By the end of next month, one middle school campus will have a new computer lab with several media kits (including FLIP video camera, Olympus 210 digital audio recorder, Coolpix still image digital camera, and 10 microphones).
The effort is focused on providing equipment to a campus that lacks any kind of lab at all in anticipation of a saturday technology institute. The expectation for the campus is that all teachers go through LOTI Lead Teacher program, an online course. More technology is invested in those teachers, as each of them receive a Macbook, a digital projector, Adobe Digital Studio suite, and a media kit per grade level.
It will move one campus from obsolete hardware to the latest and greatest in a matter of 10 months, with 3 of those being summer. But a part of me is worried that this reality will raise it’s head:
Schools are enthusiastic about the technology’s promise, but short of the money and trained faculty to extract many of its benefits. . .In many schools, PCs have failed to aid students’ learning or improve test scores, or equip them with the analysis and communications skills that today’s workplace demands, according to studies.
The problems include a reliance on paper lesson plans that don’t factor in technology, and inadequate teacher training and technical support. Also at fault, say educators, is American classrooms’ occupation with teaching kids strategies for raising standardized test scores to meet provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act.That often leaves little room for creative extras.
Source: KTRE.com
Could a plan to address review and blending of tech into paper lesson plans, provide sustained professional learning for teachers, and dedicate technical support at the campus overcome the italicized concerns raised above?
I sure hope so…and is such a hope enough to justify the expense?
Subscribe to Around the Corner-MGuhlin.net
Be sure to visit the ShareMore! Wiki.
Discover more from Another Think Coming
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Another Think Coming 
By “paper lesson plan” I assume you mean a lesson plan that calls for student products to be done on paper rather than a product that incorporates the use of read/write web technology. I don’t see why a lesson plan couldn’t call for students to use Voice Thread to show how to do a math problem related to NCLB math objectives.
By “paper lesson plan” I assume you mean a lesson plan that calls for student products to be done on paper rather than a product that incorporates the use of read/write web technology. I don’t see why a lesson plan couldn’t call for students to use Voice Thread to show how to do a math problem related to NCLB math objectives.
The problem, Jim, is that paper lesson plans is all curriculum depts know how to do. While there are a few experimenting with VT and other R/W technologies, they are just experiments outside the realm of real use.And, the point the news article makes–the ones who made the point about paper lesson plans–is valid concern for us. You encourage teachers to try RWW, you model design of that work, you show them great examples of what people are actually doing in schools, but it’s not enough. Why? I think the answer may be that it’s about what the curriculum dept requires (by extension the State and Federal Government) not what is right.Miguel
The problem, Jim, is that paper lesson plans is all curriculum depts know how to do. While there are a few experimenting with VT and other R/W technologies, they are just experiments outside the realm of real use.And, the point the news article makes–the ones who made the point about paper lesson plans–is valid concern for us. You encourage teachers to try RWW, you model design of that work, you show them great examples of what people are actually doing in schools, but it’s not enough. Why? I think the answer may be that it’s about what the curriculum dept requires (by extension the State and Federal Government) not what is right.Miguel
Thanks for getting me on track. I agree that the 50 years of “inertia” driving the current curriculum is a major part of the problem. Then this outdated curriculum drives the creation of instructional material. (What happened to the curriculum spawned by Sputnik? Isn’t a “flat world” in terms of production jobs the current Sputnik?)For example, I look at my own teaching with frustration (probably due to learning from your blog along with Fryer’s). I really want to teach using semester-long themes and 8 to10 projects. (I have 8 lab stations and one computer.) To do this I would have to think up these projects in line with a theme and the “curriculum.” Then I would need to create rubrics for these projects followed by student instructions to get started on these projects. Then I will have to collect instructional materials, lab materials, and resources for students to learn the content necessary to create these projects. Reflecting on all that teaching through projects would require, I thought, “Why hasn’t the school district purchased materials so I could teach more effectively?” The answer to your “why” appears to be the “curriculum” and “state approved” materials. The time and creativity required by project-based learning is daunting and involves risk. Adding the use of technology to project-based learning may increase the risk for some teachers. Also, one must teach in new ways well the first time or keep one’s attempts hidden. This could be a second or third “why.”I hope to break out of this curriculum trap one project at a time or by putting up a good outline on a wiki with an accompanying Ning. With 12 like-minded teachers, I might just break free in one year. Then the material would be available to anyone brave enough to take the plunge. An answer may be wikis that present an alternative curriculum and instructional material, with Nings for support. Oh yeah, first teachers would have to see a wiki and Ning as a learning network for this to work. Another problem. Doing requires more than seeing. One shot professional development doesn’t work. Professional development must be on-going until the current curriculum is replaced.
Thanks for getting me on track. I agree that the 50 years of “inertia” driving the current curriculum is a major part of the problem. Then this outdated curriculum drives the creation of instructional material. (What happened to the curriculum spawned by Sputnik? Isn’t a “flat world” in terms of production jobs the current Sputnik?)For example, I look at my own teaching with frustration (probably due to learning from your blog along with Fryer’s). I really want to teach using semester-long themes and 8 to10 projects. (I have 8 lab stations and one computer.) To do this I would have to think up these projects in line with a theme and the “curriculum.” Then I would need to create rubrics for these projects followed by student instructions to get started on these projects. Then I will have to collect instructional materials, lab materials, and resources for students to learn the content necessary to create these projects. Reflecting on all that teaching through projects would require, I thought, “Why hasn’t the school district purchased materials so I could teach more effectively?” The answer to your “why” appears to be the “curriculum” and “state approved” materials. The time and creativity required by project-based learning is daunting and involves risk. Adding the use of technology to project-based learning may increase the risk for some teachers. Also, one must teach in new ways well the first time or keep one’s attempts hidden. This could be a second or third “why.”I hope to break out of this curriculum trap one project at a time or by putting up a good outline on a wiki with an accompanying Ning. With 12 like-minded teachers, I might just break free in one year. Then the material would be available to anyone brave enough to take the plunge. An answer may be wikis that present an alternative curriculum and instructional material, with Nings for support. Oh yeah, first teachers would have to see a wiki and Ning as a learning network for this to work. Another problem. Doing requires more than seeing. One shot professional development doesn’t work. Professional development must be on-going until the current curriculum is replaced.