StudentLearning1

=Technology Planning Sub-Committee: Student Learning=

//Current Reality:// Some schools in the former LandsWest have purchased SmartBoards. Hafford, St. Vital and NBCHS have or are in the process of purchasing. Several other schools have expressed an interest in SmartBoards.
 * Smart Boards**
 * Vision Questions**:
 * Are SmartBoards an effective learning tool? Research?
 * What should deployment look like? How many classrooms? Which programs? Elementary… Secondary Math/Science…Special Education?

I think that we should have a plan that looks at deploying SmartBoards across the school division. I would like to say in every elementary classroom but maybe they should be first given to teachers who we know would take the time to learn how to use them properly, attend training sessions and be prepared to teach and mentor other teachers. -- Donna

The use of SMARTboards at this point in the development of a technology plan is like putting the cart before the horse. We need to have a number of issues resolved before we start looking at high-cost peripheral devices, such as a common platform/OS/software suite to be used by students and staff across the Division, a stable infrastructure that will support student learning within existing program needs, and perhaps most importantly, a series of well-developed professional learning opportunities for students AND staff to participate in to better bridge the gap between our students and staff. If the staff members feel as though they can't or don't know how to use the basic equipment (computer, scanner, printer, burners, etc), then they will not attempt to use these with students, let alone something like a SMARTboard. This committee needs to focus its attention on what it knows most about: teaching, and program needs. The hardware will then be sourced out by other professionals in that field to meet those needs. -- Brian.


 * Worth Reading:** Doug Johnson, the Director of Media and Technology for the Mankato Public Schools in Minnesota wrote about the [|results of a survey] on the use of interactive whiteboards (IWB) in his school system and generated a pretty good discussion - the comments are worth reading. In a [|follow up post], Doug summarized some of the concerns about IWBs and then asks four good questions about both the boards and technology in general. Donna

Some links (from Smart, but worth reading):
 * [|Interactive Whiteboards and Learning: A Review of Classroom Case Studies and Research Literature]
 * [|Case Studies and Research]

//Current Reality//
 * Laptops**
 * Two teacher programs in place (10 computers in each program)- Wilkie and Unity
 * A trial modified one-to-one program will be taking place at Connaught School (considerable data will be collected)
 * Vision Questions:**
 * Should laptops be a part of the technology plan? If so, why? Do you have any research that you would like to bring to the attention of the committee with regards to laptops and student learning?
 * Should we extend our 'research' to more than one school? That is, should we collect more of our own data before proceeding? Or is there sufficient data available? Does the data available apply to our situation?
 * How should laptops be dispersed? Staff, high school students, one-to-one programs, carts for classrooms, a combination?
 * If a decision is made to move to a common platform should elementary school labs be replaced with mobile laptop carts? If so, is there a platform which best suits the student learner at the elementary level? Middle years and high school?
 * What impact does the [|news announcement] from Quanta about $200.00 laptops in the developed world have on decision-making?
 * Who is responsible for the maintenance and/or repair or replacement cost when/if these devices get damaged or go missing? //Brian, these are important issues that would need to be incorporated into an implementation plan. Donna//
 * Who assumes the liability for what is done with the technology by either staff or students in light of cyber-bullying? What is the impact of this technology without a firm end-user agreement or acceptable user policy? //Brian, on the subsequent pages I have outlined some steps with regards to policy. Also, I think we need to work more closely with parents about the issues around safety, privacy and responsible of technology. Donna//

I would like to see all lead technology teachers/teacher-librarians with a fully equipped laptop - along with a job description that address informations systems management, collaborative planning and teaching and instructional leadership] -- Donna I think we need to begin our move to using laptops instead of desktop machines... there is a change of teaching and learning that occurs and has been well documented when computing devices become mobile. -- Donna I wonder if one trial laptop program will give us the data we need. Should our decision-making rely on the results of one school? Donna

The first suggestion above would indicate the need to provide for release time for a staff member in each building, and since staffing levels for each school was just approved by the Board at last night's board meeting, I don't think that this will be realistic in the 2007-08 school year for most schools. --Brian

The second point raised above would be nice, however, there is a significant issue around providing mobile access in a number of our schools - the physical construction of the buildings themselves makes it cost-prohibitive to provide a stable wireless network that staff could depend on. On the other hand, being tied to a wire removes the ability for the device to be mobile, which is the point of having it. There is also the issue of bandwidth: most wireless connections right now are 54 Mb (more likely 11 Mb), while a wired connection in our buildings starts at 100 Mb, and in some cases is 1 Gb. This is a significant difference in performance, which would be needed for such applications as streaming audio and video, web browsing, etc. There is also the cost factor for the quantity of devices we would have to purchase. You can get 2-3 quality desktop machines for the same price as a loaded laptop. This efficiency can be further enhanced by not ordering monitors and using the hundreds of spares sitting around in schools all over the Division. -- Brian.

On the topic of laptops: there are multiple studies out there on the benefits and downsides to giving staff members laptops, and this can be debated in either direction until the end of time. MY first and foremost concern is not the teaching staff having access to computers, but rather that STUDENTS have access to a stable computing environment with which they can complete their assignments, research or online communications without fear of failure on the part of the networks. Staff will also have access to that same equipment within the school, and this will put both groups of learners on the same page. It will also provide a greater focus for staff in their professional learning, as they will need to learn how to work under the same conditions as the students (ie - content filters, bandwidth restrictions, processor speeds, all of which would impact students but not necessarily staff). This will greatly reduce the "technical glitches" that some staff are experiencing when they are able to access online materials readily while the students cannot. Laptops for staff are the icing on the cake, after the foundation has been created, and the recipe has been perfected. Again, like the SMARTboards, cart before the horse. -- Brian.

//Current Reality:// (unknown to me)
 * Multimedia Workstations**
 * Are multimedia workstations stations (computer, still and video cameras,we cams, mics, headphones, scanner students) accessible to all students in all schools?
 * Does the hardware for PAA and CPT labs need upgrading?
 * Should there be a CPT lab at NBCHS?
 * //Maybe. Are there a sufficient number of students interested to provide the impetus for creating a new program? I don't know but this should be checked into. I certainly believe this should be investigated - **rjw**//
 * //Why just look at NBCHS? Why not look at ALL high schools without such a program, to see if the impetus or core mass of interest is there, and initiate programs at all locations? - Brian.//
 * Vision** **Questions:**
 * Should multimedia workstations be available to all students/subject areas in the school or only to special PAA programs?
 * If so what should the ratio of multimedia machines to students be in each school (1/50 … 1/100)?
 * Consider the new emphasis on [|digital storytelling] and students as creators, publishers and collaborators.

I believe that we need to have multimedia workstations available to all students (we still need CPT labs that provide opportunities for students with career interests) but all students in all subject and grade levels should be able to create, produce and publish in a wide variety of media. If we continue to use thin clients (former B'fords) or mandatory profiles (former LandsWest) students need machines on which large amounts of data (music, photos, video) can be manipulated and edited. -- Donna

//Some of my overall comments/questions about hardware. This may be somewhat of a "Jerry Maguire" moment, but here goes//:
 * //It feels like the discussion is focusing on the context we are in now (in areas of technology, curriculum and pedagogy) but what I think we should be doing is defining our target then working towards it? If our destination is the moon, we just might get there with enough determination and ingenuity (and money). So - what kind of learning do we see happening in the classrooms in 5 years, 10 years? And how does technology support the learning? And how do we get from here to there?//
 * //If we are shooting for the moon, which of the three hardware projects mentioned here will give us the biggest push towards the target? (Depends on what the target is, I suppose).//
 * //My opinion is that if we really want change, the technology needs to be ubiquitous.//
 * //Ubiquitous is initially revolutionary. but soon becomes invisible. Case in point - paper. It is now a given that all students will have unfettered access to paper - notebooks supplied by the school, looseleaf, etc. But when my grandmother started teaching in Alberta during the depression, no such assumption was made. Without the availability of cheap paper for all students in all grades, the method and goals of teaching were much different. Essays, or any kind of large written work, were not reasonable, but recitations of long poems were seen as having tremendous educational value. Although repetition is now seen as a lower order thinking skill, it was regarded at the time as the result of a good elementary education. What a difference now - we don't even question the availability of paper. Many assignments given to students are based on access to paper - workbooks, printed tests and examinations, compositions (from a complete sentence up to a complete essay - which are now expected to be printed up from a computer!). In high school, taking notes is expected in all the academic courses. What a change in 70 years due, in part, to the presence of a ubiquitous educational technology - paper!//
 * //CPT labs are great, but will only be used by some of the students some of the time. At any given time, most students will not be using them. I'm not saying they don't have a place in our overall plan, but they don't have the ubiquity to instigate some serious innovations in learning.//
 * //Smart boards offer classroom ubiquity, but not personal ubiquity. The blog entries that Donna linked to discuss another drawback - the tendency to reinforce traditional teaching practices. I'm not against traditional teaching practices - I think that having the expert at the front of the room is good in some classes for at least part of the time (I happen to believe I'm pretty darn good at it). but there is always room for some variety in our pedagogy.//
 * //Brian, I think that standardized platform/OS/software suite is a bit of a tangential concern. They are all moving targets that move too quickly to standardize. What we need are not standard systems, but systems that communicate nicely with each other. If we decide that presentation applications are important, we don't need to have everyone use Keynote. I hear Microsoft makes a satisfactory presentation app. ;^) If we focus on standardization, we will get mired down in "Mac v. PC" type arguments. My favourite OS is Firefox, because all my favourite apps (Google search, gmail, google docs, google notebook, etc.) work on it.//
 * //Staff development and learning is critical, but I think we need to start by focusing on peripherals and not the computer. Digital cameras are a good example. If we show teachers how to use their digital cameras, that gently leads them in to working with a computer by introducing a specific task. Maybe this also provides a model of how our students should learn to use the technology. One nice feature of the smart boards is they give teachers a peripheral with some pretty significant teaching possibilities.//
 * //To be honest, I don't think that I know much about teaching or program needs. I know about how I teach and the needs of programs I have been involved with, but not about generalities. What I do know about is learners and learning. I've worked with about 1500 to 2000 learners so far in my career, and I see learning happen in my classes every day (I hope). Those are the things I focus on.//
 * //I favour going forward with some laptop initiatives. Get 'em out to all teachers, not just lead tech teachers or teacher librarians. Eventually we need to get them out to all students (in all grades? If not, what grade to start?). Then they become something like paper!//
 * //Of course, as in all things money is an issue. Not just the cost of each unit, Brian, but also the maintenance cost. I shudder to think what damage could be done to a monitor in a moment of inattention.//
 * //Bandwidth problems are temporary. In another 18 months, bandwidth within a LAN increases by a factor of 10.//
 * //Lead technology teachers with release time in each school. Yep, that's got to happen. But eventually we want to make the position unnecessary! I look forward to my obsolescence because it will mean I have succeeded!!!//

//Discussion? I welcome any discussion on any of this. -// **//rjw//**

I agree with the assessment of the CPT machines/programs - it is a select few students who will use these machines for the intended purpose. Any other user, not using the hardware/software for that purpose, just increases the instability of those machines for those students/staff who actually need it. - Brian.

As for the rest, we seem to be coming at this from different angles - I look at this from the perspective of the PLC concept: let's get specific about what we are teaching (teach what, as the DuFour's would say), how will we assess this learning, how will we deal with those students who do not learn to the goal we have set, and how do we get them there. We have had discussions about programs driving the technology. Yet, we have a running dialogue here on technology driving the programs. What is the benefit to putting each program in having a SMARTboard in each classroom? What is the benefit to having laptops on every desk in every school? There must be genuine need from within the programs/curricula for this level of hardware. I don't see a shop class of 20 students with 20 bandsaws in it, even though all those students will need to use that type of technology. Not every student gets a personal stove in a Home Ec class. What is the difference here? The tax payer is not about to absorb this kind of cost, to see a great deal of hardware/software not getting used for any portion of the day, just so that we can say that everyone has it. Not when taxes increase, school populations are shrinking slowly and the gap between parent and student understanding and use of technology widening. - Brian.

We are definitely coming at this from different angles - - which need not be a negative thing. I think we have to balance that focus on "what we are teaching, etc." with considerations about what students are learning; what they want to learn; how they are already using technology in non-school environments. Remember that we are not "gate keepers" as to how students already use technology to construct meaning in their own lives. We may believe that CPT is for a select few students, but are we aware of how many students produce video at home on a regular basis and through this have already acquired sophisticated editing techniques through their own initiative and creativity? With all due respect, we, as teachers might well benefit from "releasing" some of our students to show us what they know/could discover about the use of various hardware, peripherals, etc.

We have a digital whiteboard in our school (McLurg) and from the beginning the students were encouraged to use the board as a presentation medium. In some cases, they introduced less technically astute teachers to its capabilities. Currently, we have only one board and book out the room when we want to use it. However, I am very partial to the idea of making them available in classrooms for given teachers to use on a full-time basis (with a view to eventually having one per classroom.) My reasoning for this is that even though I can readily envision ways to use the board in my teaching, due to limited access, I am not able to really bring these possibilities into use. If I had such a board at my disposal at all times, I know that it would completely change the way that I envision unit and lesson planning and would open up a whole repetoire of possibilities for my students as well.

As for cameras, scanners, etc., I have been amazed at the way that these tools are being used on a regular basis by students for various projects, including e-portfolios and presentations. I would love to see multimedia workstations available in all subject and grade levels (perhaps mobile stations would be best).

The way that I see laptops being useful has probably been influenced by a presentation about a successful, research based program in the Eastern Townships (I believe the presenter was Ron Canuel.) This project involved making laptops available to all students in a school, with startling results for improved literacy levels throughout. (Could be a possible pilot project for a school in this division, as extensive analysis has been done). However, I think that, to start with, it would be valuable to provide schools with "mobile labs" of laptops that could be used in a variety of ways, from turning traditional classrooms into temporary labs, to allowing students to use computers for group work in a more flexible setting, to facilitating field work of various kinds, to assisting students with special needs in a more versatile manner. I appreciate that this idea may test the limits of present wireless networks, etc.

As for laptops for teachers, I believe that an incentive program (I think Regina public has one) that puts laptops into the hands of teachers and then allows them to purchase them at reasonable rates may be something to consider.

Just a note on platforms - - I know that standardization has its benefits, but as a consumer of just about anything else, I wouldn't be bound to a particular brand or company without exploring the benefits of other alternatives. As Rob stated, there is a great move towards having systems that communicate with each other. Why not look at Macs, for example as a great option for multimedia stations? Although I don't have a lot of experience with the Mac mini's, for example, they may be a way of adding a lot of capabilities without putting money into purchasing more monitors, keyboards, etc.

Sorry about all of the rambling. - - Ruth

I came away from our meeting unsure if we had met our goals for that meeting. In my mind we were supposed to come up with a somewhat more concrete proposal. I was thinking something along this line:


 * || YEAR 1 || YEAR 2 || YEAR 3 ||
 * STUDENT COMPUTERS || Cart of 10/School || 2 carts of 10/School || 2 carts of 15/school ||
 * SMARTBOARDS || 1/school || 5/school || 1/class ||
 * TEACHER COMPUTERS || pilot school || 1/2 division || division ||
 * SUPPORT || .1 FTE/School || .2 FTE/School || .3 FTE/School ||
 * Policy || AUP's || Resource Sharing || Curr. Dev. ||

These seems like attainable goals to me and to reflect the consensus of the committee (I'm sure you'll point out my many mistakes and incorrect assumption). :) -Mark

Tech Planning Home | Visioning | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4