4 EDUCATION DISCUSSIONS DUE IN 72 HOURS

Chapter 10

Technology and 21st Century Learning

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you will be able to:

• Describe learning-centered contexts inclusive of 21st century e-learning.

• Discuss the implications of online learning.

• Identify all aspects of managing technology that educational leaders face.

10

Fancy Collection/SuperStock

If we teach today as we taught yesterday, we rob our children of tomorrow.

—John Dewey

Introduction Chapter 10

Introduction R u rdy 2 become an Xprt @ TM’ing? (Translation: “Are you ready to become an expert at text messaging?”) Rankin’s (2013) study of students’ formal writing skills found that language shortcuts used in text messages are becoming more evident in students’ academic writing assignments. Her study concluded that recognizing and connecting this method of commu- nication that students frequently use with academic writing instruction would help students become more proficient writers. This study illustrates that 21st century students are no longer the students that our current educational system was designed to teach. Our existing text- books do not include text messaging shortcut language.

Prensky (2001) pointed out that today’s students have not just changed incrementally from past students, nor have they simply changed their slang, clothes, body adornments, or styles, as had happened between previous generations. Rather, a huge discontinuity has taken place. Since the beginning of this century, students have grown up using technology (smartphones, digital music players, video cameras, videogames, computers, laptops, tablets, and the entire “I” family: iPhones, iPads, iPods) and social media (Facebook and Twitter). Because of this interaction with technology, today’s students “think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors” (Prensky, 2001, p. 1). Because these learners are “native speakers” of a digital language, they are called “digital natives.” Others who can still remem- ber dialing on a pay phone or spinning a vinyl record but now find themselves immersed in the digital age are called “digital immigrants.” The importance of this distinction is that, for now, digital immigrants are the school instructors of digital natives, and instructors and students either speak in completely different languages (predigital vs. digital), or, at best, the instructors speak with an accent (picked up in the predigital era).

This chapter proposes that school experiences, as we knew them in the past, must not remain fixed, with technology somehow finding a way to fit within the existing framework. Rather, the paradigm of schooling must shift to capitalize on technology, to ensure that students are learning in the best way possible. The new ways of learning require more than a substa-

tion of technology for the status quo. This chap- ter identifies the most recent trends in educational technology, from the customizable learning expe- rience to massive open online courses (MOOCs), through gaming, mobile-learning technology, social media, and flipped classroom concepts. Leveraging the effectiveness of technology for learning is this chapter’s goal.

V O I C E S F R O M T H E F I E L D

Planning a professional development day for a new administrator can be a source of excitement and anxiety. Shaylin Walker used the opportunity to establish herself as an instructional leader as she discussed the implementation of the common core writing standards to her staff.

As the newly hired administrator, I looked forward to the first professional growth day as an oppor- tunity to build knowledge around the common core writing standards. This day of learning would

(continued)

Think About It

@ TEOTD, r u a D-native or a D-immigrant?

(At the end of the day, are you a digital native or a digital immigrant?)

Introduction Chapter 10

set the stage for ongoing conversations centered on writing expectations and best practices. As a new principal, I knew the day would also be an opportunity to make my debut as an instructional leader. It would be an important milestone in building relationships with the staff of my new ele- mentary school.

True to my teacher roots, my planning began with listing all the successes and roadblocks I had seen in previous in-services. I learned that when speakers make presentations applicable to classroom practice, teachers felt invigorated and excited to try something new. This would be important to capture, because my new staff was worried about the common core roll out. I also thought about the in-services that left the naysayers shaking their heads. Teachers’ time is short, and few things are more frustrating to a teacher than the feeling that time was wasted by listening to a “talking head” from administration. I knew from experience that once teachers lost interest, they mirrored challenging behaviors they themselves did not want to see in class lessons. They would hold sidebar conversations, grade papers, and seed distrust for the facilitator. With these reflections in mind, I looked up to the plaque that adorned my wall and reread Benjamin Franklin’s famous lines: “Tell me and I will forget; teach me and I may remember; involve me and I learn.”

I rolled up my sleeves and began designing the day according to that principle. I focused my ener- gies on ensuring that I personalized content delivery so it would be meaningful and relevant for each teacher, would engage in different learning modalities, and would use a range of technology as a way to model engagement strategies.

Soft music greeted staff as they entered the auditorium. To foster new pathways of cooperation, I prearranged seating by placing personalized envelopes around the circle tables so each table con- tained one teacher from each grade level. As teachers opened the envelopes, they saw a picture of a current student posing the question, “What do I need to be a good writer?” This question sig- naled a two-minute quick write. Responses were shared among the teachers and became a spring- board into a rich dialogue on writing expectations across all grade levels.

After a quick break, the teachers regrouped into their grade-level teams, as the remaining portion of the in-service was grade-level specific. A brief video introduced the progression of the writing standards. Following the clip, teachers highlighted components that they already taught. A whip- around strategy allowed teachers to orally share best practices for each writing genre, thus vali- dating the excellent instruction already in place. Next, teams highlighted new components in the standards and discussed what new lessons would be needed.

It is important that a principal, just like a classroom teacher, remain aware of the pacing of a lesson and the pulse of the learners. I could sense that even the seasoned teachers in the room were sud- denly aware that they would need to grow as learners. To give teachers a chance to voice their anxi- eties, I used an online collaboration site called TodaysMeet. Using their phones, tablets, or laptops, teachers logged into the virtual classroom and listed their needs for writing support, worries about going forward, or thoughts about next steps. All messages were instantly visible on the screen. I shared that monthly staff meetings, teacher book clubs, and the use of the online collaborative site would all be tools for implementing the standards throughout the year.

As the conversations around the room buzzed with genuine excitement, I felt glowing satisfaction. I had created not only a successful in-service but also a year-long action plan that teachers were ready to embrace. It was this parting comment from a seasoned teacher that resonated with me long after the room emptied: “You know? I haven’t looked forward to a staff meeting in a long time, but I’m excited about this work we are going to do on writing. I’ve been a reluctant writ- ing teacher, but I’ve already heard ideas I can use. Thank you.” For a principal, those last two little words are priceless.

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

Pre-Test 1. Reproduction digital literacy skills require the user to

a. recognize repetitive information.

b. replicate encountered information.

c. create new information from existing information.

d. distinguish old information from new information.

2. Compared to traditional education, an advantage of online learning is that it is

a. higher quality.

b. able to meet more degree requirements.

c. easier to fund.

d. available anywhere at any time.

3. The staff at Graham High School would like their school to support digital age learning, yet they do not have the funds to update classrooms with interactive whiteboards or to provide each student with a tablet to complete interactive assignments. Which category does this challenge to technology leadership relate to?

a. Resources

b. Bureaucracy

c. Equity

d. Resistance to innovation

Answers 1. c. create new information from existing information. The answer can be found in

Section 10.1.

2. d. is available anywhere at any time. The answer can be found in Section 10.2.

3. a. Resources. The answer can be found in Section 10.3.

10.1 Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching

To succeed in a career, college, or life in the 21st century, not only must students currently in K–12 learn core academic subject matter; they must also be supported in developing profi- ciency in critical thinking, problem solving, communication, collaboration, innovation and cre- ativity, global competency, financial literacy, and information and technology literacy (http:// www.p21.org). This is because the current employment market demands fewer people with only basic skill sets and more employees with complex thinking and communication skills (Levy & Murnane, 2005). Colleges and the workforce are looking for individuals with skills to work collaboratively with others, representing diverse cultures, religions, and lifestyles in a spirit of mutual respect and open dialogue. In addition, the United States is expecting high school graduates to be capable of participating effectively in government by exercising the rights and obligations of citizenship and understanding the local and global implication of civic decisions. To accomplish this, every aspect of our current education system—pre-K–12, postsecond- ary, and adult education, after-school and youth development, workforce development and

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

training, and teacher preparation programs—must be aligned with 21st century skills. For a review of 21st century skills, see Table 7.1.

To work, the 21st century skills movement will require attention to teacher quality, effective curriculum, and an infrastructure capacity in schools that is sufficient to administer online assessments. Puentedura (2011) argued that for the initiative to be successful, four elements must be implemented in concert: foundational knowledge, meta-knowledge, humanistic knowledge, and 21st century skills. Without these four elements, the reform will be superficial and counterproductive. As illustrated in Figure 10.1, skills and knowledge are not considered as separate entities, but instead are interwoven and form relationships.

f10.01_EDU675.ai

Humanistic knowledge

21st century learning

Foundational knowledge

Core content knowledge

Cross-disciplinary knowledge/

synthesis

Information literacy

Creativity and innovation

Problem solving and critical

thinking

Communication and collaboration

Cultural competence

Ethical and emotional awareness

Life and job skills

Meta- knowledge

Figure 10.1: Summary of 21st century learning pathways

21st century learning is tied to foundational, meta-, and humanistic knowledge.

Source: Adapted from Puentedura, R.R. (n.d.). SAMR, the EDTech Quintent and 21C Learning. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/ archives/2013/09/30/SAMR_EdTechQuintet_21CLearning.pdf.

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

As in the case of a calculator that can compute square roots, it does not matter what number is entered, the computational skill is inherent in the device. Likewise, if a student has developed the skill of thinking scientifically, then the content knowledge doesn’t matter; that thinking skill can still be applied (Rotherham & Willingham, 2009). Rotherham and Willingham (2009) also asked, “Why would misunderstanding the relationship between skills and knowledge lead to trouble?” They concluded that first, it is because not all content is equally important. To think critically, students need knowledge that is central to the subject discipline. Second, they concluded that we don’t yet know how to teach creativity, communication, collabora- tion, and critical thinking the way that we know how to teach, say, long division. The empha- sis on the relationship between knowledge and skill development has important implications for teacher development as well.

In this section, we review some important approaches and concepts to technology that are critical for leaders in 21st century schools. We begin with technological pedagogical content knowledge.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

As Figure 10.2 shows, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) identifies the complex interplay of three primary forms of teacher knowledge: content, pedagogy, and technology. This builds on Shulman’s (1987) idea of pedagogical content knowledge. Shulman defined pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as “that special amalgam of content and peda- gogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own special form of professional under- standing” (p. 8). TPACK examines the new kinds of knowledge created at the intersections of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. It forms a framework to understand and describe the kinds of knowledge needed by a teacher for effective pedagogical practice in a technology-enhanced learning environment. As Harris, Mishra, and Koehler (2009) noted:

Learning about technology is different than learning what to do with it instructionally. Teaching technology skills (TK in the TPACK model) in isolation does little to help teach- ers develop knowledge about how to use technology to teach more effectively (TPK), its relationship to disciplinary content (TCK), or how to help students meet particular curriculum content standards while using technologies appropriately (TPACK) in their learning. (p. 402)

Harris, Mishra, and Koehler (2009) also claimed that if teachers take a technocentric approach in their instruction, then two key domains—content and pedagogy—are typi- cally given short shrift. This is because technology-integration approaches that do not take into account disciplinary content knowledge, the processes required for developing that knowledge, and the critical role of content ignore the full complexity of teaching effec- tively with technology. For example, a teacher interested in integrating technology into a history lesson on World War II may consider having students review primary sources avail- able on the Internet to draw conclusions about prevailing political views, while another teacher may choose to have students develop hypertexts that reveal multiple cause-and- effect relationships among related historical events during the time period (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009). This example reinforces that the development of TPACK requires fluency with curriculum-based content and with pedagogy, technology, and contexts. However, Puentedura (2011) warned that a discrepancy exists between a vision of transformative uses of digital technologies and the more prevalent efficiency and extension applications of tech- nology that is currently used in classrooms.

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

Think About It

Consider how technology (T), pedagogy (P), and content (C) knowl- edge work together by randomly choosing two of the three (C, P, and T) types of knowledge. What relationship do the two components have with the third type of knowledge that makes them all work together in a pedagogically sound way to teach the content? To explore further, see http://mkoehler.educ.msu.edu/tpack-101/the-tpack-game/.

Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition Model

The substitution, augmentation, modification, redefinition (SAMR) model developed by Puentedura (2011) offers a progression of technology integration that helps teachers effec- tively use technology as a tool for learning (see Figure 10.3). Teachers augmenting their instruction at the first two levels (substitution or augmentation) use technology as an enhance- ment to accomplish traditional tasks. But the real learning gains result from pedagogy at the

f10.02_EDU675.ai

Contexts

Pedagogical Content

Knowledge

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge

(TPK)

Technological Knowledge

(TK)

Pedagogical Knowledge

(PK)

Content Knowledge

(CK)

Technological Content

Knowledge (TCK)

Technological Pedagogical Content

Knowledge (TPACK)

Figure 10.2: TPACK model

The graphic representation of the TPACK framework shows the interplay of content knowledge, pedagogi- cal knowledge, and technological knowledge.

Source: Copyright © 2012 by tpack.org. Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org.

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

transformational levels of modification or redefinition. At these levels, students are engaged in learning experiences that could not be accomplished without the aid of technology. At these levels, the task changes and extends the walls of the classroom. The model is useful because it helps educators make small shifts in the design and implementation of technology- driven learning experiences to achieve the highest learning gains.

f10.03_EDU675.ai

Substitution • Technology functions as a direct tool substitute. • There is no functional change.

Enhancement Level

Transformational Level

S

Augmentation • Technology functions as a direct tool substitute. • There is functional improvement.

A

Modification • Technology enables a significant redesign of tasks.

M

Redefinition • Technology enables the creation of new, previously unimaginable tasks.

R

Figure 10.3: The SAMR model

The SAMR model shows various levels of technology integration. Substitution and augmentation belong to the enhancement level of integration, while modification and redefinition belong to the transformational level.

Source: Adapted from What Teachers Need to Know About SAMR Model. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.educatorstechnology.com/search/label/Samrl%20model.

Think About It

How can we leverage the immense power and potential of the Internet, mobile learning devices, and social media to enable K–12 learners to understand the local and global implication of civic decisions?

Digital Literacy

In simple terms, digital literacy involves reading and writing in cyberspace; the appropriate use of resources; and the ability to navigate, evaluate, and critically think about and create products. A person who is digitally literate has the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range of sources. Digital literacy includes the ability to read and interpret media, to reproduce data and images through digital manipulations, and to

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

apply new knowledge gained from digital environments. Digital literacy requires not only the ability to use software, operate a digital device, and navigate digital environments effectively, but also the following skill sets:

1. Photovisual skills (“reading” instructions from graphical displays). Interfaces, such as those found in children’s video games, are a good example of this skill set. Children are able to “read” instructions that are presented in a visual-graphical form to understand and play the game. This requires having a good visual memory and strong cognitive thinking skills. Development of this skill is important as digital environments continue to evolve from text based to graphic based.

2. Reproduction skills (using digital reproduction to create new, meaningful materials from preexisting ones). This skill is essential in two major fields: (a) writing, where preexisting sentences can be reorganized and rearranged to create new meanings; and (b) visual art, where preexisting audio or visual pieces can be edited and manipulated to create new works of art.

3. Branching skills (constructing knowledge from nonlinear, hypertextual navigation). In the past, users were expected to work with digital environments in much the same way they read through books: linear, nonhypermedia based, and inflexible. But the Internet provides users with a high degree of freedom in using branching, nonlinear, information-seeking strategies. Users construct knowledge from separate bits of information that they access in a nonorderly and nonlinear way. This skill requires metaphoric thinking and the ability to create mental models, concept maps, and other forms of abstract representation of the Web’s structure.

4. Information skills (evaluating the quality and validity of information). A key issue in using information from the Internet is distinguishing false, subjective, or biased information from reliable, valid information. Information assessment requires users to filter information through critical thinking to make educated use of information.

5. Socioemotional skills (understanding the “rules” that prevail in cyberspace and applying this understanding in online cyberspace communication). The expansion of digital com- munication to include social media means that users face challenges of not only convey- ing formal information but also communicating emotions and “body language” meanings through text. (Eshet-Alkaki & Amichai-Hamburger, 2004, p. 421–429).

According to Gee and Hayes (2011), parallels and comparisons can be drawn between literacy (defined as reading and writing) and digital literacy, which has altered the way in which we communicate and interact. As leading authorities on games and learning, Gee and Hayes chal- lenge institutionally valued literacy skills, which are reinforced in our current school systems with examples from video games. They claimed that “digital media ‘power up’ or enhance the powers of language, oral and written, just as written language ‘powered up’ or enhanced the powers of oral language” (Gee & Hayes, 2011, p. 1). They went on to explain that “digital media (like text messaging, Twitter, and other social media) are bringing back concrete images and experiences, as well as metaphors for understanding the abstract and complex” (p. 12). Digital literacy becomes a “survival skill” that helps users work intuitively to establish social networks and contribute to the development of their social and intellectual capital. Through online games, blogs, and social networking sites, diverse groups of people are interacting on a scale that defies time and space. How are students accessing digital media and developing these skills?

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

According to the Pew Research Center’s 2012 survey (Madden et al., 2013) of 802 teens aged 12–17 and their parents, most teens have some sort of access to the Internet. Following are key findings of the Pew Report:

• 78% of teens have a cell phone (47% of those are smartphones).

• 23% of teens have a tablet computer (comparable to the general adult population).

• 95% of teens use the Internet (97% boys, 93% girls).

• 93% of teens have a computer or access to one at home; however, one in four teens are “cell-mostly” internet users, while only 15% of the adults were cell-mostly users.

• In overall Internet use, youths ages 12–17 who are living in lower-income and lower- education households are somewhat less likely to use the Internet in any capacity— mobile or wired. (Madden et al., 2013)

These data show that teens are developing digital literacy through their phones and at-home Internet use. Although Figure 10.4 from the Pew Research Center data clearly shows the age disparity of Internet usage, Eshet-Alkaki & Amichai-Hamburger (2004) warned that “the commonly used notion that the younger generation is more digitally literate than the older ages should be examined with care” (p. 426). For example, their research revealed a trend of

f10.04_EDU675.ai

12–17 18–29 30–49 50–64 65+

Nov 04 Nov 06 Nov 07 Feb 08 Sept 09 July 11 Sept 12

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

95% 95% 89%

77%

52%

Figure 10.4: Internet usage over time by teens and adults

The percentage of individuals within each age group who go online

Source: From "Teens, Kindness and Cruelty on Social Network Sites," by Amanda Lenhart, et al. November 9, 2011, Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Reprinted with permission from The Pew Center Research.

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

decreasing literacy skills from younger to older participants in performing a branching literacy task of planning an “Internet trip” to a foreign country. However, older users had higher levels of text-reproduction literacy skills, while younger users showed technical skills but not cogni- tive skills in this literacy area.

The challenge educators face is how to promote a change in consciousness in how we relate to technology so that cognitive skills can be developed while using technical skills. Some teachers may feel that traditional literacies are under attack. But we need to understand a learner’s personal digital literacy before developing strategies to support learners. Some of these strategies might include the following:

• Providing authentic contexts for practice, including digitally mediated contexts

• Individual scaffolding and support

• Making practices of meaning-making explicit

• Developing critical thinking and promoting information literacy

• Stressing creativity in the design, presentation, and delivery of information

Developing digital literacy also has an ethical dimension. What does it mean to have integrity and good judgment while in cyberspace?

Another potential tension articulated by Beetham, McGill, and Littlejohn (2009) is digital scholarship, or how learners struggle with tasks of judgment and evaluation as academic and Internet knowledge practices clash. Embedded in this notion are changing research practices of disciplines and how to integrate these changes in learning tasks and assess- ments. See, for example, the differences in academic and Internet knowledge practice shown in Table 10.1.

Table 10.1: Academic knowledge practice vs. Internet knowledge practice

Academic Knowledge Practice Internet Knowledge Practice Individual authority Shared ownership

Copyright Digital commons

Text-based communication of ideas Multiple media used to express ideas

Sharing within scholarly communities, according to established roles and rules

Sharing without boundaries, across virtual communities and in unregulated networks

Synthesis Aggregation, reuse

Dialogue Comment

Truth value Use value

Source: Beetham, McGill, & Littlejohn, 2009, p. 8.

How do specific content disciplines make meaning in digital contexts? Would a student of science collect and analyze data in a digital environment differently than a student of history? How will today’s students think creatively or innovate using digital tools? These types of questions have led to a body of technology- education standards for students and teachers.

Think About It

Digital literacy requires students to read, write, and interact across a range of platforms, tools, and media. When promoting digital literacy on its own, might we alienate students who are already literate in other areas? How?

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards

The International Society for Technology in Education’s (ISTE) National Educational Technology Standards for teachers (NETS•T) are the standards used for evaluating the skills and knowledge that educators need to teach, work, and learn in our connected global and digital society. A review of these standards is an excellent way to ensure that the educational leader fully grasps technology use both for today and tomorrow. The teacher standards are broadly defined as follows:

• Facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity: Explore real issues, promote stu- dent reflection, and model collaborative knowledge construction

• Design and develop digital-age learning experiences and assessments: Customize and personalize learning activities and provide multiple and varied formative and summa- tive assessments

• Model digital-age work and learning: Communicate using a variety of digital media and formats and use digital tools to locate, analyze, and evaluate information

• Promote and model digital citizenship and responsibility: Incorporate learner-centered strategies, model digital etiquette, and develop cul- tural understanding

•    Engage in professional growth and leadership:  Exhibit leadership by demonstrating a vision of technology infusion and evaluate and reflect on current research and practice in technology edu- cation (ISTE, 2008, pp. 1–2)

Today’s students already know how to use technology when they enter the classroom. But being able to use technology is no longer sufficient; they need to be able to evaluate informa- tion found, analyze databases, and communicate and contribute to an increasingly global and digital world. Therefore, ISTE also has standards for student learning. The student standards are broadly defined as follows:

• Creativity and innovation: Use models and simulations to explore complex systems and issues.

• Communication and collaboration: Communicate information and ideas effectively to multiple audiences using a variety of media and formats

• Research and information fluency: Evaluate and select information sources and digital tools based on the appropriateness to specific tasks.

• Critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making: Collect and analyze data to identify solutions or make informed decisions

• Digital citizenship: Demonstrate personal responsibility in using digital information and technology

• Technology operations and concepts: Troubleshoot systems and applications (ISTE, 2007, pp. 1–2)

Finally, ISTE has standards for administrators to assist them in auditing their school or district. These administrator NETS•A standards list the following major topics:

•    Visionary leadership: Engage in an ongoing process to develop a technology strategic plan.

Think About It

How best can you implement these NETS•T standards as an educational leader?

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

• Digital age learning culture: Promote and participate in local, national, and global learning communities.

• Excellence in professional practice: Stay abreast of educational research in the field of educational technology.

• Systemic improvement: Collaborate to establish metrics, collect and analyze data, interpret results, and share findings.

• Digital citizenship: Establish, promote, and model policies for the safe, legal, and ethi- cal use of digital information and technology. (ISTE, 2009, pp. 1–2)

These ISTE standards are meant to ensure that the highest quality is given to the educational field and that teachers, students, and administrators strive to meet these standards.

Fostering a Vision of Technology

According to Richardson, Flora, and Bathon (2013), the widespread adoption of NETS•A has been instrumental in helping navigate school leaders through school changes instigated by technology integration. Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson (2003) suggested that adaptable, inno- vative administrators who are able to work efficiently in a constantly changing technological environment are more necessary than ever as leaders in our schools. The literature provides lim- ited research on how school administrators learn about or even navigate effective school tech- nology leadership. However, we do know that “technology adoption begins with a vision about organizational learning, objectives, and standards, and how these can support goals, policies, and procedures of the organization” (Richardson et al., 2013, p. 148; see also Chapter 7).

The tendency of some school leaders is to hire an information and communications technol- ogy (ICT) specialist to fill in the technology leadership gap rather than try to tackle it them- selves. However, the schools’ technology vision statement is a unifying idea that requires building a shared belief among stakeholders about how technology will be used to enhance learning and teaching. Therefore, as Reksten (2000) stressed, technology plans that begin with the purchase of equipment often lose sight of the reason for using technology in educa- tion. Those plans focus on the want of technology (“We want iPads, laptops, etc., for every student.”) instead of the need of technology (“We need technology for the creation of new tasks or a redesign of tasks to problem solve and promote critical thinking, collaboration, communication, and creativity,” all of which are 21st century skills). Consequently, starting with an evaluation of how a school vision relates to technology before thinking about what hardware to purchase is a more reasonable strategy. In doing this, school leaders must con- sider, for example, how to transform libraries into media centers that provide a wider range of resources, how to set up learning-management systems that will collect data necessary to make data-driven decisions (see Chapter 12), or how to reallocate funding to provide teachers with professional development in areas such as connecting didactic content with instructional gaming software or the use of interactive whiteboards or mobile learning devices.

In today’s digital climate, simply having the hardware and software in place does not ensure that teachers will use these tools in pedagogically sound practices (Richardson et al., 2013). School leaders who are change agents, however, (a) ensure equitable access to appropriate

Think About It

After reviewing the ISTE standards, do you find some of the expectations too vague to be helpful? Why or why not? If you feel the stan- dards are too vague, what might help exem- plify the expectations and proficiencies?

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

digital tools and resources; (b) promote, model, and establish policies for safe, legal, and ethi- cal use of technology; (c) promote and model responsible social interactions related to the use of technology; and (d) recruit and retain highly competent personnel who use technology creatively and effectively and who establish and maintain an infrastructure of efficient tech- nology use (ISTE, 2009, pp. 1–2).

In a cross-case analysis of eight award-winning schools, Levin and Schrum (2013) found that once a technology vision is clearly articulated, teachers want “their leadership to ‘walk the walk’ and not just ‘talk the talk,’ be passionate about the vision, and pursue it relentlessly” (p. 37). These teachers described their leaders as visionary, strategic, motivators, big-picture thinkers, like a coach, a master at fund-raising, straightforward, goal-oriented, and makers of informed decisions. “These are examples of the kinds of leadership practices of exemplary, award-winding leaders that others might emulate” (Levin & Schrum, 2013, p. 37).

Digital Citizenship

Digital citizenship can be defined as the norms of appropriate, responsible behavior with regard to technology use. Digital citizenship consists of numerous themes, including appropri- ate online etiquette, literacy in how digital technology works and how to use it, an under- standing of ethics and the law as it relates to technology, and knowing how to stay safe online.

Why should you put resources toward developing a digital citizenship program at your school? “Digital citizenship needs particular attention today because of the divide between the analog (offline) and digital (online) life of children” (Orth & Chen, 2013, p. 58). The gap between a student’s analog and digital life was clear when technology access was limited to the com- puter lab at school and the student had limited digital access at home. With the widespread use of mobile-learning technologies, 1:1 programs, and BYOD (“bring your own device”) pro- grams in schools, however, that gap is gone.

BYOD school programs involve students bringing electronic devices such as laptops, phones, iPads, or tablets from home to use in school. At first glance, the BYOD program may appear to save schools money, as the expense of the device is passed off to parents. However, cer- tain costs of implementing a BYOD program should be considered: How will you ensure that students have reliable, fast network service throughout the school day? How many loaner devices will need to be purchased? How will the loaners be maintained or replaced? Will the BYOD charging stations affect the school’s energy budget? The K–12 Blueprint (2012) outlines other possible challenges of a BYOD program:

• Logistics: How and where will students charge devices when needed? How will devices be secured when not in use (lunch, sports, recess)? Can students take loaner devices home?

• Security: How will student information be protected? How will the network be pro- tected from viruses and malware? How will Internet usage be monitored?

• Network infrastructure: Will the network be able to handle large numbers of devices simultaneously? How will enough bandwidth to handle multimedia applications be produced? Does the network infrastructure have the capacity for growth?

• Curriculum: How will teachers learn about new software applications and devices? Who is responsible for teaching students netiquette and Internet safety? Could a teacher choose not to participate in BYOD?

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

Digital citizenship that is aligned between school and home is a hallmark of a 21st century school. Creating an effective digital citizenship program requires a commitment by school leaders to guide students through the digital world (Orth & Chen, 2013). This responsibility goes beyond a one-time assembly on the dangers that lurk online. It requires crafting a vision of the norms, rules of behavior and engagement, and common practices when using technol- ogy at school and at home. To begin developing a digital citizenship program, Orth and Chen (2013, p. 58) suggested the following steps:

1. Form a digital citizenship task force consisting of key administrators, faculty leaders, library and media specialists, tech directors, curriculum specialists, and parents.

2. Review the school’s acceptable use policy (AUP). This document summarizes what the school feels is appropriate use of technology. Usually an AUP will provide

• a definition of the school district’s stance on what constitutes appropriate and inap- propriate materials or resources;

• an outline of how student access will be monitored and who will ultimately be respon- sible for student behavior;

• a description of what restrictions and responsibilities are placed on staff;

• an outline of what responsibilities are placed on students and parents; and

• consequences associated with actions deemed to be inappropriate use of technology.

3. Schools also need to clearly deal with censorship concerns by addressing specific situa- tions in the AUP. Example concerns include (a) students sending or receiving explicit sexual messages, (b) students accessing explicit content in an unsupervised situation, (c) student contact with questionable people, (d) objectionable student behavior, and (e) destructive student behavior. The policy should also cover restricting access to objectionable materials through faculty-used software. The AUP also needs to consider its impact on the school system and student learning:

• What restrictions might be infringements on individual free speech?

• Is monitoring school email messages a violation of personal privacy?

• Who is ultimately responsible for student behavior in school?

• What legal obligations do school systems have for the behavior of their students?

The AUP could be a contract that is sent home to parents to be signed by both student and parent.

4. The basic tenets and concepts around digital citizenship are found in the core beliefs of the school community. Core beliefs can be used to determine expectations of good digital behavior. Some examples of core beliefs are, (a) “We believe in the use of informed deci- sion making, not censorship.” (b) “We believe parents should have a choice and a voice about the media their children consume and create.” (c) “We believe in age-appropriate media and rating systems that are independent and transparent.” or (d) “We believe in academic integrity.”

5. Engage peer leaders, because students are more likely to pay attention to their peers than to adults. A student digital citizenship leadership group could create public service posters or videos about good practices and staying safe on the Internet.

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

Plagiarism is another important consideration when developing a digital citizenship plan. Plagiarism is copying words directly from a source without indicating that the words are a quote and without providing the source or citation for those words. Technology requires teachers to reshape the ethical practices of today’s media consumers, because open-source software applications allow for the sharing and remixing of digital media through mashups. (Mashups recombine existing information to create new perspectives and ways of comparing, contrasting, and recognizing patterns.) Is a mashup considered plagiarism?

These types of ethical dilemmas make the structur- ing of a digital citizenship curriculum a necessary component of any classroom. Although the Internet has made it much easier to plagiarize sources by sim- ply cutting and pasting, it is also easier for teachers to expose plagiarists with tools such as Turnitin.com. The bottom line is that research conducted on the Internet should be appropriately cited, giving credit to the original author.

A Digital Divide

A digital divide is an economic inequality between groups in terms of access to, use of, or knowledge of information and communication technologies. There exists a global digital divide between developing countries and industrialized nations, as well as a demographic dig- ital divide between geographic areas at different socioeconomic levels in the same country. Today, the digital divide has less to do with those who have access to technology and those who don’t because, according to the 2010 Pew study (Zickuhr & Smith, 2012), over the past 10 years, access to technology has become increasingly ubiquitous. Broadband access is found in approximately 60% of U.S. homes. In homes where income is less than $30,000, only 41% have access compared with 89% where income is more than $75,000 (Zickuhr & Smith, 2012). In 2010, 56% of African American households had broadband access compared with 67% of white households. Although access has increased substantially, the kind of access varies, which “creates an entertainment vs. empowerment divide” (Hertz, 2011). As the Pew study suggests, you can’t fill out a job application through a cell phone or update your résumé on a game console.

Closing the digital divide involves infrastructure changes to the telecommunications sectors so that broadband benefits are available to all (Smith, 2013). Smith argued that profitability deci- sions have led to providing broadband access to upper middle class areas. Providing limited access to libraries in poorer areas is not enough.

Conversely, Hall (2013) argued that smartphones have begun to bridge the digital divide. According to a Pew report (Rainie, 2012), 49% of Hispanic individuals and 47% of African American, non-Hispanic individuals have smartphones, compared with 42% of white, non- Hispanic individuals. However, geographic, income, and education gaps still exist.

Regardless of ethnicity, smartphone ownership in rural areas is only 29% compared with more than 48% in suburban and urban areas. When household income is more than $75,000, smartphone ownership is 68% compared with 35% ownership when income is less than $30,000. Finally, ownership for those without a high school diploma is 21% compared with 61% for college graduates. Hall (2013) stated that as prices of smartphones decline, ownership

Think About It

• How would you evaluate your school’s AUP?

• Is the digital citizenship program at your school a “pass” or a “fail”? Justify your rating.

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

will not be impeded by price. In addition, through competition or legislation, fees for services will also decline.

Some dispute exists about whether smartphones are really computing devices because of their limited means of productivity (word processing, presentation design, spreadsheets, etc.). However, Hall (2013) argued that smartphones will change the way people do work. For the school environment, information comes via the smartphone, and communication can proceed. Some forward-thinking educators are actively embracing phones to support oral fluency in language classes, using tweets to report lab results in science classes, or polling the class to answer teacher questions so that everyone has a voice in the discourse. Innovative uses of mobile- learning technologies in the classroom are motivat- ing and engaging learners. The days of teachers saying, “Please put your cell phone away during class time,” are over.

Learning Preferences of Digital Natives

How and where do we begin to teach this new language of the digital age? This language needs to describe the landscape of the unknown. Most educators realize that so much more will be discovered that will impact social learning. We need to begin thinking about what language will be used to describe learning in the digital age.

In 2009, Gee wrote:

In many respects the contemporary interest in digital media and learning needs a better name or label, because we are concerned with more than just new technologies in any narrow sense. A new label would have to incorporate the themes of convergent media, production, participation, fluid group formation, complexity, and popular culture. (p. 14)

Gee (2009) contended that the emerging field surrounding digital media learning (DML) requires collaboration in organizing the emergent field. Situated cognition theory is highly applicable in DML. As Gee (2009) argued, “Thinking is tied to people’s experiences of goal- oriented action in the material and social world” (p. 17). According to Gee, situated cognition helps explain how humans understand and learn based on prior experiences. Situated cogni- tion studies, in some guise, are liable to remain the crucial learning theory behind DML as (or if) it develops into an ever-more integrated and coherent field of study.

Learning outside the confines of schools has always occurred, but never to the huge degree that is happening today. Social media tools have enabled the learner to connect to other learners. All ages are learning through digital media tools and are able to research many top- ics that were previously only available in schools. And now, more and more schools are mov- ing toward mobile-learning technology in the classroom as a way to take advantage of the way today’s students learn best. According to Prensky (1998), learning preferences of digital natives include the following:

• Twitch speed: Prefer receiving information really, really fast (high speed)

• Graphics first: Prefer the graphics before their text, rather than the opposite

• Random access: Prefer random access (like hypertext or surfing the Internet)

• Social media: Prefer to be networked and socially connected to others when learning

Think About It

If everyone in your classroom had a smart- phone, how would your teaching be different?

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

• Instant gratification: Thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards

• Fantasy: Prefer games to “serious” work

• Multitasking: Prefer to accomplish multiple tasks at one time (Prensky, 1998)

Today’s students don’t print a paper to edit it; they don’t call to see if an email was received; nor do they have patience for lectures or step-by-step instructions. In addition, digital natives’ thinking skills are enhanced by

repeated exposure to computer games and other digital media including reading visual images as representations of three-dimensional space (representational competence), mul- tidimensional visual spatial skills, mental maps, mental paper folding (i.e., picturing the results of various origami like folds in your mind without actually doing them), induc- tive discovery (i.e., making observations, formulating hypotheses, and figuring out the rules governing the behavior of a dynamic representation), attentional deployment (such as monitoring multiple locations simultaneously), and responding faster to expected and unexpected stimuli. (Prensky, 2001, p. 3)

Although these cognitive skills are not new, the combinations and intensity are, and they cry out for new pedagogies that are a better fit. Wilmarth (2010) challenged us to replace the metaphor of a tree of knowledge, organized linearly in a Dewey decimal–like fashion, with a cloud metaphor as learners arrange and rearrange information based on relevance and relationships of knowledge artifacts in ever-changing shapes and patterns. Prensky (2001) encouraged educators to view education through the eyes of those who were actually born in the 21st century—those students who are receiving our education—rather than through the eyes of the instructors who were born in the last century. Adults’ educational needs (getting

students to pass standardized exams, making sure proficiency levels are being met, keeping our country competitive in science and math) are very different from students’ educational needs (being engaged and motivated to learn, being challenged with a rel- evant problem, parroting less and thinking more). Moving our teaching practice into the new context of how today’s students learn best is challenging.

Web 2.0 Learning

Twitter, Facebook, Edmodo, blogs, podcasts, RSS feeds, YouTube, wikis, Skype, video con- ferences, webcasts, photo sharing, document sharing, message boards, social bookmark- ing, tagging—all are part of what has come to be known as Web 2.0 learning. Each platform presents a way for someone to create, collaborate, edit, or share user-generated content online. These Internet-based learning tools provide opportunities for real-time inter- actions with people around the world, access to course content 24/7, distance learning, and simultaneous editing of a paper. Plus, Web 2.0 is immediate. As you may have experi- enced, bad news in a school will go viral in seconds (complete with video footage), thanks to smartphones and other mobile devices. However, any good news, which is dutifully reported in the school’s printed newsletter, will take days to reach its target audience, if ever. School leaders need to have Web 2.0 capabilities so that the good news also gets instant dissemination.

Consider Mazza’s (2012) five examples of ways to use the social media tool Twitter to strengthen a school’s learning community:

Think About It

What in education should evolve and change with the times to keep up with the learning preferences of today’s students? What should not evolve and change?

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

1. Maximizing field trips: Field trips are broadcast in real time to parents at home or at work and to school personnel and students unable to physically join the trip. A “Twitterfall” can be generated on the school’s front lobby monitor to share the experience with all.

2. Speaking engagements and conferences: Snippets of conference presentations and work- shops can be tweeted back to the classroom to provide immediate takeaways from a teacher to parents, students, or administrators.

3. Day-to-day collaboration among staff: Teachers share plans, photographed completed projects, and lesson reflections across the school and district.

4. Strengthening professional learning community (PLC) conversations: Weekly chats can be conducted via Twitter by posting conversation starters to push thinking. The entire chat can be archived, or selected tweets can be stored using Storify.

5. Simultaneous sharing at a national education conference: Even though the budget might not allow all teachers to attend the conference, notes from sessions attended by those who did go can be shared schoolwide through tweeting.

Consider also that Web 2.0 creates a participatory culture. This means that learners are active rather than passive, and producers and consumers converge and interact in new ways, just as the proliferation of devices merge media types—news feeds delivered via cell phone, YouTube video downloads to iPods, global positioning devices in cars, restaurant menus displayed on phones. Each participant stands on the shoulders of others to create a unique version of cul- ture and reality (Wilmarth, 2010).

Personalized Learning Experience

With Web 2.0 tools, we can move toward a “school of one” approach to education. Personalized learning means that students are colearners and codesigners of the curriculum and learning environment. Students own and drive their learning. In this model, each student arrives at class with a “digital backpack” that is built through a school’s learning-management system (LMS). The backpack contains a profile consisting of information about each student’s studying preferences, personal achievements, previous test scores, prior projects, motivators, and so on. The learner profiles drive personalized playlists of learning activities for each student.

The curriculum is also becoming customizable. Shaffer (2012) reminds us of the advent of the paperback book and how its introduction in 1939 sparked much publicity and consternation among the public and publishers, because it was touted as a threat to reading habits and a destruction of hardcover publishers. Howard (2013) wrote that Pearson, the largest of the publishing houses, is not doing away with books but is instead making them a “customiz- able learning experience” (p. 3). In many classrooms, current practice is for students to use both hardcopy books and software (e.g., on a Kindle or iPad) for those inclined to use a digitized version. After all, it is the material and not the presentation that matters.

Think About It

How could a student’s digital backpack strengthen a teacher’s poten- tial to tailor teaching to the needs of individual students and lead to better learning by the student and enhanced professional ability by the teacher?

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

Gaming in the Classroom

Although electronic gaming in the classroom is a relatively new trend, a substantial amount of research has already been conducted on the use and effect of gaming as a teaching strat- egy. Overall research has shown that gaming improves abilities in spatial perception, visual discernment, inductive logic, and cognitive development in the science and technical aspects (Aguilera & Mendiz, 2003). In a review of trends in gaming for education, Young et al. (2012) cited the following findings:

• Mathematics: The design and research foci for mathematics and educational games requires attention to contemporary learning theories, which include “customization of task difficulty to the learner’s capabilities, metacognitive reflection on the learning taking place, and consideration of the rich situated interaction among learner, game environment, and classroom environment” (p. 68).

• Science: Improving science achievement results were not found to be “conclusively linked to game use at this time” (p. 73). However, Clark and Ernst (2009) reported that “gaming can be a useful tool for gaining and maintaining interest in all areas of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education” (p. 28).

• Language learning: The potential is more realized in language learning through the use of video games, because the immersive qualities of the environment that have long been around make language learning efficient. According to Young et al. (2012), “We believe that it is reasonable to suggest that the immersive environments that video games create, and the human instinct to adapt and survive in those environments, can lead to more than just language learning” (p. 75).

• Physical education: There are some varied connections between what is called exer- games and physical education. The relationship “between exergames and cognitive research on embodied or grounded cognition” (Young et al., 2012, p. 78) should be further explored.

• History: Experience with those who create history games showed that “using infor- mation delivery systems that are more integral to the game experience or creating additional game elements that require reflection on the historical variables presented” (Young et al., 2012, p. 80) is more engaging because gamers have a tendency to bypass information that is nonessential to completing game tasks.

Young et al.’s (2012) overall findings beg the question, Do video games enhance academic achievement? In their meta-review, the authors found that most often, video games are researched on the player playing in isolation to the exclusion of the instructor. Students are not given books and told to read or learn in total isolation; so too, “games cannot succeed as stand-alone solutions to education” (Young et al., 2012, p. 83). The authors believed that their meta-review revealed that a facilitator must be present to guide the learning and ensure “(a) that information being taught is indeed generalizable outside the context of the game, and (b) that deeper metacognitive gains are attained as a result of socially constructed game play” (p. 83).

Young et al. (2012) ultimately recommended that a master teacher approach should be incor- porated with gaming in classrooms. This acceptance of pedagogy within the situated learn- ing environment of a master teacher will affect “engagement, student behavior, and overall academic achievement” (p. 83). Although some of these conclusions are at best hopeful, they do represent a significant shift in approaching situated cognition and social learning arrangements.

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

Pelletier (2009) researched the role of games and learning in children aged 12–13 years old. She found the historical definition of what a game is comes from its relation within a set- ting—usually for “play.” This notion places games in opposition to school culture, so we generally speak of “game-based learning,” or adopting classroom games that are developed solely for fun. Pelletier contrasted this with an emerging “game-enhanced learning,” which integrates serious games in learning contexts to improve individual and collaborative learning. How students played the game, either seriously or for fun, related to the social relation they had to their peers and the teacher. Game playing enacts social bonds by using the available cultural and material resources.

Corporate interests are all ready to jump into gaming and the K–12 educational environment. Pearson recently released a research report (McClarty et al., 2012) on a literature review on gaming in education. They reviewed the assumptions that games are based on sound learning principles; engage the learner, thereby supporting personalized learning; are task based and can be tested; and are 21st century relevant. The Pearson report found that “the increased motivation brought about by games may have the potential to increase the validity of formative assessments” (p. 21). This literature review by Pearson yields a similar result that Young et al. (2012) found—that gaming should be seen as a viable educational tool. Where the two reviews of literature differ significantly is that the Pearson report focuses on the individual learner and assessments calling for more research on “the effectiveness of digital games for learning and instruction” (McClarty et al., 2012, p. 23), whereas Young et al. (2012) found that focus- ing on the teacher’s role in facilitating the learning environment and capturing the social peer relations was critical to the use of multimedia in classrooms to substantiate its learning prowess.

Touch-Screen Schools

Cutting-edge, “smart classrooms” are beginning to pop up in schools focused on 21st century learning. These classrooms boast interactive whiteboards, document cameras, liquid-crystal display (LCD) projectors, and software that allows anyone’s iPad to be projected on a large screen. Although some districts are able to provide iPad or netbook carts for the classrooms, other districts are adopting a BYOD (bring your own device) policy. Such devices include smartphones, tablets, iPads, iPods, video game players, and laptops. This policy creates a device-agnostic infrastructure that enables students to access the cloud with a single sign- on. This model decreases the management burden at both the classroom and district level. In a New York Times, Business Day article, Richtel (2013) cited officials from schools in central Florida and outside Houston, Texas, who believe that students bringing their own equipment is “the simplest way to use a new generation of learning apps that can, for example, teach them math, test them with quizzes, and enable them to share and comment on each other’s essays” (p. B1). The schools that advocate for this program also acknowledge, in this cash- strapped era for public schools, that it saves money for schools. As a budget fix, however, this is not a good policy for the district or for the classroom teacher, who, while attending to the plethora of devices, might subvert curriculum to technology.

The key to the touch-screen school is the proliferation of mobile apps that facilitate learn- ing. Mobile apps are bite-sized software programs that are downloadable to any mobile device for free or a small fee. Touch-screen devices rely on these apps for much of their

Think About It

What are some pedagogy strategies that would ensure gaming is an acceptable learning practice?

Learning 21st Century Skills Requires 21st Century Teaching Chapter 10

functionality. Students swipe, pinch, tap, double tap, and slide to play educational games, read interactive books, practice math skills, identify shapes and colors, draw pictures, research cultures and time periods, edit video, generate screencasts, get course information (iTunesU), and so on. According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), as of March 2013, there were “some 80,000 apps available through Apple and 700,000 apps on Google Play” (Flaherty, 2013, p. A2).

Of course, as with any technology, we need to first address a few concerns. Some mobile apps expose students to advertisements, and this exposure has become a concern. A new FTC regulation is focused on keeping advertisers from tracking those younger than 13 years of age. Despite this regulation, however, Flaherty (2013) contended that younger kids have grown beyond Facebook and moved into these mobile apps through their mobile devices, which enable them to text chat at no charge and with little monitoring by parents. Because these technologies are so new, no one really knows what the long-term effects of so much “screen time” will be with young students. Touch-screen devices are also limited by not having a full keyboard, so that typing an academic paper is cumbersome. And, finally, we must address how to bar access to inappropriate websites or establish restrictions (e.g., don’t download

apps that have a fee, don’t post self photos, don’t provide personal information to register on sites).

In U.S. schools, administrators are also a part of the touch-screen school, because they use mobile technology to accomplish administrative tasks, stay organized through their day planners, and jot notes at a meeting. In these schools, administrators are given iPads as a learning tool to assess classroom teaching and learning through their classroom walk-throughs.

Flipped Classrooms

One way that K–12 education is addressing the increased blending of formal and informal learning is through the “flipped classroom.” The flipped classroom is a pedagogical model in which the teacher reverses the typical lecture and homework format of a course. This model uses the abundance of video on the Internet to allow students to learn new concepts and material outside of school. Thus, class time is preserved for discussions, collaborations, problem solving, experimentation, consensus building, and project-based learning. The value of flipping a classroom is the repurposing of class time for students to actively delve into the content, rather than passively consume the content. The classroom is flipped in that the direct instruction or the presenting of new information is done through watching videos from experts at home (replacing the traditional classroom lecture); class time is then used to apply this new content (learned via homework) by engaging students in group projects and other interactive activities.

The video lecture is the key ingredient in the flipped approach. Websites such as Khan Academy and iTunesU serve as online repositories for prerecorded lectures on many topics. However, some teachers prefer to create and post the content videos themselves on social class websites, such as Edmodo. The notion of a flipped classroom draws on such concepts as active learning, student engagement, hybrid course design, and integration of technology.

From an interview with Bill Gates, Jeffrey Young (2012a) wrote:

Think About It

Many educational leaders are looking to leverage touch-screen devices and the “app” industry in the classroom. Do you think that mobile-learning technology is going to outlast its “novelty effect” in education?

The Online Learning Environment: Implications for the Traditional Classroom Chapter 10

Having a lot of kids sit in the lecture class will be viewed at some point as an antiquated thing. On the other hand, having a bunch of kids come into a small study group where peers help each other, where you can explain why you’re learning these various topics that will be even more important. And so the skill sets that you want on the university campus and that you’re really valuing and measuring and giving feedback to, I think those are shift- ing somewhat because we can take the lecture piece versus that study-group piece and make the lecture piece more of a shared element, and not have to have that duplicated again and again. (pp. 1–2)

The first question a teacher might ask when flipping a classroom is, “What can I remove from class to increase the value of face-to-face time?” For most, the answer to that question is lecture and direct instruction, as these are mostly one-way communications. Sams and Bergmann (2013) provided other examples of what students can interact with at home so that class time can be available for the application of learning:

Teachers are creating videos to provide a basic overview of an upcoming unit of study. (See a screencast in which a teacher introduces a lesson on William Blake at http://www. screencast.com/t/WPpnLEsn1n1).

Other teachers use videos to pose questions to students; the students must then develop answers on the basis of what they saw. One teacher recorded students acting out the fol- lowing math problem: A pizza delivery man ends up having to drive 538 miles to deliver a pizza. How long will it take him to get there if he’s driving 45 miles per hour? (See this teacher-created video, “Driving to the Party House,” at http://www.techsawyed.net/ archives/1931.) Still others create videos for content that is a prerequisite for future learn- ing—for example, to familiarize students with horizontal asymptotes in math (see http:// www.sophia.org/unit-g-concept-1-7c-tutorial).

The flipped classroom approach allows for differentiation of instruction as students become exposed to multiple means of engagement and multiple modes of instructional delivery. However, Sams and Bergmann (2013) cautioned that teachers should carefully consider which lessons lend themselves to time shifting (instruction out of class) and which do not.

10.2 The Online Learning Environment: Implications for the Traditional Classroom

Needless to say, the ability to create a digital learning environment has revolutionized the way we teach and learn. In this section, we examine some important concepts concerning online education and their implications for the traditional classroom.

Participative Learning

The flipped classroom frees up class time for action-based learning. After listening to content videos at home, students will be motivated to develop their creative, innovative, and initiative- taking skills, while assuming direct responsibility for their actions in class time. What does participative learning mean? In today’s complex world, Papa and Wang (in press) found that by merging the visual with reading, coupled with instantaneous social feedback and arti- ficial intelligence assessment, participative learning fosters an environment suited to motivat- ing learners into interconnected linkages of disparate knowledge acquisition. Examples of this merging include the following:

The Online Learning Environment: Implications for the Traditional Classroom Chapter 10

• Using the whiteboard versus PowerPoint

• Integrating simulations into the history curriculum

• Teaching philosophy through the use of blogs

• Conducting social media e-knowledge exchanges with other teachers and their students

• Doing virtual mathematics by tutoring classes using software

• Learning writing through wikis, blogs, and podcasts

• Developing web cams for online teaching enhancements for science activities

• Understanding instant-feedback loops in free social media apps

In general, participative learning takes an indirect approach in which students are asked to outline or construct knowledge. Pedagogical strategies also include role-play simulations, case studies, project- based learning, personalized learning, brainstorm- ing, and knowledge construction from previously acquired knowledge.

Online Courses

An online course is a delivery method for content in an interactive, Internet-connected learn- ing environment. It is usually capable of generating school credit or a grade. The onset of online course delivery began in 1994. In less than two decades, the revolution in course delivery has been astounding. Many schools across the country are requiring at least one online course for high school students as a requirement for graduation. This requirement is not simply to acquire the content, but also to experience learning in an online environment. One major issue, however, is funding. For example, will the per pupil funding from the state be the same for an online class as for a traditional in-person class?

The online learning environment offers many advantages and challenges. Some of the advan- tages include time and distance—online learning is available any time, anywhere. In addition, many see online education as a cost savings in terms of greater numbers of students hav- ing access to courses. Challenges include ensuring quality of the online options, sufficient resources to teach and monitor the online classes, and funding issues. For example, can stu- dents shop for online opportunities that are the least expensive but then use the course to meet a specific school’s degree requirements? Hill (2012) wrote that online education:

opened up strategic discussions in higher education. . . . Stanford, MIT, Harvard, the University of California–Berkeley, and others have thrown their support—in terms of invest- ment, resources, and presidential backing—behind the transformative power of MOOCs (massive open online courses) and online education. (p. 1)

Keith Morris/age footstock/SuperStock

▲ This teacher is using an interactive whiteboard with a slideshow presentation. How does this facilitate participative learning?

Think About It

How might you design a participative learning experience in your educational setting?

The Online Learning Environment: Implications for the Traditional Classroom Chapter 10

Students now have many options for online courses because cyber schools exist for secondary schools and universities.

Massive Open Online Courses

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are a recent development in distance education. These classes, usually aimed at high school and college audiences, are large-scale, interactive courses that communicate information through materials such as videos, readings, and problem sets. In a MOOC, the course is scaled to enable an unlimited number of students to take the course at any time, replacing the way universities have duplicated course content by offering multiple sections of the same course. According to Friedman (2013), “it [MOOC] will change teaching, learning, and the pathway to employment” (p. 11).

MOOCs take us on a path in teaching thousands of students from around the world in a course designed by the most elite. But to what end? These “courses in a box” won’t replace professors; however, as MOOCs improve, the professor’s role will shift the way pilots of old shifted to using autopilot in commercial planes. The tension becomes one of publisher/ professors and software versus the university creating its own MOOCs (such as Coursera or Udacity). Young (2012b) reported that some universities are hiring publishers to help them build MOOC content. He concluded that textbook publishers have been buying software companies and building in-house technology divisions, hoping that the future is digital and that their publishing houses will be able to migrate to the new future. According to Young (2012b), publisher’s “newest digital products shouldn’t even be called textbooks” (p. 1). Instead, this new soft- ware is a mix of media: videos, text, homework questions, and ideas. Young quoted one publisher as saying that their product is a “personalized learn- ing experience” (p. 1).

Assistive Technology

Assistive technology means using a device to help a person who has a disability perform a task more quickly, easily, or independently. For example, if you broke your leg, resulting in a temporary disability, a remote control for the television would be considered assistive technology. In the classroom, however, students with physical, sensory, or cognitive disabili- ties face bigger barriers to learning, and assistive technologies provide these students with greater independence, a voice for communication, and the ability to more fully participate in classroom activities. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 have mandated that students with disabili- ties have access and instruction in the general education curriculum (inclusion). For this to be successful, a vast range of technologies are available to help students with disabilities. For example, a nonverbal student can be the “caller” for a game of Bingo by using a talking switch. A nonreader might read a textbook with the help of text-to-speech software, while a vision-impaired student might use a magnifying screen to enlarge text. Usually, assistive technology is included in a student’s individual education plan (IEP) as a method for general curriculum assess, rather than just being seen as a rehabilitative or remedial tool. In addition, we have recently seen a shift from the “fix it” approach taken with traditional assistive tech- nology, where the focus is on the disability, to a “learning” approach, in which instructional

Think About It

What do you think would be the advantages and challenges of a high school using MOOCs as a delivery system for required curriculum?

The Education Leader and Technology Chapter 10

issues are at the heart of the challenge. School leaders play a decision-making role on the IEP team and should not let limited resources become a barrier for providing assistive technolo- gies for these students. Instead, leaders should consider sources such as special needs lending libraries, disability organizations, volunteer groups and service clubs, and local businesses and vendors, as well as family and parent groups (Allen, Carpenter, & Wright, 2009). Not only is it an ethical and legal directive that schools provide appropriate assistive services for students to reach their IEP goals, but proactive school leaders will also leverage assistive technology to meet annual yearly progress of students with disabilities (Allen, Carpenter, & Wright, 2009).

10.3 The Education Leader and Technology Still developing evidence suggests that the education leader is critical to the success of tech- nology integration in schools (Warschauer, 2011). The evidence supports five steps the educa- tion leader can take to ensure success:

1. Develop a strong vision of what can be accomplished with technology in the school.

2. Involve as many of the relevant stakeholders in the planning and implementation of the technology initiative.

3. Develop detailed plans with measurable objectives and resources to sustain the project.

4. Provide ongoing opportunities for professional development of the teacher and opportuni- ties for collaborative planning.

5. Implement a plan for ongoing communication among all stakeholders involved. (pp. 102–104)

Education leaders must also be clear in their understanding of the role that teachers play in technology initiatives (Warschauer, 2011). In a long-term study of technology integration in schools, the conclusions of various schools showed a similar pattern: initial enthusiasm, a small demonstration project yielding positive outcomes, followed by a top-down program with little involvement of teachers or other stakeholders (Warschauer, 2011). Each project would ultimately show few positive outcomes, and blame would abound until the next new technology would come along to repeat the cycle. Warschauer cited three conditions under which teachers would most likely integrate technology use: (a) availability of computers in the classroom (rather than lab settings) for both student and teacher use, (b) a teacher’s sense of self-efficacy regarding use of the technology, and (c) teachers’ expectations that the technol- ogy would actually lead to enhanced student achievement.

Brown (2011) further described the following administrative functions that must be correctly managed to avoid problems arising for the educational leader:

• Financial management (e.g., general ledger, expenditures, revenues, accounts payable, accounts receivable, fixed-asset accounting, material supplies inventory)

• Procurement (what to buy and for what purpose, obsolescence, software site licenses, etc.)

• Personnel/human resources (e.g., personnel data, payroll, position control, hours, sal- ary administration, time keeping, hiring and applicant tracking, communication, stu- dent activities, etc.)

• Grant writing and contract management services

The Education Leader and Technology Chapter 10

• School management (bell systems, scheduling, average daily attendance, digital sig- nage, etc.)

• Security and safety (cyber misconduct, cyber harassment, issues of free speech and expression versus libel defamation, slander, bullying, “sexting,” censorship, etc.)

• Emergency procedures (e.g., evacuation, video/audio broadcasts, etc.)

• Compliance issues (e.g., accessibility)

• Data management (test reporting, tracking students individually and across schools, IEP uses, assessment and diagnosis, etc.)

• Risk management (e.g., field trip procedures, data theft issues, etc.)

• Emerging technologies (p. 54)

Brown (2011) recommended that all technology planning or implementation should require data that address these issues. Integral to creating a successful technology plan is the use of data with sound assessments intended to improve student outcomes, adjust programs, and provide professional development opportunities for teachers. This tactic, combined with mentoring and teamwork, facilitates building strong PLCs. Levin and Schrum (2013) found that award-winning schools talked explicitly about believing in and practicing distributed lead- ership (see Chapter 3) when it comes to technology innovations. These schools encouraged teachers to find their niche and lead from their strengths, working as a team.

Challenges Facing Instructional Leaders in the Context of Technology Leadership

It is inevitable that the integration of technology into schools will involve some trial and error. However, it also provides an opportunity to celebrate every success on a regular basis. Levin and Schrum (2013) quoted a school leader:

Every lesson did not have to include a technology component. [Rather] they [teachers] should use technology where it made sense in their lessons, and that while they [the school] expected teachers to use technology, they were not going to mandate a certain number of technology-driven lessons. (p. 39)

Anytime a new technology is introduced in school, teachers will be in need of professional development to leverage the technology to its full potential. Professional development can be costly and time consuming. As an example, let’s examine how one school district met the challenge.

A small urban school district in southern California believes that technology does not replace the teacher. In this district, the teacher is an integral part of students’ learning experience, and the technology is a tool to be used in that experience. According to the district’s superin- tendent, all teachers are supported in developing learners’ 21st century skills via professional development (PD). The superintendent said, “I feel like we have a culture change occurring, that we’ve reached our tipping point, and that this next year we have actually negotiated for 10 professional development days—up from our previous five PD days.” In response to teacher needs, the district offers a university-type model of PD that provides a variety of choices so that teachers can select the sessions that will advance their implementation of technology. The teachers are also provided support to attend local conferences of their choice and then return to their school site and provide PD for their colleagues. This ripple effect builds capacity at each school site.

The Education Leader and Technology Chapter 10

ITSE’s standards for technology leadership (NETS•A) were developed to help school leaders support digital age learning. However, challenges still emerge for school leaders in the context of technology education. Although this particular study was conducted in Turkey in 2013, the implications for U.S. principals resonate, as shown in Table 10.2.

Table 10.2: Technology leadership challenges for school leaders

Lack of training Resources are not allocated for professional development.

Teachers lack time for self-learning of technology due to already heavy workloads.

Resistance to innovation Opposition to technology creates negative school culture.

Resources Technology budget is limited.

Few technical personnel are available to support school.

Outdated and inadequate supply of equipment.

Equity Poverty prevents students from having technology access outside school.

Bureaucracy Needs to provide adequate infrastructure.

Needs to evaluate technology needs of school.

Source: Sincar (2013)

For the most part, the issue of infrastructure seems to be the highest hurdle. For the teacher to be the facilitator and for the focus to be on teaching using technology and not the technol- ogy used in teaching, teachers need reliable access to the Internet, with ensured connectivity for all mobile-learning devices in the classroom. How are issues of connectivity dealt with in the school? How rapid is the availability of tech support? Administrators need to learn the language (broadband, router, cloud, gigabyte, etc.) or surround themselves with knowledge- able information technology (IT) staff.

Spearheading shifts to the school’s culture also presents challenges, as the components of academic success need to be reframed. We know that students can Google, but can they ver- ify, cite, and define a coherent problem to study? We know they can produce a PowerPoint, but does it have the coherence to highlight key facts and issues? We know students can email and tweet, but can they produce a quality report on a topic of relevance?

And, finally, from a manager’s perspective, how do educational organizations deal with the issues of “standardization versus individualization, autonomy versus state/centralized man- date, funding formula versus straight allocation, one-model-fits-all versus tiered structure and performance goals versus academic freedom to explore alternative concepts”? (Brown, 2011, pp. 52–53).

Rethinking the Curriculum

According to Weigel, James, and Gardner (2009), learning contexts have not changed dra- matically from the preliterate era to the 20th century. Throughout educational history, for- mal classrooms have had teachers as experts and students as passive receptors. The authors contended that since the 1980s, with the advent of personal computers, formal classroom instruction has still not changed significantly: Teachers are still experts, and students are still passive learners. So, active learning has begun to happen elsewhere, outside the classroom and via the computer.

Case Study in Educational Leadership Chapter 10

Weigel et al. (2009) predicted that if learning is insufficiently supported, then lifelong learning will be bifurcated into formal learning for everyone and informal learning only for the privi- leged that have access to technology. If the opposite were to begin to occur and resources became abundant, however, learning would be lifelong for all. This latter possibility requires what Weigel et al. (2009) called the “balance of autonomous and scaffolded learning, sup- ported constructivism, contextualized learning, social learning/distributed cognition, . . . [and] self-directed learning with supports for peer learning, teachers as facilitators and students as co-architects” (p. 3).

If schools continue to do as they did pre-1980s, however, then they will increasingly become anachronistic. All societies depend on learning to survive. Today, the format of how learning acquisition is to occur is in flux, because a disruptive innovation through digital media learn- ing fully promotes self-learning and learning with peers, which does not require the teacher to serve as expert.

Prensky (2013) suggested a radical new school curriculum for the 21st century. In his vision, the separate classes of subjects (math, English, science, social studies) now being taught would be eliminated and replaced with three focus areas:

• Effective thinking, which would include creative and critical thinking, as well as por- tions of math, science, logic, persuasion, and even storytelling

• Effective action, which would include entrepreneurship, goal setting, planning, persis- tence, project management, and feedback

• Effective relationships, which would include emotional intelligence, teamwork, ethics, and more

The remainder of this curriculum would focus on effective accomplishment, or what you do with what you’ve learned. This last part would be entirely project based and real-world oriented and would differ for every student. It would include much of what we now call “content,” but only what students would need to accomplish something real (Prensky, 2013, p. 24).

10.4 Case Study in Educational Leadership At Bovina High School, the science teachers were meeting to review student performance and plan for the next year. There was some pressure on teachers due to the less-than-stellar scores from the past few years. It seemed that on average, no matter what the teachers had tried, the student scores just didn’t seem to climb very much from year to year.

Last year, the teachers were concerned enough that they asked the school’s teaching men- tor to help them. The mentor conducted an in-depth student survey of current and previous students to collect information to help teachers engage the students as learners. The mentor also facilitated a frank conversation in which teachers outlined their own concerns around the teaching situation. The mentor presented the data to the science teachers and asked them to find some key features that might point toward strategic changes in the classroom.

Think About It

Look ahead 7–10 years from now. What might be the most profound ways technology has changed K–12 education?

Case Study in Educational Leadership Chapter 10

Savannah has taught science classes for Bovina High School for three years. She came from a smaller school, where she was the only science teacher and had some control over how and what she taught. Since working at Bovina, she felt a little stymied in her approach to teaching and was excited to have the mentor there to help guide changes. Savannah identified two key points from the mentor’s information that felt familiar to her:

1. Students overwhelmingly mentioned that they felt like there was too much talking and note taking in class, so there was never enough time to get lab work done. Trying to finish the lab write-up at home was not possible for most of them. Several students commented: “If I don’t finish the lab, how can I write up the results?”

2. Teachers had a related concern, stating they often felt like it took too long for students to copy notes during lecture or process information during the lecture. When it came time for lab, the students were not ready to start the actual activity. The teachers expressed frustration in not being able to complete labs and concern over the quality of work they were getting from students.

Savannah had been struggling with this challenge. Almost every class she taught had at least six students with learning challenges, including challenges to writing (e.g., note taking and processing auditory information). She had already added a lot of visual components to her teaching, including note-taking outlines and allowing for audio taping of lessons. She won- dered if there were something different she could try with these classes.

Working with the mentor, Savannah researched a variety of strategies related to note taking, time on task, learning labs, and processing speed. She invited one of the special education teachers, Emilie, to help her brainstorm possible changes to the learning environment.

Emilie worked with many of the students in Savannah’s class. She knew that they needed more time after class to clean up their notes or add details, as well as time to redo some lab experiments. The students were spending time in Emilie’s room doing this “catch up” work. She wanted to find a way to “preload” her students with the information that Savannah would cover. Emilie had tried giving the students basic information before the science classes, but because she wasn’t a science major, she didn’t think she was delivering the information with enough detail to really help students before the lecture. Emilie also knew that most of the time, her students didn’t fully understand the lecture information until they had com- pleted the lab work. So time with hands-on work was precious for the students.

Savannah and Emilie noticed that their students enjoyed using the Internet to look at short videos pertaining to things that interested them (e.g., crazy cat videos, music videos) or that they made with their own cameras. It was surprising how many students could watch those videos and remember with clarity what was in them but couldn’t remember what was in a face-to-face lecture. Talking with the school’s technology specialist, they learned of research by some teachers using video to preteach students.

Savannah and Emilie developed a strategy to reverse the students’ workflow, add some tech- nology as “prework instead of homework,” and engage the students as teachers.

Working with the technology specialist, Savanna and Emilie learned how to make short videos and upload them. They started by producing 10 five-minute videos to introduce the students to the lab and the first three weeks of lecture. They then created a science class web page and a password-protected interactive site for the students in each class. The plan was to show students how to access the web page and view each video in the correct order before coming

Summary Chapter 10

to class. Their homework would be to watch the video, take notes on the video, and bring the notes into class. Each video was a mini-lecture that covered the content for the next class.

Their plan also included having students make videos on one topic to be studied that semes- ter. Students could team up or work individually to create and upload the video. The students had to provide their video content to the teacher first and, if needed, work with the technol- ogy person to record their portion and upload it to the website.

Knowing that a few students might not have Internet access at home, the teachers made sure students had access to computers in the library or during study period to do their prework.

Emilie would have the students with learning challenges do this prework in her room so they could watch the video more than once if necessary to get their notes ready for class. She also supported them in preparing their own video content.

Savannah planned to conduct a short lecture for each class to review any questions that stu- dents might have, check for understanding, and then prepare for lab time.

Emilie and Savannah knew that this plan would require more upfront work on their part and more interaction with the technology side of teaching, but they hoped that this plan would address the students’ and teachers’ concerns about the balance between lecture and lab.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. This case study offers multiple examples of concepts studied so far in this course. In regard to

teachers as leaders, what characteristics or actions suggest positive behaviors of these teachers and the school’s culture?

2. How did the special education teacher use this opportunity to meet the needs of students with learning challenges? What specific techniques matched the areas of deficit for the students?

3. The teachers used the idea of the flipped classroom for students with known learning chal- lenges. In what ways do you think this strategy might help all the students in the science classes? What other ways could the teachers incorporate technology to support all students?

4. How successful do you think this strategy was for Savannah and Emilie? Explain your reasoning.

Summary This chapter provided an overview of how technology is changing the face of American edu- cation. It started with the challenge of the digital divide, where education must address equitable access to technology by all learners. Next, educational leaders must consider the rapidly evolving learning context for technology and the infrastructure changes this requires. If technology is to transform learning, rather than simply enhance learning, then educational leaders need to embrace the possibilities. We noted that technology is more than a tool; it is a way of thinking and acting.

As with everything in education, the education leader’s role in technology change is signifi- cant. In addition to vision and planning, the education leader must ensure that technology

Post-Test Chapter 10

implementation is completed. The onslaught of software, applications, massive online courses, and the skills students bring to the classroom present challenges to the education leader.

Post-Test 1. Reproduction digital literacy skills require the user to

a. recognize repetitive information.

b. replicate encountered information.

c. create new information from existing information.

d. distinguish old information from new information.

2. Compared to traditional education, an advantage of online learning is that it is

a. higher quality.

b. able to meet more degree requirements.

c. easier to fund.

d. available anywhere at any time.

3. The staff at Graham High School would like their school to support digital age learning, yet they do not have the funds to update classrooms with interactive whiteboards or to provide each student with a tablet to complete interactive assignments. Which category does this challenge to technology leadership relate to?

a. Resources

b. Bureaucracy

c. Equity

d. Resistance to innovation

4. Alora’s mom is dismayed to discover that her daughter has spent much of her math instruc- tional time playing games. Mom might be less concerned about the time being wasted on noninstructional activities if she learned that the game

a. is designed for a much less-capable student.

b. focuses on social networking.

c. is conducted in small groups.

d. includes metacognitive reflection.

5. Which of the following is not a characteristic of a MOOC?

a. It is an interactive course.

b. It targets high school and college students.

c. It has a student capacity per course.

d. It allows students to take courses anytime.

Critical Thinking Questions Chapter 10

6. A recent change in the realm of education (Weigel, James, & Gardner, 2009) with personal computers is toward

a. formal education for the privileged only.

b. family as the provider of education.

c. learning that occurs outside of the classroom.

d. teachers viewed as passive recipients.

Answers 1. c. create new information from existing information. The answer can be found in

Section 10.1.

2. d. is available anywhere at any time. The answer can be found in Section 10.2.

3. a. Resources. The answer can be found in Section 10.3.

4. d. includes metacognitive reflection. The answer can be found in Section 10.1.

5. c. It has a student capacity per course. The answer can be found in Section 10.2.

6. c. learning that occurs outside of the classroom. The answer can be found in Section 10.3.

Key Ideas • Learners in the 21st century prefer information to be presented in a fast-paced, nonlin-

ear, socially constructed manner and to provide instant gratification.

• Inequities exist in the kind of access that various student groups have to the Internet.

• Participative learning through multimedia tools requires the education leader to partici- pate with the proliferation of social media apps. It is critically important for the teacher and education leader to model technology multimedia strategies.

• ISTE provides standards that set expectations for teachers, students, and administra- tors regarding the use of technology in education.

• Web 2.0 learning is having a large impact on traditional pedagogies.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. What are characteristics of participative learning, and how does technology support this

pedagogy?

2. How is technology use related to school reform? Is bring your own device (BYOD) to school a viable reform movement?

3. In what ways will teachers and teaching change given the rise of MOOCs and mobile- learning technologies?

4. How do we keep students safe while they use the Internet?

5. What roles does technology play in creating authentic experiences and encouraging 21st century learning skills?

Key Terms Chapter 10

Key Terms acceptable use policy (AUP) A policy that summarizes what the school feels is appropri- ate use of technology.

BYOD Stands for “bring your own device” to school. This practice creates a device-agnostic classroom environment in which students use an electronic learning device that is brought from home (not provided by the school).

customizable learning experience Learning designed for the individual learner, as coined by Pearson publishing.

digital citizenship The norms of appropriate, responsible behavior with regard to technol- ogy use, including appropriate online etiquette and knowing how to stay safe online.

digital divide The economic inequality between groups (socioeconomic, racial, geographic) that affects that group’s ability to access, use, or become empowered through technology.

digital immigrants Individuals born before the existence of digital technology who have adopted the technology in later life.

digital literacy The ability to use software, operate a digital device, and navigate digital environments effectively.

digital natives Those born in the first decade of the 21st century who have experienced the social media tools as part of their childhood.

flipped classroom A “classroom” in which students watch videos from professors as homework and use class time for group projects and other interactive activities.

gaming The use of games in the learning environment.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Has established technology standards for students, teachers, and administrators.

mobile apps Software that is downloadable to any mobile device.

MOOCs Massive open online courses.

participative learning Learning that fosters the environment to motivate the learner into interconnected linkages of disparate knowledge acquisition faster.

school of one Provides customizable learning experiences for students.

social media Electronic or online communication that leads to communities of learning through the sharing of ideas.

touch-screen schools Schools that use mobile-learning technologies to support acquisi- tion of 21st century learning skills

Web 2.0 learning Learning that uses Internet-based tools to provide students with oppor- tunities for real-time interactions with people around the world.

Additional Resources Chapter 10

Additional Resources Further Readings

Fullan, M. (2008, June). The six secrets of change. Scholastic Administr@tor, 59–63.

Jackson, S. H., & Crawford, D. (2008). Digital learners: How they are expanding the horizon of learning. http://cnx.org/content/m17218/latest/

Shariff, S. (2009). Confronting cyber-bullying. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Videos

Three phrases of education technology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ir4-EFVhzI

Teaching digital natives : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPciMcBRobQ

A vision of K-12 students: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A-ZVCjfWf8

The Principal on Twitter: http://ericsheninger.com/esheninger

Weblinks

International Society for Technology in Education, NETS•A: http://www.iste.org/standards/ nets-for-administrators

International Society for Technology in Education, NETS•S: http://www.iste.org/standards/ nets-for-students

International Society for Technology in Education, NETS•T: http://www.iste.org/standards/ nets-for-teachers

Digital citizenship means responsible use: http://learntech.ties.k12.mn.us/digital _citizenship.html

Digital citizenship learning activities: http://www.digitalcitizenship.nsw.edu.au/Sec_Splash/ index.htm

Slideshow Presentations and Screencasts

What is Web 2.0? http://www.atomiclearning.com/web20