TQ#10 - Consider what you've learned about open source technologies, cloud computing, and videoconferencing. In three-to-five paragraphs, share what is new for you and how it might (or might not) fit in the school technology plan. Remember to review and comment on the blog postings of your colleagues.
It is hard for me to talk about any of these topics being new for me. I have been aware of them for some time and our district does use some of these items today. I think for my response, I will discuss how we are using them.
Open source has come along way in the last few years. It still amazes me that most users just think that open source means free software. Many have no idea that the real meaning is that the code is free. Some open source software does need to be paid for! Our district uses a product called LetterGrade for our grading system. This system runs on two Red Hat Enterprise Linux servers (we paid about $500 each for the Red Hat Enterprise software with support). If you are aware of LetterGrade, you know that the original owner sold the company to a bigger company that shortly after went out of business. Since the code was open source, I was able to contract with an ex-employee of both companies to continue support. To my knowledge, we are the last district with a fully functional, running version of the product. In addition, we have changes made to the application 2 or 3 times a year.
Cloud computing is newer in our district and has only recently been introduced. Some of our middle school staff have been using Google docs with disadvantaged students that do not have updated computers at home. The students have been able to use Google docs as a method to get their classwork completed.
Colonial has been using video conferencing on Internet 2 for the last 4 years. We are now at the point where all 7 of our buildings have a video conference units, called a Polycoms, in their library. Our K-3 buildings are just getting used to being able to involve students from all 4 buildings in projects. In our high school and middle school, the students are able to experience outside events. The highlight for use was 2 years ago. Our middle school had a live video conference with a diver on the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. The conference started at 8pm and was attended by almost 50 students. The students interacted with the diver while they were being shown different types of marine life on the reef. It truly was a remarkable experience.
As you can see, Colonial is comfortable with many different types of emerging technologies. If you want a preview, search for Microsoft Surface. We are looking at getting one of these units for our Computer Science department.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
TQ #9
Thoughtful Question #9 - The legality of law is determined by the court system which is frequently called upon to interpret laws that may violate the U.S. Constitution or that are not sufficiently detailed to clearly enforce. One principle that the courts may apply to these questions is that of the means of least restraint. In other words, the laws should be enforced with the least intrusion into traditional freedoms and liberties and the least disruption of the lives of people and institutions. In 3-to-5 paragraphs, discuss how these laws, and the policies that are developed to enforce the laws, should-or-should-not comply with the principle of least restraint. You should take a personal position here, as though you were a judge presiding over a challenge to the way a school or library has implemented a restrictive technology policy. An important consideration is that the laws are seldom clear, and that schools are given a wide range of possible ways to comply.
One area in relation to this topic that I feel strongly about is the proper use of content filters in a K-12 setting. I feel that I have a unique perspective on this topic as I was responsible for the management of the Content Filter at Colonial for the last six years. While content filters are required, the manner in which the filter is deployed are almost entirely up to the school district. The requirement states only that all users be monitored and that a filter is in place. Some districts will block almost everything in the hopes of having control. Districts subscribing to this method are in fantasy land. If you are looking for reality, you need to realize that this method only keeps you in the dark.
The majority of students in a high school environment know how to "get around" a filter. It usually involves using a proxy server that masks where you are going. To my knowledge, filters cannot stop this behavior, they can only stop access to a proxy site. That would be enough if new proxy servers didn't pop up online every day. In addition, users with just a bit of knowledge can make their home computer part of a proxy web if they know what they are doing.
So, how does this impact the district monitoring? Those responsible for monitoring activity will only see the proxy, they will not see that the student successfully got to MySpace. Let's explore this further. An incident happens and the school is contacted by the authorities. The authorities need to know if a student gained access to a MySpace page inside the district. Student reports say no, however, there is a reference to a proxy site. How will the district answer the authorities? Can they honestly say no, the student didn't gain access? No, they are in the dark.
It is my opinion that schools need to take a tiered approach to content filters. This approach would function almost the reverse of what many administrators think. Younger students should be filtered the heaviest. Not because of a high risk, but because they need help staying on track. For the K-3 audience, filtering could be deployed in an allowed sites only mode. In other words, the students can only get to predetermined sites. This is happening today and products like NetTrekker make this a great option.
As students get older, the filter should be gradually reduced. The students should be taught how to use the Internet respectfully and should be educated on the dangers that are there. Let's face it, they aren't filtered when they get home. By the time a student reaches high school, they should only be filtered from a select few categories such as Adult Content, Illegal Activity, Gambling and on some filters, Adware and Spyware. Use of proxies should be explained and a firm policy should be included in the acceptable use policy. Any activity in violation would be handled promptly. I feel that this approach would better educate students on the Internet, instill a sense of trust with them, and lead to a better educational experience.
Finally, in reference to staff use, districts really need to examine their policies. I can see filter in Adult Content and possibly Adware and Spyware. The rest should be open. District employees are professionals and should be treated as such. Right now, this group suffers the most in many high school environments. They don't know about proxies and are often blocked from many useful educational tools.
One area in relation to this topic that I feel strongly about is the proper use of content filters in a K-12 setting. I feel that I have a unique perspective on this topic as I was responsible for the management of the Content Filter at Colonial for the last six years. While content filters are required, the manner in which the filter is deployed are almost entirely up to the school district. The requirement states only that all users be monitored and that a filter is in place. Some districts will block almost everything in the hopes of having control. Districts subscribing to this method are in fantasy land. If you are looking for reality, you need to realize that this method only keeps you in the dark.
The majority of students in a high school environment know how to "get around" a filter. It usually involves using a proxy server that masks where you are going. To my knowledge, filters cannot stop this behavior, they can only stop access to a proxy site. That would be enough if new proxy servers didn't pop up online every day. In addition, users with just a bit of knowledge can make their home computer part of a proxy web if they know what they are doing.
So, how does this impact the district monitoring? Those responsible for monitoring activity will only see the proxy, they will not see that the student successfully got to MySpace. Let's explore this further. An incident happens and the school is contacted by the authorities. The authorities need to know if a student gained access to a MySpace page inside the district. Student reports say no, however, there is a reference to a proxy site. How will the district answer the authorities? Can they honestly say no, the student didn't gain access? No, they are in the dark.
It is my opinion that schools need to take a tiered approach to content filters. This approach would function almost the reverse of what many administrators think. Younger students should be filtered the heaviest. Not because of a high risk, but because they need help staying on track. For the K-3 audience, filtering could be deployed in an allowed sites only mode. In other words, the students can only get to predetermined sites. This is happening today and products like NetTrekker make this a great option.
As students get older, the filter should be gradually reduced. The students should be taught how to use the Internet respectfully and should be educated on the dangers that are there. Let's face it, they aren't filtered when they get home. By the time a student reaches high school, they should only be filtered from a select few categories such as Adult Content, Illegal Activity, Gambling and on some filters, Adware and Spyware. Use of proxies should be explained and a firm policy should be included in the acceptable use policy. Any activity in violation would be handled promptly. I feel that this approach would better educate students on the Internet, instill a sense of trust with them, and lead to a better educational experience.
Finally, in reference to staff use, districts really need to examine their policies. I can see filter in Adult Content and possibly Adware and Spyware. The rest should be open. District employees are professionals and should be treated as such. Right now, this group suffers the most in many high school environments. They don't know about proxies and are often blocked from many useful educational tools.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
TQ#8
TQ#8 (the TQ number aligns to the class number): Teachers are the core of a formal educational process, and technology use depends almost completely on the classroom teacher. Staff development (professional development or continuing education) is necessary for teachers to understand the potential educational value of technology. It is also necessary to show teacher how to use the technology. This is not an easy process for many reasons. In 3-to-5 paragraphs, discuss the main obstacles to effective development and the best ways to plan for a successful staff development program aimed at helping teachers teach and helping children learn (sorry about the long sentence). Include two or three informal references from your readings. This should be a personal reflection rather than trying to figure out the "right answers."
Each year, as summer ends and just before the new school year begins, I have the privilege of offering professional development sessions to teachers. I handle different sessions depending on the group of teachers. For teachers new to the district, or new to teaching, I handle the technology basics during induction. We touch on items such as logging into the different systems, how to request technical help, how to schedule additional staff development, and other basic items to help them get off to a good start. For returning teachers, I handle more advanced topics such as using our LMS, getting the most out of Outlook, and using the electronic gradebook.
Each group has their own problems so to speak. The first group is usually so overwhelmed, they barely hear anything I have to say. We have a couple hours to go over many different systems and there is little time to venture off the set path. There are a few problems here that could be fixed. First, we shouldn't go over everything in one session. These new folks are dealing with so much information, there is no time for anything to stick. Second, the trainings need to be more hands on. For most, they can listen but they can't do it until they have done it.
The second group is more of a challenge. They have been around and know the systems I'm talking about. They aren't overwhelmed at all. For this group, it is hard to keep them focused. Each person has there own questions so you get interrupted often. Some spend more time talking to their neighbor and others may feel they know the program better than the trainer. Some of these problems can be fixed. First, multiple sessions should be scheduled depending on user level. Second, fewer teachers should be in the room (standard is 30). Gearing the instruction to what they really need to know is also key. Many times I've seen trainers go over items that are great and highlight the product but are often never used day to day.
In our district, there are other issues because some trainings are scheduled by Curriculum and other by Technology. These two departments don't always see things from the other side. Having the internal departments working together is also a major part of successful development. It doesn't take much to make sessions work. Be focused, grab the teachers attention, show them things they need, and don't venture too far off topic. Sounds easy doesn't it?
Each year, as summer ends and just before the new school year begins, I have the privilege of offering professional development sessions to teachers. I handle different sessions depending on the group of teachers. For teachers new to the district, or new to teaching, I handle the technology basics during induction. We touch on items such as logging into the different systems, how to request technical help, how to schedule additional staff development, and other basic items to help them get off to a good start. For returning teachers, I handle more advanced topics such as using our LMS, getting the most out of Outlook, and using the electronic gradebook.
Each group has their own problems so to speak. The first group is usually so overwhelmed, they barely hear anything I have to say. We have a couple hours to go over many different systems and there is little time to venture off the set path. There are a few problems here that could be fixed. First, we shouldn't go over everything in one session. These new folks are dealing with so much information, there is no time for anything to stick. Second, the trainings need to be more hands on. For most, they can listen but they can't do it until they have done it.
The second group is more of a challenge. They have been around and know the systems I'm talking about. They aren't overwhelmed at all. For this group, it is hard to keep them focused. Each person has there own questions so you get interrupted often. Some spend more time talking to their neighbor and others may feel they know the program better than the trainer. Some of these problems can be fixed. First, multiple sessions should be scheduled depending on user level. Second, fewer teachers should be in the room (standard is 30). Gearing the instruction to what they really need to know is also key. Many times I've seen trainers go over items that are great and highlight the product but are often never used day to day.
In our district, there are other issues because some trainings are scheduled by Curriculum and other by Technology. These two departments don't always see things from the other side. Having the internal departments working together is also a major part of successful development. It doesn't take much to make sessions work. Be focused, grab the teachers attention, show them things they need, and don't venture too far off topic. Sounds easy doesn't it?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
TQ# 6
Each project this semester has been a different experience. Setting up the wikibook structure for the rest of the class was a great project. The last time I worked on a wikibook, it was alot of trial and error. As I setup the structure, I was able to build on what I had already done and explore the wikibook in more detail.
In the case of the Tech plan part #1, I was the source member since my district was the target district. In addition, since I had a major role in the actual plan, this project was not new ground. I was still able to get fresh ideas from my team as they did a terrific job with just a small amount of knowledge. I can't wait to see what we have at the end of the class.
As for our case study, it was interesting to see what a much larger school district has in their plan. As it turns out, its not much different than any other tech plan. After the case study, I do plan on doing more work with this plan for my own growth. I also enjoyed reading the tech plan for the district near Microsoft. It's great to pickup new ideas based on what others have already done.
In the case of the Tech plan part #1, I was the source member since my district was the target district. In addition, since I had a major role in the actual plan, this project was not new ground. I was still able to get fresh ideas from my team as they did a terrific job with just a small amount of knowledge. I can't wait to see what we have at the end of the class.
As for our case study, it was interesting to see what a much larger school district has in their plan. As it turns out, its not much different than any other tech plan. After the case study, I do plan on doing more work with this plan for my own growth. I also enjoyed reading the tech plan for the district near Microsoft. It's great to pickup new ideas based on what others have already done.
Friday, October 3, 2008
TQ#5
Thoughtful Question #5
Think about your own personal educational philosophy. How would you like to see schools and/or learning structured in the future. In 3-5 paragraphs, integrate your own ideas with those you have gotten from your readings and from class. You don't need formal APA citations, but you do need to identify the sources of the ideas to which you compare and contrast you own. Treat your ideas with the respect that they deserve as a seeker of knowledge in an advanced degree program. Remember to read your teammate's blog postings and to comment upon them in a thoughtful manner.
I don't know that I could say I have an educational philosophy. My role in the educational system thus far has been a support role. I'm often working towards helping teachers integrate the technology into their lessons. I've never been a classroom teacher and I have never had much of a chance to experiment with different teaching methods. Aside from the occasional inservice, I'm usually on the other side as the learner.
For me, the best way to address this TQ is to look at how people learn. As I was growing up, this was evident at home. My older brother was a book learner. Give him a book, let him read it and he would be fine. I, on the other hand, am a hands-on person. I learn by doing. I can take something apart, analyze the structure and components, and put it back together. Give me that same information in the written form and I would not have the same understanding. Give my brother the device and ask him to take it apart and put it back together and you will first have a broken device, and second, a lot of extra parts. We learn differently, always have.
As shown above, I just documented the best way to teach both me and my brother. The problem comes along when you have a classroom of thirty, or even worse, a secondary teacher teaching the same course to three groups of thirty. How do we separate the students and still teach everything? Is their only one way? How do our teachers adjust to teach each student individually?
Since I am a hands-on learner, a constructivist learning environment would benefit me the best. If we apply Wenglinsky's ideas, we would conclude that this approach has the best chance of success. While I believe that and wish that my own education followed the constructivist path, we still need to be prepared for those students that don't learn that way. Isn't the goal to educate everyone? Isn't that what NCLB was supposed to be about?
Think about your own personal educational philosophy. How would you like to see schools and/or learning structured in the future. In 3-5 paragraphs, integrate your own ideas with those you have gotten from your readings and from class. You don't need formal APA citations, but you do need to identify the sources of the ideas to which you compare and contrast you own. Treat your ideas with the respect that they deserve as a seeker of knowledge in an advanced degree program. Remember to read your teammate's blog postings and to comment upon them in a thoughtful manner.
I don't know that I could say I have an educational philosophy. My role in the educational system thus far has been a support role. I'm often working towards helping teachers integrate the technology into their lessons. I've never been a classroom teacher and I have never had much of a chance to experiment with different teaching methods. Aside from the occasional inservice, I'm usually on the other side as the learner.
For me, the best way to address this TQ is to look at how people learn. As I was growing up, this was evident at home. My older brother was a book learner. Give him a book, let him read it and he would be fine. I, on the other hand, am a hands-on person. I learn by doing. I can take something apart, analyze the structure and components, and put it back together. Give me that same information in the written form and I would not have the same understanding. Give my brother the device and ask him to take it apart and put it back together and you will first have a broken device, and second, a lot of extra parts. We learn differently, always have.
As shown above, I just documented the best way to teach both me and my brother. The problem comes along when you have a classroom of thirty, or even worse, a secondary teacher teaching the same course to three groups of thirty. How do we separate the students and still teach everything? Is their only one way? How do our teachers adjust to teach each student individually?
Since I am a hands-on learner, a constructivist learning environment would benefit me the best. If we apply Wenglinsky's ideas, we would conclude that this approach has the best chance of success. While I believe that and wish that my own education followed the constructivist path, we still need to be prepared for those students that don't learn that way. Isn't the goal to educate everyone? Isn't that what NCLB was supposed to be about?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
TQ#4
Since I had a major role in developing my district's current tech plan, part 1 was more or less a repeat of work I completed in the spring. I did learn that my team members are great and should be very valuable in developing a useable plan for me in the future.
Future School:
1 to 1
Constructivist based
Heavy use of Web 2.0 tools - lots of collaboration and student to student communication
The teacher having a less dominant role
Less emphasis on grades
Little Brother:
So far, this book is rather interesting to me since I used to be one of the people trying monitor what students are doing and trying to stay one step ahead.
Future School:
1 to 1
Constructivist based
Heavy use of Web 2.0 tools - lots of collaboration and student to student communication
The teacher having a less dominant role
Less emphasis on grades
Little Brother:
So far, this book is rather interesting to me since I used to be one of the people trying monitor what students are doing and trying to stay one step ahead.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
TQ #3
TQ #3
For you TQ#3, briefly describe (two paragraphs or so) what you learned from completing Part 1 of the Technology Plan. Each person's response will be different (this is an individual (not a group) assignment. Read and comment on your teammates' entries.
Response
Helping write part 1 of the Technology Plan was a familiar experience. As the person responsible for overseeing CSD's current plan, which is the district our project is based on, I have already completed this process just a short time ago. Ever feel like you've been there before? As I discussed in class, our existing plan is written in a manner to comply with state regulations. I don't see it as a functional plan that is very useful to me or the technology staff.
With this project, I think our team can start to build the plan I would like to have. Initially, I found myself editing much of what was written only to discard it and make relatively minor changes. From what I have seen already, I think our group will come up with a good plan without me steering it to where I have already gone. I am curious to see where we end up when this class is finished and how close it will match the current path of the district.
For you TQ#3, briefly describe (two paragraphs or so) what you learned from completing Part 1 of the Technology Plan. Each person's response will be different (this is an individual (not a group) assignment. Read and comment on your teammates' entries.
Response
Helping write part 1 of the Technology Plan was a familiar experience. As the person responsible for overseeing CSD's current plan, which is the district our project is based on, I have already completed this process just a short time ago. Ever feel like you've been there before? As I discussed in class, our existing plan is written in a manner to comply with state regulations. I don't see it as a functional plan that is very useful to me or the technology staff.
With this project, I think our team can start to build the plan I would like to have. Initially, I found myself editing much of what was written only to discard it and make relatively minor changes. From what I have seen already, I think our group will come up with a good plan without me steering it to where I have already gone. I am curious to see where we end up when this class is finished and how close it will match the current path of the district.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Supplementary text
For my two books, I choose...
Disrupting Class:How Disruptive Innovation will Change the Way the World Learns
Little Brother
Disrupting Class:How Disruptive Innovation will Change the Way the World Learns
Little Brother
TQ#2
Thoughtful Question #2:You have completed Wenglinsky, and you have read the two executive summaries that suggest serious failures in a major national reading program and in the best math and reading software. In three-to-five paragraphs, use what you learned from Wenglinsky to interpret the findings of the two reports. Suggest one or more plausible reasons for the poor results presented in the reports.
After reading both of these studies, I was not at all surprised to find no significant results in either study. After all, aren't we used to seeing this result in studies measuring the impact of technology on the educational process? Now, after reading Wenglinsky, I feel I have a better understanding of why that happens. That is if you buy into his theory. Personally, I find his ideas intriguing and may help those of us in the field better understand technology's role.
I had difficulty applying Wenglinsky to the Reading First Impact study. After reading the executive summary, I learned the various components of instruction that were focused on but very little about any technology used to assist in the instruction of these components. After reading the King Middle School study, my feeling is that the technology was probably in there somewhere, but not the main focal point. I was pleased to see professional development was included, but there was little detail on the development program. From what I was able to get out of the summary, the program did not appear to be constructivist based at all. Taking all of these items into account, I would say according to Wenglinsky, the impact of the program suffered from the pedagogy.
In the second study, Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products, I was pleased to see some technology products with familiar names. The first thing that came to mind as I read the software titles was that most of the titles were drill and kill. This immediately raised some flags for me when applying Wenglinsky. The programs are not much more than a place to put the students. As I look back to my own school district's use of some of these programs, only one is still in use.
It is no wonder we find the results that were reported. If we believe in Wenglinsky's ideas, we will keep seeing this same result until the field comes together on two things. First, when it comes to technology, the constructivist approach has a better chance of success. Second, we must focus on the training of our teachers to ensure they have the tools and knowledge needed to succeed. The latter is something that in my experience, is often overlooked.
After reading both of these studies, I was not at all surprised to find no significant results in either study. After all, aren't we used to seeing this result in studies measuring the impact of technology on the educational process? Now, after reading Wenglinsky, I feel I have a better understanding of why that happens. That is if you buy into his theory. Personally, I find his ideas intriguing and may help those of us in the field better understand technology's role.
I had difficulty applying Wenglinsky to the Reading First Impact study. After reading the executive summary, I learned the various components of instruction that were focused on but very little about any technology used to assist in the instruction of these components. After reading the King Middle School study, my feeling is that the technology was probably in there somewhere, but not the main focal point. I was pleased to see professional development was included, but there was little detail on the development program. From what I was able to get out of the summary, the program did not appear to be constructivist based at all. Taking all of these items into account, I would say according to Wenglinsky, the impact of the program suffered from the pedagogy.
In the second study, Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products, I was pleased to see some technology products with familiar names. The first thing that came to mind as I read the software titles was that most of the titles were drill and kill. This immediately raised some flags for me when applying Wenglinsky. The programs are not much more than a place to put the students. As I look back to my own school district's use of some of these programs, only one is still in use.
It is no wonder we find the results that were reported. If we believe in Wenglinsky's ideas, we will keep seeing this same result until the field comes together on two things. First, when it comes to technology, the constructivist approach has a better chance of success. Second, we must focus on the training of our teachers to ensure they have the tools and knowledge needed to succeed. The latter is something that in my experience, is often overlooked.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
TQ #1
For my thoughtful question, I chose the Virginia success story. This story was interesting for me since I have been part of the Pennsylvania Classrooms for the Future grant in my district for the last three years. In addition, laptops are the big item in many districts today. While it is great to have them, I often wonder how well they are really used. As the reading pointed out, how the technology is used is more important than the technology itself.
In Henrico County, within a three year window, all high school students and staff, middle school students and staff, and elementary staff received laptops. In all, over 28,000 laptops were deployed. The article goes on to stress that the goal was to use the laptops in a constructivist approach. Also important, this was done in a district where the amount spent per pupil was over $500 dollars less than the state average. In a six year window, the percentage of high school and middle school students using the Internet jumped from 5% to 100%.
In addition, students can now take online courses such as advanced math and science or even SAT prep courses. This district not only had a plan to purchase laptops, they had a plan to use them. The resulting awards Henrico county has received show how important this is to implementing technology. Administrators and teachers need to understand this before introducing new technologies. That is the only way to make them successful.
In Henrico County, within a three year window, all high school students and staff, middle school students and staff, and elementary staff received laptops. In all, over 28,000 laptops were deployed. The article goes on to stress that the goal was to use the laptops in a constructivist approach. Also important, this was done in a district where the amount spent per pupil was over $500 dollars less than the state average. In a six year window, the percentage of high school and middle school students using the Internet jumped from 5% to 100%.
In addition, students can now take online courses such as advanced math and science or even SAT prep courses. This district not only had a plan to purchase laptops, they had a plan to use them. The resulting awards Henrico county has received show how important this is to implementing technology. Administrators and teachers need to understand this before introducing new technologies. That is the only way to make them successful.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)