technology

Spicegirl1974

Integrating_Technology_in_the_Classroom_Tools_to_M..._----_CHAPTER_4_Realities_of_Technology_in_Schools_and_Districts.pdf

Home >Education homework help >technology

Hamilton, B. (2018). Integrating technology in the classroom : Tools to meet the needs of every student. International Society for Technology in Education. Created from empire-ebooks on 2023-10-11 02:52:06.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. In

te rn

at io

na l S

oc ie

ty fo

r T

ec hn

ol og

y in

E du

ca tio

n. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

CHAPTER 4

Realities of Technology in Schools and Districts

EVERY SCHOOL AND DISTRICT has its own technology culture. By culture, I mean the collective set of shared values, conventions, and social practices around the use of technology in classrooms. Districts often control acceptable use policies, academic priorities, standards, filtering, professional development, and device choices. Schools develop norms and expectations for classroom implementation. In addition, schools may control how devices are deployed, building-level priorities for use, internal professional development, and other aspects of technology use.

The Challenge of Change The speed of change in teachers’ professional lives has increased and intensified since state standards were introduced. For years, many districts have followed a 5- to 7-year average refresh on curriculum, which for elementary teachers meant at least one curriculum area change every year. Because teachers are pressured to teach the first year of a new curriculum with fidelity, often technology use in that content area drops significantly as teachers absorb new units and instructional approaches.

When standards were introduced, teachers had to adapt curriculum materials to align with the standards because standards determined the content of state assessments. But standards and assessments have been rewritten more often than the traditional curriculum refresh rate. For the teachers in my research, both state standards and state assessments changed four or more times in seven years. Unfortunately, the standards and assessments did not change simultaneously. The standards often shifted units of study across grade levels or emphasized new instructional targets. The number of state tests increased, and options for accommodations for struggling students decreased. In the midst of the fast-paced change to standards and assessments, teachers scrambled to find appropriate instructional materials that would align with state standards and prepare students for testing.

When the state adopted a computer-based testing system, schools and districts faced growing

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. In

te rn

at io

na l S

oc ie

ty fo

r T

ec hn

ol og

y in

E du

ca tio

n. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

pressure not only to provide enough computing devices to rotate students through the tests within the state-mandated time frame, but also to teach students the types of computer skills that would enable them to be successful test-takers. The technology focus in many schools morphed from student projects to technical instruction on basic skills.

The challenge of change extends to the exponential change in the technology world as well. Consider that the first Kindles and iPhones were released in 2007, just months after Facebook was opened to everyone at least 13 years old with a valid email. Since then, iPhones have been updated every year; Kindle has moved from e-reader to mini-touchpad status; and Facebook boasts that 1.45 billion users log onto the platform daily. Chromebooks were first released in 2011 and are now one of the most common student devices in schools. Digital tools are often introduced as free and then, when successful, converted into subscription services. Some digital practices, particularly administrative tasks such as managing assignments and grading, have become extremely easy and enticing. Other practices, particularly creative open-ended tasks such as digital storytelling, have become pricier or more difficult because the easy-to-manage digital tools have disappeared. In education, the pace of technology change challenges teachers who feel responsible to prepare students for a digital future.

Teachers need to be realistic about how the combination of changes to curriculum, standards, high-stakes assessments, and digital tools will affect the decisions they can make in their classrooms.

Affordances of Digital Devices The types of digital devices you have in your classrooms will influence your ability to integrate technology. In the past, classroom computers were either Mac or Windows platforms, with only a few districts venturing into open source options. Although the platforms differed, essentially teachers were working with equivalent computers. Today, the discussion is far different. Classroom devices have different capacities, features, and durability—different affordances.

The word affordance was invented to describe the characteristics of a nonliving thing as perceived by a person based on the person’s need. Affordances are stable. The characteristics of a computer, for instance, remain constant. But individuals can perceive the affordances as either opportunities or constraints. For example, an affordance of a desktop computer is that it is stationary. As a characteristic, stationary is neutral. When I work on my desktop computer at home, the affordance of stationary is an opportunity to me because I can expand the viewing area with additional monitors and run multiple programs simultaneously. However, when I am traveling, the same affordance of stationary becomes a constraint to me because my computer stays in my office. Affordances are neither good nor bad—just characteristics that have positive or negative effects on individuals depending on the context.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. In

te rn

at io

na l S

oc ie

ty fo

r T

ec hn

ol og

y in

E du

ca tio

n. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

In listing the characteristics of digital devices in Table 4.1, I used a teacher’s perspective. Other individuals, such as manufacturers or students, may have different perspectives about what is an opportunity or a constraint.

Table 4.1 • Affordances of Major Computing Devices

Devices Constraints Opportunities Optional extras

Desktop computer

Stationary

Take up space

May need peripherals

Platform-specific

Costly

Generally heavy & bulky

Slow to turn on or shut down

Possible licensing cost

Prone to viruses

Full computing capacity

Loads software

Full keyboard & mouse

Large screen

Easily shared

USB and other ports

Expandable

Updateable

Supports multitasking

Flexible uses

Works without Wi-Fi

Stores files internally

Fixed camera

Microphone

DVD drive

Touchscreen

Software

Printer

Laptop computer

Platform-specific

Fragile

Costly

Can be heavy

Slow to turn on or shut down

Smaller screen

Possible licensing cost

Prone to viruses

Full computing capacity

Portable

Loads software

Full keyboard

USB and other ports

Expandable

Updateable

Supports multitasking

Flexible uses

Works without Wi-Fi

Stores files internally

Fixed camera

Microphone

DVD drive

Touchscreen

Mouse

Software

Printer

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. In

te rn

at io

na l S

oc ie

ty fo

r T

ec hn

ol og

y in

E du

ca tio

n. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

iPad Costly

Fragile

Internet only

Wi-Fi dependent

Doesn’t support Flash

No USB or other ports

Weak content production

Difficult keyboard

Single user (no log on)

No multitasking

Perceived as a games device

Cloud dependent

Does not print

Updated for 3–4 years

Lightweight

Portable

Touchscreen

Variety of available apps

Instant on

Long battery life

Great for viewing content

Two-way camera

Supports video recording

Accessible for students with disabilities

No licensing costs

Unlikely to be virused

iOS apps

Keyboard & keyboard stand

Chromebook Internet only

Wi-Fi dependent

Cloud dependent

Does not print

No multitasking

Updated for 6.5 years

Inexpensive

Lightweight

Portable

Long battery life

Hard shell

Full keyboard

Fast startup

Individual log ons

Managed by Google

No licensing costs

Unlikely to be virused

Automatic updates

Fixed camera

Touchscreen

Android apps

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. In

te rn

at io

na l S

oc ie

ty fo

r T

ec hn

ol og

y in

E du

ca tio

n. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

In summary, computing devices fall into two categories: computers and internet-only devices. Teachers often are issued computers for their use because so much of the administrative work they need to do, such as grading, marking attendance, and reporting assessment scores, requires full computing power. Computers hook up to projectors and document cameras seamlessly as well.

Most students use internet-only devices. Internet-only devices limit what students can do. First of all, the devices are highly dependent on robust Wi-Fi. If the internet goes down, most students will not be able to do any computer-based work. Also, internet-only devices generally do not print unless the school has specific printers and has set up student printing rights. Opening several screens simultaneously does not work on internet-only machines, which constrains how students work. Although internet-only devices can be loaded with apps, many of the best apps are not free. The cost of several apps can mount quickly when a classroom has 30 devices. Although apps are outright purchases, rather than annual subscriptions, users often complain the apps get outdated quickly when the devices are automatically updated. Student devices typically do not connect well with the projector without the installation of additional interfaces. The Doceri Interactive Whiteboard app (doceri.com) is free for iPads (with in-app purchase offers) and lets iPads connect wirelessly with projectors. In one classroom where I researched, a teacher purchased a Google Chromecast dongle for her projector to allow students to project directly from their Chromebooks.

iPads are more commonly used for content consumption rather than production. In fact, teachers and students I interviewed often described iPads as “toys” or good for playing games. Many apps have gamelike characteristics and the touchscreens are appealing. On the production side, iPads are wonderful for producing images, audio, and video. Teachers can assign open-ended creative projects that take advantage of the iPads’ high-quality graphics properties. What students can’t do easily is produce text on iPads. The integrated keyboard promotes the hunt-and-peck system, and typing on iPads takes longer than on keyboards. In addition, the integrated keyboard takes up half the screen. However, iPads bear a resemblance to smartphones, an appealing feature for many students who have their own phones.

Chromebooks are better for students producing typed projects, but lack the image and video qualities of iPads. Chromebooks support Flash, which is a basis for many interactive websites. The devices also are a product of Google, so using G Suite is a natural integration. If Chromebooks have cameras, and not all do, the fixed cameras are front-facing—great for video conferencing, but poor for taking pictures of projects. There is no video capacity. Chromebooks do have keyboards and some devices have touchscreens. For students, Chromebooks will resemble the full computers they are likely to use in their future careers.

Knowing the affordances of classroom devices is critical. Teachers do not often get to choose the devices they or their students use. Teacher and student devices are often different, and

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. In

te rn

at io

na l S

oc ie

ty fo

r T

ec hn

ol og

y in

E du

ca tio

n. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://doceri.com

teachers cannot assume that students have the ability to take on the same tasks teachers can accomplish on computers. Also, teachers need to consider how student devices affect the types of projects that are possible in the classroom. With iPads, take advantage of the graphics, but seek out other options for written text, such as Bluetooth keyboards or a few word processing centers with Chromebooks. With Chromebooks, plan text-driven projects, but add digital cameras to the classroom setup so students can use images and videos. At the secondary level, enough students may have smartphones to fill the graphics gap.

Remember all that discussion about change? Well, in my research, I discovered teachers were often issued new devices for their students in August without any opportunities to get acquainted with the new devices or to compare their own devices to the students’. From the back of the room, I could see when students’ screens did not look the same as their teachers’ screens. On webpages on Chromebooks, I saw distracting ads that the teachers had blocked on their own screen with browser extensions. And those differences affected students without the teachers’ awareness. Be prepared for adjusting on the fly with new devices.

VOICES OF EXPERIENCE

Allison Rickert (@rickert_alli), fourth-grade teacher Kathryn Senor Elementary, New Castle, Colorado

Changing the devices in my classroom has affected what I have done with students immensely. The last couple of years I have had iPads only. With these devices I was able to use apps that help my students build fundamental math skills and build math fluency on a daily basis. Using our devices was part of our daily routine that allowed me to differentiate instruction for all types of learners, whether it was to challenge a student through NCTM’s KenKen or revisit skills from previous grades through IXL. iPads gave my students quick access to manipulatives throughout the lesson as a way to record or prove their mathematical thinking through video. Students were very engaged in their apps, and it was easy for student to share math talks and solutions to their math problems.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. In

te rn

at io

na l S

oc ie

ty fo

r T

ec hn

ol og

y in

E du

ca tio

n. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

This year, I made a shift to use Chromebooks in my classroom rather than the iPads for many reasons. The first reason was that my iPads were old and could not handle the updates. The second reason was that my other teammates who teach fourth grade use Chromebooks, and it was often difficult for me to borrow them because they were always being used. However, the main reason was because we decided to have our students build e-portfolios to record their learning in each content area. We were using the Google extension Google Sites, and this was difficult for students to access through iPads. I was nervous about using only Chromebooks because that meant students had to log in and they would not have access to the apps they had used before. To my surprise, I didn’t need to worry—my students were very quick at getting logged in, and many of the iOS apps were available as Google apps or extensions. I found that some apps I had been using on the iPads had more features on the Chromebooks. Google also offered amazing extensions to differentiate, present, and interact with students in meaningful ways. My fourth-grade students found that they could pretty much do whatever we did with the iPads with the Chromebooks, just in a different way. Don’t get me wrong—we had to do a lot of research together to find those ways. Video recording was one thing that was easier for students to use on iPads, but a workaround on this was using an extension. We still used iPads to enhance our presentations.

All in all, the change was sizable but a valuable learning experience for the students and me. We were able to become learners together by being problems solvers and solution finders. Although the change of devices provided the same amount of choice for students in the way they could show their learning, they had opportunities for innovation by using some of the Google extensions. They were able to use old learning with new, as well as critically think about how to use their devices. They had to reflect on their learning and how they were going to transfer their knowledge of the iPads to our new device. The beauty of the whole experience was that I was not the one facilitating the learning; the students took ownership of the learning and helped others be problem solvers.

Technology in Schools An administrator once questioned why I included “dated” devices and practices in my books. In the past five years I have researched in urban, suburban, town, and rural schools and have observed the range of digital practices and devices. I’ve seen such a variety across schools, I cannot say what is “dated.”

Device Deployment Schools deploy digital devices in their schools based on their cultures. Configurations and

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. In

te rn

at io

na l S

oc ie

ty fo

r T

ec hn

ol og

y in

E du

ca tio

n. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

devices vary widely, so you’ll need to ask how your new school functions. In one school, the principal initiated change with her staff and then convinced the district to deploy a change. In other schools, the teachers felt blindsided by changes announced in August at the district level.

Common configurations I have seen in 2018:

1:1 devices. The devices may be assigned to classrooms or to students. If assigned to students, the devices are likely to be the same across a grade level. If assigned to classrooms, the devices may differ from classroom to classroom (iPads, Chromebooks, laptop computers, or even desktops).

Computer labs. Some schools still have labs for advanced computer work where internet- only devices are not sufficiently powerful, as a supplemental area for students to work, or for technology instruction. Some school libraries keep banks of computers for students who lack home access. Many elementary schools maintain technology as a special class to provide planning time for teachers, along with music and physical education. Computer labs may have desktop computers, but more recently, many computer labs have switched to laptops or internet-only devices.

Computer carts. Carts of laptop computers or internet-only devices are shared in some schools. The carts may be housed midway between two classrooms or may be moved around a school as needed. Sometimes, what used to be a shared cart finds a permanent home as a charging station in a classroom.

B.Y.O.D. In Bring Your Own Device schools, students in each classroom may have an eclectic collection of devices from older laptops to the latest smartphones. Out of necessity, teachers must choose tools and tasks everyone in the class can handle or give students free choice about how they use technology to demonstrate what they know.

Device centers. In some schools, the only student devices are four to six internet-only devices, commonly iPads, used as a reading or math centers in the classroom. In my experience, this configuration has been used primarily in urban schools under great pressure to increase students’ reading and math assessment results. That is not to say it is a norm in urban schools. I was also in an urban school where the teacher had 1:1 iPad access for his students.

Teacher only. Yes, some classrooms are still working with one device in the classroom. It may be that students have computer lab once a week and the school priorities do not include technology use. It could be a teacher’s choice. It could be a building-level perception that the teacher doesn’t need student devices.

Device collections. I was surprised to learn that some schools still use iPods for students. The devices are not powerful or versatile as computing devices, but they do have apps and audio capabilities some teachers appreciate. I also discovered iPods were often elementary

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. In

te rn

at io

na l S

oc ie

ty fo

r T

ec hn

ol og

y in

E du

ca tio

n. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

students’ at-home devices. Similarly, some schools had invested in collections of Kindle Fire tablets or other e-readers with Wi-Fi capabilities. These collections were typically supplemental to other devices in the schools.

As a teacher, you will have little say on how digital devices are deployed in your school. In my opinion, a blend of devices provides the most flexibility. Teachers often supplement what schools offer through grant proposals or online campaigns for funds or donations. Make the most of the devices you have, and be prepared to be flexible about what happens from year to year.

Assumptions about Technology Skills The newest teachers in schools today have grown up with digital tools in their everyday lives. The expectation has been that young adults who have always had technology will be technical experts.

Researchers are learning that most young adults have narrow repertoires of digital skills. They may be adept at using social media, creating presentations, and communicating through email, texts, and chat. They may not have much experience with digital storytelling, blogging, transnational collaboration, or effective online searches. They may not have learned about copyright, malware, video production, programming, or robotics. They may not have been responsible for creating infographics or conducting online discussions. Young adults participate in digital tasks that fulfill their personal needs, which are far more limited than the needs they will face in the teaching profession.

Translating personal technology use into instructional technology use requires not only broader technical skills than personal use promotes, but also a deep knowledge of content and pedagogy to determine how digital tools support student learning. Teachers who lack the depth and breadth of instructional knowledge and technology skills will struggle to scaffold students’ digital experiences. It’s easy to get caught up in a cool new tool and forget that technology tools should not drive instruction, but rather be a vehicle for demonstrating or reinforcing new learning. Effective instruction requires balanced attention to pedagogy, content, and tools, digital or otherwise.

Effective instruction also requires that teachers know their students. American teachers are predominantly monolingual, white, and from middle-class backgrounds. American classrooms are increasingly populated by a diverse mix of students with different home languages, different opportunities, different traditions and beliefs, and different skill sets. Teachers need to know more than students’ names. In order to scaffold learning with digital tools, teachers need to know how much technical knowledge students have and what experiences they have had to prepare them for digital tasks in the current classroom.

For instance, some teachers I’ve interviewed have assumed most students have digital devices outside of school. Yet, fully half of the fourth to sixth graders I interviewed for a

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. In

te rn

at io

na l S

oc ie

ty fo

r T

ec hn

ol og

y in

E du

ca tio

n. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

research study had never put their hands on devices before they were in elementary school, and about as many did not have internet access or any devices other than game systems at home. I’ve met high school students with no devices or internet access at home. A technical skills chasm separates the students with and without home access to devices and internet.

Rather than make assumptions about your students’ digital lives, survey your students about their home access. Avoid general questions such as, “Do you have a computer at home?” A sixth grader with a computer at home was not allowed to use it unless he proved he had a homework assignment—and that computer did not have internet access. Questions must be specific to what devices they can use at home, whether they have home internet access on the devices, and whether each device is shared with others who might have competing needs. Kids with little knowledge about technology may not know whether they have internet access or may use different vocabulary. I learned some students used the term tablet to refer to any device that was portable and flat and wasn’t a phone. Cell phone referred to all portable phone devices. So, children might say their parents have cell phones, but those phones may have been provided by an employer or the government. People at or near poverty income levels often have free government-sponsored cell phones that have limited monthly quotas of minutes and texts. Students may simply assume the phones are smartphones with internet access. Either way, students are likely never to use the phones.

It pays to be skeptical about students’ technical skills. To build technical skills, students need to be using digital devices in a variety of ways. I observed many classrooms where students’ only experiences were word processing, website games, and (ineffective) web searches. Asking those students to plan and execute a video project would require a lot of scaffolding. Students with larger digital repertoires can help teach their classmates how to problem solve and function with new tools. Be conscious, though, that less skilled students sometimes lack confidence to ask for help for fear of becoming a target of ridicule. Better to provide brief targeted instruction on a tool than place vulnerable students in jeopardy. It’s always acceptable to invite small groups of students to join you for refresher training—even if for some students it may be an introduction rather than refreshing of skills.

Students need multiple practice sessions with any new digital tools before they learn enough to produce meaningful content. The first attempts at podcasts, video productions, blogs, or any other products will be far from satisfactory. Plan for second and third opportunities to learn what didn’t work and how to improve. It isn’t necessary to introduce many new project ideas in a year. Try to guarantee students have multiple opportunities with just one or two tools so they build their technical repertoires.

VOICES OF EXPERIENCE

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. In

te rn

at io

na l S

oc ie

ty fo

r T

ec hn

ol og

y in

E du

ca tio

n. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Trecie Warner ([email protected]), third-grade teacher Lois Lenski Elementary, Centennial, Colorado

Technology was my entrée into teaching. My first job was as a parapro, supporting the librarian and introducing the available technology in the 1990s to kindergarten through fifth-grade students. During my years working in school computer labs, libraries, and even now, as a third-grade teacher, I’ve had the chance to try a lot of different technologies. The one thing I’ve learned is that the technology has to fit both the learning that needs to happen in my classroom and my own teaching style. As a teacher using technology, I need to be discriminating.

I’ve worked with everything from Kid Pix and Oregon Trail to Google Classroom and Adobe Spark. I’ve been to statewide technology conferences and ISTE conferences multiple times, and I’ve seen a lot of technologies come and go, from Palm Pilots to Smart Boards.

Every time I went to a conference, spoke to an expert, or read a book about technology, I needed to keep my classroom and myself in mind. I think of the old adage: “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”

There are some technologies that don’t fit me as a teacher. I don’t enjoy video games, so teaching with video games like Minecraft does not fit where I am—and it’s okay. My students will get a powerful experience using technology in my classroom when I give them opportunities to learn using technology that I feel comfortable and confident supporting. This year for our Social Studies work on government, we learned about rights and responsibilities as citizens. As a final project, students were engaged using their Chromebooks to photograph classmates demonstrating the rights and responsibilities of students in our school for a brochure to be shared with prospective new students. My students’ work met the learning objectives and standards while using Chromebook cameras and Google Slides.

Many teachers choose other tools, other projects, and other standards to meet. I do not compare our classrooms. Each year I try what works for the culture in my school, the students in my classroom, and my own teaching style. As much as I would love to try every new tool that comes along, I stay true to myself.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. In

te rn

at io

na l S

oc ie

ty fo

r T

ec hn

ol og

y in

E du

ca tio

n. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

mailto:[email protected]

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. In

te rn

at io

na l S

oc ie

ty fo

r T

ec hn

ol og

y in

E du

ca tio

n. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed