Engaged Learner Class Response 4: Impact of Interactive Whiteboards

Student Engagement, Visual Learning and Technology:  Can Interactive Whiteboards Help?
William D. Beeland, Jr.
http://www.prometheanworld.com/uk/upload/pdf/student_engagement.pdf

At our last session of our Engaged Learning class for Media 21, our discussion centered around whether or not interactive whiteboards make a difference in creating engaged learners.  We seemed to come a consensus as a group that these tools are like any other piece of technology—training and teacher philosophy/pedagogy can play a significant role in how effectively the teacher uses the tool, and consequently, how effectively the tool may engage the student learner. 

In an informal survey of one department at my school, the teachers indicated that they felt the SmartBoard was a helpful tool for engagement, but like anything else, it could lose its effectiveness if overused.  Teachers expressed varying degrees of satisfaction with its effectiveness for engagement.  One teacher whose board is not mounted shared a great deal of frustration, stating the board could really not be used effectively until it was mounted and one of a more appropriate size for the classroom where it is housed was found. 

I think that training is crucial in order for teachers to use SmartBoards effectively.  While many of our staff members have had the basic training, few have taken anything beyond the “starter class” offered by our ITS to learn strategies and to see concrete examples of how to use the SmartBoard for more than lecture notes, announcements, and PowerPoints.   We don’t have many Teach 21 teachers yet at our school, so perhaps our administration could consider requiring teachers to attend a SmartBoard class that focused on resources for getting lessons…something beyond the “starter” version that most teachers have already taken.   I don’t think we have yet tapped into the “interactive” potential of our SmartBoards as a whole just yet on our campus. 

This may already be in existence, but what if a Wiki or shared drive were available to all high school teachers in each subject across the district that had existing lessons?  For example, someone at Cherokee High may have a fabulous SmartBoard based lesson on persuasive writing strategies or direct objects.  If the lesson were available to all other English teachers, then perhaps teachers might feel more at ease using the SmartBoard and would feel empowered to have these resources readily available rather than inventing all new lessons from scratch. 

This last class has inspired me to develop a page of SmartBoard resources; I plan to enlist the assistance of our great ITS and IT at my school to help me create a resource page for our faculty.  Ruth and I personally are extremely excited about the prospect of us getting a SmartBoard for our library lab—already, we are thinking about how we could use it to improve our instruction on NoodleTools and database skills mini-lessons…we definitely want to make those more hands-on and interactive for our students!   This is one tool I cannot wait to have in our library, and I think it will be the “next big thing” as far as equipment to help us teach more effectively in the library!

Engaged Learning Class Session 3 Reflections: Schools of the Future

After listening to each group’s responses to our discussion questions (“Would you want to be a part/teach at this school?”) last Tuesday night, it struck me that so many answers hinged on “test scores” and “how will they will be evaluated?.  For many people, NCLB and the emphasis on standardized testing played a key role as to whether or not they wanted to be part of a school like the Philadelphia “School of the Future.”  Our discussion was a mirror of the fearful and tense climate that has been created by NCLB; what troubles me most about The Age of NCLB is that the focus is on test scores (out of necessity, I understand) rather than what students are really learning.  Not one person said they wanted to be a part of the school or did not want to be a part of the school because of his/her philosophy of education and what he/she believed about teaching/learning.  Instead, most everyone (whatever role the group took on:  teacher, student, administrator, taxpayer) seemed to circle back to the questions of evaluation and assessment. 

When I first began teaching, everything seemed to revolve around one’s philosophy of education and teaching/learning; now, it seems irrelevant because NCLB dictates the dominant “philosophy”:  produce test scores that meet or exceed the expectations of the state department or whoever it is that sets the testing bar in any given year.   Please note I am not being critical of any individual—I am just noting my observations of the responses.I think a strong argument can be made that the testing frenzy of recent years has actually limited student achievement rather than raising the amount and depth of learning because teachers feel compelled to focus on standards and benchmarks that are emphasized on the standardized tests. 

I say all this because I see NCLB as a key obstacle to teachers embracing strategies that will engage today’s learners and a learning environment that values inquiry-driven project based learning.   While all of us had some legitimate and valid concerns about the approach of the Philadelphia Schools of the Future, I think the majority of us are hungry for a public education system that looks different from the one we know all too well.    I believe it would be rash to embrace one particular model for the school of the future that really is the school of the here and now; instead, I think we have to “think outside the box” and explore many models that will offer something for the diverse learners who trod our halls.    We don’t have to throw out the “things” that work to infuse new methods and strategies.   Do I believe the Philadelphia model is “the answer”?  No—in my opinion, there were too many non-technology aspects of education missing (fine arts, actual books to name the two that struck me immediately), but I do believe there are “pearls of wisdom” to be gleaned from what this school is doing.

What are barriers to change, though?  If we all agree that public education must change, what is stopping us?

1.  Politics—like it or not, public education is political.  I wish someone had told me that as an undergraduate student.  UGA did a much better job of opening frank discussions about how political agendas impact public education in ways that are insidious and frankly, somewhat frightening!  For better or worse, politics play a major role in what is taught, how it is taught, and to whom it is taught.

2.  Reluctance to step outside our comfort zone:   John Dewey may be long dead and gone, but there is still wisdom in his words from Experience and Education:  “It is easier to walk in the paths that have been beaten than it is, after taking a new point of view, to work out what is practically involved in the new point of view” (30).

3.  Change comes slowly.  Revolution does not happen overnight.  Developing a pedagogy that is liberating, not oppressive (read Paulo Freire if you don’t believe people are oppressed by educational systems) will take time.  Unfortunately, I believe we are running out of time to make changes that are needed to make our public education system more relevant, meaningful, authentic, equitable, and fruitful to all learners. 

I have probably oversimplified these obstacles, but those are the three that stand out to me.

So what does School 2.0 (and beyond) look like?  What roles do school media centers play in School 2.0?

First, I love Kristine’s post about the Future of Learning Manifesto!  This is a witty, sharp, and insightful look at today’s learners and a vision of the future of learning.  It is a “must read” if you have not seen it!

Secondly, check out Joyce Valenza’s blog post, “Shift Happened:  The Librarian Divide”; I think the same can be applied to teachers who don’t get that tapping into technology is not an option; it is essential.  While the goodies are definitely a carrot for most teachers to enroll in Teach 21, I see Teach 21 (and Media 21) as a means to help the 1.0 folks move to 2.0, and those are who are 2.0 to kick it up a notch to whatever comes beyond 2.0.   

Since Kristine got me thinking about manifestos, I remembered Joyce Valenza (the queen of school library media specialists) came up with a manifesto for 21st century teacher-librarians.  Since I am in Media 21, I thought it would be fun to revisit her manifesto and consider how I am applying it in my work and to think about how Media 21 can help me better implement some of the key elements of this manifesto.  You can view the manifesto in one of several ways:

• View it on the Information Fluency Wiki
• Listen to Joyce’s podcast on her 21st century librarian manifesto
• View it on her SLJ blog in chunks:  Part 1, Part 2
• Here is another manifesto:  Library 2.0 Manifesto
• Not a manifesto, but a group blog:  Designing Better Libraries
• Take a look at this Librarian 2.0 Manifesto from Teacher Tube

PostScript

• It occurs to me that the very challenges of creating an engaged learning environment are similar to challenges we discussed in my READ 8300 “Inquiry Based Literacy” class I took Fall 2002 at UGA.  Although this class was for language and literacy educators, I think the issues are strikingly similar….take a peek at my notes from one of our group discussions.  This postscript might be especially relevant since my professor, Dr. Bob Fecho, taught in inner city Philadelphia (high school English) for nearly 25 years. 
• For more on Paulo Freire,  see this link or read my reactions and musings on Freire.
• Why are you doing this?   I asked myself this as a teacher back in 2002, and I have been asking myself this question as a librarian since 2006. This is a question I think about a lot as I try to break the “status quo” of being a high school librarian.  How can the library be an alternate site of literacy?  How do we, in the words of Kristine Woods, “burst the bubble” of what people perceive about “traditional” library media programs in the high school?  How do we disrupt tradition and harness technology to create a new model of inquiry and learning with the high school media center at the heart of this brave new world of School 2.0?
• These postscript “musings” are here because I do believe inquiry and taking a critical (as in critical theory, not “dissin’”) stance are essential to Learning 2.0 and School 2.0.

Moral of This Post:  No one ever said being a pioneer was easy!   

Engaged Learner Class 2 Reflections: Prensky

Reactions and Reflections:  Prensky

In Class 2, I was part of the group that read “Engage Me or Enrage Me” by Marc Prensky.  Our group agreed that teachers must be open to new strategies for engaging today’s students, but we disagreed with his premise that games are the “magic bullet” for helping students see the relevance of school.    I do believe that we must tap into 21st century technology tools in today’s classrooms, but the use of those tools still must be underpinned by sound and effective pedagogy.   Anyone who has worked with me will tell you that I embrace technology as much as anyone.  At the same time, I firmly believe that technology in and of itself will not guarantee engaged learning, but technology can be a tool that can scaffold engaged learning.   The key is that we as teachers must not be afraid to use it in meaningful ways to help students be more productive and to think more critically.  Too many educators use technology as another means for information regurgitation. 

The article led to a larger discussion of the challenges of teaching in today’s “instant gratification” society:  today’s teachers certainly try to make learning as fun as possible, but the reality is that learning is not always easy or fun.   We have to help students learn how to work through challenging learning tasks; I believe the pride and satisfaction a student can feel when he/she successfully overcomes a learning challenge will result in intrinsic motivation that will lead to lifelong learning skills.   Learning is an attitude and way of life.

Three elements of the article really bothered me:

1.  I felt Prensky (as did others) made too many broad assumptions.  For instance, he assumes that all of today’s students are wired and love being wired.  I know from experience as a librarian and an English teacher that this is not the case for all students.  I also think he is dead wrong when he assumes that people who went to school before the “digital age” did not have engaging or rich learning experiences.   My childhood was one of imagination fueled by everyday objects, books, and music—I honestly don’t think technology would have enriched my learning experiences as a child any better except that I could have had even more access to reading materials.  Books, though, were the fabric of my life and profoundly shaped who I am, what I know, and how I think (and continue to grow) today.

2.  I did not like the “binary” way of thinking that Prensky established in his article. 

3.  Prensky’s implication that something must be fun to be engaging.

Here are two additional resources I found that will give us more food for thought about Prensky’s article:

• Chris Lehman’s blog post in response to “Engage Me or Enrage Me”
• Jamie McKenzie’s article, “Digital Nativism:  Digital Delusions and Digital Deprivation” (November 2007)

LOTI

I took my LOTI survey as a “media specialist/instructional technology specialist.”  Throughout the survey, I frequently felt confused because the wording of the questions continually asked me about “my staff.”  I felt I was supposed to answer the questions based on what the teachers at my school are doing, but the questions were difficult to answer because I wanted to answer based on what I am doing or would do if I had a greater role in collaborating with our classroom teachers on unit design.  As a result, I felt my LOTI scores did not accurately reflect my personal practices.  Two other media specialists in my group also encountered the same challenge in answering their surveys.

The three of us then discussed this question:  “How do we help teachers design units and use technology in ways that reflect a higher skill and integration level on the LOTI scale?”  As media specialists, we walk a fine line of trying to be instructional and technology leaders for our teachers while not imposing on the classroom teacher’s space and right to make instructional design decisions.  Sometimes it is really difficult to collaborate when you see that the research assignment is not tapping into higher level thinking skills—you try to nudge the teacher to come up with a learning product that requires the higher ends of Bloom’s taxonomy, but if the teacher resists, you have to respect that teacher’s decision even if you disagree with it.  Did any other media specialists encounter these challenges with the LOTI, or do you face these challenges in your daily life as a librarian? 

One final thought about LOTI:  I do like how the survey and our class activities emphasize that “using” technology is NOT the same as “integrating” technology as a seamless tool of instruction.  I am looking forward to learning more about how we can integrate technology into our 21st century classrooms and libraries to improve student learning and engage not only our students but also ourselves as lifelong learners!

Article 1 Reflections: “Meaningful, Engaged Learning”

“Meaningful, Engaged Learning”
Reflection 1
December 4, 2007Buffy Hamilton  

Responsible for their own learning
engaged learning
Challenging, authentic, and multidisciplinary
engaged learning
Collaboration
engaged learning
Authentic
engaged learning
Problem-based learning integrated
engaged learning
Performance based assessment
engaged learning
Knowledge-building community
engaged learning
Diversity
engaged learning
Flexibility
engaged learning
Heterogeneous
engaged learning
Equity
engaged learning
Teacher=Facilitator, guide, learner
engaged learning
student=explorer, contributor to world’s knowledge, reflective learners
engaged learning 

What Stood Out to Me 

I think all of us would agree with this model of learning and this kind of paradigm that creates an environment that is conducive to engaged learning—these ideas have been around well before the 1994 study referenced in the article (just read anything by John Dewey).   Most teachers I know would embrace a learning environment that completely integrates these eight indicators. 

Yet how many classrooms around America actually implement this philosophical approach to teaching and learning?  What obstacles or barriers do teachers face in truly implementing this kind of classroom environment?  What additional scaffolding might be needed in this kind of environment for students who do not become from the socioeconomic backgrounds that are typically privileged in public school (see studies and research by Shirley B. Heath if you don’t believe that the home environment plays a vital role in HOW children learn and language development).  How do we tap into technology (as well as other teaching tools) to maximize engaged learning?   I think it is important to explore these questions so that we can effectively identify barriers to this kind of learning environment and overcome those obstacles.   

I also think it is important to talk about how we create this kind of environment for engaged learning because this kind of learning with these eight indicators takes time, can be messy (in a positive way), and requires teachers (and administrators) to “muck about” in inquiry.  In this day and age of standardized testing, a climate exists that makes many teachers feel as though they must use “traditional” methods of teaching to “cover” the standards.  As a media specialist (and a practicing English teacher at Polaris North), I see the struggle to create engaged learning while being mindful of the looming standardized tests in the background.  Certainly, we can do project based learning and not be compelled to “kill and drill” our students for those tests, but at the same time, you have to creatively build in some test prep so that students are familiar with the test format and test vocabulary—I do think we are doing our students a disservice if we don’t recognize that in some way. I do feel we can address multiple standards through engaged learning strategies and a paradigm that values the qualities of “the engaged classroom.” 

One of my challenges right now is helping our classroom teachers see how we as media specialists can support this kind of learning environment through collaboration.  As media specialists, we can help teachers design authentic tasks with a menu of choices that will appeal to a wide range of learning styles.   While teachers often think they don’t have time for research projects because they have to “cover the standards”, project based learning or research projects can actually help teachers address multiple Georgia Performance Standards.  Media specialists can help in the design of learning activities, creation of rubrics and assessment methods, the creation of research pathfinders and pooling of resources, and the selection of learning products or artifacts of learning that students create.  Media specialists are cognizant of the pressures classroom teachers feel, but we sometimes feel frustrated that we can’t teachers to collaborate with us and to help “open up” or “burst the bubble” of the perceived constraints created by the testing environment of NCLB.  I feel that media specialist are some of the most important and support advocates of “engaged learning” strategies and pedagogy, but it is sometimes hard for our voices to be heard by our teachers when the voices of other stakeholders, particularly those that privilege teaching to the test and drown out the voices that advocate authentic learning that goes above and beyond what these tests measure.

I hope that we can perhaps have some dialogue in our course about how teachers and media specialists can work together to create engaged learning environments and how the media center can be a great resource for teachers, especially those who are Teach 21 candidates.   References:

FUJIYOSHI, G., & TAN, S. (1999, January). Engaged learning using technology. Curriculum Administrator, 35(1), 39. Retrieved December 4, 2007, from Professional Development Collection database.