Tech Integration First Steps

There will always be teachers who are reluctant to dive into a particular tech-integration strategy because of their own self-perception as not being "tech-savvy."  I think this can be more accurately be attributed to the natural discomfort we all feel when faced with being a novice user. When it comes to educational technology, we are working with a fluid and expanding content.  It sometimes requires a leap of faith, one that requires a unique trust that acknowledges that students may quickly surpass our ability to help them.  Any teacher who has unleashed code.org and watched their students whip through levels can identify! We have to remind ourselves, students, and parents always that our support role is always in service of the skills and learning practices that the tools enable, rather the tools themselves. 

Teachers and administrators are assuming similar roles. Particularly with edtech integration, teachers are also diving into content and skills (not necessarily pedagogy) that are new to them and taking on the novice role, while often surpassing principals' and administrators’ ability to support, likely for no other reason than unfamiliarity with the tool or product. It is exciting, but certainly a twist on our traditional structure, and one that requires a certain amount of risk and trust on the part of the principal. It's the distributed leadership idea that George Couros recently explained in his Innovator's Mindset blog:

“Yet when we admit that we don’t know everything, that means we have to trust others and give our “power and authority” away.  This model of distributed leadership is very tough on some and they end up hiring great people only to micromanage them.  A person that pretends that they know something is much more dangerous than those who can fully admit that they don’t.”

I have found that administrators may not be reluctant to launching new ideas or products, it just may be that we (teachers) might be the first to see them, try them, and share them. This wouldn't happen if we weren't encouraged to attend and/or present at local conferences, workshops, etc. Seeking teacher-feedback and providing opportunities to evaluate and share what we've found and piloted is a valuable component of the distributed leadership model. 

Top-down never feels inclusive or collaborative, but the rise of personalized PD, edcamps, product ambassador programs and district supported pilots all point to a new design that supports educator agency and a culture of exploration, discovery, and empowerment for the classroom teacher. 

You Break It, You Bought It!

Effective or Defective?

I had a very interesting experience happen recently.  While jotting a note in my phone for a future blog post, I was comparing classroom strategies.  I misspelled Effective, and my phone auto-corrected with Defective.  This momentary swap almost went unnoticed, but when I saw the words juxtaposed on the screen, it occurred to me how easily a single strategy can go either way.  So what's the missing ingredient that can turn an otherwise broken moment  into an effective instructional memory for our students?  I suppose that's the magic question, but as long as we're always asking it, we are more likely to consider all of the elements that impact learning and instruction in our own spaces.

You break it, you bought it!

What do we do when a lesson drifts from effective to defective? Own it, and don't blame kids. Call it responsibility, agency, or reflection, but figure it out so that it becomes a teachable moment for the educator.  This can be an empowering process, because when we have to dig our way out a hole we've created, we enhance our toolbox and may be more likely to take more risks.  Shaking the status quo and breaking patterns is uncomfortable, and this is coming from one of the bigger creatures-of-habit you'll ever meet, but as I've said before, the risk is the reward. 

We can't do it all, we can't do it quickly, and we definitely can't do it for the sake of doing it.  For every day we act like revolutionaries, there are days that we back up and say, "too much-too fast." I was at a conference where the keynote speaker opened by asking, "What's new and different?" Innovative product names and ideas were flying around, and I wondered how many "new and different" ideas would come at the expense of "old and awesome" methods.  

For example, the exploding maker movement is inspiring, but paper towel marble tracks and popsicle-stick catapults are nothing new.  That's not to say it's just a glossy new package, but it is worth recognizing the the elements of design-thinking and STEM-style projects that that have existed for years, while also recognizing the shifting landscape of the teaching field that has brought priority and integrity to this methodology, as well as the opportunities that new technologies can add. We should just always be mindful of collecting impactful tools that have potential to transform learning, so that the focus is never the device or tool, but the opportunity for improved teaching and learning experience it enables.

After asking for the new and different, I wish that presenter had followed up with, "So how's that's working, helping or impacting instruction?" It's always critical to ask the question, whether it's in a day, week or a year, or we run the risk of taking existing effective practices and turning them defective. Every teacher makes a difference. Make sure it's a positive one.