Aspects of Coaching

            Growing up, I always played sports.  We were a “sports family”, so naturally I was raised loving games and competition.  While deciding on a career path, I always made sure there was a way I would be able to coach as well.  In my first few years teaching, that is exactly what I did.  I was able to continue feeding my love for sports through coaching.  The best part, though, was the relationships I formed with my players.  Fourteen years later, I still miss them--after all, they were my first “kids”!  

            Throughout this semester we have been reading and learning about the instructional coaching process, and I have related the process to the sports world of coaching several times.  While the overall process seems to be related, there are some differences.  For one, while I was coaching sports, I was the authority figure on the field.  In the classroom, the coach is most often a peer.  The coaching relationship I am currently involved in is a teacher-initiated coaching system.  Marzano and Simms (2013) describe this type of relationship as a teacher who arranges to be coached by another teacher or administrator.  Personally, I feel this is often the best type of coaching relationship because, as Marzano and Simms (2013) state, the teacher is open to suggestions and changes—looking for them, even.     

          I am working with a teacher who wants to incorporate strategies in her classroom to increase her students’ performance and engagement, as well as, strengthen her instructional tool-belt.  This teacher and I have been friends and colleagues for the past six years.  I am familiar with her history, her role in the school, and her areas of strength.  She and I are easily able to have coach-teacher conversations as described in the text.  Up to this point, we have had “reflecting conversations” to identify behaviors and beliefs during instruction, and “facilitating conversations” to clarify her goals (Marzano & Simms, 2013).  As the teacher and I continue to work together, I do not foresee the need in having “coaching conversations” or “directing conversations” with the teacher.  She is willing to make changes as needed.  I would be willing to say her readiness for change is “high skill and high will”.  In other words, she has both the ability and motivation to learn and to change (Marzano & Simms, 2013). 

          The teacher’s willingness to learn encourages me to follow through with my part of the coaching relationship.  Marzano and Simms (2013) list three strategies as the main aspects of coaching behaviors.  These strategies are modeling, feedback, and trust.  During my initial observation, I was looking evidence of “chunking” and “movement”.  The teacher uses the same strategies I use, so rather than modeling a lesson, I chose a few problems to show differentiation in mathematical operations.  She and I meet regularly for me to provide “informal feedback” (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 218).  And as previously stated the teacher and I have a relationship outside of school, so trust is not an issue.  We spend time together professionally and socially, so our opinions, strategies, and suggestions are important to each other. 

          This instructional coaching relationship is different than my sports coaching relationships.  It is a parallel coaching rather than an authoritative coaching.  The relationships formed during each coaching situation are the key to success whether it take place on the field or in the classroom. In both situations, trust and a willingness to learn and change are imperative to the coaching process.

           

References

          Marzano, R. J. and Simms, J. A. (2013).  Coaching classroom instruction.  Indiana: Marzano Research Labratory.

   

The Coaching Continuum

           Coaches and players have a unique relationship—it is one based on trust and mutual respect.  The coach guides, leads, and teaches their players.  The players listen, learn, and perform the behaviors and actions encouraged by their coach.  The same type of relationship is true of instructional coaches and teachers.

            First of all, the teacher must recognize and admit that they need to grow.  Then, they must be able to trust the coach, their mentor, with this information—not everyone is comfortable with verbalizing their weaknesses.  The coach must respect the teacher, and their honesty and feelings regarding improving their delivery during instruction.  The coach should provide support and guidance as the teacher chooses a growth goal and begins implementing the strategy in the classroom.

            According to the text, Coaching Classroom Instruction (Marzano & Simms, 2013), the first step in an effective teacher-coach relationship is to “identify a specific classroom strategy and behavior that will be the focus of the interaction” (p.19).  The text includes a strategy for student engagement in the forty-one elements of effective teaching.  “Element 24: Noticing when students are not engaged “(p. 51).  The teacher must also understand the research and theory regarding their growth-goal.  Marzano and Simms provide research regarding this element stating that “engagement is associated with a 27-31 percentile gain in student achievement” (p. 49).  This being said, engagement is an important element of student instruction.
 

            Teachers can use technology-based instruction to increase student engagement in the classroom.  One study specifically looked at how educators engaged middle school students through the use of technology (Downes & Bishop, 2012).  Their research suggested that in order to engage students, educators must make a connection between their in-school and out-of-school lives.  Downes & Bishop propose the best way to make this connection is through integrating technology. 

            Using the coaching continuum, the coach and the teacher would first identify that engagement is an area, or element, of focus in the coaching relationship.  The coach would provide the teacher with the research regarding student engagement, and the teacher would try one of the strategies listed.  Some of the strategies listed for this element are “scanning the room, monitoring levels of attention, and measuring engagement” (p. 51).   Once the teacher implements the strategy/strategies while integrating technology, the coach will observe the teacher, and correct any errors.  Perhaps this may be in the way the teacher monitors the level(s) of student engagement.  The coach will then provide feedback, and help the teacher make the appropriate adjustments in instruction.  The teacher will continue to monitor the students to determine if the strategy is working—if using technology during instruction is increasing student engagement.  The coach will help the teacher monitor the effect(s) of the strategy on the students.  As the teacher gains confidence in using the strategies to monitor student engagement, he/she is able to make adjustments based on student responses.  The teacher may eventually use several fluent strategies to create a macrostrategy, a set of instructional strategies, or an adaptation of strategies used to meet specific student needs. 

            The coaching continuum is a guideline of expectations for both the teacher and the instructional coach.  Using the continuum, the teacher is aware of the goal(s) they are trying to reach, and how the instructional coach can provide assistance throughout the process.     
   

References         

            Downes, J. M. and Bishop, P. (2012).  Educators engage digital natives and  learn from their experiences with technology: Integrating technology engages students in their learning.  Middle School Journal, 43(5), 6-15.         

            Marzano, R. J. and Simms, J. A. (2013).  Coaching classroom instruction.  Indiana:

Marzano Research Labratory.

Coaching in the Classroom

When we hear the word "coaching", most of us think of sports.  Let's face it. Here in the South we put a great deal of faith in our coaches!  Coaches are considered experts in their game.  They combine their knowledge and experience to teach their players strategies and methodologies to be the best.  The basic idea of coaching is the same for instructional coaches—“helping someone move from where he or she is to where he or she needs or wants to be” (Marzano & Simms, 2013, pg. 4).

I was introduced to instructional coaching about 9 years ago when I first entered the elementary classroom.  Prior to teaching at the elementary level, I had been teaching middle grades algebra.  The elementary school had a reading coach as part of the Alabama Reading Initiative.  Little did I know, the instructional coach was about to become my best friend.  I had never taught reading using a whole group/small group model--I had only been teaching math.  I needed help, and I needed it immediately!  

I had completed the ARI training, and I knew what curriculum and material needed to be taught, but I was not familiar with reading instructional strategies.  I needed to be able to transfer that knowledge to actual classroom implementation, and I was willing to learn how to do so. Marzano and Simms (2013) discuss these factors as being crucial to the coaching process.  Teachers must be willing to grow and change, and coaches must be able to guide teachers in the process of transferring information into practice.  

The coaching/teaching relationship should be seen as a partnership (Marzano & Simms, 2013, pg. 6).  The reading coach helped me design lessons using teaching strategies that were new to me.  We had an open relationship where I felt comfortable talking to her about my teaching practice--what was and was not working.  She provided feedback to help me determine the effectiveness of my instructional practices.  

Today, the reading coach is known as an instructional coach.  She continues to provide us with additional strategies and support for our struggling students in areas other than reading.  If approached correctly, the coaching/teaching relationship can be very beneficial to all instructional stakeholders.  Just think how well our students, and our schools, could perform if our teachers and instructional coaches received as much support as we provide our sports coaches! 

What Is Coaching? 

References

          Marzano, R. J. and Simms, J. A. (2013).  Coaching classroom instruction.  Indiana: Marzano Research Labratory.

So.....What Is Instructional Design?

          Good instructional design is preparing streamlined, engaging instruction appropriate for various learning styles.  In chapter 1, Larson and Lockee (2014) describe good instructional design as being dependent on the training itself, and how well the message is relayed to the learner—how well the learner relates to the material, and understands the material.  The way the learner relates and understands is dependent upon the learner’s learning style, and the method in which the message is presented.  Instructional designers must take several factors into consideration when developing instruction.  These factors include: occupation, socioeconomic status, learning style, prior knowledge and skills, learning disabilities, need for mobility, motivation, attitudes, and relationships.  The ADDIE model outline aids designers in accounting for learner needs when developing instruction.

            One aspect of instruction that designers should keep in mind is cognitive load theory.  Throughout my school career, there have been many times that I have felt my brain was too full—I just did not realize that was a real thing!   As discussed in chapter 10, cognitive overload is when the brain can only hold so much information.  Larson and Lockee (2014) explain that there are different levels to cognitive load.  Intrinsic load is the type and amount of mental processing used, extraneous load is the unnecessary aspects involved in instruction, and germane load is the “good stuff”—the information that can be used and is relevant to the learner.  There are steps instructional designers can take to make the most of the learner’s working memory.  To cope with intrinsic load, designers should organize material to help learner’s process information.   To avoid extraneous cognitive load, designers should eliminate excessive, unnecessary material.  To improve germane load, designers should use design principals to make information more meaningful to the learner (Larson and Lockee, 2014 pg. 81).

            The training I have developed for this course is designed to help elementary teachers incorporate STEM activities in their classroom instruction.  Many of the teachers have expressed an interest in learning more about implementing project-based learning.  I feel that STEM activities would be a good way to incorporate these types of activities in their classrooms.  The training incorporates various elements that allows them to stay busy, rather than just being talked to, and that they can also use in their classroom.  The training begins with a self-assessment quiz, “What Kind of Engineer Should You Be?”  Teachers can use this quiz to spark student motivation in the area of engineering, as well as learn more about their students.  The results could be used as a grouping method for future projects.  Following the quiz, we will briefly discuss the results and how they relate to each individual’s personality and/or learning style.  We will then watch a motivational video created by STEM students, and discuss why STEM activities are important based on information from related articles.  Participants will then share ideas to incorporate STEM activities in the classroom. 

Example STEM Activity

Art can also be included as an element of STEM activities, so we will incorporate STEAM.  Teachers will then complete a STEM team-building exercise that can also be used in their classroom.  We will discuss variations of the activity to make the activity grade-level/age appropriate.  Teachers will then watch an example of a STEM activity in a kindergarten classroom.  The training will conclude with access to resources including Pinterest boards with links to activities, and handouts of sample STEM classroom supply lists and STEM recording sheets.

            The STEM training has been developed to provide information in a streamlined manner, provide learners with an opportunity to be involved, and with materials and information that can be utilized immediately.  Trainings that “mix it up”—allow you to participate in a variety of activities—and provide you with sources to implement information immediately, incorporate elements of good instructional design.        

References

              Larson, M. and Lockee, B.B. (2014).  Streamlined id: A practical guide to instructional design.  New York: Routledge.

How Technology Affects Instructional Design

In just a few, short weeks most of us will be participating in our school district's Institute. For most of us Institute includes at least a two hour session of "sit and listen to people present powerpoints" to cover various trainings required by the State Department.  Now, don't misunderstand, I know these trainings are necessary, but they quite often are not examples of good instructional design.

Choosing the correct technology for instruction is an important part of the design process.  Larson and Lockee (2014) discuss the factors that influence technology decisions in instructional design in chapter 9.  These factors include technology that supports the instruction/learning, the learner's prior knowledge/motivation/capability, and addresses the desired learning outcome. 

The "Universal Precautions" training presentation is a great example to use when discussing these factors.  For one, the presentation is not always given by the person who designed the instruction.  So, the presenter sometimes finds themselves reading the material to us, which is in direct opposition to supporting the learner's motivation.  Another factor to consider is the learner's prior knowledge.  Most all of us have heard this material before--many, many times--so the material could be more tailored to the audience.  However, I would say that the Universal Precautions training does address the desired learning outcome--no one wants anyone to get sick.  

As teachers we are always looking for ways to motivate our students to learn, and to keep them engaged.  Recently, we have looked to technology to help us in these areas since our students are constantly using some type of device, and seem to be most motivated and engaged when using technology.  For about the past three years, our school has used a program called XtraMath as supplement for our daily math instruction.  We began using the program because we were looking for a way to track and document our students' math fact fluency.  Using this program is an excellent example of using technology during instruction.

Our students are to show fluency in math facts based on grade level.  Xtramath is web-based, so it can be completed on any device with Internet access--and students can even practice at home!  The program administers students with an initial test that determines their prior knowledge, and which facts they need to practice the most.  It is timed, so students are able to receive daily practice answering within the 3 second interval they will be required to meet during benchmark testing.  The program moves at the student's individual pace.  Once they have mastered an area, the program will move them on.  Best of all, teachers can print out a graph showing their progress over time. The media used during instruction should be in direct reflection of the performance context (Larson & Lockee, 2014). 

My students have enjoyed the program.  They can complete it during math centers, or when they finish their morning work.  They like being able to tell me, "Mrs. Sloan, I'm on subtraction!"  And I love it when they tell me because that means they completed addition, and they know their facts.  

References

            Larson, M. and Lockee, B.B. (2014).  Streamlined id: A practical guide to instructional design.  New York: Routledge.

*Image retrieved from Google Images http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6152/6153558098_9653fd714b.jpg

Ineffective Professional Development

            Just this summer, I attended a workshop with several other teachers from my school.  It was our understanding that we would be learning how to use a certain program within our reading instruction.  Saying that we were disappointed in the outcome of the workshop would be an understatement.  The program has been in our schools and/or system for quite some time so we were all familiar with the program, but we wanted more ideas and suggestions for incorporating the program during our small group instruction.  Instead we were given an EXTENSIVE background of the program and why it works.  I cannot begin to tell you how many times I heard “This is not what I thought it was going to be”. 

            What was the problem with the workshop?  First of all, we could all tell from her accent, and her inability to correctly pronounce names of towns in Alabama, that she was not from here.  There were definite cultural differences.  Larson and Lockee (2014) describe culture as “distinguished by shared language/jargon, history, traditions, and values” (pg. 60).  One of the examples the presenter gave us was a poem where we were asked to identify the people in the poem.  The poem insinuated that the writer had lost a parent, and it was up to us to decide if the parent had passed away or if they had simply left the child—in fact, that was a large part of her discussion prompting.  Despite the Southern stereotype that we are predominately rural, we do teach in a rural county, and many of our students have come from this type of situation where either one or both of their parents have left or died.  As stated in the text, we typically view things using “cultural lenses” (Larson and Lockee, 2014, pg.60), and as the South is often referred to as “the Bible Belt”, most cultures identify Southerners as having strong core values and moral beliefs.  Several of us agreed that this poem would not be appropriate for our students, and we would most likely not use this example.  

            The next problem we had with the workshop was that she kept splitting us up—which we HATE!  I understand why presenters often split their audience into groups.  It’s the same reason why we use this tactic with our students.  We use engagement strategies in order to “involve learners with interactive activities” (Larson and Lockee, 2014, pg. 157).  For some reason this seems to be one our least favorite things about workshops.  When we come in and find a seat, that’s where we want to stay.  We do not mind presenters using strategies such as “Think, Pair, Share” or “Reciprocal Teaching”.  We like to share and discuss ideas within a group, but not necessarily move from our seat.  I think our resistance to movement comes from the amount of stuff we typically have with us—bulky teacher editions, supplemental books, bags, pens, pencils, notebooks.  During workshops, we like to have our stuff spread out where we can work, and we do not like having to move around because we either have to pack it all up and take it with us or, we have to leave it altogether for a period of time. 

Watch an example of "Think, Pair, Share" in the classroom.

            And last, but certainly not least, we did not receive the information we wanted to know.  Larson and Lockee (2014) discuss analyzing content in chapter 5, and one of the aspects of this process is to identify prerequisite knowledge and skills.  Since the program was already in our schools, we had prerequisite knowledge of the program.  The workshop was designed more for novices than for practitioners, as the training focused on the background of the program, rather than implementation.  Although, I was able to take away some additional strategies that I will work towards implementing in my instruction, I would still like to have more ideas on how to implement the program itself. 

            Even though we did not necessarily like the workshop, there were some useful aspects.  We were given an opportunity to share ideas with other teachers in our county about strategies that are working in our classrooms.  We found a topic we would like to learn more about. We were able to provide our Instructional Coaches with additional training topics for the upcoming school year.  In the end, even a “bad” workshop can have positive outcomes. 

References

Larson, M. and Lockee, B.B. (2014).  Streamlined id: A practical guide to instructional              design.  New York: Routledge.

What is Instructional Design?

          While reading the first chapter of the text, Streamlined ID: A Practical Guide to Instructional Design (Larson and Lockee, 2014), I repeatedly found myself asking the same question--“What is Instructional Design?”  I’m a math person, so I like to have concrete answers for things.  I wanted a specific definition for “instructional design”.  As I continued to read the chapters, I was able to develop a sense of what an Instructional Designer does.  The truth is, as educators, we are essentially all instructional designers.  We design lessons for instruction every day!  I just never thought of “Instructional Designer” as one of our “titles”.

            So, what is the difference between an Instructional Designer and a teacher—why IS there a separate title?  In the text Foundations of Instructional Design by Smith and Tillman (n.d.), the authors discuss that classroom teachers are given a set of standards to teach their students during a course.  For the most part, we develop our own plans based on these standards.  As educators, we are consistently looking for activities to keep our students actively engaged in the lesson.  As discussed in Streamlined ID, our classroom students can be described as “digital natives”, learners who have grown up using technology.  These learners use technology in some fashion in their daily lives, and are comfortable using it (Larson and Lockee, 2014).   So when the necessary mediums or materials may not be available for teachers to use, such as technology, systematic planning is necessary to implement instruction (Smith and Tillman, n.d.). 

           
            One former teacher turned Instructional Designer writes a blog called "For the Love of Teaching".  In one article, "Teaching vs. Instructional Design" (Kidder, 2011), she describes the differences in the titles "Instructional Designer" and "teacher".  She explains that most Instructional Designers do not consider themselves teachers, and vice-versa, because most of them work in the corporate setting rather than a classroom.  The author discusses his confusion of why teachers are “eliminated from the equation” in the area of Instructional Design, and how an Instructional Designer cannot see him/herself as a teacher.  

            Given this example, perhaps Instructional Designers could be more identified as trainers and professional development instructors.  As I read the text, Streamlined ID, I noticed that most of the text referred to working with, or training, adults.  The authors emphasize that the designs of presentations must be sustainable, optimized, appropriately redundant, right-sized, and continuously improving (Larson and Lockee, 2014, pg. viii).  I agree that these elements of instructional design are important. 

            Personally, I can understand how developing instructional lessons for adults can be challenging.  First of all, your students are your peers.  You don’t want to be “that boring workshop that was never ending!”  I’ve actually sat in a workshop and said the words, “This is like dying a slow death.”  There is the pressure of not wasting their time, and of relaying meaningful information.  Larson and Lockee (2014) also discuss that the “streamlined” approach should “meet the needs of ID novices and practitioners in a variety of work settings” (pg. viii).   The differences in experience could range from someone who has been teaching for 20+ years who can make adjustments and differentiations to instruction without batting an eye, but are also “digital immigrants”, to the person who has been teaching for 1-3 years who is a “digital native” and more likely to be able to adjust instruction towards a technological based lesson effortlessly. 

            So to answer the original question, "What is the difference between an Instructional Designer and a teacher?" we refer back to Smith and Tillman’s definitions of training and teaching.  Training most often refers to “those instructional experiences that are focused upon individuals acquiring very specific skills that they will normally apply almost immediately”, and teaching most often refers to “learning experiences that are facilitated by a human being” (n.d. pg. 3).  Personally, I tend to agree with Kidder, the author of “Teaching vs. Instructional Design” (2011).  I believe Instructional Designers and teachers can be one in the same because each definition of “training” and “teaching” require the act of learning.   

References
  

Kidder, L. (2011).  Teaching vs. instructional design. Retrieved from                       
       https://lkidder.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/teaching-vs-instructional-design/.

Larson, M. and Lockee, B.B. (2014).  Streamlined id: A practical guide to instructional              design.  New York: Routledge.

Smith, P. L. and Tillman, J. R. (n.d.).  Instructional design (2^nd edition).  New York:                   Wiley. Retrieved from 
            http://steinhardtapps.es.its.nyu.edu/create/courses/2174/reading/smith_ragan_1_2.pdf

**Image retrieved from Google Images 

            http://annalizavillanuevaportfolio.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/9/0/29908095/72694_orig.jpg

Planning for Technology Implementation

There are factors that must be taken into consideration when planning for schools.  Schools and districts must plan for enrollment, faculty and staff, instruction, and for budgets.  I have discussed funding issues in previous posts, but funding is an issue that plagues schools on a daily basis.  Funding is one reason why many schools struggle to integrate technology during instruction.  Many schools would like to incorporate more technology into instruction, but they either cannot afford the devices or have no money left to properly train teachers after purchasing the devices.  One way schools can accommodate their students is through centralized facilities.

Centralized facilities can generally be referred to as "shared", and is an appropriate method for schools that have limited supply of equipment and/or trained staff (Picciano, 2011).  Many schools have centralized facilities in the form of a general computer lab.  Schools may either assign each class a designated time slot to use the lab, or teachers may sign-up for time to use the lab. Some schools may even have a combination of these methods.  As noted in the chapter 13 case study, some schools may even need to share the computer lab.  

In my experience, I have noticed that one of the issues with assigned computer lab time is that teachers do not use the lab as it is intended.  Why?  Teachers have not been prepared to use the lab for instruction efficiently.  Some teachers look at time in the lab as an additional prep, rather than a tool to extend their instruction.  So, how do we encourage teachers to use technology as an instructional tool? Perhaps we should look at decentralized facilities.

Emily Douglas defines the term "decentralized" as one authority figure that makes decisions at various levels (Douglas, 2013).  So, decentralized facilities can generally be referred to as using technology in the individual classroom, facilitated by the individual teacher.  Most teachers I know feel they fail their students in the area of technology in the decentralized facility.  Most classrooms these days have interactive whiteboards, but they are sometimes used as "supporting tools or fancy chalkboards" (Eteokleous, 2008).  Again, this is because they lack training in how to utilize technology and devices in the classroom.

Overall, teachers feel inadequate when it comes to decentralized and/or centralized technology usage because they require training that is not always available because of funding.  One of my colleagues suggested using eLearning as a way to provide teachers with professional development opportunities. This program is online and free for teachers, and they can complete PD courses customized to their individual needs at their own pace.  Picciano (2011) describes a combination of centralized and decentralized facilities in schools as being the "happy medium" depending on the amount of available equipment and technical training of the faculty.  This combination allows students access and exposure to 21st Century skills.

Watch the You Tube video above for a tutorial on how to create your own interactive whiteboard activities.

References

Douglas, E. (2013).  Centralized or decentralized?  That is the question.  Retrieved from 

          http://blogs.edweek.org/topschooljobs/k12_talent_manager/2013/06/centralized_or_

          decentralized.html 

Eteokleous, N. (2008).  Computers and education.  Retrieved from 

          www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131507000814

Picciano, A.G. (2011).  Educational Leadership and Planning for Technology (5th ed.,

          text). Boston: Pearson.  

Open Source Software: Is It the Best Option for Schools?

           Funding has been an issue for schools for as long as I can remember.  I come from a family of educators, so I have always heard talk of the woes of educational funding.  Although our society is engulfed in technology, and we are expected to use it in the classroom--forget the fact that we want to be able to use it during instruction--we still are not provided with the funding to make devices and programs readily available for our students.  Schools have to plan to use funding efficiently and effectively in order to make the most of the monies we do have budgeted for technology.  In some cases, this requires schools to be creative with their purchases.

            In chapter 10 of the text, Educational Leadership and Planning for Technology, Picciano (2011) describes many types of software programs available for schools.  He explains that there are two factors to consider when choosing software.  One factor is that application software developed by school district personnel can continue to be used years after its effective life cycle.  The other factor is that commercial software that has been purchased will eventually reach a point when it is no longer supported by the hardware as it is updated. This requires schools to make informed decisions regarding software purchases, as most schools cannot afford to update hardware and software at the same time.  One option for software programs is open source software (OSS).  

Open source software is often appealing to schools because it is free to use.  According to an article written by Techopedia Staff, open source software has a source code that is available for everyone to see.  It is not copyrighted, so it has an open source license which gives everyone the ability to share, modify, or distribute versions of the software.  The article goes on to say that most all companies—even Apple—have contributed to open source software simply because it has become expected from the consumers.  Many businesses have chosen to use open source software in order to reduce costs (Techopedia, 2012). 

An article posted on The Guardian website, described several advantages to using open source software in schools.  Although savings in cost is a major attraction to using OSS, another purpose for schools to use open source software is to have the ability to adapt the software to meet their own needs.  The services offer online technical support through forums, providing users with support.  The software can also provide schools with a virtual learning environment.  Using open source software could possibly even allow schools to cut electricity bills by switching from broadband to cloud-based servers (Morrison, 2013).

Open source sounds like a perfect option...but, as we all know nothing is perfect. There are some disadvantages to using open source software.  Some of these disadvantages are listed on CIO Insight, a technology news website.  While the cost-cutting effects of using open source software is one of the main attractions of OSS, it’s not always entirely free.  There can be implementation, administration, and/or support costs for running the software.  Another disadvantage--and arguably a major one--is that in order to benefit from the flexibility of open source software, schools may have to hire additional IT personnel who can understand and/or rewrite source codes.  Since programs and software are constantly being updated, it may be difficult to distinguish which open source program(s) will be compatible with your existing proprietary platforms.  Sometimes, OSS projects simply end due to programmers leaving or finding new projects, and if they do not end no one is obligated to help you so you may not receive tech support, either (McCafferty, 2013).

Schools are always looking to find ways to provide students and teachers with the tools they need, and sometimes these tools are not included in the budget.  Open source software is a great option for schools, but just like anything else used at school there should be some planning involved.  The software needs to be researched and piloted to ensure that it fulfills the needs of the school(s).

Click here to see the presentation "Five Pros and Five Cons of Open Source Software".

References

McCafferty, D. (2013).  Five pros and cons of open source software.  Retrieved from
http://www.cioinsight.com/it-strategy/infrastructure/slideshows/five-pros-and-five-cons-of-open-source-software  

       

Morrison, N. (2013).  Technology in schools: Saving money with cloud, open source and   consortia. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/feb/21/technology-cost-savings-school-cloud-open-source

Picciano, A. G. (2011).  Educational Leadership and Planning for Technology (5^th ed., text).  Boston: Pearson.

Techopedia Staff (2012).  Open source: Is it too good to be true? Retrieved from             http://www.techopedia.com/2/28968/software/open-source-is-it-too-good-to-be-true

Using Databases for Data-Driven Instruction

           As teachers, we strive to provide our students with the best we have to offer.  We want them to be successful, active contributors to society.  In order to provide them with the best education, we must know what is best for them in regards to instruction.  In order to do so, teachers must be able to identify the students’ individual needs.  Identifying student needs requires assessment data.

            Some people think the term “data-driven” has become synonymous with standardized assessment.  In recent years, the term standardized assessment has become somewhat of a derogatory term.  There have been some school systems known to “grade” their teachers based on their students’ test scores.  If the students do not perform, the teachers no longer have a job (Watters, 2013).

            Data-driven decision making can be defined as “making the use of data analysis to inform when determining courses of action involving policy and procedures” (Picciano, 2011, pg. 65).  In order for schools to use data analysis to make decisions, they must be able to access to the data.  For some school districts this is a difficult task.  Many of the databases schools use are outdated, and are not easily accessible, nor able to update student information.  Schools must be able to make database changes in order to efficiently apply data-driven decision making within instruction.

            The BBC website offers a list of reasons to use a database.  These reasons include quick and easy access to information that can be stored in large amounts, taking up little space; simplicity in searching information, adding new data, and deleting old data; “multi-access” meaning more than one person can access the data at a time; ability to merge with other applications; and security (BBC, 2014).  Depending on the database program a school uses, there can be a wealth of information available for faculty and staff.  One way schools can use databases is to compile students’ personal information such as parental/emergency contact information, attendance, medical concerns, and identification through special programs such as Special Education.  Through programs such as Caspio’s online database system, schools can track test scores and share student progress which encourages parent participation and communication.  Schools are able to gather feedback, as well as share documents between faculty members (Caspio, 2015).

            There are some concerns with using Internet-based or cloud-based data systems.  In a blog written by Audrey Watters discussing student data infrastructure, she points out concerns with privacy and security in the cloud.  She specifically points out that there is no guarantee of security of the information stored in the system.  The main concern appears to be with the amount of information available to third-party providers, such as textbook companies.  The article goes on to discuss the security measures the infrastructure company has in place in the cloud-based system, stating that users do have control over who has access to the data and to what particular data they do have access (Watters, 2013). 

            The bottom line is, in our digital age, as companies are finding more ways to provide security people are finding more ways to breech security.  There will never be a digital security that is 100% successful.  All any one of us can do is offer our best efforts to provide as much privacy as possible.

            Data-driven decision making is a key piece to the educational puzzle.  In order to provide students with personalized instruction, teachers must have the information regarding their students’ needs.  Schools need to be able to provide teachers with access to this information in an organized, useful manner.  This means schools will need to update and analyze student assessment information on a regular basis.  To do this efficiently, schools will need the aide of databases.  

For more information on using data in schools, visit the following links on the Technology Alliance Website:

                                                          Top Ten Uses of Data in Schools
                                                                              Paradigm Shift to Data-Driven Decision Making

                                                          Making the Case for Data-Driven Decision Making

                                                          Considerations for Data Analysis

                                                          Attributes of Districts That Make Wise Use of Data

References

BBC (2014).  Why use a database? Retrieved from 
            http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/ict/databases/2databasesrev4.shtml

Caspio, Inc. (2015).  Online database tools for education. Retrieved from 
            www.caspio.com/customers/industries/online-database-education.aspx  

Picciano, A. G. (2011).  Educational Leadership and Planning for Technology (5^th ed., 
            text).  Boston: Pearson.

Watters, A. (2013).  Building a student data infrastructure: Privacy, transparency and the 
            gates foundation-funded inbloom. Retrieved 
            from http://hackeducation.com/2013/02/10/inbloom-student-data-privacy-security-
                transparency/

Technology Integrated Lessons: Who Are You Planning For?

Planning…when teachers think of planning, the first thing we usually think of is lesson planning—what we are going to teach, and in what time frame we are going to teach it.  The next step of planning, after deciding what we are going to teach, is how we’re going to teach it—the presentation.  There is much more to planning a lesson than finding a book on a topic and making some copies. 

To begin planning a lesson, especially one using/integrating technology, teachers should consider the students they are planning to teach.  Are they primary, elementary, middle, or high school students?  Are there students with IEPs (Individualized Education Plans) in the class?  Are there more girls than boys in the room or vice versa?  All of these factors must be taken into consideration in order to plan a lesson focused on student engagement and learning.

To what grade level is the lesson going to be taught? 

The world we live in today is rich in technology.  Our students and children have been deemed “Digital Natives”.  They are growing up in a digital-based society.   Technology is almost an inborn characteristic—children are exposed to it almost immediately.  We've all seen babies playing with their mother’s phones or tablets while in a waiting room.  I myself am guilty of giving my children technology to keep them quiet!  There are some experts who do not believe that technology is appropriate for younger students/children.  Setzer and Monke in an issue of Education and Technology: Critical and Reflective Practices stated their opinion that computers should only be introduced to students when they are in high school—specifically after puberty—because it is at this point in their intellectual maturity that the “forced thinking” caused by the technology is not damaging to the student’s development (Setzer & Monke, 2001).  Picciano points out that while older students are more likely to make use of technology based on the curriculum, such as computer literacy courses and career readiness skills, that Papert (who studied with Piaget) believes students as young as ages 7-11 can benefit from using technology because their logical thinking begins around that age range.  He also argues that student readiness is a moot point because parents have most likely already allowed the students to have and/or use technology (Picciano, 2011).   Teachers should use professional judgment regarding student readiness when planning lessons implementing technology.

Will the lesson be presented to students with special needs?

Technology can be very beneficial for students with special needs.  “Technology is now being used by children who have difficulty learning through conventional means” (Picciano, 2011 pg. 40).  Assistive technology is available for students with vision, hearing, or mobility impairments as well as learning disabilities.  Although access to these devices may be limited, and they are often expensive, there are grants and programs available to help schools acquire some of these devices (Picciano, 2011).  When planning lessons for students with special needs, teachers need to be familiar with the resources available for these students.  See the list of links for assistive technology for sources of devices, funding, and support. To see assistive technology in action, take a look at the video below.

  

Is the lesson being planned for boys or girls?

For many years, there has been a vast difference between the number of boys and girls in science, math, and technology career fields.  Although research shows that the gap is closing, there remains a distinct difference between males’ interest and females’ interest in technology (Bae & Smith, 1997).  “Whereas technology performance research comparing gender differences has been inconsistent, research comparing gender attitudes is more consistent" (Picciano, 2011).  In other words, as with most aspects of life, boys and girls like different things.  In the case of technology usage, it appears that boys play more computer games than girls, and more girls use social networking than boys.  When planning lessons involving technology, teachers need to be aware of the issue regarding gender differences, and avoid using resources involving stereotypical depictions (Picciano, 2011).

Teachers have many factors to take into account when planning a lesson.  We must be purposeful in our planning, not just plan technology integrated lessons for the sake of using technology.   Teachers should always take the needs of their students into consideration when planning lessons.      

References

Bae, Y., & Smith, T. (1997). Women in mathematics and science. National Center for Education Statistics, no. 11 (NCES 97-982).  Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97982.pdf

Picciano, A. G. (2011). Educational Leadership and Planning for Technology (5^th ed., text).  Boston: Pearson.

Setzer, V. W. & Monke, L. (2001). An alternative view on why, when, and how computers should be used in education.  Education and Technology: Critical and Reflective Practices.  Retrieved from www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/comp-in-educ.html