Technology in the Classroom

By: dholzendorf 

Introduction

The ISTE Classroom Observation Tool (ICOT) is an observation tool developed by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). The ISTE is a membership association for educators and education leaders. The association’s purpose is to engage in advancing excellence in learning and teaching through technology. The association is also responsible for developing the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for students, teachers, and administrators. The classroom observation tool was designed to evaluate the amount of technology being used in the classroom as well as its effective use based on the NETS.

        Educators can download the ICOT application by registering free online. Once the educator is has registered and downloaded the application, classroom observations of both teachers and students can be conducted using a lap top computer off line, upload the data to a secure online account, where the data can be aggregated to generate reports.

Why use ICOT as an Observation Tool?

There are several good reasons for using an observation tool such as ICOT to evaluate the effective use of technology in the classroom. For one, Moskowitz & Martabano (2009) argue that today’s district and building level administrators are busier than ever. In addition, administrators are being asked about the use of technology or evaluated themselves based on the amount of time and quality of technology being used in their classrooms. In fact, one of the NETS for administrators, according to the ISTE website is to create, promote, and sustain a dynamic, digital-age learning culture at their school or district. Another reason to use an observation tool such as ICOT, according to the authors, is because larger amounts of school and district budgets are being earmarked for technology in the classrooms. The authors report that technology spending in education will reach $56 billion by 2012. Being able to document and retain the effective use of technology in the classroom using observation tools such as ICOT will give administrators much more confidence in requesting funds from the district or grants. A final reason for using such technology to evaluate the use of technology in the classroom is for administrators to better prepare and plan professional development for teachers in the use of technology. Collier, Weinburgh, & Rivera (2004) imply that the majority of teachers do not feel comfortable using computers in the classroom for instruction. The authors go on to say that educators must focus more attention on how to effectively use technology in the classroom.

About the Instrument

            The components of the ICOT instrument consist of setting, groups, activities, technology, NETS, and charts. There are a series of questions, calendars, timelines, or charts for each of the components. For example, the setting consists of a series of questions about the subject, grade, time of day, and number of students. The group component asks questions concerning what type of grouping (i.e. individual, pairs, small groups, whole class) as well as engagement in the activity. The activity component touches on what the students and teacher are doing during the lesson (i.e. researching, writing, test taking, simulations, etc…). The technology component is the meat of the observation tool. In this section, the observer reports on what type of technology is being used, who is using it and how they are using the technology. The NETS component reports on what teacher or student standards are being taught or used during the lesson. Finally, the chart section reports on how long technology was being used, who was using it, and for what purpose (i.e. used for learning or used for something else). The charts are arranged for the observer to report who is using the technology and for what purpose in increments of 3 minutes for the duration of the lesson.

Observation

         For the practical purposes of this article the writer used the ICOT instrument to observer a fifth grade teacher at the writer’s school. The teacher is a fifth year teacher who has taught traditional classes as well as boys’ single gender classes. The school is located in central South Carolina and has approximately 640 students. There are five fifth grade classes containing approximately 23 students per class. All of the fifth grade classes have one to one computing using wireless lap tops provided by the school. Each class also has a mounted interactive board as well as a mounted projector. Teachers are encouraged to engage students in the use of technology at least on a daily basis.  

The writer observed the teacher teaching a single gender boys’ class during a social studies lesson for 30 minutes. The teacher was having the students research and report on the Reconstruction period of United States history. There were 23 students in the classroom at the time. The environment was uncluttered and purposefully organized for movement and collaborative work. Each student had their own lap top computer provided by the school. This was the teacher’s first year having one to one computing in his classroom. Each pair of students was working on a Power Point presentation. One hundred percent of the students were focused and actively engaged in the activity. The teacher’s role was to facilitate and coach the boys as they researched and created a presentation. Students were creating, researching, collaborating during the lesson. The teacher also used an interactive board to model what he expected from the boys.

       There were a number of NET standards for teachers that the writer observed. One was the fact that the teacher was using curriculum-based presentations to engage the students. Second, the teacher created a developmentally appropriate learning activity for fifth grade boys. Third, the technology used during the lesson enhanced instruction. Fourth, the technology supported learner-centered strategies. Fifth, the teacher applied technology to develop students’ creativity. Finally, the teacher modeled legal and ethical technology practices by using the interactive board to show examples.

        After conducting the observation, the observer and the teacher were able to sit down and discuss the lesson. The observer was able to walk through the observation question by question and praise the teacher as well as offer constructive suggestions. For example, the observer suggested that since the boys were using wireless lap tops to let them sit on the floor, at their desk, or stand at the bookcase to work on their project. The observer felt that this is one of the benefits of using a wireless lap top to complete a task.

Conclusion

         ICOT is a useful tool for administrators to safely document the effective use of technology in the classroom. The tool allows educators to observe technology being used by both students and teachers based on the NETS. The data gathered is aggregated and stored for future reference. This data can be used to track effective practice, track the amount of technology use, and compare the use of technology to national standards. This information can be useful as administrators are competing for grants and other district funding for additional technology. The observation tool itself is user-friendly and is easily accessible by anyone.

It is important for educators to be able to observe a classroom for the purpose of evaluating the use of technology in the classroom specifically. Many general classroom observation tools touch on technology in the classroom, but very few if any go in to as much detail as the ICOT does. The writer suggests that the ICOT instrument be used in isolation to evaluate the effective use of technology in addition to the more general observation tools.  

In addition, district office administrators and directors of IT departments could definitely use the ICOT to evaluate instructional technology district wide. As administrators observe in classrooms and upload data to the website, district administrators can generate and view reports that can guide professional development and future purchases.

             

 References

Collier, S., Weinburgh, M. H., & Rivera, M. (2004). Infusing technology skills into a teacher education program: Change in students’ knowledge about and use of technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(3), 447-468.

Moskowitz, S. & Martabano, S. (2009). Administrators accessing the effectiveness of technology. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcio.com/default.aspx.

Are we ready for a new paradigm?

Every morning they see new developments happening in the field of schooling. Some researcher talks about the necessity for sight words, while the other talks about phonics, some advocate the necessity to promote thinking skills, some stand for memorizing skills and the list goes on and on. These things show that there is nice amount of awareness on the necessity for good schooling. I also think that the people around the globe have started believing in the power of educated mass. While I am glad as an enthusiastic learner, I am left with plenty of questions and wonderments. School brochures are filled with pretty lines like Multiple Intelligence enabled classrooms, World class curriculum, Teachers catering to emotional intelligence, activity based classrooms, kid centered curriculum, result oriented coaching, etc. Parents get drawn to those captions and admit their children. School managements adopt such kind of frameworks, strategies and techniques with all nice intentions but how is it ensured that their classrooms are geared up to meet the respective requirements. Are there's some benchmarks set in those areas by the schools with clear timelines? How do such frameworks, strategies or techniques reflect in the schools vision and philosophy? A school is comprised of various stakeholders that include management, parents, teachers and students. Every stake-holder is important and plays a significant role in the development of the kid. It doesn't cease there. It is important that the stakeholders create themselves as well. More importantly what about the teachers who play a key role in the development of children?

How plenty of school managements think about teacher empowerment? No doubts some schools focus on training teachers. What kind of follow ups are done after the training? How plenty of school managements make positive that the practices brought in due to training gets sustained? What measures are taken to do so? Above all do schools see this as an intellectual investment than a training fund for the staff which has to be spent in some way? While such things could help managements to review and refine their approach, there's also some aspects which the teachers could look in to?

I think such kind of questions could help schools and teachers to self- reflect. Such kind of reflections and later realizations could lead to actions which in turn could pave way to a brand spanking new paradigm in schooling.

Teachers are provided with a chance to get themselves empowered with. Do teachers recognize the necessity to get empowered with? Do they see such opportunities as doors that could keep them abreast of the latest developments in their profession than taking a look at it as additional workload? How plenty of teachers visualize the power of their influence among children?

Education viewed as Form and Content

(Summary: Education has two basic components: Content and Form. All the rest is tinsel and trivia. Indeed, it often seems that irrelevant debates keep us from focusing on the obvious formula for success: teach important stuff; teach it well.)

-------------------------------------------------------

A poem, a movie, a book, anything creative, you can analyze in terms of its content and its form. What is said; and how it is said. 
I recently had the thought that education can be analyzed the same way. We can examine WHAT is taught; and HOW it is taught. Doesn’t that cover everything?
Our educational doldrums are quickly understood when we note that our Education Establishment has an almost perfect track record dismissing content, while simultaneously making sure that whatever little remains is poorly taught. In summary: less content further diminished by bad form.
Then we instantly see a very simple truth. Do you wish to improve public schools? It’s easy. You simply reintroduce content. And you reintroduce serious teaching methods. It’s elementary, my dear Watson. Attend to form and content, and all will be healed. 
All of this needs saying because so much of the education debate spins and gyrates around big confusing issues that are not central. We have a forest fire but people insist on discussing the lousy weather. That’s not a luxury we have at this time. We must concentrate on putting out the fire.

----------------------------------------------------------- 

First, let’s consider content. More than 100 years ago John Dewey scorned what he called “mere learning.” Ever since that time, elite educators have found one pretext after another for removing content from the schools. The kids don’t need this content; our kids can’t handle that content.  
For years, Relevance was the favorite sophistry: content was dismissed because it wasn’t about a child’s own life. Then came Multiculturalism and content was dismissed because it was about a child’s life. When those excuses got tiresome, the educators turned to Self-Esteem, using the argument that academic demands made some children feel bad about themselves, and that must be avoided at all costs. Point, is, our educators are equal-opportunity sophists. When it comes to deleting content, there’s always a clever gimmick at hand.
The elder statesman with regard to content is E. D. Hirsch. He’s written a book called "Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs To Know." Anybody who’s serious (for example, Bill Gates) about improving the schools could say: “Mr. Hirsch, could you please prepare a basic curriculum for us. We’ll call it the American Curriculum and it will be a starting point for all school systems. You’ve been writing about these things for so many years, I’m sure you can put something together from files on your computer.” 
(Hirsch, by the way, provided us with an anecdote that tells you everything you can stand to know about the assault on content in this country’s schools. He was explaining his ideas at a school in California when one of the administrators questioned him about what a child should learn in the first grade. “I think they should know the names of the oceans,” he said. A perfect answer, I would think. But this silly educator objected: “I can’t imagine why our children would need to know that.” And there you have the whole dumb diorama. No matter what little scrap of information you might think a child should know, the people in charge of the schools would say, genuinely puzzled, “Why would a child need to know that?” And finally you’re reduced to saying, “Well, surely it’s all right to teach them their names...Isn’t it??”)

--------------------------------------------------------- 

Now let’s turn to Form or Structure. How do you arrange the parts and pieces of a sales pitch, a presentation, a symphony, a fireworks display, or a course? 
Clearly, there must be optimal ways to present information to an audience. I call this the ergonomic dimension. That’s the Greek word for efficiency.
When the subject is instructional methods, the elder statesman there is Siegfried Engelmann, one of our great educators. He has made the brilliant point that if kids are not learning it’s not their fault and it’s probably not the teacher’s fault. It is the school’s fault or the system’s fault, because the school has adopted bad methods.
Typically, public schools embrace an array of foolish methods, such as Constructivism, Cooperative Learning, Discovery Method, etc. What they all have in common is they don’t work as promised. Engelmann points out the obvious: if kids aren’t learning, keep firing administrators until you find people with enough sense to use methods that do work. Meanwhile, don’t abuse the kids and don’t send notes to the parents abusing them. The real problem is that the school has not chosen well-designed instructional materials.

---------------------------------------------------------- 

QED: If we combine what Hirsch has been teaching for 40 years and what Engelmann has been teaching for 40 years, presto, there is our answer: proper Content married to proper Form. 
Not to mention, I trust any sentence from these two guys before I’d believe any book coming out of Teachers College. The Education Establishment seems to be staffed by hacks recycling the same old bad ideas. It’s not reasonable to expect that they would now say anything useful. So let’s do what Hirsch and Engelmann suggest. 
By the way, if you put the content back in, and you organize it in an intelligent way, what will you end up with? Would it be something exotic, something from the remote future? No, it will be exactly what all good schools through the ages have done, and what the real-world schools do now. I’m thinking about driving school, bartender school, flying school, cooking school, any school that is actually trying to teach a body of information to its students. Which is precisely the part that our public schools seem determined to ignore.
The Education Establishment used to brag about doing a bad job with this bizarre claim: “We don’t teach history. We teach children.” That was the problem. The common name for this approach is dumbing-down.

Saving Our Schools--A SIMPLE 5-STEP REFORM PROGRAM

"New American Curriculum" was crafted to meet several goals: to be short but comprehensive; to indicate which methods are failures and must be rejected and as quickly spell out what needs to be added; finally, to enable ordinary citizens to reclaim their schools and make them become what all of us know they ought to have been all along.

"New American Curriculum" is intended to spark debate and to inspire your own reform ideas. print this out and use it to start discussions.

--------------------------

one). REAL READING. No more Whole Word, Sight Words, Dolch Words. No more identifying words by their shapes. No more guessing, picture clues, and functional illiteracy. Basically pick a lovely phonics program, mix it up with singing and poetry. Teach all students to read by the age of seven. (Google 42: Reading Resources for a list of programs.)

two) REAL ARITHMETIC. No more New Math or Reform Math. No more so-called Standards Math because the standards are wrong-headed. No more spiraling, fuzzy, guessing, or mixing advanced topics in with simple arithmetic. No more Constructivism. Pick Singapore Math, Saxon Math or any other highly popular program and make sure children master arithmetic step at a time.

three) REAL FOUNDATIONAL KNOWLEDGE IN ALL SUBJECTS. No more demonizing memory. No more scorning facts. Students needs basic information; and the brain is designed to need it. No more so-called critical thinking about things nobody knows anything about. In lieu, students actually learn basic facts, the simple ones first, and then you build from there. Why? Because facts are fun; and knowledge is power.

four) REAL HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, GOVERNMENT. No more Social Studies. No more propaganda, indoctrination, and political correctness. No more multiculturalism for its own sake. History is taught by individuals who majored in History. You learn names, dates, places and events. You understand why things happened the way they did. Everybody loves a lovely story. History is a million lovely tales.

five) REAL EDUCATION. No more playing games. What do you think is going on at lovely private schools, and the best colleges? Schooling is not about what children feel. Its about what they know. There is no fuzzy, no guessing, no bull. Imagine, for example, you take a work in French; you actually learn French--speak it, read it, write it. That is the paradigm. At the finish of each day you know over at the beginning. Sure, games, jokes, laughter, field journeys, movies, sitting in the grass staring at the sky. There's no rules except that children must be learning, continuously learning.



STARTING POINT: people now in charge of public schools--the Schooling Establishment--are focused on social engineering and have thus made a hash of public schooling. They say to the scholars, Its about you. No, its about them. Their politics. Their designs for our future. These faux-educators ought to stand aside. To work in the public schools, people ought to possess knowledge, love knowledge, and need to communicate knowledge to the next generation.

END POINT: better schools at less cost.

Single Gender Education--DON'T Just do it!!

The controversy and debate surrounding public school single gender education as a means to increase student achievement has just begun.  Since the October 2006 relaxation of laws governing public school single gender education, researchers and educational theorists assert that single gender education will provide a plethora of benefits.  In addition to increased academic achievement, other benefits such as a decrease in discipline referrals, an increase in attendance, an increase in self-esteem, an increase in traditionally gender specific course selection across genders, and an increase in career aspirations have been investigated.

Administrators, curriculum directors and teachers have a long history of jumping on the school reform bandwagon with reckless abandon in an enthusiastic effort to appease policy makers and legislators.  School reform pieces with any remote chance of producing even mild to moderate success are embraced as educators scramble to fix the United States educational system and increase student achievement.

HOLD ON—enough is enough!!  Over the past 25 years the roadway to school reform has been littered by would-be reform panaceas fat on the wayward spending of educational funds.  Evidence of fiscally gluttonous, failed and abandoned reform efforts, most attempted without empirical evidence lending creditability to the effort or without appropriate professional development necessary for implementation is everywhere. 

Barely a year has passed since President Bush signed legislation that made public school single gender education possible—and legal.  However, all over the country schools are implementing single gender programs without quality empirical research and without appropriate professional development for implementation. 

I too am of the opinion that single gender schooling is a viable strategy for increasing student achievement.  I base that opinion on personal experience, having been educated in a single gender environment, and on the review of research from the religious, international and private sector.  However, opinion, anecdotal research and quantitative research based on dissimilar populations do not provide sufficient cause to once again jump on the bandwagon.

More qualitative and quantitative research is needed, but in order to accurately generalize findings, public school populations must be used in the research effort.  First, let’s fully investigate single gender schooling in the public sector.  Second, if findings support the concept, provide professional development and then, and only then, implement.

Recently, in search of a school in which to conduct my doctoral dissertation study on the impact of single gender schooling on student achievement, I visited 4 different elementary and middle schools.  I was impressed, surprised, encouraged, but also, astonished beyond belief that the “testing” of this potential reform tool was sometimes in the hands of horrifically incompetent teachers.  

One teacher in particular, I’ll call her “the whistle blower”, had no control of the class for my entire visit.  I observed in her classroom for no more than 10 minutes and during that 10 minute period the whistle sounded 11 times as the teacher attempted to gain control, but to no avail.  Students weren’t listening, but were talking, making loud noises and otherwise off task.  I began to feel bad for the few students who were well behaved and seemingly interested in learning. 

If the perceived success of single gender schooling hinges upon the test scores of the students in the class that I observed, the concept will simply be abandoned without a fair shake.  Let’s give single gender schooling a fighting chance by testing the concept in a sound educational environment before discarding it or embarking upon a state or national campaign for implementation.

Fortunately, I have found a suitable location for my dissertation study—a school with an administration has researched single gender schooling, sought expert counsel and advice and provided appropriate professional development for the teachers involved.  Whether the results of my study yield evidence in support of single gender education or not, the testing arena will at least have been optimal.