Central Matters

HelpDesk for the Central Office Administrator

Instruction

TPACK: Making a District’s Digital Conversion Easier

by

TPACK Model

Alrighty, central office administrator.  Your role is to lead your district through a digital conversion or to lead your Blended Learning project.  If you are like me, this responsibility probably excites you!  Woohoo, right?

 

But as you start planning, you might realize that this could be a heavy lift, depending on how ready your faculty are to make the shift.  

Education, Blended Learning, Administration, TPACK, Digital Conversion
Leading your district’s digital conversion effort can be a heavy lift.

Maybe you’ve even heard a few veteran teachers bemoan the fact that now students are going to sit in front of a computer all day.  Some teachers might have decided to “wait it out,”  thinking – sometimes aloud – that “this, too, shall pass.”  

 

If you’ve been in central office very long, you have probably found yourself in this situation.  Your job now is to move these less than motivated colleagues to a new perspective.  

 

You want them to do what is right for students.  And you don’t want to sink the district’s program, either.  

 

Blended Learning or technology integration should not be just another thing that teachers have to do.  It should be what they do.

 

Provide a Foundation

You know that the only way to convert the reluctant is through high quality professional development.  So where do you start with the professional development?  

 

TPACK to the Rescue

Using TPACK gives teachers a framework to think about how to integrate technology and how that complements what they already know about their content and how to teach it.

 

Although I typically prefer to differentiate my professional development, I think at the beginning of a huge and important project like Blended Learning, that providing everyone with the same foundation will pay dividends later.  Teachers will undoubtedly have other professional development opportunities with the project, and those sessions could be differentiated.

 

This initial training should be simple and straightforward.  Plan the professional development through the TPACK lens, so that you are “walking the talk,” and modeling what you expect teachers to do.   I suggest two components to the training session – one is informative, one is application.

TPACK Model, technology integration, blended learning
Give teachers the gift of TPACK as a framework for technology integration.

Component one:  Introduce the TPACK model

 

First,  introduce TPACK, providing teachers with clear information and explanations.  Use simple diagrams, preferably the TPACK Venn diagram.  Everyone loves a good visual aid, right?  Could technology improve teacher engagement during this segment?

 

I believe that it is important for teachers to experience early success, so I would be intentional in how I presented the different types of knowledge.  Start with where they already excel.

 

Pedagogical Knowledge

The Pedagogical Knowledge component is one where most teachers will find that early success.  Teachers (and central office administrators) are more comfortable with this component because this is their sandbox.  This is where they “play” most of the day.

 

They have a toolbox of instructional strategies and knowledge and experience with creating and delivering lessons and managing classrooms.  Pedagogy is the “how” of teaching – the methodology that we use in our classroom.  What is the best strategy to teach a specific standard or skill?

 

Teachers are experts in the methods involved in teaching their particular content.  A science teacher may design a lab experiment for a specific topic in a unit of study.  Because of her training, knowledge, and experience, she knows how to design lab work to ensure the best learning experience for her students.

 

To promote an organized discussion about a topic in a social studies class, a teacher may utilize a convo line.  This allows students to discuss pertinent topics with different classmates.  

 

Both the use of the lab and the convo line are examples of pedagogical decisions made by the teacher as she or he was designing a lesson or unit.  Teachers make these decisions every time the plan a lesson.  Because of their expertise and experience, teachers have routinize this decision-making process.

 

Content Knowledge

Another component is Content Knowledge.  Like Pedagogical Knowledge, teachers are more comfortable with this component because this is where their expertise lies.  Secondary teachers especially have deep knowledge of their content and the best ways to learn the subject matter.

 

A Chemistry teacher will have a thorough knowledge of the discipline and the various frameworks utilized in learning the content.  Primary teachers have expertise in teaching reading to young children.

 

Technological Knowledge

As we introduce TPACK to our faculty, the T component may be the component that brings the most grief to teachers.  In this component we are looking at Technological knowledge, specifically the products and processes related to technology.  

 

What is our big picture understanding of technology?  How does it work in both our personal and professional lives?  Technology is used in all parts of our lives to enhance our productivity.  How can we utilize that knowledge of technology productivity in teaching and learning?

 

An example of the technology component is the use of email.  While we certainly do not need email to communicate with the world, the use of email allows us greater flexibility in when, how, to whom we communicate.

 

These three components intersect to form three subcomponents or subdomains that provide additional perspectives on the types of knowledge.  While we can provide definitions and descriptions for the three main types of knowledge (the TPC), most of the time we are discussing how two types of knowledge interact.

TPACK Model, technology integration, blended learning
Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org

Exploring the subdomains

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge, for example, explores how the addition of technology can change a teacher’s pedagogy.  Using technology for a particular activity may necessitate a different choice of pedagogy.   

 

There is some trial and error involved, here, I think.  When teachers are just learning a new tech tool, it is difficult to always know how its use will affect an activity or lesson.  As teachers learn additional technology, it becomes easier to predict how its use will affect a lesson.  

 

Teachers like to see strategies and tools in action.  If possible, share examples from lessons you’ve seen from your teacher leaders.  

 

Technological Content Knowledge

The question to ask is how does the addition of technology affect how we teach our content? Technological Content Knowledge requires that teachers have an understanding of which technology resources best fit with their content, and how the addition of technology may affect the content.  

 

Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Pedagogical Content Knowledge is perhaps the easiest for teachers because – again – this is their playground or sandbox. Teachers know what they are teacher – Content Knowledge – and the best ways to teach it – Pedagogical Knowledge.  

 

Going back to an earlier example, the content the Chemistry teacher uses and how she teaches it will differ dramatically from how a primary teacher will teach a child to read.

 

TPACK

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge occurs when all three of these types of knowledge overlap.  This intersection of Knowledge types results in learning of concepts through strong strategies and enhanced with the addition of technology.  

TPACK Model

Component Two –  Provide opportunities for application of TPACK

This is where being in the classroom observing and conducting walkthroughs can be helpful.  Look for authentic examples that you can use during training to explain each of the Knowledge components.  This provides teachers with real applications, it demonstrates that real teachers – teachers they know – are already good at some part of their new learning.

 

As the trainer, provide these examples during your discussion, but also include an activity where teachers collaborate to determine the types of knowledge used in classroom vignettes.  Again, it is helpful to pull examples you’ve observed during your time in teachers’ classrooms.

 

Prior to the training ask teachers to bring one or two lesson plans with them.  After teachers have used the vignettes to identify and discuss the types of TPACK in each, have them to work with a partner or in a group to analyze each other’s lesson plans to identify TPACK.  

 

Homework from the training is for teachers to plan a lesson using the TPACK lens and teach it within the next week or two.  At their next PLC meeting, teachers should share their experience with both the lesson planning and execution of the plan.  The PLC will then use the same protocol from training to analyze the lesson for TPACK.  

 

I have provided a sample protocol below.  Notice that the first question echoes one of the critical questions for PLCs from the work of the DuFours.

 

  • What are students supposed to learn?  (Content Knowledge)
  • How will students learn this content? (Pedagogical Knowledge)
  • Where is technology being used?  (Technological Knowledge)
  • How can technology enhance the learning of the content?  (TPACK)

 

So what do you do if you can’t find an hour or two to have the training?  Time is the resource in shortest supply for all of us, I think.  This is a good time for we central office administrators to put on our TPACK hat and find a better way.  In these situations, I ask myself how can technology make this easier (or more effective).  

 

You could push brief videos of each of the TPACK components each day.  Principals could follow-up during staff meetings with analysis of a few lessons.  Certain PLC days could be dedicated to analyzing additional lesson plans.  

 

Common Sense Media has a good introduction video.  Punya Mishra has a website with various TPACK videos.

 

Remember that your role is to provide leadership for this initiative, and you will want to make the transition as painless as possible for teachers.  Build in early success and utilize teachers’ expertise and current effective TPACK lessons.

 

Has your district already begun its digital conversion or Blended Learning initiative?  How did you begin?  If TPACK was a part of your project, what went well?  What suggestions do you have for those who are just beginning?  Please let me know in the comments.  I would love to learn from you!

 

Resources:  

TPACK.org

 

Introduction to the TPACK model – a short video by Common Sense Education

 

TPACK for Classroom Planning Resources – a site created by North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI)

 

SAMR: Getting Started Guide for Central Office Administrators

by

SAMR, Technology Integration, Education

Isn’t it nice to discover something that allows you to make sense of new information?  It is a great feeling, isn’t it?  Something (e.g., understanding) clicks in my brain and produces warm, fuzzy feelings (aka feelings of self-efficacy). That’s how I felt a few years ago when I first learned about SAMR.

 

As my district continues its Blended Learning journey, my understanding and self-efficacy are reinforced.  SAMR is my technology integration coat tree, and I can hang my hat on it!

 

The ‘Who’

SAMR was developed by Ruben Puentedura as a structure for examining how technology is used in classrooms and schools.

 

School districts use the SAMR model when introducing Blended Learning  or technology integration to their teachers and administrators.  Teachers find it useful when planning and reflecting on lessons and units.

 

The basic ‘What’

The four levels of SAMR include

  • Substitution
  • Augmentation
  • Modification
  • Redefinition

 

The first two levels – Substitution and Augmentation – are typically where we see technology used to enhance learning.  The third and fourth levels – Modification and Redefinition – is where we see technology transforming learning.

 

Tim Holt from EPISD introduces SAMR on this Digital Discoveries video.

More ‘What’

Substitution

At the Substitution level, technology is used as a substitute in a traditional lesson or activity.  For example, traditionally teachers have assigned students to write essays and papers on various topics.  

 

If employing SAMR at the Substitution level, then the teacher may ask students to use a word processing program to type their papers.  So while technology has enhanced the assignment, it has not transformed learning.

 

SAMR, Technology Integration, Education

Substitution is where most, if not all, teachers and principals (and central office folks, too) begin their technology integration journeys.  And that is great!  For those less comfortable with technology, this is a safe place.  The danger is that we might get a liiiitle too comfortable here and want to stay.

 

Augmentation

Augmentation takes the enhancement one step further.  In this stage of SAMR, the assignment or activity still involves substitution, but with functional improvement.

 

Continuing with the example above, the teacher requires that the students use a program like Microsoft Word or Google Docs to complete the assignment and also asks them to include relevant images or graphics in the document as well.  Technology has enhanced the assignment through the addition of media.

 

And like above, we – teachers and administrators – do not want our lessons and activities to get stuck at this level.  Nope.

 

Modification

With Modification, the SAMR model begins to transform learning in beautiful ways.  At the Modification level, we see significant task redesign.  Student work products are often for real-world audiences at this level.

 

Instead of a paper written only for the teacher to read, a student might write a blog post shared with a larger audience.  

 

One characteristic of lessons and tasks at the Modification level is the difficulty of completing the assignment without the use of technology.  In our current example, a student would find it extremely difficult to write for a larger audience without the use of technology for publishing.  

 

Redefinition

Redefinition transforms learning even more.  At this level, new tasks are created and the work is shared out to the world (authentic audience).  The assignment cannot be completed without the use of technology at the Redefinition level.

 

At the Redefinition level of SAMR, the traditional essay morphs into a podcast episode, complete with script and show notes.  

 

Notice how, as you move through the SAMR levels, content creation increases as does the size of the audience.  

 

The ‘When’

When should educators be utilizing the SAMR model?  Every day, I think.  Now I don’t expect that teachers should have a lesson at the Modification or Redefinition level ready to go each day.  

 

But remember that SAMR is a tool to examine how technology is used in the classroom.  If that is the case, then educators should be analyzing how they are using technology each day.  Here are a few questions to ask when examining our lessons:

 

  • How have I integrated technology in this lesson?
  • Is this the best way to use technology in this lesson?
  • What other way could technology be used to support student learning of the standards?
  • Do I even need to use technology with this lesson?

 

Notice the last question.  If your district has adopted the SAMR model, that does not mean that every lesson must utilize technology.  Sometimes, low-tech or no-tech is still the best way.  For example, it might be better to use sticky notes instead of PollAnywhere.  

 

The ‘Why’

Why do we need SAMR?  Is it the next big thing?  Might it fade away as so many movements in education tend to do?  In other words, can we wait it out?

 

No, we can’t wait this one out.  And why should we?  Technology integration supports teaching, too – not just student learning.

 

Think about the future – post-secondary training and education, jobs, and careers – that we are preparing students for.  How many of those situations will include no technology?

 

I often think about my own work.  On the rare occasions when we lose internet or my computer crashes, my work can come to a screeching halt.  Sure, I can continue with some of my responsibilities, but I am much more inefficient.  And some of my responsibilities are nearly impossible to continue until the tech is restored.

 

If technology is here to stay, then we need a mechanism by which to analyze how it works in schools and classrooms.  SAMR is that mechanism.  And it is easy to use.

The ‘How’

This is where you, the central office person, comes into play.  You might be a curriculum director or professional learning coordinator who must train teachers and principals in the SAMR model.  Maybe you are the central office person who is tasked with leading the district’s Blended Learning initiative, and SAMR is a component of the roll-out.

 

First off, you need to make sure that you have a solid understanding of the model and how it can be useful to teachers and principals.  I have included some resources below to help you with that.

 

After a brief introduction of SAMR, I think it is a good idea to provide teachers and principals with time to explore the topic on their own.  Utilize the resources below.  

 

Educators can also benefit by applying the framework to lessons.  Provide teachers with a set of lessons (real or made up) and ask them to work with a partner or small group to determine which level of SAMR is best represented in each lesson.  

 

The next step is to have teachers to bring in one or two of their own lessons which include some type of technology integration.  Ask them, either individually or in a small group, to analyze their lessons through the lens of SAMR.  

 

This activity can be eye-opening for teachers and principals.  The analysis of their own lessons can reassure many teachers that they are on the right track.  It might reassure them that maybe, just maybe, this blended learning/tech integration thing isn’t so bad.  

 

This activity might also be a wake-up call for the “tech expert” teacher.  Be gentle with these souls.  Realizing your pet project – the one you’ve received accolades for – is not at the Redefinition level can be  a difficult to pill to swallow.

 

But SAMR can also be the salve these teachers need because it can provide them with a structure for reflecting on how to redesign the pet lesson for better, more authentic technology integration.

 

When leading this activity, stress that SAMR is a tool that teachers and principals can use to improve their practice.  Point out that SAMR provides a way for teachers to begin their technology integration journey (Substitution and Augmentation).  And SAMR provides educators with the knowledge to take their lessons to a different level (Modification and Redefinition).

 

I’ve intentionally mentioned principals in this post.  I think SAMR can benefit them just as much as it benefits teachers.  With knowledge of SAMR, a principal can be more effective in her walkthrough feedback.  

 

We all know how important it is for administrators to attend teacher professional learning, but with SAMR it is vital.  Teachers and administrators will speak the same language when principals have an understanding of SAMR.

 

When working with teachers on initiatives that may require huge shifts in perspectives, I want to do what I can to alleviate the overwhelm that some may feel.  I stress that it is perfectly fine to begin with Substitution.  Make sure the expectation is clear that the teachers must grow and begin creating lessons at the other levels of SAMR.  

 

I also let them know that while I hope that eventually most lessons with be at the  Modification and Redefinition levels, the goal is NOT to have all Redefinition lessons.  

 

Some standards do not need a lesson designed at Modification or Redefinition.  In fact, sometimes a low-tech or no-tech approach is best. Teachers will have to use their professional judgment – as they do every day – but now they have SAMR as an additional tool to support those decisions.

SAMR, technology integration, education, blended learning

 

Some of the articles on SAMR discuss the line that is drawn between the Augmentation level and the Modification level.  This line indicates the movement from using technology to enhance learning to using it to transform learning.  

 

I like to view SAMR more as a circle (everything tries to be round, right?) or a process.  As teachers design lessons and units, they will move back and forth through the SAMR levels.

 

I hope you’ve found this long introduction to SAMR helpful.  Has your district implemented SAMR?  If so, how did go?  How have you seen it benefit your teachers and principals?  Let me know if the Comments section.  I want to hear from you!

 

Resources:

Hippasus – Ruben Puentedura’s SAMR blog.

Tara Gander’s SAMR SMORE – Tara is a skilled instructional coach and expert trainer.  Her SAMR SMORE is chock full of videos and other resources that will be helpful to teachers and to those who must provide SAMR training.  

Digital Discoveries – YouTube channel by Tim Holt from EPISD.  This site contains SAMR related videos, but also other technology-related videos.  Great for independent learning for for use during group professional learning.

SAMR and Bloom’s Taxonomy from common sense education

 

Don’t forget to leave a comment about your SAMR experience!

Personalized Education Means Good Core Instruction

by

Personalized Education, Educational Leadership, Education, Curriculum, Instruction, School

I remember early in my career when the term ‘personalized education’ was being bandied around the teacher table at lunch.  Being new to the profession, I stayed quiet, hoping to learn what this might mean for me and my classroom.  

 

Some colleagues discussed how personalized education meant that teachers would have to write detailed plans, personalized education plans (PEP) – similar to Individualized Education Plan (IEP), for every student.  As a new teacher, this notion was scary.

 

How was I to write and follow 80 plans?  The perfectionist in me panicked a bit.  

 

Other colleagues mentioned how students would have individual learning paths, a prescriptive program just for them.  This sounded extremely boring to me a teacher, so I could not imagine how a student might feel, knowing they were going to be following these paths in every classroom, all day.  I probably needed someone to talk me down from the ledge about that time.

 

While doubting my career choice, I listened to some of my more traditional colleagues state emphatically that they just wouldn’t do personalized education.  Some of the others were more fatalistic, believing that we should prepare ourselves since it was coming whether we liked it or not.

 

Thinking back on these depressing – and somewhat crazy – conversations, I am glad that none of the scenarios discussed actually materialized.

 

I shake my head, remembering how little I knew about my profession at that point.  I am glad, however, that decades later I and my profession know a bit more about what personalized education is and is not.

 

While we know more know about personalization, a universal definition is still somewhat elusive.  Here is my description of personalized education, which I am constantly refining:

 

Personalized education means that students have voice and choice in their academic lives, shaping curriculum, assessment, and products.  Personalization means that students can pursue their passions, but within a framework or structure that is provided by the teacher.  Project-based learning and technology integration figure prominently in the frameworks.

 

Now some educators would probably find fault with my definition, and that is fine.  As I said, I am constantly refining my belief as learn more about personalization.  It is somewhat difficult to put a finger on it and say, “This is it.  This is personalized education.”

 

Recently, I found time to read ASCD’s (www.ascd.org) March 2017 issue of Educational Leadership, whose theme is ‘Getting Personalization Right.’  I know, I know – the issue is several months old now!  I am so far behind on my professional reading, but better late than never, I suppose!  If you are behind on your reading, too, I would suggest that you start with this issue of Educational Leadership journal, the next opportunity you find to catch up.

 

Several of the articles in this issue provided similar definitions or descriptions to mine for personalization.  What I like about this issue of EL is that the articles provide specific examples of what it might look like in classrooms and schools.

 

Many of us realize that a one-size-fits-all approach or a ‘teach to the middle’ strategy just doesn’t work any more (if it ever really did).  Nor is it equitable for students.  

 

Personalized learning allows us to provide high quality instruction for all students.

 

I see teachers working their hearts out all the time, but they are not seeing the results they want to see.  Often, these hardworking teachers are caught in the one-size-fits-all trap.  It is understandable.  Many teachers were taught with this same approach, and so they find it natural to use what they know.  

 

Personalized Education Good Core Instruction

I have said many times that if the approach you are using is not giving you the results that you want, then it might be time to try something different.  (I believe this is good advice for other professions, too, and good advice for life generally).  As central office administrators, we must provide help in the form of training and information for the ‘something different’ that we want teachers to try.  

 

DIfferentiation is an area in which many teachers struggle.  Personalized learning allows teachers to differentiate for their students without having to spend time creating individual assignments.  Indeed, using a project-based learning approach allows teachers and students to differentiate topics and/or products.  Teachers can utilize project-based learning for individual students or for small groups of students.

 

Differentiation in personalized education may also take the form of student goal setting.  Together, teachers and instructors may develop student profiles, analysis student work and student data, set goals, and provide opportunities for student reflection.  

 

Many people believe that personalization means that a school or district must roll out a 1:1 student to device (e.g., laptop or tablet) initiative.  In reality, personalized education can be accomplished with little to no technology.  However, technology integration can mean easier implementation of personalization.  And, more significantly, using technology appropriately in a personalized setting can mean richer student learning.   

 

I believe the best chance of success with personalized education is when district and school leaders and teachers plan the personalization intentionally.  None of this ‘let’s just try this and see if it works’ mentality.

 

If this is a significant shift for your district, I would suggest implementing some type of pilot program before a wholesale conversion.  In most districts, a few teachers are most likely already working toward a personalized model in their classrooms.  To gain momentum for personalized education in districts where only a few are dabbling in personalized education,  a cohort model can be the best method of implementation.  Oftentimes, a district’s early adopters can provide the enthusiasm and the fire in the belly to fuel successive waves of cohorts.

 

My guess is that many of our best teachers are already personalizing education for their students to some degree.  Many of the teachers I know involve their students in goal-setting and utilize various types of learner profiles, for example.

 

And many teachers provide project-based learning (PBL) opportunities for students.  PBL offers students possibilities for pursuing their specific interests within a framework developed by their teacher or maybe in collaboration with their teacher.

 

I think to take personalization to the next level, though, we must understand why we are making this shift in our classrooms and schools.  And we must be intentional in our implementation.

 

As a central office administrator, I believe the district office can assist schools and teachers to understand why this move is appropriate.  Often, we can see a bigger picture – larger data sets, community and business stakeholders, future workforce needs – that can inform the reasons for the shift at the district level.

 

It is important to gather input from all stakeholders, using the methods that work in your district.  For ideas on how to gather feedback through community focus groups, see my previous post, “Planning a Successful Community Event.”

 

Once the district vision is formed and articulated, principals and teachers have an easier time translating that vision for their schools and classrooms.

 

But understanding and communicating the district’s reasons for moving to personalized education is just the beginning of the work.  Intentionality takes time to plan and implement.  But often this is the work that I find the most enjoyable!

 

If you haven’t already read ASCD’s (www.ascd.org) March 2017 issue of Educational Leadership, I encourage you to do so.  I think it is invaluable if your district is implementing personalization or a Blended Learning model (more on this later).  And no, I am not getting paid by ASCD to promote their journal.  I truly believe this issue of the journal could be helpful to central office administrators who are involved in implementing or supporting a personalized education initiative.

Infographic: A few thoughts on what personalized education is...and is not.
Infographic: A few thoughts on what personalized education is…and is not.

Checkout the infographic I created that summarizes some of what personalization is and is not that I gleaned from ASCD’s (www.ascd.org) March 2017 issue of Educational Leadership, complete with references.

 

Have you found other great resources on personalized education?  If so, please share in the comments section.  As personalized education becomes more prominent in districts across the county, I am eager to learn more, and I am sure others are, too.