Technology as an amplifier.

When we think about the potential "technology" has to transform classrooms, there is no shortage of cliche's or 140 character "truths" that can be uttered in a moments notice. And it's not that I don't believe in many of these ideas or that our students do not deserve to learn using whatever tools help them learn best.  Over the years, one of the statements that has always resonated with me is the idea that "technology is an amplifier".  At face value, this may sound like a truly underwhelming vision of what "technology" can be in the hands of the right teachers and students. My initial thought about this statement years ago was that it didn't go far enough in shining a light on the potential "technology" has to offer in our classrooms and schools.

Yet here I sit several years later and upon further review, I think this statement is spot on.  That's not to say that the uses of "technology" in a classroom can't be transformative. It's just that often the "technology" we use shines a light on the wrong things. In some cases, it amplifies bad practices too. Which is why I think we have to be careful that we aren't being hyperbolic when discussing the power of technology to the technophobes and cynics when heavily investing in "technology" in schools. We have to accept that no amount of new devices or access to new software or tools will ever increase learning. Period.

What  does increase learning is the effort and will of the person(s) behind the design of the learning opportunities and experiences for our kids. (ie. the teacher)

Five years ago when I began to heavily invest in teaching and learning about technology in my classroom (mostly through my online PLN), it became obvious to me that I was a hypocrite. The very things I was spouting  to complete strangers and preaching  to colleagues  were not evident in my classroom. And maybe my colleagues were just patient because no one called me out on it. But it was true.  And that burden weighed heavily on me.  All of the technology I was using in my classroom was "amplifying" poor instructional and assessment practices. Having students re-create "digital" poster projects was not innovative. Disregarding curriculum in order to do projects that interested me and had little academic purpose other than to say we were learning "online" only benefited some of my students.  I'm not too proud to admit that I had wasted kids time by giving them way too many days to "research" just so I could say we were using online resources. The truth is that I loved the idea of doing all of these amazing "projects" I kept reading about, but I just didn't want to put the time or energy into ensuring that the "technology" was being used effectively, efficiently, and maximizing the learning potential for ALL students.  I did not want to collect and use evidence that might prove that I had absolutely no clue.

I didn't want to explore standards. I didn't want to determine the essential questions or enduring understandings. I didn't want to write student friendly objectives or have my kids reflect on them. I couldn't even begin to determine how to best assess my students because I hadn't even identified what was most essential to begin with. I was wandering the desert. And I suspect that many of my colleagues are stuck there right now too.

Perhaps to be fair, jumping from web based project to web based project led me to designing a project based unit which led to designing a few others.  I began to study the standards and grapple with essential questions. I began to explore transfer skills and determine what content was essential. I began to map out my assessments methodically and strategically and I was rarely surprised by the results I achieved (good or bad). I stopped hiding from the data and other evidence and each assessment provided an opportunity for me to challenge myself. It became as much about my growth as my students.

I have hope that many of my colleagues who are engaging in web based collaborative learning are moving towards the panacea of authentic, student led personalized learning too.  The potential to learn together, collaboratively and beyond our physical location is too great to pass up. But so is the potential of designing truly meaningful, authentic, standards driven (there, I said it) learning experiences that don't ignore the classic literature or seminal moments of mankind's history. We can't forsake exploring essential content or grappling with integral skills just so we can have our students use the latest web based tools.  We can't simply trade the textbook for a laptop and expect our kids to become expert learners.  At the end of the day, technology is an amplifier. The question we must all ask ourselves is "What exactly is it amplifying?"

Technology is not a magic bullet.

A few days ago, I had the opportunity to check out the newest exhibit  “One Day at Pompeii” at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. Aside from how well the Franklin treats educators on these “educator’s night out”, it was easy to be blown away by the technological advances the Romans had developed. Perhaps it’s just my lens, but I’ve always appreciated just how inventive the Romans were. From using terra cotta pots under floor boards to amplify sound in theaters to developing medical devices that are eerily similar in shape and function today. From  utilizing radiant heat to heat floors and walls to designing hydraulic metal gauges to alter water pressure through city pipes, the Romans were adept at evolving and changing technologically, to make their lives better and easier.  These advances also led to economic collapse and caste systems, and an ever expanding empire that could not sustain itself. When the Roman Empire disappeared, so did many of these advances (at least for a few hundred years). 

I also spent part of this past week reading an article in the New Yorker about the elusive self driving car. I found myself reflecting on the role that technology plays in our lives today. The idea of the self-driving car has essentially existed since the dawn of cars themselves. And in the age of technology driven distracted driving, it’s an idea whose time may have come. The irony is that the more that cell phone technology and mobile computing penetrates our lives, the more likely it is that we as humanity, will use it inappropriately. Our vehicles are becoming so technology rich that the basic function of driving has at times, taken a back seat (pun intended) to the navigation, entertainment, and communication options that are present.  I don’t mean to sound like an old fuddy-duddy, because if I’m being honest, the technology options are what draws me to certain vehicles.  The point I am trying to make is that the technology itself is not bad or evil, it’s how we use the technology that determines its effectiveness.

So what does this have to do with  teaching and learning?  

Technology in classrooms is not a magic bullet.

We are beginning to see entire city school districts jump on the iPad and tablet craze. We are seeing more and more schools go 1:1 with laptop initiatives. We are seeing a proliferation of BYOD policies pop up.  And unto themselves, these are hugely popular for students and are steps in the right direction. But as Lee Corso would say, “not so fast my friend”. Professional development for administrators and educators often focuses on the “how does it work” as opposed to how should we use this to help students make meaning, communicate, collaborate, and create?  Many unfairly assume that educators are chomping at the bit to design instructional learning experiences using technology.  This is true in some cases.  In other cases, laptops are used as paperweights at worst, and for word processing at best. Tablets are used for games and low level practice skill and drill. A teacher who focuses on memorization and low level thinking skills will not all of a sudden change their stripes when handed a new device.  

At its core, those who see the transformative potential of technology rich environments understand that it is not the technology itself we need to begin with.  It is the hearts and minds of our colleagues whom we need to help envision what their classrooms and schools could be like.  It’s about having many deep and personal conversations with colleagues around the kinds of learning experiences they wish for their students to be engaging in. It is about us nudging them and their students towards an even greater potential. It’s about coming alongside those educators and modeling and teaching and re-teaching and revising and reworking. It’s about designing units backwards together. It’s about debating  the essential questions and enduring understandings.  It’s about unpacking the standards and the skills. It’s about designing assessments that matter and making it all relevant to each individual student.  

I will admit that I am as much at fault here as anyone. When I speak about technology to my peers, it is often through the lens of efficiency (If you use this tool, it will grade all 500 of your essays FOR you!!!) . It is also often through the lens of a “cool factor”  (Check out this amazing new tool that allows you to share this youtube video in 100 million different ways and solve world peace at the same time).  And it’s not that those things don’t matter or shouldn’t be shared. They are entry points. But the truth is, like all things in life worth doing, there is no secret to making technology transform a classroom or school. Nothing will replace conversation after conversation. Connection after Connection. Nothing will replace the relationships built over time. And ultimately, building a technology rich learning environment takes sustained effort.

It is not a magic bullet.

(Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison knew it too)

A cycle of hypocrisy

As part of a job embedded community of practice with the Pennsylvania Institute of Coaching (PIIC), I am currently engaged in a book study of Elena Aguilar's: “The Art of Coaching”. Although I am only 4 chapters in, there is much to appreciate and utilize as both a coach and a teacher. In the fourth chapter, Aguilar asks us to consider applying a series of lenses to our work as coaches. These lenses include: 

• the lens of inquiry
• the lens of change management
• the lens of systems thinking
• the lens of adult learning
• the lens of systemic (structural) oppression
• the lens of emotional intelligence.

Although all of these lenses are essential to utilize and look at our work through, the lens of adult learning is the one that is most fascinating to me. Andragogy is a an adult learning theory/ practices that asserts that adult learners and learning are fundamentally different than child learners and learning. Let me state that I am far from experienced, nor would I consider myself even remotely expert on the subject. To further understand andragogy and the lens of adult learning, Aguilar states:

• Adults want to be the origin of our learning and want control over the what, who, how, why, and where of our learning. 
• Adults will commit to learning when we believe the objectives are realistic and important for our personal and professional needs. 
• Adults need to see that what we are learning is applicable to our day to day activities and problems.
• Adults need to see very clearly the relevance of what they’re being asked to learn. 
• Adults need to have some say in what they’re doing.
• Adults need direct, concrete ways to apply what we have learned to our work.
• Adults (like children)  need to feel emotionally safe in order to be able to learn.

If you are an adult and if you are an educator reading this right now (and I’m assuming you are) , you are most likely nodding your head up and down vigorously in agreement with the statements above.  And no one would blame you if you took these statements and anonymously dropped them into a well-intentioned staff developer, district administrator, or building principal’s mailbox.  We have all struggled with mandates and initiatives that have faltered because the above conditions were not met.

But that’s the low hanging fruit here.  

Read these statements again with a little twist.

• Students want to be the origin of their learning and want control over the what, who, how, why, and where of their learning. 
• Students will commit to learning when they believe the objectives are realistic and important for their personal and professional needs. 
• Students need to see that what they are learning is applicable to their day to day activities and problems.
• Students  need to see very clearly the relevance of what they’re being asked to learn. 
• Students need to have some say in what they’re doing.
• Students  need direct, concrete ways to apply what they have learned to their work.
• Students (like adults)  need to feel emotionally safe in order to be able to learn.

See what I did there?

It's not that I think andragogy is bunk or that there aren't some major differences between adult and child learning. It's just that when I look at this list, it seems like what is good and right for us as adults is certainly good for our students. Especially when we consider our task is now to prepare students to be career and college ready. In Aguilar’s defense (and I love this book, so please don’t misconstrue my issue with andragogy as an issue with Aguilar or her book), she states the following: “One of the most obvious differences between adults and children is that adults have simply lived longer and had more life experiences...as adults, we have more starting points and perhaps, more things to undo”  

There are two truths in this statement. The first is that I believe our role as educators is to provide our students with these learning experiences. To allow  them to take risks, try something new, to fail many times, and to persevere, overcome, and achieve. Our job is to provide opportunities that challenge and cause them to stretch and grow. This is what causes character and resilience.

The second truth is that as adults, our great disadvantage is “that which must be undone.” As educators we are constantly fighting old habits and ways of doing things. We have convinced ourselves that because we achieved and succeeded 25 years ago in school, it’s ok for our classrooms to look and feel the same way today. That it’s ok for our students to suffer through the same style of instruction and activities we suffered through because it built character or resilience. Our experiences in school have also convinced us that to teach is to be the conduit for all learning and knowledge.  Yet when you look at the statements above, it’s obvious that this is counter-intuitive to the needs of all learners. It’s not about what we teach, it’s about what they learn.  Time has a funny way of blurring the edges, forgetting the negatives, and distorting the reality of what it was really like for us as students.  As educators, we have a lot of unlearning to do.

Universally we were taught some form of the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  When I look at the lists above I wonder why there is such a disconnect between the world we wish to have for ourselves and the classrooms we create for our students?   I wonder why we haven’t admitted that the conditions in which we learn best are unique and independent to us as individuals and then treat each child with a similar point of view? I wonder when we will  have the courage to stop the cycle of hypocrisy that says “this is what I deserve as an (adult) learner” yet continue to deny those same conditions to our students?

Move fast and break things

This post on Mark Zuckerberg's vision at Facebook came through my twitter feed last week and it really resonated with me.  One of Facebook's core beliefs is that "moving fast" inspires innovation and empowers employees to try new things to better the product for the consumer.  Zuckerberg admits though, that moving fast also creates a lot of headaches and a constant need to go back and "fix" things that were broken as a result.  Along with "Move Fast and Break Things" the post also highlights some other key motivational posters and core beliefs such as "Fail Harder", "People over pixels" and "Done is better than perfect".

I wonder if we are preparing our students to work at a place like Facebook?

I would imagine that moving fast and breaking things can be a lot of fun and also incredibly scary. Every time Facebook changes even a minor privacy setting or enhances the view, one just needs to go to social media to see the hailstorm of criticism. Yet it remains the most popular social media tool on the planet. The most recent numbers indicate there are over 1.1 BILLION users and over 650 million active users a DAY! So if one of the most successful companies on earth with mind-blowingly active daily "consumers" are willing to move fast and break things, to endure criticism in the face of creating a better product,  why are we often so unwilling to allow our STUDENTS to move fast and break things?

There are a ton of things we struggle and grapple with when our classroom is not living up to our own expectations. They run the gamut from peer pressures ( I can't do something different because colleague x will be upset with me), administrative pressures (I need to make sure I am on pace or I will get in trouble.) , standardized testing pressures (If it's not on the state test, I don't have time to teach it) , parental pressures (As soon as I try something new, I might need to explain it to parents)  , student pressures (Some of my students can't handle this kind of work), and personal pressures ( I just don't have time to try something different today/this week/this month/this year) .  But those perceptions or worries, whether real or imagined, are not at the root of why our classrooms don't provide more room to move fast and break things.

Control is.

Our students are naturally inclined to work fast and break things, yet because we are uncomfortable with this, we slow them down and often praise them for doing things right the first time.  As teachers, we are incredibly reluctant to work fast and break things, especially when it comes to technology.  Innovation and inspiration often go hand in hand with failure and how we learn from those failures.  As educators, we sometimes struggle with new mediums, new pedagogy, and new ways of learning that are different than our own. Disruptions such as cyber learning, 1:1 initiatives, learning on demand through Khan Academy and MOOC's (for example), and the proliferation of web based social platforms (that can also be used to collaborate and communicate)  such as Twitter and Facebook create a greater divide between students who are chomping at the bit to move fast and break things, and teachers who often want to move slowly and keep things in order.

In the end,we must PLAY. When handed new devices, and/or access to new software or web-platforms, we must change our paradigm and see it an opportunity to learn from and alongside our students. Their willingness to work fast and break things is an asset, not a liability.  Giving up some control and permitting ourselves to be a learner with our students can be scary, but also invigorating. It's what makes us human to them. It empowers students to be seen as young adults who have value not just in their world, but in life itself. It creates a bond and a connection through learning together. It creates an opportunity to fail safely together and to learn from our mistakes too.

Work fast and break things. Together.

Differentiation is not enough.

One of my favorite posts of 2013 (and the chart  that accompanies it ) was written by Barbara Bray entitled “Personalized Learning is Not Differentiating Instruction”.  While I didn’t write about it at the time, I had a copy of the chart on my desk for several months. Several times a week I would see it out of the corner of my eye and I would reflect on what it meant to me as a teacher. Spending just a few minutes with the chart and the post itself would seemingly present a vision of what classrooms should look like presently as well as some clear cut goals for educators.

Many years ago, differentiation became an educational buzzword that myself and many in education loathed to hear.  When something wasn’t working in your classroom, the rallying cry became “Just differentiate!”  None of us knew what differentiation looked like or how we would even do it for our students. I often “taught” from a textbook, with desks in straight rows, and any learning that occurred was by luck and sheer happenstance. I began experimenting with offering different types of assessments as well as offering different ways for students to access content. It was as if offering kids...gasp...CHOICES for how they wanted to learn and how they wanted to show what they knew and could do became a gateway to a different type of classroom.

Along the way I picked up a lot of tricks from colleagues in my physical location as well as in the communities I was learning alongside online. For example, differentiating homework, taking  time in class to involve students in decision making, co-creating rubrics, brainstorming and creative problem solving, individual conferencing as often as possible. But all of these ideas required massive shifts in how I thought about teaching and learning. Mostly, it forced me to accept that teaching is NOT learning. I had spent a bulk of my career so consumed with the role that I needed to play, I had completely disregarded the learners themselves.

As teachers begin to play with many of these ideas, they realize how much effort and energy it takes to create a classroom environment that places trust and responsibility on the learners. They also realize how little our current systems are set up to truly support these kinds of classrooms.  Educators realize they are limited by bell schedules, pre-conceived notions of what teaching should look like from parents and administrators, and a game of chicken with students who are used to just sitting in their seat and collecting A’s for being awake. I have long been a proponent and believer in computers and  technology as a great equalizer. When used well, it can provide opportunities for differentiation, individualization, and/or personalization. It can open up lines of communication and create transparency. It can provide more choices and learning paths than ever before. But none of this matters without the vision or commitment to putting the learners first. It’s easy to say we are kid-centered. It’s much more difficult to live it.

When I reflect on this chart, it both humbles and angers me. On one hand, it reminds me that I failed countless learners because I made my classroom about me the teacher, instead of them: the learners. When we as educators are unable to check our ego’s at the door, we are about teaching, not learning. When we fail to fully integrate students in their individual learning processes, we are about teaching, not learning. When we claim the attitude “My job is to teach, their job is to learn.” we are about teaching, not learning. When we verbalize to our colleagues  “ Hey, I taught it, they should have learned  it”, we are about teaching, not learning.  

On the other hand, it provides me a solid vision of the kind of learning experience I want to create for my students each and every day. Phrases like “career and college ready” get thrown around often without enough discussion or agreement on what that truly means for our students. Is it my job to prepare kids for the current world? Or is it my job to prepare them to be mature learners for a world that hasn’t yet materialized. Statistics abound that support the fact that we are indeed preparing our students for jobs that do not currently exist and a world we as adults can hardly envision. It’s not enough to differentiate or even individualize.

There is one universal truth, all learning is personal.

Anything less is just teaching.

Make your classroom more like Wawa

Those of us who live in eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey love our Wawa. For those of you who have never been to a Wawa, it’s like a 7-eleven, Sheetz or any convenience store/gas station... only better (in my opinion).  For more about Wawa’s business model, read here.  Although you can get just about anything you want to eat at a Wawa, they are especially known for their hoagies. If you don’t know what a hoagie is, check out this map, as you probably call it something else.

After returning from a recent trip to Florida where they only have a handful of Wawa’s, we stopped and got a hoagie for lunch. The process for ordering a hoagie at Wawa (or just about anything else made fresh) involves walking up to a touch screen and selecting a multitude of options. Do you want your whole hoagie toasted or just the roll?  How big of a hoagie do you want?  What kind of meat? What kind of cheese(s) do you want to add?  Do you want to add bacon? (ummm, yeah) What kind of condiments do you want on your hoagie (there are about 50)?   Do you want vegetables (there are about 30)? You get the point. Each hoagie is customizable and individualized as the customer wants it.

When Wawa first started using the touch screen technology years ago, no one taught me how to use the touch-screen. I walked right up and started to hit buttons. Occasionally, I would make a mistake and have to go back and make a change to my order. I learned how to use the technology to get exactly what I wanted in a hoagie. For those who are uncomfortable using the touch screen, there are pre-made hoagies and sandwiches that are not as fresh and created based on the desire of the sandwich maker, not the customer. The hoagie makers probably do their best to guess what customers might want to buy, but when you walk into most Wawa’s, few customers buy these pre-made hoagies. They would rather order a hoagie their way and wait a few extra minutes to get it exactly they way they want it.

So why does a customer at a convenience store get more customization, choice, and individualization than the students in our classrooms and schools? Why are many of our students left with the “choice” of  a pre-made, one-size-fits-all education in which we,  the sandwich makers, determine the best type of hoagie for our students to eat.  One doesn’t need touch screen technology, laptops, or other “technologies” (although it helps to give more choices and options) to individualize learning. The truth is, learning should ALWAYS be about the learner, not the teacher.  Learning by nature,  is an individual act.  Our classrooms need to provide more choices, options, and decisions so that our students can make the best decisions for THEIR learning.

The yin and yang of connecting and dis-connecting.

I've been thinking a lot recently about how we communicate. Since the dawn of man, the role of the story and storytelling has been a key ingredient in communicating ideas, purposes, and events. And as man evolved from cave paintings to hand-written symbols to written language, technology has always amplified the ability of man to communicate. Whether it was the printing press, email, and now social media, mankind has always been driven by a will to tell their story.

So in this age of youtube, vine, twitter, facebook, and blogging, (along with a multitude of other social networks and web based platforms for storytelling)  are we considering whether the stories we tell have value? Are we considering the purpose of the stories we are unintentionally telling on a minute to minute basis?  Whenever we hit "post" or "tweet", we are creating new threads in our own personal story quilt. Whenever we send that video to youtube or respond to a blog post, we are adding to a socially constructed story as well. And I'm certainly not advocating that we stop doing any of this. I'm just wondering whether we are as morally and consciously aware that with each keystroke, we are not only adding content, we are adding new chapters to a book that has no end in sight.

As a connected adult who is constantly checking social media,email, and reading posts online, I am wondering whether this hyper-connectivity comes at a cost.  Recent studies like this and this have forced me to acknowledge my addictions. (They say the first step is admitting you have a problem).  Have we forsaken relationships in our physical location for relationships in the "cloud"?  If the answer to the ills of public education and learning comes down to relationships, we need to ensure that we are watering and fertilizing both kinds simultaneously.  And obviously, this has tremendous impact on our students personal and academic lives. Not only do we need to model connectivity and dis-connectivity, we need to have conversations about it as well.

I guess my internal struggle right now is about finding balance. It's about living and breathing in a world that increasingly demands us to be connected to learn and grow, while seeking moderation and bringing that learning back to deepen the relationships in our physical location. It's about picking up a good old fashioned book while also flipping through twitter and an rss feed to read the opinions of those I respect and admire (even when I disagree).  It's about putting the phone, tablet, and laptop away during a meeting. Not because the notes one can take from the meeting aren't important, but because the eye contact and deep conversation creates a  connection that is essential to change in our schools and classrooms.

Ironically, this blog post is being published while I lay on a beach in Maui. I'm not telling you that to make you jealous (ok, maybe a little bit), but I didn't write it while in Maui. I wrote it two weeks ago and set it to publish on its due date. I turned off my work email, left twitter (for the most part) behind, and disconnected my digital life to spend my honeymoon connecting with my wife.   Just as much as using technology to connect can reap great relationship rewards, disconnecting every once in awhile affords many amazing ones as well.

Aloha.