Digital & Mobile Technology

Matthew Lynch published in Campus Security, Digital & Mobile Technology, Early Childhood & K-12 EdTech, Higher Education, Trending Topics,

10 Technologies to Keep Schools Safe

With all the news of different school shootings, it is becoming increasingly important to take advantage of new technology to keep schools safer. Implementing effective high-technology security systems can be costly and lengthy but there are four tips to make the decision of what is best for your school:

  • Know your school’s unique needs.
  • Start small, then build smart…don’t try to implement every technology security system at once.
  • Head off controversy by including the families of students in the decision-making process.
  • Don’t forget to hire people to oversee, run, maintain, and upgrade the system.

With these four tips in mind, here are ten very popular and effective technologies that keep schools safe.

#1 Social Net Watcher

At a middle school in Indiana, administrators launched their new computer program, Social Net Watcher. This program works in “the cloud” to find dangerous words posted on Facebook which then, through the program’s algorithm, will alert the school administrators.  This program helps the school to keep an eye on cyber bullying. Bruce Canal, the President of Social Net Watch, said “With the new bullying law that went into effect in Indiana this summer, schools are now required to report to the Department of Education the number of bullying events that they’ve had. Our software also allows them to go in and create a report to send to the Department of Education.”

#2 Anonymous Alerts

Another technology that helps prevent bullying or other severe and dangerous situations such as a weapon on campus is the Anonymous Alerts app. At Round Rock ISD, students and staff can download this app on their Apple or Android products and can anonymously report incidents. Round Rock ISD spokesperson, Corey Ryan, mentioned that they want students to feel safe and comfortable when sharing concerns about safety and security.

#3 NetSafe Kit

Many schools feel that they can’t completely protect their students online. So, they are focusing on teaching students to be prepared and safe while online. This NetSafe Kit helps schools teach students cyber safety and digital citizenship.

#4 Visitor Management System

Many schools require visitors to sign in on a paper log and show proof of ID before entering the halls of the school. However, at Stow-Munroe Falls High School, the administration is using a technological visitor management system to protect its students. Visitors have their state or federal identification scanned and the system checks a national database of registered sex offenders.

#5 Entry Control Equipment

Not only should schools require visitors to check in with the office before going any farther into the school, but many schools feel it necessary to keep all exits locked at all times. These schools have entry control equipment: electromagnetic doors that can be remotely locked or unlocked. Visitors buzz in and the office staff can choose to unlock the doors for them or not.

#6 Metal Detectors/X-Ray Machines

Especially in inner-city schools where violence and drugs are rife, metal detectors and x-ray machines are a necessity to keep entrances to the school campus safe. This will allow detection of guns, knives, or other weapons before they are brought on campus.

#7 Surveillance Cameras

Over 90% of K-12 schools in the United States have security cameras and video surveillance equipment. Cameras should be placed in the school hallways, large rooms (such as the library, cafeteria, and gym), and especially near the front entrance. Some security systems come with alert buttons that send emergency transmissions to police.

#8 Panic Buttons

Teachers can wear small panic buttons such as the Mobile Duress panic button on their belts or pockets during the day. If some trouble or danger arises, the teacher can push the button and an alert is sent to both the authorities and the school administrators. The administrators will then make everyone in the building aware of the threat while first responders make their way to the school. Different brands of panic buttons can double as microphones or voice amplifications systems.

#9 Mass Messaging Software

Mass messaging software, such as e2campus, allow schools to immediately send messages to parents, students, faculty, and staff at the same time when there is a threat. Messages can be sent in the form of email, voice, or text and can be sent to both computers and smart devices. Even without threats or danger to the school, this program is nice to have to send community-wide reminders or memos.

#10 Alertus Desktop

Having all the computers of staff members connected is important to keeping the school safe. Using Alertus Desktop, or other similar programs, allows desktop alerts to appear on every computer screen on campus. This is a great idea, especially if a student or faculty member is in an area that doesn’t have great cell service. It can also help all staff members stay coordinated and be used to send staff memos and reminders.

Remember, the safety of the students and staff at your school are of the utmost importance. Don’t be too paranoid in your decision making, but be smart.

 

 

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Digital & Mobile Technology, Early Childhood & K-12 EdTech, Higher Education, The Hechinger Report, Trending Topics

Do classroom clickers improve learning? It depends.

by Nichole Dobo

Classroom “clickers” quiz students in real time, allowing instructors to gauge student learning and reinforce what is being taught.

New research suggests that the effectiveness of these devices hinges largely on the teaching methods being used with them, not the technology, and that instructors would do well to think about why they are using the devices and whether or not they dovetail with their teaching style.

“It’s super easy to just incorporate clickers into the classroom and to say ‘I am doing something new, something innovative,’ ” said Amy M. Shapiro, a professor of psychology at UMass Dartmouth. “But it’s not that simple.”

The study, published in the most recent edition of the journal Computers & Education, studied clicker use in classrooms of undergraduate students in an introductory biology class and a physics course at a university in the northeast.

The researchers discovered, to their surprise, that these devices encourage some students to focus on rote fact memorization, to the detriment of deeper, conceptual learning. Those students without a background on the topic covered in the course might fixate on the clicker questions when studying, rather than delve deeper into the material of the course, researchers suggested, adding that more study of this novel finding is needed.

The study builds on prior research that generally found that clickers had a favorable effect on student learning. But those earlier studies found it difficult to determine if the improvements in student learning came directly from the use of the clickers. This new research helps fill in the gap by studying how clickers combined with different styles of teaching – lecture halls full of students versus problem-solving in smaller groups, for instance – changed the results of student learning. The study notes that previous research showing positive results with clickers had hypothesized that teaching strategies probably had a major influence on the results. This new research seems to confirm it.

That said, limitations remain. Results could have differed because researchers were comparing courses in different subjects (biology and physics), for example.

The researchers were careful to note that they do no suggest eliminating the technology from the classroom. Instead, they say their research suggests this: The mere use of a technology isn’t enough; careful attention to how devices interact with teaching is required.

Shapiro, for example, said that she uses clickers in a large lecture hall during an introductory level course. There, the clickers are useful in improving attendance (students know the clickers track that), and the course requires a fair amount of rote memorization of new terms. But she does not use clickers in smaller, higher-level courses where students are more engaged in applying what they know to solve problems.

“We suggest that, while clickers are useful in motivating students to come to class, increasing enjoyment of the class, and enhancing rote learning in didactic courses, instructors interested in imparting deeper understanding must be mindful of their overall pedagogy,” the researchers wrote. “Incorporating activities that involve students in active inquiry and problem-solving may be much more helpful than simply offering clicker questions in class, even when the clicker questions are conceptual in nature.”

This story was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news website focused on inequality and innovation in education. Read more about blended learning.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Digital & Mobile Technology, Early Childhood & K-12 EdTech, Higher Education, Trending Topics

How mobile phones are disrupting teaching and learning in Africa

Gina Porter, Durham University

Mobile phones have become ubiquitous in Africa. Among younger users, basic phones are most common. But more pupils are accessing smartphones that can connect to the internet – and taking them along to school.

Phones are often used in school whether they’re allowed or not. Although they can enable valuable access to information, they also bring new responsibilities and dangers. It’s remarkably common for classes to be interrupted by both pupils’ and teachers’ phones. Access to pornography as well as bullying and harassment through phones is widely reported.

We have conducted a study of young people’s mobile phone use in Ghana, Malawi and South Africa. Our findings emphasise the central place that mobile phones occupy in many young people’s lives. Before the mobile phone arrived in Africa, few people had access to landlines. The mobile phone represents far more of a communication revolution in Africa than in richer countries.

Researching phone stories

The study, involving a group of university researchers from the UK and Africa, was funded by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and Department for International Development. It covers many aspects of young people’s phone use, from generational relations to job searches and health advice. Use in school has emerged as a leading issue, echoing concerns around the world.

We conducted more than 1,500 face-to-face interviews and focus groups with young people, teachers, parents and key community members across 24 locations – eight in each country. These varied from poor city neighbourhoods to remote rural hamlets.

We followed this up with a questionnaire to about 3,000 young people aged between nine and 18 and 1,500 young people aged between 19 and 25 in the same 24 locations.

The survey of children aged nine to 18 years shows that mobile phone use is much higher than ownership figures might suggest. Ownership of phones was lowest in Malawi, the poorest of the three countries. Here only 8% of children in the survey owned their own phone, compared with 16% in Ghana and 51% in South Africa. Nonetheless, in Malawi 35% of children said they had used a phone in the week before the survey. In Ghana the figure was 42% and in South Africa it was 77%. Children often borrow phones from each other, their parents, other family members and neighbours.

Children’s use of phones

Some pupils, particularly in South Africa, use their phones to access sites like Master Maths for help with homework. But the positive benefits mostly seem to be limited to mundane tasks such as contacting friends to check on homework or using the phone as a calculator. Much information from pupils and teachers was more negative: academic performance affected by disrupted classes – due to teachers as well as pupils using their phones – disrupted sleep because of cheap night calls, time wasted on prolonged sessions on social network sites, and harassment, bullying and pornography.

Class disruption from pupils’ phones used to be mostly from ring tones when calls were received. Now, for those with smartphones, messaging on WhatsApp or checking Facebook have become common classroom activities. Teachers’ phone use in class can be equally disruptive, as some teachers admitted. A call comes in, or they make a call, and whether they step outside or take the call in class, the end result is that the lesson is interrupted and – as more than one told us – “You forget what you are going to deliver.”

In Malawi, 60% of enrolled pupils said they had seen their teacher using a phone in lesson time during the week before the survey. The corresponding figure for Ghana was 66% and for South Africa 88%. Pupils are rarely given such an opportunity to comment on the behaviour of those in authority over them but even if not all were truthful, these figures are of concern. Many head teachers also spoke about the problem of teacher phone use, saying they found it difficult to regulate.

Other problems include disturbing levels of pupil bullying and harassment. In the survey of enrolled pupils who use a phone, 16% in Ghana, 28% in Malawi and 55% in South Africa said they had received unwanted, unpleasant or upsetting calls or texts. This was almost equally true for boys and girls.

Distribution and viewing of pornography is also widespread, as older boys were often willing to disclose. A few – even primary school pupils – mentioned sexting.

Promoting responsible phone use in school

Many head teachers have asked us how to promote responsible phone use in school. Here are some suggestions:

Pupil phone use: It is important to have a clear school policy on pupil phone use, to inform parents about this and to explain the reasoning behind it. If the school has decided to allow pupils to bring their mobile phone to school – for instance, because of travel problems – but not to use it in school, then pupils could be required to put a name tag on their phone and deposit it with a staff member, using a register, before school begins. In this case parents or carers must be given a phone number for urgent messages.

If the school allows pupils to use mobile phones in class as calculators or to access the internet, pupils and their parents could sign an “acceptable use” agreement each term. This would promote effective use of class time and their own and other pupils’ safety.

Pupils also need reminders not to publish personal information on the internet and to tell their teacher, a parent or carer if they access any information that worries them. Parents must be encouraged to help their child follow the school’s guidelines. Asking them to sign an acceptable use agreement together with their children will help.

The ConversationTeacher phone use: Teachers’ mobile phones should be switched off and left in a safe place during lesson times. If teachers are using their phones when pupils are banned from doing so, pupils may become resentful. Staff should not contact pupils from their personal mobile phones or give their mobile phone numbers to pupils or parents. This would help teachers maintain sound professional practice.

Gina Porter, Senior Research Fellow, Durham University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Digital & Mobile Technology, Early Childhood & K-12 EdTech, Higher Education, Trending Topics

Fighting online trolls with bots

Saiph Savage, West Virginia University

The wonder of internet connectivity can turn into a horror show if the people who use online platforms decide that instead of connecting and communicating, they want to mock, insult, abuse, harass and even threaten each other. In online communities since at least the early 1990s, this has been called “trolling.” More recently it has been called cyberbullying. It happens on many different websites and social media systems. Users have been fighting back for a while, and now the owners and managers of those online services are joining in.

The most recent addition to this effort comes from Twitch, one of a few increasingly popular platforms that allow gamers to play video games, stream their gameplay live online and type back and forth with people who want to watch them play. Players do this to show off their prowess (and in some cases make money). Game fans do this for entertainment or to learn new tips and tricks that can improve their own play.

When spectators get involved, they can help a player out.
Saiph Savage, CC BY-ND

Large, diverse groups of people engaging with each other online can yield interesting cooperation. For example, in one video game I helped build, people watching a stream could make comments that would actually give the player help, like slowing down or attacking enemies. But of the thousands of people tuning in daily to watch gamer Sebastian “Forsen” Fors play, for instance, at least some try to overwhelm or hijack the chat away from the subject of the game itself. This can be a mere nuisance, but can also become a serious problem, with racism, sexism and other prejudices coming to the fore in toxic and abusive comment threads.

In an effort to help its users fight trolling, Twitch has developed bots – software programs that can run automatically on its platform – to monitor discussions in its chats. At present, Twitch’s bots alert the game’s host, called the streamer, that someone has posted an offensive word. The streamer can then decide what action to take, such as blocking the user from the channel.

Trolls can share pornographic images in a chat channel, instead of having conversations about the game.
Chelly Con Carne/YouTube, CC BY-ND

Beyond just helping individual streamers manage their audiences’ behavior, this approach may be able to capitalize on the fact that online bots can help change people’s behavior, as my own research has documented. For instance, a bot could approach people using racist language, question them about being racist and suggest other forms of interaction to change how people interact with others.

Using bots to affect humans

In 2015 I was part of a team that created a system that uses Twitter bots to do the activist work of recruiting humans to do social good for their community. We called it Botivist.

We used Botivist in an experiment to find out whether bots could recruit and make people contribute ideas about tackling corruption instead of just complaining about corruption. We set up the system to watch Twitter for people complaining about corruption in Latin America, identifying the keywords “corrupcion” and “impunidad,” the Spanish words for “corruption” and “impunity.”

When it noticed relevant tweets, Botivist would tweet in reply, asking questions like “How do we fight corruption in our cities?” and “What should we change personally to fight corruption?” Then it waited to see if the people replied, and what they said. Of those who engaged, Botivist asked follow-up questions and asked them to volunteer to help fight the problem they were complaining about.

We found that Botivist was able to encourage people to go beyond simply complaining about corruption, pushing them to offer ideas and engage with others sharing their concerns. Bots could change people’s behavior! However, we also found that some individuals began debating whether – and how – bots should be involved in activism. But it nevertheless suggests that people who were comfortable engaging with bots online could be mobilized to work toward a solution, rather than just complaining about it.

Humans’ reactions to bots’ interventions matter, and inform how we design bots and what we tell them to do. In research at New York University in 2016, doctoral student Kevin Munger used Twitter bots to engage with people expressing racist views online. Calling out Twitter users for racist behavior ended up reducing those users’ racist communications over time – if the bot doing the chastising appeared to be a white man with a large number of followers, two factors that conferred social status and power. If the bot had relatively few followers or was a black man, its interventions were not measurably successful.

Raising additional questions

Bots’ abilities to affect how people act toward each other online brings up important issues our society needs to address. A key question is: What types of behaviors should bots encourage or discourage?

It’s relatively benign for bots to notify humans about specifically hateful or dangerous words – and let the humans decide what to do about it. Twitch lets streamers decide for themselves whether they want to use the bots, as well as what (if anything) to do if the bot alerts them to a problem. Users’ decisions not to use the bots include both technological factors and concerns about comments. In conversations I have seen among Twitch streamers, some have described disabling them for causing interference with browser add-ons they already use to manage their audience chat space. Other streamers have disabled the bots because they feel bots hinder audience participation.

But it could be alarming if we ask bots to influence people’s free expression of genuine feelings or thoughts. Should bots monitor language use on all online platforms? What should these “bot police” look out for? How should the bots – which is to say, how should the people who design the bots – handle those Twitch streamers who appear to enjoy engaging with trolls?

One Twitch streamer posted a positive view of trolls on Reddit:

“…lmfao! Trolls make it interesting […] I sometimes troll back if I’m in a really good mood […] I get similar comments all of the time…sometimes I laugh hysterically and lose focus because I’m tickled…”

Other streamers even enjoy sharing their witty replies to trolls:

“…My favorite was someone telling me in Rocket League “I hope every one of your followers unfollows you after that match.” My response was “My mom would never do that!” Lol…”

What about streamers who actually want to make racist or sexist comments to their audiences? What if their audiences respond positively to those remarks? Should a bot monitor a player’s behavior on his own channel against standards set by someone else, such as the platform’s administrators? And what language should the bots watch for – racism, perhaps, but what about ideas that are merely unpopular, rather than socially damaging?

The ConversationAt present, we don’t have ways of thinking about, talking about or deciding on these balancing acts of freedom of expression and association online. In the offline world, people are free to say racist things to willing audiences, but suffer social consequences if they do so around people who object. As bots become more able to participate in, and exert influence on, our human interactions, we’ll need to decide who sets the standards and how, as well as who enforces them, in online communities.

Saiph Savage, Assistant Professor of Computer Science, West Virginia University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Digital & Mobile Technology, Early Childhood & K-12 EdTech, Higher Education, Trending Topics

How can we learn to reject fake news in the digital world?

Thomas P. Mackey, SUNY Empire State College and Trudi Jacobson, University at Albany, State University of New York

The circulation of fake news through social media in the 2016 presidential election has raised several concerns about online information.

Of course, there is nothing new about fake news as such – the satirical site “The Onion” has long done this. Fake news satire is part of “Saturday Night Live”‘s Weekend Update and “The Daily Show.”

In these cases, the framework of humor is clear and explicit. That, however, is not the case in social media, which has emerged as a real news source. Pew Research Center reports that Facebook is “the most popular social media platform” and that “a majority of U.S. adults – 62 percent – get news on social media.” When people read fake news on social media, they may be tricked into thinking they are reading real news.

Both Google and Facebook have promised to take measures to address the concerns of fake news masquerading as real news. A team of college students has already developed a browser plug-in called FiB to help readers identify on Facebook what is fake and what is real.

But these steps don’t go far enough to address fake news.

The question then is: Can we better prepare ourselves to challenge and reject fabrications that may easily circulate as untruthful texts and images in the online world?

As scholars of library and information science, we argue that in today’s complex world, traditional literacy, with its emphasis on reading and writing, and information literacy – the ability to search and retrieve information – are not enough.

What we need today is metaliteracy – an ability to make sense of the vast amounts of information in the connected world of social media.

Why digital literacy is not enough

Students today are consumers of the latest technology gadgets and social media platforms. However, they don’t always have a deep understanding of the information transmitted through these devices, or how to be creators of online content.

Researchers at Stanford University recently found that “when it comes to evaluating information that flows through social media channels,” today’s “digital natives,” despite being immersed in these environments, “are easily duped” by misinformation.

Digital literacy may not be enough.
Digital devices image via www.shutterstock.com

They said they “were taken aback by students’ lack of preparation” and argued that educators and policymakers must “demonstrate the link between digital literacy and citizenship.”

The truth is that we live in a world where information lacks traditional editorial mechanisms of filter. It also comes in various styles and forms – it could range from digital images to multimedia to blogs and wikis. The veracity of all this information is not easily understood.

This problem has been around for a while. In 2005, for example, a false story about a political figure, John Seigenthaler Sr., was posted by an anonymous author on Wikipedia, implicating him in the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy. Seigenthaler challenged this fake entry and it was eventually corrected. Several other hoaxes have circulated on Wikipedia over the years, showing how easy it is to post false information online.

Indeed, in 2007, FactCheck.org, a website that monitors the accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players, urged readers to ask critical questions in response to a false story that had been placed about House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. At the time, people were being misled into believing that Pelosi was proposing a tax on retirement funds and others to help illegal immigrants and minorities.

In 2016, FactCheck.org published a set of practical steps to encourage closer reading and critical thinking.

As we see it, metaliteracy is a way to achieve these goals.

So, what is metaliteracy?

Digital literacy supports the effective use of digital technologies, while metaliteracy emphasizes how we think about things. Metaliterate individuals learn to reflect on how they process information based on their feelings or beliefs.

To do that, first and foremost, metaliterates learn to question sources of information. For example, metaliterate individuals learn to carefully differentiate among multiple sites, both formal (such as The New York Times or Associated Press) and informal (a blog post or tweet).

Metaliterates learn to question the sources of information.
Jon S, CC BY

They question the validity of information from any of these sources and do not privilege one over the other. Information presented on a formal TV news source, such as CNN or Fox News, for instance, may be just as inaccurate as someone’s blog post. This involves understanding all sources of information.

Second, metaliterates learn to observe their feelings when reading a news item.

We are less inclined to delve further when something affirms our beliefs. On the other hand, we are more inclined to fact check or examine the source of the news when we don’t agree with it. Thinking about our own thinking reminds us that we need to move beyond how we feel, and engage our cognitive faculties in doing a critical assessment.

Metaliterates pause to think whether they believe something because it affirms their ideas.

Metaliteracy challenges assumptions

Metaliteracy helps us understand the context from which the news is arising, noting whether the information emanates from research or editorial commentary, distinguishing the value of formal and informal news sources and evaluating comments left by others.

By reflecting on the way we are thinking about a news story, for instance, we will be more apt to challenge our assumptions, ask good questions about what we are reading and actively seek additional information.

Consider the recent example of how fake news was put out through a single tweet and believed by thousands of readers online. Eric Tucker, a 35-year-old cofounder of a marketing company in Austin, Texas, tweeted that anti-Trump protesters were professionally organized and bused to Trump rallies. Despite having only 40 Twitter followers, this one individual managed to start a conspiracy theory. Thousands of people believed and forwarded the tweet.

This example shows how easy it is to transmit information online to a wide audience, even if it is not accurate. The combination of word and image in this case was powerful and supported what many people already believed to be true. But it also showed a failure to ask critical questions within an online community with shared ideas or to challenge one’s own beliefs with careful reflection.

In other words, just because information is shared widely on social media, that does not mean it is true.

Developing deeper understanding

Another emphasis of metaliteracy is understanding how information is packaged and delivered.

Packaging can be examined on a number of fronts. One is the medium used – is it text, photograph, video, cartoon, illustration or artwork? The other is how it is used – is the medium designed to appeal to our feelings? Does professional-looking design provide a level of credibility to the unsuspecting viewer?

Metaliterates learn how to discriminate between fake and real news.
Hand image via www.shutterstock.com

Social media makes it easy to produce and distribute all kinds of digital content. We can all be photographers or digital storytellers using online tools for producing and packaging well-designed materials. This can be empowering.

But the same material can be used to create intentionally false messages with appealing design features. Metaliterates learn to distinguish between formal and informal sources of information that may have very different or nonexistent editorial checks and balances.

They learn to examine the packaging of content. They learn to recognize whether the seemingly professional design may be a façade for a bias or misinformation. Realnewsrightnow, for example, is a slickly designed site with attention-grabbing but often false headlines. The About page of the website might raise questions, but only if a reader’s mindset is evaluative.

Becoming a responsible citizen

Because social media is interactive and collaborative, the metaliterate learner must know how to contribute responsibly as well.

Metaliterate individuals recognize there are ethical considerations involved when sharing information, such as the information must be accurate. But there is more. Metaliteracy asks that individuals understand on a mental and emotional level the potential impact of one’s participation.

So, metaliterate individuals don’t just post random thoughts that are not based in truth. They learn that in a public space they have a responsibility to be fair and accurate.

So how can we become metaliterate?

Schools need to urge students to ponder these questions. Students need to be made aware of these issues early on so that they learn how not to develop uncritical assumptions and actions as they use technology.

They need to understand that whether they are posting a tweet, blog, Facebook post or writing a response to others online, they need to think carefully about what they are saying.

The ConversationWhile social media offers much promise for providing everyone with a voice, there is a disturbing downside to this revolution. It has enabled sharing of misinformation and false news stories that radically alter representations of reality.

Thomas P. Mackey, Vice Provost for Academic Programs, SUNY Empire State College and Trudi Jacobson, Distinguished Librarian, University at Albany, State University of New York

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
@oldbrainteacher published in Ask An Expert, Assistive Technology, Digital & Mobile Technology, EdTech & Innovation, EdTech Policy & Reform,

An Open Letter to District Administrators

Dear School District Administrators,

Most open letters are written as a passive criticism or open critique of a large institution. I have no wish to be passive in my critique and observations.  They are intended to spur conversation and reflection.  These are the tools of our trade as teachers.  I was hired to critique and foster reflection.

 

 

 

After studying and researching in your administrative offices over the previous year, you have embraced personalized learning as a targeted result, as we deploy technology throughout the district.  It is a goal widely acknowledged to be systemic in scope and paradigm shifting by its nature. So with all sincerity, I applaud your willingness to step bravely into a well-reasoned approach to 21st-century learning.

It is widely agreed that personalized learning is also a new pedagogical mindset that must extend beyond the classrooms; that fact pushes forward my primary question “How does the leadership of a personalized learning environment shift itself to accommodate the new network of change?”

pass or failAs I continue learning to apply a more personalized approach to my teaching. I have found that many of those same skills can be used to reflect and evaluate options. So I have tried here to apply a similar cognitive approach, an open critique and sincere question on eight observations I have noted as my school, and our district has embarked on a journey of blended and personalized learning.

In the classrooms we are, approaching the close of another school year, you at the District offices are approaching the hiring season. As you do so, I would ask that you perhaps take some time to consider the qualities your prize as you develop a leadership team for the future.  It is commonly understood that there is a shortage of new teachers in the US, as well as a disconcertingly high number of experienced professionals leaving our classrooms. But that is not the case for program administrators and principals. The number of people earning Masters Degrees’ in educational leadership or seeking an administrative endorsement is higher now than at any time in the past 25 years. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics

You have the opportunity to look broadly and consider carefully those that will help lead us through this systemic paradigm shift.

Personalized learning achieved through a blended curriculum keeps students engaged; it pushes them to grow and demands that they understand both themselves as learners and our curriculum as it pertains to their lives. In a very real sense, PL embodies the vision that led so many of us into teaching as a profession. The opportunity to connect not just with a child, but with a child through teaching and learning.

Personalization is full of hard data, human connections and an intricate web of lessons, apps, and projects. Peel back that top layer and the overwhelming nature of the idea begins to surface, PL disseminates the control of the learning within a classroom, the students practicing to take control of their own path. The teacher building supports and taking them away.

That complex dance of adding and subtracting scaffolding while it is being used is being successfully done. But it is severely limited when it has to fall within blocks of time and for a set number of minutes each week.

  • Where once our administration needed to be skilled at defining, defending and delineating blocks of time we are now asking them to find flexibility within a rigid structure and extra time where the was never enough.

?  How do we as a district support the required complexity of a school schedule while still offering the time to rigorously dig deeply into an area of study?

Underneath the popular jargon and interview buzzwords that you will hear, like Grit and Mindset, are classrooms where those life skills are being developed.  In those rooms, both students and teachers are failing, examining their efforts and sometimes failing again.  Learning to fail and from failure is important for real success.

  • As an institution, we are built to reward success and admonish failure. As a culture of educators, we are largely populated by those that thrived in that climate exemplifying their own successes and hiding their failures.

? How do we insure ourselves and reassure others that our district leadership understands the role of failure and exploration as we move into a new mindset?

We do not work in an industry where taking chances, innovating or finding a creative alternative is celebrated, least of all at the administrative level. Rather we as a profession, are accurately profiled as safe, steady, stable, predictable types.  Our administrators even more so than those of us in the classroom.

  • We are now in an era where we will need to be inventive, take calculated chances and create new ideas. We will need to look for those traits in our leaders as we move into uncharted paths with impressionable cargo.

? What are the important character trait of a 21st-century school administrator, and how do we ensure that the status quo does not continue to be the status quo?

?  How will the changing power dynamic in classrooms impact both our schools and our district as a whole?

One of the most powerful aspects of personalized learning is that it is, out of necessity, powered from the classroom up.  Teacher-leaders are the ones moving the bar and setting the standards. Those classroom maestros will need strong support and stronger feedback.

  • Please remember as you consider the next steps for those that will be leading the dwindling number of magnificent classroom teachers that we are a profession built on the artful combination of personal connections, honest feedback, and transparent agendas with all of our students, not simply those in the most need.

?  How can we use our transition into personalized learning, as an opportunity to both support and capitalize on the prowess of our teacher-leaders?

The devices, the web resources, the alignment of lessons and project to a standard, all of these pieces are new and as unfamiliar as they are integral to this shift.  As a teacher, I know there is no shame in saying I don’t know, and that I will not be able to master all of those elements of the job I love without support.  I am confident and comfortable say that my principal and school as a whole will need support as well.

It is not an uncommon critique to observe that the current structure of our educational system was built with management in mind rather than support and growth. Nor is it an uncommon refrain for teachers ask for support. It is uncommon, however, to have the opportunity to create the needed change.

?  What structures of support can we enhance or establish to best help our schools thrive as centers of blended and personalized teaching?

?  How do we find a way to structure and support creativity while still managing growth and learning?

If you are overwhelmed by the questions and standards set before you if you feel as though the task is disproportionate to the tools available. Please know that I, and every classroom teacher, that works for you is familiar with those insecurities. We grapple with them every fall, we understand, from experience I can tell you that the while the challenge never fades the overwhelmed feeling does.

With sincere thanks for all that you do to move us forward,

Brian Cleary  @oldbrainteacher

 

Continue reading

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Digital & Mobile Technology, EdTech & Innovation, EdTech Policy & Reform, Higher Education

What Would Happen if Learning Materials Were Provided to All Students on or Before the First Day of Class?

Mike Hale, Ph.D.  VP Education North America

VitalSource

 

Why Doesn’t this Happen?

If all required learning materials, including textbooks, were provided to all students on or before the first day of class, the average price per student of learning materials would drop and students would be more successful.

Then why is it the vast majority of college students do not come to class with required content on the first day of class, and a significant number never get their core textbooks at all?

First, because required doesn’t actually mean required in higher education. Is this because colleges and faculty do not care about the success of students? Of course not. Ask any academic leader on a college campus if students would be better off if they had all required learning materials and the answer will be a resounding, YES. Faculty spend valuable time planning their courses and choosing resources; however, in the end, after all that work, most institutions and most professors are willing to leave it up to the student whether or not they actually acquire and engage with the content.

The actual content domain to be mastered in the course is, astoundingly, practically the only thing left to the whims of student choice. It is absolutely required that all dental students MUST have an articulator for class (an instrument for studying tooth and jaw). You cannot pass; you cannot even come to class, without one. But is it absolutely required that students possess the material detailing the various bones, muscles, nerves, and tendons involved? It is not.

Traditionally, little thought was given to the price of the resources or whether the students will purchase them. Why didn’t professors pay attention to price if they are so carefully choosing these resources?

One reason is that resources used to be reasonably priced and another is that professors don’t have to pay for the content. Economists call this the Principal Agent Problem, meaning that the decision-maker (agent/faculty) is not the one affected (principal/student). This doesn’t mean that faculty don’t care about the price of textbooks, it is simply that it has not been the predominant factor in their equation for determining course materials. Certainly some instructors care strongly about cost, but the means they use to address the problem—think third-generation scans of articles, not properly licensed, or two copies of a book in the library for a class of 400 students—reduce the quality of instruction and are in the long term not effective against cost.

What is preventing all colleges and universities from including the course materials in the cost of the course given that is guaranteed to cut student costs of learning materials and increase student success?

Ironically, one reason is that institutions are sensitive to the perception of adding any cost tied directly to the institution. The cost of tuition has more than doubled (measured in constant dollars) over the past 30 years and institutions are reluctant to be perceived as increasing student costs. However, students spend an average of $1300 per year on textbooks and supplies alone. That’s the equivalent of 39 percent of tuition and fees at a community college, and 14 percent of tuition and fees at a four-year public university on average. Including textbooks in tuition would save students at least $800 per year, a more than 60 percent reduction in cost.

Rather than consider the total cost of education, which includes required learning materials it is easier to give students a list of “required materials” and leave that decision-making to them on how, when or whether, they get them. While conveniently allowing institutions to wash their hands of the costs of course materials, this model has directly led to the massive increase in cost of learning materials: an 82 percent increase in the cost of textbooks over the last 10 years. This number is more than three times the rate of inflation.

How can this be? The economics are simple. Education publishers invest tremendous resources into the creation of textbooks working with experts in the field – often leading professors – to author, curate, organize and deliver content and assessments in a package designed to facilitate learning. They then sell this print book into the market to students through a variety of channels including student bookstores and online sellers. However, unlike the food these same students may have purchased, that book does not get consumed and most students sell this book back into market. Sure, some students do keep for future reference and I do have a section on my personal bookshelf dedicated to titles from my formal studies. However, a quick review of that shelf will find that most of these were actually used when I purchased them.

The other issue here is scale. A textbook, regardless of how widely adopted, has a limited market. A New York Times bestseller has to hit an average of 9,000 copies a week to make the list. That is about 500,000 books a year. For a book to reach Amazon’s top seller list, that number is about 3,000, which equates to approximately 150,000 copies a year. A college textbook would be lucky to sell one-tenth of that number, concentrating the development cost across fewer anticipated sales.

This textbook, for which the publisher received revenue one time, may then be resold another six times without the publisher receiving any revenue. Making matters worse, rental textbook programs have grown significantly over the past five years as well, reducing the sell through of “new” titles even further. As a result, publishers have to maximize the price of their initial sale to cover the lost sales. It also reduces the number of years between new editions, since a new edition represents another opportunity for publishers to make a sale again before that title enters the used and rental markets.

When publishers sell new textbooks at absurdly high prices, it is easy to make them out to be the greedy villain in this story. However, publishers are just responding to the economic realities of their business and they are ready to participate in a better solution.

That solution is absurdly simple. Breaking the cycle and lower the total cost of education by eliminating the print textbook. Do this and students will benefit both economically and educationally.

With a digital learning solution, there is no used or rental market, so the publisher gets paid for every student and can significantly lower the price of the content. You might say, digital textbooks are available today and students can simply choose them and that is true. However, the retail price of digital textbooks is simply not as competitive with rental and used. Again, this is due to the market…if institutions ensured every student had access to the content, the publishers would make the sale on every student, and they can significantly lower the cost of the content. Education publishers can then go back to what they were originally founded to do: compete to create the most effective learning solutions.

A quick note about Open Education Resources (OER), which have been touted as an answer to the high cost of course materials. Without question OER materials can significantly lower the cost to students. However, no materials should be adopted primarily because of cost. We want students to get the best materials available, be they OER or commercially produced. Students shouldn’t receive inferior materials just because they are cheap or free.

By far the most important reason to provide students with the required materials they need is to level the playing field for success in college. According to the last data from the National Center for Education Data, the six-year graduation rate for first-time, full-time undergraduate students at four-year degree-granting institutions is 60 percent. Thirty-nine percent of those enrolled in two-year programs complete within three years. These statistics are worse for students who are the first in their family to go to college or have financial challenges. The high cost of course materials is particularly egregious for lower income and disadvantaged students. Fifty-two percent of those whose families earn less than $50,000 feel that avoiding or delaying purchasing the materials negatively impacted their grades, compared to just 39 percent of those whose families make more.

Beyond lowered costs and assuring the students get their materials, there are many other educational benefits to providing digital learning materials on or before the first day or class. Once all students and faculty are in a digital learning environment, the content can evolve from static pages to interactive learning solutions providing formative and summative feedback opportunities as well as insight into student learning behaviors. There are fantastic digital learning solutions available and in use today that I will discuss in a future blog post.

What would it take to implement a program that significantly lowers the cost of learning materials and ensures all students get them at the beginning of the course? Nothing more than institution to simply say yes to a course fee model. The federal government has responded to the rise of these programs and by publishing new rules that allow any institution to include learning materials in a course provided students are given the option to opt-out on a per course basis.

These programs have been implemented in pockets around the country and VitalSource is powering them at more than 400 institutions around the United States saving students more than $100,000,000 in the past 12 months. To break that down a little bit, students are saving an average of $60 per title and we delivered more than 1,700,000 titles through inclusive access programs at traditional 2/4-year programs. Our technology powered these savings through our VitalSource Access program, but also through programs run by some of our partners Barnes and Nobles Education, Pearson, Follett, and more than 20 other partners serving higher education institutions.

Beyond the cost savings, all of these students received the content on the first day, and their faculty and institutions now had brand new insights through our analytics product as to exactly what each student was doing with the content. Print can’t do that, and students choosing digital won’t either.

Everything is in place to improve learning and cut student costs. If just half of all universities implemented these programs across campus, no less than $1 billion dollars could be cut from student costs. What are we waiting for?

 

  • no reactions
0
Share