Beware of the Protectors of Technology

With the nation spending an estimated 7.5B, that’s billion with a B, (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2011/11/prek-12_ed-_tech_market_estima.html ) in preK-12 edtech  it is time to ask what we are getting for our money.  Are we getting 7.5B worth of improved student learning?  I bet not.  One of the reasons we might not be getting our money’s worth are the protectors of technology (POT).  As individuals, schools and districts invest in educational technology they inevitably invest in hiring technicians that take care of the investment.  We forget that these people are not educators, and after a while they tend to forget that the purpose of educational technology is student learning.  For these individuals it is all about protecting the technology from the students and often from their teacher.  Their priorities are the technology and keeping their jobs simple.  Student learning isn’t even on their radar as a goal.

Why do I bring this up?  I am currently sitting in a classroom that has 20 student laptops but only 5 of them can currently talk to the Internet.  A problem my students or I could easily solve by assigning the correct wireless router but we are not given access.  Students cannot save any work on these computers and the computers are so locked down they will not even recognize a flash drive.  So here am I with a MS in instructional technology, student log-ins set up for Edmodo, Glogster, Animoto, Mangahigh and many others.  I have curriculum designed around Web 2.0 tools and ready to go.  I have access to a commercial online curriculum.  None of it I can use.  I can’t even access, on the teacher computer, the teacher CD that comes with our text books.  I can on and on.  I have a Smartboard but I can’t update the software because I don’t have access on the laptop that came with it.  The list is long.  A POT stopped by my classroom today but told me “I don’t have time to fix the student computers,  update the teacher computers, or install the requested software.”  When I asked for access to the teacher computer so that I could do what’s necessary (I really am technically capable in a past life I ran software engineering groups) I was told that “There is only three of us and we don’t have time to run around fixing things.” Implying that it I wasn’t capable or trustworthy enough to download and install updates on my computer.

This is the problem.  POTs do not care if the technology is being used by the students.  They do not care about the students learning.  In their fiefdom technology is purchased to be kept safe and provide them easy jobs.  Somehow the goal for technology acquisition-student learning- has been lost in the process of buying, distributing, enabling and maintaining the technology.  In the minds of the POTs the purpose of school s and school districts has been twisted to goals centered on technology not students.

What would happen if students were given administrator access to the student computers?  Yes they would get messed up.  What if we required them to fix the computers?  The students might actually learn something.  But wait that’s, as far as the POTs are concerned, that is not the reason the technology was bought.  Hard earned tax payer money was spent on the technology to be locked up and protected from teachers and students.  Technology’s purpose in classrooms is to ensure the POTs have cushy jobs.

What are we getting for our 7.5B?  How much student learning does 7.5B buy?  I believe the answer is inversely related to the number of POTs hired.

Elevator Speach

My elevator speech is a 3 minute video in which I try and "convince" our superintendent that we need to introduce a blended learning approach to our school system.  It is pretty basic.  I am still learning how to make simple videos. Hope everyone likes it.

Pink's Drive and SDT

Back to Pink
     I am reading Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. I know I have posted a comment about Pink’s motivation writing and interviews being eerily similar to Self-Determination Theory (SDT). Well, he does give reference to Deci’s early work. But at least so far he hasn’t mentioned the large research knowledge base that has been built up since Deci & Ryan (2000) conceptualized SDT. I can’t believe he is not aware of the hundreds of empirical studies so I really hope that I’m just jumping the gun here. Anyone who is interested in the research behind Pink’s autonomy, mastery, and purpose (SDT calls them autonomy, competency, relatedness) you can find it at http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/ where Deci, Ryan and many others at the University of Rochester and beyond have compiled an impressive body of research. At this site they also make available many of the instruments used in the research.

What is SDT?
      SDT posits that humans have three basic psychological needs, whose satisfaction is critical to well being, health, and personal growth. These needs are innate and universal. Human beings strive consciously or unconsciously toward situations that support the satisfaction of these needs. The three needs are: autonomy – feeling ownership for choices and behaviors, competence- feeling effective, and relatedness – feeling connected to others. To the extent an environment satisfies these needs, it supports engagement in and mastery of skills and concepts within it (Deci & Ryan, 2000). 

SDT & Education
     Substantial research has linked basic needs satisfaction to student behavior in the classroom, academic achievement, cognitive learning, and persistence in school (Brokelman, 2009; Hardre & Reeve, 2003; Ryzin, Gravely, & Roseth, 2007). This is true across gender, age, and cultures (Chirkov, 2009; Guay, Ratelle, & Chanal, 2008; Jang, Reeve, Ryan, & Kim, 2009; Sheldon, Abad, & Omolie, 2009; Shih, 2008). Support of these basic psychological needs has been correlated to intrinsic motivation, which in turn has been linked to student engagement and academic achievement (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Ryzin, Gravely, & Roseth, 2007). Particular emphasis has been placed on support for autonomy. Specific teacher and administrator behaviors have been shown to either support or hinder student perceived autonomy satisfaction and intrinsic motivation (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Teacher support for student autonomy has been correlated to the autonomy support they receive (Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007) providing an avenue for improving instructional environments.

References Cited:

Brokelman, K. F. (2009). The interrelationship of self-determination, mental illness, and grades among university students. Journal of College Student Development, 50(3), 271-286.

Chirkov, V. I. (2009). A cross-cultural analysis of autonomy in education: A self-determination theory perspective.  Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 253-262. doi:10.1177/1477878509104330

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits:  Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_0

Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of self-determination in education. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(3), 233-240. doi:10.1037/a0012758

Hardre, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of rural students' intentions to persist in, versus drop out of, high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 347-356. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.347

Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically oriented Korean students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 644-661. doi:10.1037/a0014241

Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133-144. doi:10.1177/1477878509104318

Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 761-774. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.761

Ryzin, M. J., Gravely, A. A., & Roseth, C. J. (2007). Autonomy, belongingness, and engagement in school as contributors to adolescent psychological well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 1-12doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9257-4

Sheldon K M Abad N Omoile J 2009 Testing self-determination theory via Nigerian and Indian adolescents.Sheldon, K. M., Abad, N., & Omoile, J. (2009). Testing self-determination theory via Nigerian and Indian adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(5), 451-459.

Shih, S. (2008). The relation of self- determination and achievement goals to Taiwanese eighth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 108(4), 313-334. doi:10.1086/528974

Still exploring the usefullness of chat

OK, so I think I may have found a version of chatting that might actually provide some opportunity for learning. Below is the  link to the transcript of a webinar on training hybrid educators.  People sign up and list questions then the moderator asks the questions and, in this case, two individuals with experience answer the questions.  It is not really a chat since it is heavily moderated and is not really a dialogue between people.  Still, the format provides limited participation and leaves a very readable and understandable transcript that allows for non participants to learn from the event.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/events/chats/2011/11/02/index.html

The Power of Twitter

OK, I am finally convinced.  I put together a livebinder on screencasting for my cue presentation tomorrow rather than build an actual presentation I thought I would just walk through the binder and do a demonstration on the smartboard.  As a side note - I realize that this is not a very exciting presentation.  Anyway, I thought in addition to listing the url on the first screen (so everyone could follow along and didn't have to take notes) I would also  create a twitter hashtag so that I could just tweet the link.  I also thought people could just tweet questions and comments.

So to test the hashtag and link out I tweeted out the link using only the hashtag for my presentation.  Within minutes my tweet was RTed by people who do not, or at least didn't, follow me.  How did it come up on people's radar?  I do not get it.  I am a little embarrassed because it really isn't all that great of a binder.  I was just trying to leave the SDCUE attendees with some reference links.  There must be people who do keyword searches continuously.

Twitter (minus the chats) is really growing on me.

To chat or not to chat - I have my answer

Ok, I have come to the conclusion that I will not “ace” my PLN assignment, at least according to Jeff’s rubric - although it is very slick.  I have tried over a dozen times but I do not like, enjoy, or benefit from n-way synchronized communication.  When I think back I realize that whenever I built on-line training I always avoided the everyone-get-online-at-the-same-time-and-chat assignments.  I find it too difficult to listen, reflect and respond effectively.  In my way of thinking the dialogue that an online asynchronous discussion, blog, or even twitter provides is far more meaningful and allows for much deeper learning.  When we meet together we do not all talk at once for good reason.  Good listening requires time for processing that chatting doesn’t allow.  Maybe its me.  Maybe I have a slow visual processor.

Anyway, I intend to grow and use my PLN without the chat sorry @jheil65.