wasn't banned--many students had a device, but not everyone. There were a few classrooms where every student had a device in use, but that seemed rare. Overall, it seemed like it wasn't necessary for many classes. Two schools mentioned using a student response "clicker" system, although both said professors varied in their use of them and one guide said it was just to take attendance in the large lecture halls.

                        I know that you can learn with paper and pencil, and I also know that a lot of school is still lecture-based. I realize that I didn't see every classroom or spend time attending classes to understand exactly what was being taught. I don't know what had happened before we walked by or would happen afterwards. Yet a lot can be learned on a walk-through that is pretty telling of the classroom learning environment, patterns, and normal/typical use. I found it shocking how absent technology was in the teaching and learning at the colleges and universities we toured. I have heard similar stories from former Minnetonka grads and some college age relatives: our use of technology in K-12 education is above and beyond what many post secondary students experience.

                        When I asked our student guides questions about whether their professors assigned and collected work electronically, I learned that most of the schools do use a learning management system. I heard comments from students that some professors only post their syllabus while some stated that professors use it quite extensively. One of the schools we toured had networked printers with a line of students who scanned their ID to pick up a paper they had sent to be printed. Other guides spoke about cost of printing per page or paper budget allotted to each student, which gave me a sense that things are still pretty paper based in much of the post secondary world. At one university, the guide mentioned that all papers had to be submitted to an anti-plagiarism service, so that at least sounded a bit more promising! However, I didn't hear about assignments other than tests, written essays and papers.

                        Again, I realize that I didn't sit in on full classes and don't know all of what is taking place beyond the glimpses I saw walking by classrooms, but the sight of so many classrooms with little to no technology in use left me with the impression that there's not much that would fall beyond the basic levels of technology integration on the SAMR scale or our Minnetonka Framework for Teaching and Learning. I had hoped to see students creating things, lively interacting with one another and engaged in learning, harnessing the power of technology to enhance and accelerate learning... I teach online courses for teachers working on their master's degrees through Saint Mary's University of Minnesota, and we do a lot with technology at a much higher level than I saw while touring face to face campuses. 

                         While I'm excited to see what my daughter decides and where the next steps of life lead her, I hope that her college won't be a step backwards in use of technology for learning. I know there will be some amazing opportunities she gets to experience through technology after high school. I just hope it will be happening more frequently than we saw last week--enough so that on future tours and walk throughs with my younger kids, I will be impressed with the technology, too! 

                        On a related note: A while back Patrick Larkin posted some comments on his blog about his son during the college search and quoted Frank Bruni's book, Where You Go Is Not Who You Will Be. It's well worth a read.
                        Posted by at No comments:
                        Labels: , , , , , , , ,

                        Monday, December 19, 2016

                        Beyond SAMR Ladders & Pools: A Framework for Teaching & Learning




                        Last week at the Minnesota state technology conference, TIES, I co-presented a session with our Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, Eric Schneider, entitled "Beyond SAMR Ladders & Pools: A Framework for Teaching & Learning." The slide deck and a 4 minute video overview is below, as well as links to a draft Framework Overview document and the draft guide for Authentic & Real World Learning. For those of you who weren't there, here's a recap:

                        Although the SAMR scale has really gained popularity over the past few years, the concept of differing levels of technology integration and stages of use in education is not new. Back in 2003 when I first left the classroom and started in my instructional technology career, I referenced the ACOT Stages of Integration with teachers (Entry, Adoption, Adaptation, Appropriation, Invention). By 2011 when we first started our 1:1 iPad program, we began using the RAT scale (Replacement, Amplification, Transformation). As SAMR gained in popularity, we stopped referencing the RAT scale, but we never really shifted to SAMR. In fact, I don't believe many teachers in Minnetonka are familiar with it. Here is why: 

                        What's Wrong with SAMR?


                        There are many iterations of SAMR, from ladders to coffee to wheels and pools. Creating a catchy analogy helps, but the focus of each of these variations still is on the technology. I asked the attendees and now you to think about what is wrong with SAMR. What is it missing? How does it fall short? 

                        Around 2014 we stopped referencing the RAT scale and began evaluating the benefits and results of using these various scales in our efforts to help teachers integrate technology more meaningfully into their teaching. Each of these scales was helpful, but also left some voids. Sometimes the delineation between the levels was hard to pin down (is that use Amplification or Modification?). As we worked with teachers on how to use technology in their teaching, we didn't want the focus to be on the technology itself. Instead we found great benefit from and a need to reflect on many other areas of teaching and learning, too. Talking about how students are thinking critically, communicating, what they are creating, if their experiences were authentic, personalized, collaborative, and global in nature is just as important as talking about technology. It all fits together as part of the conversation and bigger picture of instructional best practices.

                        Each of these other areas of instruction and learning have their own levels and stages, too. For example, you can say that your students are collaborating, but is it at the basic level of talking with a neighbor about their answer to a problem or a higher level of collaborative skills involved in negotiating and resolving decisions about what information is most important for a group presentation? Because of this, we developed a larger framework for instruction overall. There are eight dimensions on our framework, and each has its own levels of complexity (similar to SAMR levels). 

                        As stated in the Framework Overview document, the Framework shows "how often modest adjustments to lesson design and learning environments can significantly elevate students’ opportunities to learn. It provides educators with a launching point for planning meaningful, engaging instruction for learners who already live in a complex information society in which the nature of work is rapidly changing. Teachers can create places of learning that engage students at high levels and lead to deeper understandings by intentionally planning learning experiences with these strands in mind."

                        The Minnetonka Framework for Teaching & Learning

                        To develop this comprehensive framework, our Director of Teacher Development, Sara White, coordinated the work and efforts of teacher and administrator teams who worked to identify and compose the definitions and levels for each level of complexity on the Framework, as well as write an overview document and create guides of about 10-15 pages that detail each of the Framework's eight dimensions.                         (View the draft Framework Overview document and draft guide for Authentic & Real World Learning referenced in the presentation.) Sara also scripted an overview video that we showed our staff this past August during back to school workshops:

                        Our Framework now guides our curriculum writing with dimensions and levels being identified in our UbD units. It also is the focus of our staff development, including technology. Our instructional technology coaches meet with teachers and do trainings focusing on strands of the Framework. Teachers meet in roundtables to discuss how they are designing instruction around different dimensions of the Framework and how technology integrates with these other areas. They also discuss the progress they are making on their technology goal for the year which is tied in with another Framework dimension. These goals are shared with the instructional technology coaches and their building principals. The Minnetonka Framework for Teaching and Learning has helped us move beyond SAMR ladders and pools to designing student experiences for meaning, engagement, and deeper learning. 
                        Posted by at No comments:
                        Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
                        Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)