Technically, we already have a tech plan.  We are required to submit one to the state of Illinois in order to receive our eRate funding.  The problem is, while it’s a solid plan, its focus is far too narrow to be a true guiding document for the entire district’s implementation of technology.  We needed more.  This fall, we began the process of working to accomplish that goal.

We started out with the understanding that the actual, pragmatic technology practices in place in our district were far too nebulous.  We had what some might call pockets of innovation, but we lacked a unified, cohesive vision of how technology impacts the learning experience.  I believe that is the case in far too many districts due to a perception by decision makers that simply acquiring technology is the answer to the need propagated by our shifting culture.  Unfortunately, as this article details, technology itself is simply not the answer.  If a tech plan is built exclusively upon technology, it is doomed to fail.

In the hopes of avoiding the inherent failure of technology being implemented for the sole sake of implementing technology, we determined to build our plan upon the bedrock of student learning.  The process and potential final product we established is something I’m extremely excited about.

We started our process by determining that we would eventually be building a vision framework for technology rather than a specific technology plan.  The key difference between the two concepts being; a plan is something you execute, typically in a linear fashion, to its end and evaluate whether or not you achieved success by its implementation.  Whereas, a framework is a foundation and structure upon which you build to establish a solid, dynamic end result that has room built within it for growth and change.  Our framework will serve as a guiding document to assist teachers in engaging students in more robust learning experiences through the use of technology.  The focus is entirely on students and their learning experiences.

Once we knew that a learning-based framework was our final goal, we had to determine what, exactly, that meant.  What would be the learning upon which we build?  We started looking at a myriad of learning skills being presented as essential by a host of educational groups.  We culled from the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, NETS, AASL, and Bloom’s digital taxonomy.  We compiled a list of 26 core learning skills to be explored and narrowed down to five.  We chose to go with five, and call them “Foundational Learning Skills” because we found that number to be both manageable and attainable as a focus for the framework.  We also expect to revisit each of the five foundational skills in subsequent years to examine our effectiveness and determine if we should supplant a skill with another based on the change of society and modern practice.

We know in order for our framework to be successful, we need to build it with the support and representation of all vested groups within our district, so we established a committee with which to work.  Our technology committee is comprised of 55 individuals with a direct interest in our students’ futures.  We have representation from every building in our district, and we have administrators, teachers, technology support staff, parents, community members, and specialized support staff.  The committee met in January and whittled down our list of 26 skills to our 5 foundations.  The process yielded; collaboration, communication, critical/evaluative thinking, ethical behavior, and problem solving.

Our next task is to take each of the five foundational skills and build three learning experiences that can span and spiral from pre-k to high school graduation.  We subdivided each learning experience up to specifically cover grades PreK-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12.  Each level builds upon the previous, and provides a means by which a teacher can be provided guidance into understanding how technology can interface with learning.

The image below shows a potential example of this framework for the foundation of “communication.”  We purposefully selected experiences that have a key technology component but focus more on the learning experience rather than the specific technology.  We are currently at the point where we are building a matrix like this for each of the five foundational skills.  This example only lists two specific learning experiences, but ultimately, each of the five foundational skills will have three unique learning experiences.  Click on the image to see a larger version of the example.

When this framework is completed, it will serve as a guide to help teachers better understand the way that technology can help students access learning with greater depth and engagement than prior to the advent of any of the specific technology referenced in the framework.  The framework will help drive the focus for professional development and technology purchases, as well as the specific support our staff will need from our technology leaders in our buildings.  We are also working to establish a strong pilot procedure for teachers who want to innovate and experiment with new emerging technologies, so we can have specific data to consider each year when we revisit the plan to make adjustments and refinements to keep current with the changes in our profession.

I am very excited about this process, and I absolutely believe this will help provide a cohesive vision for our district’s technology implementation.  I also firmly believe this will result in a positive change in the way students engage the process of learning.  There is still much work to be done, but I do believe we are headed in an extremely exciting and student-centered direction.

Thanks to jinglejammer for the Flickr image.

On Thursday, January 22nd, I became a father.  Life hands us many unfathomably incredible experiences as we live it, but none can compare to seeing life that you halved the responsibility in making come into existence in this world.  I must be forthright and admit, I was warned by many.  I was told it would be an amazing experience.  I was told it has to be lived to be understood.  I was told I would be overwhelmed with emotion.  But I don’t think I was told the real truth.  Nobody warned me what it was really going to be like.

Nobody told me…
-your wife becomes an even closer treasure as she shares your joy in parenthood
-you’ll lose the capacity to speak when holding your child for the first time
-there is no chance you’re not thinking about him every waking moment
-no obstacle seems insurmountable if overcoming it means his life will be made better
-you think about him and you lose the ability to stop a smile
-you see a portion of your living purpose rise and fall with each breath he takes
-there is no greater pride than that which lives because he does
-sustaining his life is the greatest cause you will champion in your life

I was thinking about this tonight as I was driving to pick up some needed baby supplies, and I found that in simply ten minutes of his absence, I missed him incredibly.  And then I realized, my experience is not unique.  It is something hopefully every parent has the joy of living.  And it means something beyond just my own indescribable emotions.

As I was reflecting, I was struck by the thought that this experience was sustained by every parent of the roughly 10,000 students being educated in the district where I work.  And in that moment, I was overwhelmed.

Each of those parents entrusts me and my colleagues with that which they most dearly treasure.  They trust us to do what is best for their children.  Someday in the near future, I will place my trust in the same way in those who will endeavor to educate my son.  It suddenly brings a great sense of focus to my professional purpose.

I am the Instructional Technology Coordinator for a school district in the northwest suburbs of Chicago.  My job exists so that I might bring vision, clarity, and purpose to the utilization of technology in a student’s learning experience.  We are all aware of just how important this has become in the age in which we live.

My son’s birth has brought with it an unexpected sense of clarity.  A focus on what is important.  I’ve been caught up in some very insightful, meaningful discussions lately, but I’m beginning to wonder if it isn’t time to disengage a bit from that space.  I know there were several very powerful, purposeful conferences that took place this past week, but I’m beginning to wonder if that’s where my attention should be.

So many are engaging in discussions that seem to be resounding loudly only as echoes against the walls of the chamber from which they are being contained.  A cry for change is bellowed, but does the cry carry the weight and momentum necessary to exact real change?  Are we focusing energy trying to move the immovable boulder rather than finding ways to push the pebbles we know we could push if we really wanted to?

Jen Wagner put it very succinctly recently with her challenge to move away from the circular discussions and put one foot in front of the other on a path of practical progress.  I think that’s the direction in which I need to start moving.  I have influence in areas of my life where more change could be manifested if I stopped thinking in global terms and started moving locally.

If I think of my own son, and consider that my passion and dedication to his life are truly multiplied 10,000 times over in my own district, I can readily find the motivation I need to keep fighting for what I believe is the best and in the best interest of the parents and students which I serve.

It’s time for me to readjust the focus and start seeing things through the lens of fatherhood.  I believe this could be the view that changes many things for me in a very profoundly positive way.

I’m thoroughly enjoying the excellent discussion going on here about the whole notion of 21st Century Literacy.  I find it fascinating, and the conversation has me thinking about this in ways I never would have had we not all engaged in the discussion.  That’s certainly a testament to the power of collaborating and communicating, but I surmise that’s a whole separate blog post.  I’d like to take this one to focus on some clarification I’ve had on the idea that there is not such a thing as 21st Century Literacy.

First, and foremost, I don’t believe this is a mere discussion about semantics.  Well, that’s not entirely true, to be honest.  Semantics is the study of language and communication, and that is certainly at the heart of our discussion.  More to the point, semantics is the only reason we’re having this discussion.  Someone recently told me this whole topic is just another semantics discussion when we should really be focusing on what to do.  I find that most interesting.  How, exactly, can any of us do anything when we haven’t decided in which direction to begin the doing?  That’s like me saying that I want us all to start advocating.  Just go advocate.  That misses the entire point.  The only reason we advocate is based on the cause of advocation.  The same is held true for this discussion.  If we want students to learn to be truly literate, aren’t we required to define that which want them to be?

The second point is that I’ve realized we’ve really started misusing the term literacy.  It’s now being applied to mean comprehension, or proficiency, or even understanding.  Look at this example.  For every type of literacy, the word proficiency could and perhaps should be used.  Why aren’t we using that word, instead?  Why take a word which focuses on the core of how we communicate and misapply it to mean a proficiency in a given context?  That’s where I truly disagree with these “new” literacies.

Finally, I believe there is a distinct difference between literacy and skills.  Literacy is based wholly on how we communicate.  In fact, it is the very nature of how we communicate.  We share and gather ideas from one another by writing, reading, speaking and listening.  That is entirely how we form meaning from another’s ideas.  Well, I shouldn’t say entirely.  Just recently Gary Stager suggested on Twitter that perhaps “showing” would be one more way.  If I’m standing next to you, I might show you my ideas through specific movements.  For example, I might show you how to hammer a nail by doing the act itself while you gather meaning from my actions.  Which then begets the need to add “viewing” as well.  I need to think more on this one, but it does have great merit.

If literacy is the way we communicate thoughts and ideas, then what about text messaging, creating videos, using a tool like VoiceThread, or any of the host of emerging technologies we’re utilizing to communicate?  Shouldn’t those be called new literacy?  Probably not.  I would maintain we can only use those effectively by engaging the main four tenets of literacy.  The specific execution of the tool does require a finite skill set, but a skill set is entirely different than a literacy.  Let me get specific using VoiceThread as an example.

VoiceThread is an excellent way for people to post an idea and have others add value through conversation.  At first blush, it may appear that in order for this communication to happen, a new literacy would have to be formed.  A person must understand how to post on the internet, and perhaps the person would want to do so recording an audio comment, wherein he/she would have to have the ability to operate both a computer and a recording device.  This is all true, but those are finite skills specific to a certain tool or even era.  At some point in the future, VoiceThread won’t be necessary anymore as something else will come to be that will do what it does, only better.  Or perhaps the tool itself will evolve into a better iteration, but either way, the user experience will change, thus making the specific skill set required to utilize VoiceThread simply a finite set that will change over time.

The real essence of using VoiceThread, however, is in engaging the true process of literacy.  First, I must either read or listen to the original idea being posted.  Once I’ve gathered meaning by doing so, I can formulate a response.  To respond, I will either speak or write my thoughts.  If I can’t do these core tenets of literacy effectively, VoiceThread will be useless to me.  It is the very act of engaging literacy that makes this process meaningful.

This same rationale applies to all the aforementioned tools that appear to be changing the nature of literacy.  The nature isn’t changing.  Yes, the skills are, but skills are different than literacy.

So why this whole discussion in the first place?  I think it is imperative that we all work together to help better the learning experience for students.  If we’re all calling and advocating for different things using the same terms, the result will be to dilute the power of what is most effective.  Some have said that the words we use don’t matter, but the fact we have the conversation and talk about this is what’s really important, and while I think the conversation is good, I think establishing what is most effective is better.  If we come to the conclusion there are 21st Century Literacies and the 21st Century Skills are really simply those which have always been, what will happen when we present these notions to the decision makers in our districts/regions/nations, and they find the obvious holes in the entire structure and leave us appearing as though we’re espousing an empty philosophy?  We will be discredited, and our effective efforts to support change will be blocked.

There’s still much to talk about, and certainly I hope in the near future the talk will turn to action.  But again, I would hope we can resolve exactly what the action will look like before we sit atop the horses and begin the charge for change.

Thanks to j /f /photos for the Flickr image.

Last month I had a compelling conversation with 21 educators in Moodle.  I’m still rather reeling from the whole discussion.

I posed the question, “What is the goal of education?”  Much as I did in this post.  I received 21 profound, comprehensive, thought-provoking responses.  I, in turn, crafted my response to the question.  The following is what I replied to the teachers, and what I believe on the issue.

“First, an observation. This class is replete with incredible educators from all levels, experiences, and frames of reference. There isn’t one person in this class I wouldn’t hope and wish for my child to have the honor of having for a teacher. Yet, with all the experience, knowledge, and excellence, there is one fact that strikes me as indicative of the entire educational institution of today. So many people have so many different goals.

Yes, some are very related to others, but think of the implications of this fact. We all struggle and fight to give the very best to our students. We argue, advocate, rejoice, are brought to tears, and simply care beyond caring for our students. Yet, in what direction are we all pulling the rope? It’s as if we’ve entered a desperate game of tug of war, and we struggle against the rope, and we pull against what we believe to be that which stands in the way of our students’ progress, but I fear we might just be pulling destructively against each other.

How can we change that which needs changing if we aren’t all going in the same direction? Of course there will be some who push back against this notion. ‘We must retain academic freedom and the ability to adapt based on student needs,’ some will argue, and to that I would say, ‘absolutely correct.’ The problem is, those issues are tertiary. Those are subcategories belonging to the whole.

What is the goal in education? Simply put. Learning. That is our goal. Not teaching, not testing, not content, not citizenship. It’s all about learning. It has to be.

I know it seems too simple, but stop and think about this. How often do we fail to make it about learning? How often are we racing to cover content? Content that will be lost on a child far too quickly. Once the phrase, ‘I have to get through the content’ is uttered, it has become about the content and no longer about the learning. I know some will say, ‘but they need to know all this content, and by doing so, they’re learning.’ But in this given context, the content has become the focus, not the act of learning. We get caught up in performance, and competition to see how many kids can all perform at the same level, and whose class had the most kids meet standards, and we forget about learning. Really, we do.

Try this. This week as you engage in educating your students, gauge everything you do against this idea. Is the focus and goal of what you’re doing learning? I think you’ll be surprised at how often (frequently as a result of something out of your control) you have to answer no.

The way our grading system is built, the way our intervention system is built, even the way our grouping of students by age is built given what we know about the variance of development in children, it all loses focus on learning.

What if our true, absolute goal was simply learning? I do believe so many, many things would be different.

I’m completely open to discussion on this.”

I know it may seem rather simplistic and rather obvious that our absolute goal is learning, but is it really that simplistic?  Is focusing entirely on learning really that easy?  Could it be?  I fear too often we take that which could be simple and add complexity to it thinking we’re making it better, but in the end, we simply ruin it.  I think it’s time we change that.

Thanks to Steffe for the Flickr image.