Friday, I completed seven and a half days of intensive learning at Carnegie Mellon University.  I have to say, that I really like the condensed format of instruction, especially as a working teacher.  I can get an entire 3 credit course done in two weeks.  It is exhausting.  But in the end, I come out with more than I expected to get in that time, every time.  The course was: The Principal's Role in Instructional Technology.  But it was really more than that, it turned into an exercise in defining my personal vision of technology in education.  

The format of the course was entirely non-traditional in the fact that it was personalized - inquiry based learning.  It was difficult to grapple with as a student from a traditional background, and if I had to do it over again I would prefer to use a more disciplined-inquiry based course.  I would have set concrete goals for my learning outcomes and focused my own research, questioning, and thinking along these lines.  On reflection, I could have done this myself and held myself accountable.  In fact, to some extent, I do (and did) this in an informal way.  I accept that as part of my own programming, I still expect a university course to be highly structured, with expected deliverable on a fixed time line.  I suppose if I had been more trusting I would not have stressed about having some kind of surprise at the end.   

This minor criticism aside, I experienced a great deal during the two weeks.  The fact that the class consisted of five students made the discussions a major part of the learning process.  Several times we chewed on topics, from the way that Google is changing our reading (and thus thinking) style to the difference between our own personal time-management styles (and some dangerous talk about the differences between men and women's brains - time-management-wise).

(The following two sections were lengthy enough to break out into their own posts.)

PA CYBER CHARTER VISIT REFLECTION

QV SCHOOL VISIT REFLECTION

On Thursday, we had basically the entire day to work on whatever learning targets that we set for ourselves.  I chose to hone my personal vision for technology integration in education, and work on organizing my academic e-portfolio for my program.   I also spent some time digesting the learning experiences from two days spent outside the classroom (see above) 

As part of my own learning I am reading Made to Stick, by Chip and Dan Heath.  I'll blog later when I'm done, right now I've churned out about three chapters (I'll miss riding the bus to class!)  The basic message is about how to make an idea 'sticky.'  The acronym SUCCESs (Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional and Stories) describes the six elements of a an idea or message with the potential to stick. Part of my challenge was taking my 'vision' statement sticky.  I first decided that my vision had to be a living document, capable of change, nothing that could be tied down, or completed in these few days.  As I poured my thoughts into a Google Doc, second guessed, questioned, reflected and discussed my notes and thoughts, I realized that my vision is less about technology, and more about change.  The shift in mindset needs to be from resisting change, to looking at (and teaching) the skill of becoming nimble educators, embracing the positives that come with change, and acknowledging the risks.  Most of all, when change suits our curricular goals, it should be called for from below, instead of forced down from the top.  Eventually, I hope that the scare quotes are dropped from "technology" and these tools become integrated into the teaching and learning process. 

(dragged in from Zotero)

   Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2007). Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die (1st ed., p. 291). New York: Random House.

Finally, I had an opportunity to experience a professional-grade teleconference first-hand.  We spoke with a program alumna, Madell Dobrushin, retired from 35 years in the Pittsburgh Public School System and now, director of distance learning in the large school district of Richland One in South Carolina.  First, it was very cool to use the teleconference, even though we had a small portable unit, not a big screen like in the movies.  Better still was the chance to discuss a leader's career path, challenges, vision and goals.  Hopefully she will be able to put me in touch with a German teacher in her district for some exciting use of teleconference this year.

Wednesday, we visited Quaker Valley School District's Osbourne Middle School.  We started with a discussion of the organizational structure of the (sort of) non-profit NNDS and its charter school, including the cyber school, to flesh out our understanding of the previous day's visit. Then we were briefed on the third round of the one-to-one initiative born of the PA Digital School District Initiative. (DSD) 

For the past eight years, and recently renewed for the coming four, the relatively small school district of Quaker Valley has creatively funded millions of dollars in their integration of technology into the curriculum.  Originally a third through twelfth grade initiative, scaled back to high school only in the second round, and so missed by the middle level teachers (imagine! Teachers clamoring for more!) that it was recently reinstated in the new lease of equipment.  

Joe Marrone, a leader at QV can take much of the credit for guiding the district from the unenviable status as one of the least connected, and old-fashioned districts in the state, to a clear leader in technology integration in only twelve years.  Joe will be the first to tell you that it comes from strong political support with the school board, collaboration with the right people both in the school and in the community, and the guiding vision that it is not about technology, but every decision is a curriculum decision.  His programs have been so successful because his teachers, administrators understand, that the technology is only a part of the teaching and learning process.  With this mindset, new technology additions are not cumbersome, or unwanted, but they add to the experience of teacher and student.  What a change from the environments that many of us find ourselves in.  

Joe gave me an insight about what it means to be an upper level administrator, that I've never seen before.  Partly because QV is such a small district, Joe has taken on many different roles that would normally be undertaken by several individuals.  I've never met someone so knowledgeable about so many different systems.  He is a driving force behind the instructional technology integration that QV is so well known for, but not only that.  He had encyclopedic knowledge of each building, from the networks, HVAC, number of cabinets in each room, the type of rubber used on the steps, the manufacturing process used to cut stenciled circles in the carpet, the lighting, security, configuration of the large group instructional areas, knew the custodians by name, the various lawsuits that have occurred, and on and on.  It highlighted for me the importance of teamwork, where in a larger district these tasks would be in the minds of several different leaders.  It is vital that a district get people on board who can communicate with one another, and the community when appropriate.  Part of the reason that QV was so impressive was the interconnectedness of each decision.  I left wondering whether the district would have been so successful without a leader capable of understanding such a diverse set of responsibilities.

On Tuesday of this week we visited the PA CYBER CHARTER school and were guided around the facilities of the Cyber Charter and the Lincoln Park School for Perfoming Arts.  Ron Young spend over two hours with us, taking us through the buildings, encouraging us to ask questions of a very accomodating staff, and sharing, quite frankly, with us some of the challenges and stumbling blocks that they have faced, and continue to face today.  For me, this was my first encounter with a Cyber school, or a Charter school in general, and I creit this time with changing my entire view on the subject.  Before we trekked out to Midland, PA, my only experience with charter schools was what I have read in the paper since Governor Ridge started down the road to school choice for Pennsylvanian students.

Prior to my visit to the Cyber Charter and Performing Arts Charter, my understanding was that traditional public schools opposed charters because they took students from the public schools, and the money followed the child to their new school.  While this is true in a sense, I did see what is made possible by creating specialized schools that fill a niche, without requiring students to attend expensive private programs.  And, there is clearly a need for the PA Cyber Charter school in PA (and the parent non-profit runs several schools in different states and indian reservations too.)  This year they estimate that 8,000 students will be enrolled in the program.  Enough to fill ten 800 student k-12 academies.  They had to extend the enrollment period this year by a month to acommodate the number of student applying to the cyber charter.  The school administrators will be the first to tell you that online school is not for every child.  In fact, they estimate that they lose 10% of students each year, not including graduation.  What challenges do they face?  Lots!  All educators acknowlege that school change is hard, slow, and is routinely fought from within the ranks.  In this case this revolutionary force in education is fought from all angles.  School leaders from our 512 districts percieve the loss of funds from their coffers as highway robbery. (though our guide explained that the state can reimburse up to 60% of this cost back to the schools. I haven't looked into that more closely.  State legislators are trying to change the charter school legislation to limit this expenditure to $3000 per student each year.  Clearly this is a measure to choke the cyber schools out of existence.  Whatever the outcome of the fight in the short and medium term, I hope that as a technology leader, I will be able to find the means to put aside the differences and take the best of traditional public education and take advantage of the ground that these courageous leaders have broken. 

In terms of the Blogosphere I'm about a month late in writing about the Nicholas Carr article in the June/July edition of The Atlantic Monthly: Is Google Making us Stupid?  — I had read the blog posts about the article, but never quite made it to the article itself, until we decided in our course to devote twenty minutes to the article and discuss the impact.  My initial thoughts, from what I had gathered about the writing were skeptical at best.  The title is obviously meant to be attention getting, and I almost dismissed the concept outright.  But I dragged myself through the article, at times in agreement and at others with questions remaining.  All the time with the focus on the role that this play in the instructional technology field. 

The main thing that I took away from the article is a recognition of the fact that technology (in this case web-based media) is changing the way we think.  Or at least the way we use information.  Carr writes that before he started using the web he could read deeply into a book or article and today feels that "after two or three pages his mind begins to drift . . . as if I'm always dragging my wayward brain back to the text."  And to think I thought I had Adult ADHD - in fact, everyone else in my class (five guys) seemed to agree with this.  

A classmate made the analogy of Cable Television — There is so much out there, but you sit with the remote in your hand surfing through what you want to watch.  It's not just reading, and we have been doing it for years.  I do it with the letters "J" and "K" — google reader lets me 'read' hundreds of blog posts daily.  Am I really reading?  Of course not, I'm reading "horizontally" as Carr quotes from the UK educational consortium study: "New forms of “reading” are emerging as users “power browse” horizontally through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins."  As more and more content becomes available I find may way through the content I want, or that benefits my goals.  Some of the more biased commenters in the article implied that this change in depth meant a lower level thinking.  I would contest, that through my network, I wind my way to different types of text, follow the threads of discussion to new material, enriching, not limiting my reading (viewing, listening, analyzing, etc.) 

Well, it seems that I am now multitasking to the extreme.  I should stop writing, and pay attention to class.  I'm not done thinking about this though.  

Today I spent seven hours in a conference room being trained on the new LMS that my school is in the process of adopting.  Blendedschools.net is a not for profit in Pennsylvania that provides a suite of hosted services, along with 'pre-developed' curricula that, according the the sales pitch can be dropped in, tweaked and used for teaching.  

I went into the training trying to keep an open mind, since I had been pushing (though perhaps not hard enough) to get the administration to look at Moodle, and using the money we saved for a comprehensive, and ongoing professional development scheme.  I think that at the end of the day, the draw for my school was the inclusion of pre-designed content packets, and ostensibly some sort of resource sharing mechanism (which I think is awesome, in theory.)

My initial impression of Blackboard is that it is not quite as bad as I feared my experience would be.  The system is enhanced with the inclusion of several 'learning objects' - a blog, wiki module, etc.  

While I'm still getting to know the ins and outs of the instructor view, I'll refrain from making any broad judgments.  I'll leave that for another post.  It is different than what I was used to from my year's experience with moodle, but whether one is better than the other remains to be seen. 

 I did muse over this article, found on Doug Belshaw's shared google reader items:  How to talk to non-tech savvy clients.

 Our trainer today was nice enough, but I couldn't help but get frustrated at the way that parts of  the training went.  Our group was small, and consisted of a mix of highly technology literate teachers, to those that were unfamiliar with the mechanics of running any kind of content management system.  I think his main failing was not asking anything about what we already knew how to do.  There was the standard introduce yourself, and tell your experiences, but it seemed that he didn't listen.  In fact, that may have been the heart of the entire experience.  Not listening to what we were saying, especially after asking.  The Freelaceswitch.com post I linked above suggests - subpoints are my thoughts: 

• Fish for an estimate of their expertise
• AND then  use that information — differentiate if you have to!
• Don't underestimate their knowledge
• Even if the baseline for previous knowledge is pretty low, never talk to an audience like they are fourth graders. 
• Keep it simple and slow
• This goes without saying.  But at the same time keep things moving.  I'll give you all a minute to wrap your minds around that contradiction. 
• Talk in terms of results
• Not just what you do, but what you will end up with AND how it will benefit.
• Pause or ask for questions
• Use familiar references
• Be honest
• You have to compartmentalize the trainer from the salesman.  This is tough to do, but if you set expectations to high, and mask the limitations of your product, then you are setting people up to be disappointed in it. 
• Conclusion

One day, as my career moves forward, I may find myself in this very position.  I'm interested in becoming more involved, and being a presenter in the area of technology integration.  What am I learning from each experience that I have?