Apps, Blooms, and Classroom Configurations...oh my!

          Technology has changed how we learn, work and play. Technology is infused in every aspect of our lives. Libraries now "check out" digital copies of books for Kindle and Nook users, we pay out bills and bank online, news breaks online well before it reaches print stage in newspapers and magazines. So, it comes as no surprise that our education system needs to change to incorporate more digital technology. However, we are often at a loss to connect the new technologies, wade through all the fads and fully understand and master the technology in order to use it to teach our students, prepare them for the future and connect it to Blooms levels of learning.

Blooms Taxonomy and Digital Technology

Blooms Taxonomy is a classification of the levels of learning thought to be important in the learning process. The classification system was presented in 1956 by educational psychologist, Benjamin Bloom (Overbaugh, n.d.). Blooms taxonomy is broken down into 6 levels which include Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating and Creating. (Overbaugh, n.d.) In the analyzing level, students distinguish between different parts of the task or method. Blooms Taxonomy was reimagined as a wheel that relates a variety of verbs and activities associated with each level of thinking. Allan Carrington created a fantastic modification to the Blooms Taxonomy wheel (shown left)  that includes technology apps associated with each level of thinking.

         Scott Rocco, Brad Currie and William Krakower of a New Jersey School District took Carrington's wheel and created a Google Doc summarizing the Apps found in the chart. Their document contains links to access the apps and how they can be used to support Bloom's levels of thinking and learning.

So, the first battle is solved. We know what apps apply to what level of Blooms thinking, but, how do we integrate these into our lessons when our classrooms are still stuck in 1996? Our classrooms and schools have a wide variety of resources and technology configurations ranging from the one computer classroom to schools with Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) programs. Each of these configurations has pros and cons.

The One Computer Classroom

Most classrooms I have been in have at a minimum, a computer attached to a projector. This can be used to show video clips and movies to the students. It can also be used to play class wide games and collect class responses. I have often heard from educators though that it is a detriment when trying to implement individualized learning and assigning digital based project assignment. While I agree it poses a challenge, with a bit of planning and creativity even this most basic setup can be use to create an interactive classroom environment. Some suggestions for using the one computer classroom are as follows:

• Assign roles to students in the class and take turns having students operate the mouse
• Students can take turns entering their responses for activities into a database that projects the class responses on the screen
• Create class wide word clouds, mind maps, etc
• If your classroom computer is stationary at the rear of the room, create a schedule with time limits for students to access it
• Use the computer as a part of a learning station during an activity so groups of students are moving through different stations.
• Skype as a class with an expert or another classroom in the world
• Partner with team teachers and make the single computers in each classroom portable on carts to be able to share between classrooms as needed.

Small Cluster of Classroom Computers (3-10 devices)

           Other classrooms have not one but three to four computers stationed in the room. This configuration again limits the amount of individualized learning that can occur. However, collaboration is an essential learning skills that students need to learn in order to be successful. Utilizing more group based assignments and using the classroom computers as work stations that students rotate through as part of a project will facilitate a collaborative learning environment.

• Classroom games can be played as teams with groups responding via computer
• Collaborative work via Google Apps
• Groups can work on projects which are then submitted to the teacher and projected on the larger screen for peer assessment.

Computer or iPad Cart (20-25 devices)

             Classrooms with access to a computer cart or iPad cart with many devices have an advantage if the number of students equals the amount of devices. One of the disadvantages I have observed with using iPad/computer carts has been devices that aren't charged from the previous class that used them, not all the devices have the correct app on them and the time it takes to load each devices. Teachers need to plan in advance of using the devices to ensure that the appropriate app for the activity has been downloaded. A larger issue is the charging of the devices. Taking the time to ensure that students have plugged the devices back in after use will go along way to assisting the next person who has reserved the cart. Always have a back up plan no matter what you do! But, what happens if you have more students than devices? Simple, more group work. Students could choose to work independently or pair lower achieving students with higher achieving students to allow for peer tutoring.

Computer Resource Room (30 computers; 1:1)

          The majority of schools I have been in have computer/resource rooms set up with the computers all along the walls so the students have their backs to you most of the time. How can you instruct them when they are facing away from you. Personally, I find the best use of computer/resource rooms to be when having students work on independent projects. So that they can individually research, edit, publish etc. I typically use them after I have previously instructed students and introduced the project as a whole class.

Bring Your Own Device Programs (1:1)

         I have mixed feelings about the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) programs. While it is a cheaper option for school districts to not have to purchase so much hardware, how do you make it equitable for those students who are financially at a disadvantage? How do you handle IT support for so many different devices some of which may not have internet access. I do not think there is a simple answer to these problems. Jason Twaddle summarizes the benefits of BYOD programs in his blog post on Marco.

           I have summarized my pros and cons for each scenario in the following Google Doc. Whether you have just the single computer classroom or a BYOD program, with creativity, planning and some innovation you can create an interactive learning environment for your students.

 

References

Carrington, Allan (2015, January 3) The Padagogy Wheel V4.1,  Retrieved from Unity College: http://www.unity.net.au/padwheel/padwheelposter.pdf

Twaddle, Jason (n.d.) How Can Schools Benefit from Bring Your Own Device Programs, Retrieved from Marco: http://blog.marconet.com/blog/how-schools-can-benefit-from-bring-your-own-device-byod-programs

Rocco, Scott; Currie, Brad; Krakower, William (2015) Blooms Taxonomy Apps,  Retrieved from Google Docs: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dlcbtNUwun1tG4-2yQTnbZjLYouAqu_4kB5q2RWeD0U/edit?usp=sharing

 

 

Tools for Data Analysis

     Web 2.0 tools such as Google Sheets,  and Zoho can be used to tabulate, analyze, and share data.  Mashable provides an additional list of 12 online spreadsheet programs.  Personally, I like to use Google products because they work seamlessly with Microsoft Office and I am an Office girl. Google allows for documents to be shared via a link without a maximum number of collaborators, which provides seamless sharing options. Data can be shared between educators, with administrators, with parents/guardians and with the students themselves.

    The data tabulated in the Google Sheet below represents student data from a hypothetical classroom. Within the hypothetical scenario, an assessment was given to 12 students at a middle school to assess all students within a single grade level. Student responses were compared to correct responses for each individual assessed standard as well as for each individuals performance on the assessment. Incorrect answers are highlighted in yellow.

     Student data was organized into groups that met the standards being assessed, students that did not meet the standards assessed as well as Groups for Advanced (limited supports), Proficient (moderate supports), Basic/Below Basic (intensive supports).



     The results above do not represent the whole picture. In-class assessments, existing educational supports and observations should also factor into instructional decisions. (Alber, 2014) However, the resuls are the starting point to begin a re-teaching/re-learning process.Based on the results presented only one student, "Zucy", falls in the Advanced category with only one missed question. All but one student incorrectly answered Question #6. Additionally, those incorrect answers ranged across the board indicating overall misunderstanding of the standard. Standard 6 should be retaught as an entire class rather than in small groups. 

     Online spreadsheets can be used to tabulate classroom, grade and school data and assess areas of successes as well as areas that need to be retaught or limitations of understanding. Student data can be tracked over time to show areas of growth.

References

Alber, Rebecca (2014, January 15) 3 Ways Student Data Can Improve Your Teaching, Retrieved from Edutopia: http://www.edutopia.org/blog/using-student-data-inform-teaching-rebecca-alber

How Technology Integration can Improve Learning

Technology Use Survey

The planning process is essential when making any plan. In order to establish a baseline for professional development plans for technology integration, the use, comfort level and understanding of needs of peers and colleagues is essential. The following 11 question survey collects data useful in the development of a technology integration professional development plan.

TPACK

Teaching is multifaceted and complex. Technological pedagogical content knowledge or TPACK, describes the type of teacher knowledge required to teach with technology. The TPACK model builds on Lee Shulman’s theory of teacher knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Shulman defined PCK as “teachers’ interpretations and transformations of subject-matter knowledge in the context of facilitating student learning.” (Koehler & Mishru, 2008). Shulman further proposed 6 key elements, knowledge of representations of subject matter (content knowledge), understanding of students’ conceptions of the subject and the learning and teaching implications that were associated with the specific subject matter; general pedagogical knowledge (or teaching strategies); curriculum knowledge; knowledge of educational contexts; and knowledge of the purposes of education.

        TPACK “is the intersection of teachers’ knowledge of curriculum content, general pedagogies, and technologies” (Haris & Hofer, 2009). TPACK is further broken down into the relationship of three intersections of knowledge, pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) technological content knowledge (TCK) and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK)convergent interaction. These intersections can be further defined as how to teach particular content-based material (PCK), how to select and use technologies to communicate particular content (TCK) and how to use particular technologies when teaching (TPK). The TPACK model focuses on how pedagogy, content and technology work together rather than focusing on each part in isolation.  (Koehler & Mishru, 2008).

 

         So, how does the TPACK model fit into today’s classrooms? Teachers inherently have a mastery of pedagogy and content through their years of school, teaching preparatory classes and discipline. However, the majority of teachers do not have a mastery of technology. Technology is not their area of expertise like pedagogy or content knowledge is. The introduction of technology into education is not a new concept. Technology helps us better understand the world around us. However, the constant shifting of digital technologies, lack of teacher training or experience with technologies and the preconceived notion that technology integration is someone else’s problem are primary factors in technology integration.  Without professional development to support teachers with their knowledge of how, and the suitability of which, technology to use in the classroom, technology integration will not be as successful. In an activity based approach, “technology selections are not made until curriculum-based learning goals and activity designs are finalized.” (Haris & Hofer, 2009). The TPACK model shifts the focus to the content and standards as opposed to making the content and standard fit the technology being used. Haris and Hofer provide a comprehensive list of activities and associated possible technologies that can be implemented. Many of these digital activities, wikis, blogs, video making, online polls, and collaborative sheets can be used across a multitude of disciplines. In the science classroom, blogs can be used to photo document laboratory assignments, projects, provide an online reflective journal and more. In the English classroom, blogs can be used to compile creative writing, or reflections on works read or written.  In the math classroom, blogs can then be used for reflections or developing math proofs or to investigate math principles.

How do we ensure TPACK is being used as opposed to PCK? Mark Anderson suggests the following:

• Create a learning and sharing culture where there are opportunities for staff to develop their technological skill
•  Run workshops organized as school but run by colleagues or students who are already at Mastery or better level, to further support their development.
• Give students the opportunity to show their skills through digital opportunities.
• Don’t let the technology dictate learning, combine pedagogy with content knowledge
• Provide opportunities for staff to meet to discuss developments they have encountered using technology.
• Build a set of core apps which all staff can use at a mastery level so that consistency, confidence and competency can flourish

(Anderson, 2013)

Personally, I spend the majority of my “free time” updating lesson plans, test questions, class activities to incorporate technology and increase the connection of material to students “real lives”. This updating requires a large investment of time. Time we often do not have as educators. However, it is time that is required if we are to provide our students with the skills needed for the future.

 

References

Anderson, M. (2013, May 28). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Retrieved from ICT Evangelist: http://ictevangelist.com/technological-pedagogical-and-content-knowledge/

Haris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional Planning Activity Types as Vehicles for Curriculum-Based TPACK Development. Research highlights in technology and teacher, 99-108. Retrieved from http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/file/view/HarrisHofer-TPACKActivityTypes.pdf

Koehler, M., & Mishru, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In M. Koehler, & P. Mishru, Handbook of Technological Pedalogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators (pp. 3-29). Routledge . Retrieved from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/publications/koehler_mishra_08.pdf