CoSN LML Core Deck Speaker Notes

Although teachers may get there in different ways, once they have experienced a transformed classroom they insist they could never go back to their old way of teachingIn a transformed classroom:• Teachers enjoy teaching more• Students enjoy learning more and are deeply engaged• Student academic achievement is an inevitable side effect of grappling deeply with big

questions• Teachers adapt instruction for groups and individuals based on formative data and

immediate feedback mediated by technologyThe reason teachers can never go back is the shift that has happened as students take more ownership of their learning. Even if they were to lose all their technology, they would continue to teach with this new stance as best they could. Technology is a catalyst in this shift occurring, but it is also a huge enabler of making it possible to teach in student-centered ways at scale.This shift happens in different ways in different implementations:

Project K-Nect was a 2008 early implementation where students used cell phones in algebra classes. The students were at-risk and not expected to go on to college after high school. In this case the shift was driven by the teacher:• Students were incentivized to contribute to a discussion forum. As a result, students

who normally would not have done homework come to school with homework completed. Students who would normally complete homework have now also taught the concepts several times. The teacher can see this work happen on the forum and knows where all the students are when they come to class the next day.

• Teachers would ask students to use their devices at home, such as photographing examples of linear equations. A student would take a picture of a gas pump since there is a linear relationship between cost and gallons pumped. Students got used to using their devices in non-traditional ways.

• Teachers would give assignments that were to be posted on the forum and gave the students latitude in how to complete them. Students got creative, including creating a rap on geometric concepts.

• Rows of desks were moved to be tables and students started doing group work and relying on each others’ strengths.

Not only did test scores increase – the class with the devices had 50% more students pass high stakes testing than a class taught by the same teacher without devices – but they began to take

ownership of their learning which showed up in other coursework as well, most completed calculus, planned for college, and considered careers in math or science.

Learning Untethered was conducted with 5th graders who used Android devices in class, at home, and with data plans anywhere in between. In this case, the increased ownership came as much from home use as school use:• Instead of helping each child use the technology, the teacher had the students research

how to do things and present to the class• The students were asked to find their own apps for any given purpose, such as taking

notes• The students were allowed to use the devices for personal purposes as long as it was

“schoolpropriate.” The class came up with lists of apps that were appropriate any time, during recess or lunch, or not at all.

• The students started using the devices at home to look up facts and win arguments. This was the genesis of their independence and ownership.

• Soon students started to look up facts during school read-alouds or discussions and contribute those facts to the conversations, which became richer and elevated

• Students began finding apps and tools that they found interesting or fun or useful and staying in at lunch to present them to their peers.

In both cases academic achievement increased significantly and students came to take ownership of their learning as they discovered, with teacher encouragement, that they were not dependent on adults to provide them with knowledge and skills.

Teachers use technology to support both academic achievement and student self-direction. This means (a) gradually releasing control to students, giving them more autonomy, relevant work, and opportunity to see the growth in their mastery and (b) using data to inform instructionTechnology can support key goals simultaneously:

1) Increasing academic achievement by collecting formative data used to inform instruction and personalize learning

2) Shifting to student-centered instruction that drives 21st century skills and self-direction3) Teacher personal learning communities inside and beyond the building

When students have personal, connected devices they use them both for academic and personal purposes. They gain skills in each area that then transfer to the other, building a bridge between school and home culture. Most importantly, they gain an independence in pursuing their interests that doesn’t depend on waiting for adults to provide information or know-how. This leads to a sense of ownership, often first of hobbies and home interests, that then transfers to school and academics if the classroom is structured to support that.

This is critical, because the expectations on young adults in college and careers have changed dramatically. What used to differentiate the educated from the uneducated was knowledge and rote skills – things that can now be performed by anyone with access to the internet. Today, what differentiates young people is their ability to take ownership of their work, to collaborate and communicate, to think critically and creatively, to have good judgment about when to pursue a problem independently and when to ask for help. Basic job knowledge such as coding or finance or welding are merely table stakes in getting a job – these other higher order skills are critical to stand out from other applicants and employees.

Technology makes it possible to take both data-informed instruction and student-centered approaches to scale.

It is possible to get these results without tech? Yes, but it is difficult at scale.Technology makes it easier to scale student-centered, personalized learning, particularly for middle and high school levels.

But the results are due to shifts in teaching, not just the use of technology.

No, it doesn’t require technology to achieve this shift, but it is difficult to do at scale.And there are endless examples of where technology is used without gaining increased results if this shift doesn’t actually occur.

There are many reasons why it is difficult to use technology still, and so, YES, technology does absolutely matter. Both negatively, in its limitations, and positively, in its ability to scale student-centered, data-informed learning.

Tech challenges: Personalization immature – very little has reached its promised potential

o Self-paced learning – immature content/resourceso Formative assessmento Integrated dashboards and visualizationso Interoperable data collectiono Instant feedbacko Deliver best teacher in the worldo Educational gaming

Tech enablers: Enabled new kinds of connecting Collaboration & peer critique…authenticity Power to find anything any time…agency Freedom to play and learn together Eliminated barriers to making learning real, relevant, and authentic

The shift in teaching to student-centered often comes from the catalyst of a personal, connected device for each student.

With teachers and students learning technology together, there can be a leveling of the playing field that organically puts the teacher in a “guide on the side” role.

When each student has a personal, connected device, they no longer need to be dependent on adults for information and basic skills. This makes it possible for adults to shape a classroom that is focused on higher order skills grounded in core content. The more students can take ownership of their learning, the more high test scores become a side effect of best practices that support these higher order skills.

However, it is a subtle and difficult mind shift for teachers to change from traditional approaches to student-centered approaches.

One key is that the use of technology is so new that no one is an expert. This puts the teachers and kids on a kind of level playing field that enables teachers to be authentic about learning together with the kids. Once the teacher becomes comfortable with this loss of control (but not authority) they are more able to take this stance of partnership in teaching core content.

Elements in common in successful implementations The freedom to experiment with technology, The willingness of teachers to give up being the source of all answers and learn with

their students, The shift in values to appreciating student directed learning for itself as much as for its

side effect – better test scores Putting tech in the classroom served as a catalyst: The “learning together” forced a shift in the culture The tools gave students more power than ever before The pioneering spirit collected teachers in professional learning communities as the only

place to find likeminded people and new ideas New approaches connect to intrinsic motivators…teacher’s work feels easier

The tools serve as an amplifier of teacher skill: great teachers get amazing results, poor teachers actually get worse But not a One and Done…years later these same teachers are still innovating and learning and maintaining that culture

Shifting to student-centered at the scale of a district requires a different approach than a single classroom.

A more systematic approach of data-informed continual improvement is needed.The new district culture and infrastructure becomes a platform for ongoing evolution.

But what happens when we go beyond a classroom to implementing student-centered learning with technology at a school or district level?HOW DO WE SCALE? What happens when we are no longer dealing with a single entrepreneurial teacher?

The approach needs to be innovation centered, not purely prescriptive. The combination of student-centered practices, with an innovation culture, data-informed instruction, and a robust scalable infrastructure, become a PLATFORM where practices and instruction continually evolve and improve.

Innovation Culture:In an innovation culture, teachers and administrators are recognized for trying new approaches to improving student learning. Not all experiments will have the desired outcome, but the soundness of the experiment plus the judgment and analysis of the outcome is what is recognized. If only positive results are rewarded, the culture becomes risk-averse and innovation shuts down.

Student-Centered PracticesThere are many pedagogies and instructional approaches that are student-centered, but the key lies in the shift in a teacher’s stance from transmitting information to guiding student learning, in work being done by the teacher to being done by the students, and an increase in student voice, choice, and ownership. Some instructional approaches include: Inquiry, Project based learning, game based learning, making, culturally sensitive teaching, embedded formative assessment, and blended learning.

Data-informed InstructionData informed instruction involves using frequent formative assessment to tailor instruction to the specific concepts students are having trouble with and not having a student move on before they succeed with previous materials. Leverage Leadership discusses an approach to data-informed instruction that involves using the principal as an instructional coach and has a number of videos and examples that demonstrate how to do this effectively. Another complementary or alternative approach is to use PLC’s to discuss data and evidence of student understanding as well as higher order skills.Key Points:• It will take up to 3 years for all educators to become skilled in integrating technology,

using data to inform instruction, and shift to student-centered practices.• A list of “best practices” developed in another environment is not sufficient to create a

culture shift. The journey of developing your own best practices in your own environment is critical to creating a culture of innovation.

• Implementation will be messy and imperfect, but when you step back and look at the big picture, improvement is clear

• Improved test scores are unlikely in the 1st year, but should be evident by the 3d year.• You have reached transformation when teachers, students, and parents could never go

back• Not only are you an organization of learners, you are a learning organization. What once

happened in special classrooms now happens in the whole building

The pace of change of education science and technology are both accelerating as they co-evolve.Teachers and students will need new resources on demand and just in time.

Evolution will be slow as implementation begins• Only some teachers will be on board• Digital tools and resources are still very immature – it takes a lot of work to work around

the limitations which places a drag on innovationAs a whole building shifts to an innovation culture, change will begin to happen much more rapidly. As an example look at how High Tech High innovates year after year.

This infographic, developed by CoSN highlights some of the pitfalls that occur in mobile learning. More information is available at http://cosn.org/mobilelead

Common Mistake: Putting technology ahead of pedagogy It’s easy as a district to fall short in building a real vision of how learning will change with technology and what the expected benefits are. Such failure puts the district at risk of not meeting unspoken stakeholder expectations and suffering the resulting public backlash.

PitfallsFalling for the hype or blindly following other districts without your own visionPlanning for mobile learning in isolation and then trying for stakeholder buy-in after the factDepending mostly on vendors to design your technical or human infrastructure (be true to your vision and avoid cookie-cutter solutions)Failures of transparency or communication (tell them why you are doing this, then tell them again)

Letting limited resources stop you (be creative, do what you can, work towards equity)

Common Mistake: No project plan or project coordinatorIt happens. Districts are sometimes blindsided by predictable and avoidable problems such as when students have trouble connecting to the Internet; or they circumvent Internet filtering; or digital resources turn out to be insufficient; or parents are uncomfortable with student use of technology. Thorough planning, transparency, and a project coordinator help mitigate the risk.

PitfallsImplementation by committee (someone has to pull it all together)Implementation by top-down mandateGoing to scale with an untested approach (faster but messier)Too much focus on others’ best practices instead of on a culture of innovationPolicies not updated to reflect digital realitiesIncomplete communication with parents and students Flaky technology: insufficient bandwidth, slow devices Unsustainable purchasing practices Failure to communicate expectations

Common Mistake: Inability to Take RiskWith mobile learning, often the biggest risk to improvement is to do nothing. A culture of innovation means continually trying new things, learning from them, keeping what works, and discarding what doesn’t. But this can be too risky in some command-and-control environments.

PitfallsImpatience – educators need 3-4 years to shift their practice A lack of transparency (bring your stakeholders along on the journey)Punishing poor outcomes of good experiments (it happens!)Failing to recognize good outcomes that break expectations (embrace the counterintuitive)Little or no real experimentation (try testing hypotheses with control groups)Failing to learn and iterate based on outcomes

As schools integrate technology, the demand on the network increases.WiFi needs to support every classroom using devices at once

The LAN needs to support the traffic generated by all these devicesBandwidth requirements grow exponentially, often doubling every 18 months

Transformed learning will require a transformed network. Old networks are not generally built to scale to the kinds of demands in capacity, reliability, mobility, scalability, flexibility, expandability that new networks require.

Generally a complete rethinking of network approaches will be needed to support continually evolving practice. For more information, see CoSN’s SEND initiative: http://cosn.org/send