cc licensed ( BY ) flickr photo shared by robertstinnett
We are currently working on creating a document for our school division on our “Educational Technology” portion of the education plan. As I have looked at different documents, including this one from Alberta Education, I have been struggling with the generic phrases that have been used. Here is the statement on the outcomes for “digital and technological fluency” from Alberta Education:
Alberta students competently use information and communication technologies as tools in a variety of digital environments and media. Students access information from a variety of sources to learn individually or with others, to communicate, to come to new understandings, to inform problem solving, and support decision making. They are aware of current and emerging information and communication technologies and choose with confidence the appropriate technology for a defined purpose. Students can access, understand and manipulate digital information creatively and effectively for learning, for communication and for sharing and creation. They use technology critically and safely, and in an ethically responsible manner.
I think this is a great goal but I am wondering if you put 20 people in a room and asked them how they would do this, would you receive 20 different answers?
From that viewpoint, I then saw the ‘Technology Integration Matrix’ from the Arizona K-12 Center. This gave different goals, broke them down into steps, and then also provided exemplars in each area. When you provide examples like this, do we often kill the creativity of our teachers and students by giving them a preconceived notion of what good teaching and learning looks like? In this article on creativity, the author notes that our prior knowledge can sometimes inhibit our own opportunities for innovation:
“Perhaps the most important entry on Michalko’s list is his last point, that “creativity is paradoxical.” Schools are places where students are supposed to acquire knowledge—but to create, a person must “forget the knowledge.” If you’re not able to leave what you think you know behind, you can’t approach problems with a fresh perspective. Students must also be taught to “desire success but embrace failure,” and to “listen to experts but know how to disregard them.” Liz Dwyer
So where is the balance? How do we ensure that all of our students get the same opportunities no matter what school they attend, while also ensuring that our teachers have the autonomy to be innovative in their teaching practices? If you were to create a plan to support teachers and provide a vision for a preferred future, how would you go about it? Your thoughts would be appreciated.
I have read all the documents you posted today with great interest and wondered what the motivation behind them was! Working with districts on creating visions can be difficult – as you noted above. If you look at the one from Alberta Education – it might solicit 20 different answers from people about what that would look like, but is that a bad thing? A vision should be for something out in the future – and who knows what will change and emerge in between the time the vision was written and then revisited? You want a vision – not a goal.
On the other hand the matrix – which I love and can't thank you enough for sharing – shows what it might "look like" with consistent language everyone can refer to and with example to illustrate the terms. I don't think that this will necessarily stifle creativity – but rather, allow everyone to do an assets inventory of where they are and where they want to be. Change is hard – to show what it might look like and help everyone grow in the same direction can be powerful. Eventually – as you learn more and as the matrix is put to use, it would have to evolve the closer that people come to the "top" of the matrix.
Interestingly enough, here in BC, we are grappling with the same issue. Our technology standards are from 1999, and while many of the standards are still current, some of them are hopelessly out date.
Maybe we should all collaborate? What would a national set of standards look like? Would that be so incredibly ambiguous so as to be useless?
George
I have had some experience with the visioning process. One strategy that was particularly effective was using an "appreciative inquiry" model. Stakeholders were asked to focus what was working rather than what wasn't. Unpacking the positive response was very enlightening. Stakeholders were also asked be extremely specific in their responses. At the end of the process, a detailed vision story was created. If you want more details feel free DM me via twitter (I did most of this research as part of my post grad work).
Why not just: teaching kids how to think? Our new Director of Communications would be proud. Short, sweet, and to the point. And the average person gets what you mean.
George, thank you for sharing your thoughts and your own dilemma about knowledge and helping come up with the “what does that mean” answer.
I’ve been grappling with wanting to give enough information to get the conversation started but not so much that the answer is already given. I do like the idea that David provides and think that it allows for more freedom of expression without fear of the “right answer”. What would I have done differently? Sometimes it takes a whole lotta self control to “let it happen”.
I’ve made it a goal this year to allow more things to just happen rather than take the approach of “leading to water”. I’m finding it’s a lot more fun and unconventional. In the process it’s the students that finds their own meaning and I’m fine with that!