Professional Development Flipped for Educators

In this article, the author Kristin Daniels, discusses the concept of Flipped Professional Development for teachers, an idea that was started in Stillwater, MN. As Daniels puts it, "flipped professional development has the potential to disrupt the way teachers learn and will accelerate innovation in education." The creators of this idea of Flipped PD, wanted to make sure they were going to use the teacher's time effectively and that what they were doing was making an impact. They didn't want to spend the time giving teachers professional development on how to use technology in the classroom but instead on "the development and implementation of curriculum and learning activities that are transformed by the integration of technology." Through this process, "coaches" are sent out to work next to the teachers throughout the design process. They begin by having a face-to-face conversation to discuss plans and goals. After that, the coaches send resources and other materials for the teacher to view before meeting in person again. At the next face-to-face session, the teacher begins to work on the project and the coach is there to support and guide. They finally work together to create an action plan and an end goal. The article goes on to talk about five different key elements that they have found to make this model of PD successful. These include:  planning and documentation, personalized digital content, regularly scheduled PD, personalization through coaching, and communities of learning. At the end of the article, the author gives her own advice, she says "provide teachers with the collaborative time, support and resources to create their own professional learning plan and best practices will emerge."

I found this article to be interesting for many reasons. First of all, I found it interesting how the creators of this Flipped PD point out that traditional PD does not give teachers the time to actually work, plan, and implement what they worked on. I feel that all the time with the professional developments I attend. I get great ideas but I just don't feel like I have the time to then implement what I have learned because of everything else I am required to do. I like the idea of a coach and a set schedule of meetings because then you have someone to walk you through the steps and get you to that end goal of actually implementing what you have learned. My district has started a Teacher University this year with many different PD courses offered after school in which we can attend and earn CPDU's. I feel we are on the right path to better professional development and the administration seeing that we need more time to actually work in our classrooms and implement what we are learning about.

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2014-04-18-the-flip-side-of-professional-development

Are Students Engaged More When Using Digital Game Based Learning?

Schaaf, R. (2012). Does digital game-based learning improve student time-on-task behavior and engagement in comparison to alternative instructional strategies?. The Canadian Journal of Action Research, 13(1), 50-64.  http://journals.nipissingu.ca/index.php/cjar/article/view/30


Digital game-based learning seems to becoming more and more popular lately. I just recently started hearing about it and I wanted to look more into it. In my district, we are being pushed to do more and more guided math and focus on small group differentiated instruction. I wanted to look more into digital game-based learning to see if this would be a possible approach for my centers during guided math. Obviously I would need more technology in my classroom first, however, I recently applied to begin a pilot in my classroom so I am hoping to to get more technology soon.  As I was looking into DGBL (digital game-based learning), I came across a study done in Maryland on digital game-based learning.

A study was done on elementary students, ages 8 to 10 years old, from an affluent school district in Maryland. The students were put into two groups, an experimental group and a control group to determine whether or not students were more engaged and on task with DGBL rather than with research-based learning strategies. They explained that the digital-game based learning activities that were used were selected by a specific group of teachers. They pre-screened the games to determine whether or not they met lesson objectives. The study was done over an 8 lesson cycle totaling 16 instructional hours. After each lesson, students in both groups were given attitudinal surveys to gather information on the students engagement during the lesson and whether or not they enjoyed the lesson. During the time-on task observations, specific students were chosen to focus on and study for 2 minutes at a time. At the end of the study, students in both groups were given an exit ticket survey. This survey was used to collect data that was then tabulated and analyzed.

The results of the study found that DGBL did have a strong impact on student engagement. In the report, the author stated that "the adoption [of digital game-based learning] into mainstream education may meet with resistance. Certain taboos about digital games must be overcome before the education field embraces it" (Schaaf, 2012). I find this to be true because I feel that veteran teachers who are not sold on the idea of technology in the classroom, would be against "video games" in the classroom. They did also point out that some of the trial students showed that the other research-based learning strategies showed more engagement on time on task behaviors than the DGBL. This makes sense to me because I feel that not all students are into video games and they may not learn best by playing on a computer or other device. They may learn better by listening to a teacher talk and explain something or they may learn better by being hands on and creating. The author ends the  report with a person suggestion, saying that "DGBL should be utilized in lesson plans when appropriate. Teachers should consider incorporating DBGL into instruction to provide a fun and engaging experience for students" (Schaaf, 2012). I agree with this because I think it can be used as a supplemental means of instruction but not as the primary source. Therefore, I plan to continue looking into DGBL and specific games and resources that I can use to incorporate into my teaching currently with just 5 laptops until I am given more technology.

Media In the Classroom and Math Scores

Johnson, L. (2012). Does Media in the Classroom Increase Elementary School Students’ Math Achievement?.
https://www.rcampus.com/users/Lynette72/upload/file/Research_Proposal_Final_LynetteJohnson%20copy.pdf


In this article, the author discusses a study that would be done to look at the effectiveness of multimedia in the classroom compared to no multimedia in the classroom based on math scores. The study compared two different schools and three different groups within each school. The experimental group used many different types of media within the classroom and the control group did not use any form of media in the classroom. The participants were students in grades 3-7 and they were preparing for the 2013 ISAT-Math test. In the article, the author mentions specific reports done by the White House that show how much money is spent on media for the classroom. They believe that with how much is being spent on media for the classroom, that math achievement scores should increase in those classrooms that to have the media based on those that do not. They also looked at other studies done on this same topic and found that "media does not have a major, long-term impact on mathematics achievement" (Johnson, 2012). The author's hypothesize stated that after this study, they would see a "minor significant difference (null hypothesis) in math achievement as measured on the 2013 ISAT tests between tests between the media rich school and the non-media rich school" (Johnson, 2012). 

The one thing I found interesting in this article, was that in one of the studies, a study done by Li and Ma (2010), they found that interventions with a shorter time period (less than 6 months) were more effective than those that were a longer period of time (over 6 months). They also found that the only major impact the media had on student achievement was that of those students who had an IEP, had access to the media in their math class, or when the teaching approach was constructivist. I found this study to be interesting because all of the studies that Johnson refers to in her study, seemed to find the same results. They found that using different types of media in the classroom, does not produce better results in achievement scores. So it makes me wonder why she was doing yet again another study on the same focus? What was it about her study that she felt that she was going to get different results to go against what these other studies found? Although this article doesn't provide Johnson's results, I would be very curious to find what her results were, especially that this was based on the ISAT test and was done in schools in Chicago.

The So-Called "Problem" With Technology in Schools

Porter, Alfonzo. (January 2013). The problem with technology in schools. The Washington Post. Retrieved from:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/the-problem-with-technology-in-schools/2013/01/28/cf13dc6c-6963-11e2-ada3-d86a4806d5ee_blog.html


After reading an article by Alfonzo Porter in The Washington Post titled "The problem with technology in schools," I am almost left speechless. Clearly Porter has never been a teacher nor has he stepped foot in a classroom in over 10 years. Now I get that this was written about two and a half years ago, but I just don't think that technology has advanced so much in that time that technology would have been considered a problem. Porter's argument is that teenager's now a days can't seem to look up from the screen of their devices and that teacher's are "forced to perform the 'put that away, unplug that, please log off' dance every class period." His stance is that the device should be left in a student's locker and not allowed in the classroom. If a student is caught with it, it can be confiscated and should only be returned to the parent. "If parents believe it is acceptable for their child to violate established school policies, then the schools are left with no other option other than to seize them." A little harsh of a policy, don't you think? He claims that students are more distracted in class with their device by sending out Tweets or looking at videos on YouTube. It's funny, if you take a look at the picture in the article, the students don't have devices out, however, they also look somewhat disinterested in their teacher's lecture. Porter also states that "teachers reported that students are distracted constantly. Their memory is highly disorganized." Clearly these teachers are the ones not implementing technology into their classroom. Maybe the student is distracted because they are so bored and disconnected from the lesson because they aren't actively involved. If those teachers began utilizing Twitter and Youtube into the classroom and allowing students to respond to questions or research a topic on Youtube, maybe they would be much more focused and they would retain more. The best part of the whole article though is at the end when he seems to almost contradict himself when he starts explaining how many "education reformers tend to look to technology to solve some of the challenges that face our public schools ... the emphasis on pedagogy to raise student scores has generated a number of interesting projects and studies." So my question to Mr. Porter would be, if students are starting to use technology more in the classroom and educators are seeing an increase in scores, then why is technology such a problem in the classroom? He ends with the fact that schools must "leap ahead in developing a 'Digital Citizenship' curriculum to appropriately guide students beginning from kindergarten on technology usage." And so in just almost three years, look how far we have come. Classrooms with a 1:1 ratio independently working on iPads, laptops, using cameras, and other devices. Flipped classrooms in which students are actually doing more learning from home prior to class so that they can actually be doing more project work at school. I wonder what Mr. Porter would think now?

Class Dojo: Is It Effective?

Singer, Natasha. (2014, November 17).  Class Dojo:  A Tale of Two Classrooms. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/classdojo-a-tale-of-two-classsrooms/


In her article, "Class Dojo:  A Tale of Two Classrooms," Natasha Singer, a writer for The New York Times writes about her experience visiting two different classrooms at Hunter Elementary School, in Hunter, New York, that are using a behavior tracking app called Class Dojo. In case you are unfamiliar with Class Dojo, here is a quick understanding of how it works. A teacher is able to set up a virtual classroom on the app and assign each student a cartoon-like avatar. The teacher is then able to award points to students or deduct points from students for specific behaviors. They are able to keep a running list of what behaviors the student is showing and what behaviors they are not. They are shown a percentage and a pie chart to show a specific child's behavior for the day. This data is then able to be emailed to parents to show them how their child is behaving in class. In the article, Singer compares two different teachers who are using the same app in different ways. One teacher, Mr. Fletcher, uses the app publicly and posts the virtual classroom up in his classroom so that students can see when they are rewarded points or points are deducted. Another teacher, Ms. Sofranko uses the app privately because students were distracted. She walks around the classroom and awards points or deducts points using her phone. She handles a particular student by talking to them privately. Throughout the article, Singer seems to debate which method of using Class Dojo is more effective or whether the app is even effective in general. She states that "while some educators praise Class Dojo's game-like set-up, others say its carrot-and-stick method of classroom management is outmoded and detrimental to the self-esteem of certain students. She then goes on to interview certain students to see what they think. Some liked the video-game like structure and most liked being able to see their scores publicly. Singer's main issue about the app is that it "offers students external rewards in exchange for obedience." However, the administrator from Hunter Elementary believed that "sometimes you have to start with the extrinsic motivation [and] hopefully by the time we send them off middle school, it becomes intrinsic."

I have used Class Dojo in my classroom and I actually have used it both ways - publicly and privately. I more used it privately when I heard students bragging about their points or making fun of other students points. I felt like it was very useful in promoting positive behavior in my classroom. Students were very interested in doing the right thing to earn points rather than doing the wrong thing or being off-task. I even saw it carry over at home because I heard a lot of great feedback from parents. They started to hear more about their child's day at school and they liked being able to get updates through their email on how their child was doing. It made for great conversation at home. I can't wait to continue using Class Dojo in my classroom this upcoming school year!

Educational Technology: Is It Leveling the Playing Field or Not?

Paul, Annie Murphy. (June 2014). Educational Technology Isn't Leveling the Playing Field. Slate.com. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/06/neuman_celano_library_study_educational_technology_worsens_achievement_gaps.2.html


On June 25, 2014, Annie Murphy Paul published an article titled "Educational Technology Isn't Leveling the Playing Field" on Slate.com. In the article, Annie Murphy Paul discusses a study done by Susan B. Neuman, a professor of early childhood and literacy education at NYU and Donna C. Celano, an assistant professor of communication at LaSalle University. The two professors spent time in two different libraries in different parts of Philidelphia to see "how the introduction of computers might '"level the playing field'" for the neigborhoods' young people, children of '"concentrated affluence'" and '"concentrated poverty.'" The two professors found that technology is "increasing the gap between rich and poor, between whites and minorities, and between the school-ready and the less prepared." They go on to discuss how they found that affluent children and poor children are using the technology in different ways. I find this to be very true when it comes to my own observations as well. When it comes to my friend's children who grow up in a middle-class more affluent home and my students who come from very low-income homes, I too see that children are using technology different. My friend's are constantly monitoring what their children do and what kind of games they are playing or videos they are watching. The children also have a much better understanding of how to use the technology and in many cases are able to use the technology better than their parents. However, when it comes to my students, many of them have never had the opportunity to use this technology or have not be taught how to use it. If they have had access to it, they aren't using it to do educational things, but instead they are playing video games and watching inappropriate videos. This is probably due to the fact that their parents are not monitoring what they are doing and instead have their heads buried in their own technology devices.

In the article, Paul also refers to the "Matthew Effect," which is the tendency for early advantages to multiply over time.  She relates this effect to technology and explains that "as with books and reading, the most-knowledgeable, most-experienced, and most-supported students are those in the best position to use computers to leap further ahead." I think this is true because the earlier parents begin reading to their children, children pick up on words and sounds and they begin reading themselves. This is the same way for technology, the earlier parents expose their children to technology, the quicker they are going to pick up on it and use it. The longer it takes children to pick up the skills, the more likely they are to not be as interested in it.

The article also goes on to talk about how "schools in low-income neighborhoods are more apt to employ computers for drill and practice sessions than for creative or innovative projects." I agree with this statement because I see it happening in my school. We are having to take so much time just teaching the students basic keyboarding skills and other computer skills. My district is trying to move to a more one-to-one computer approach, however, students will not be able to use the computers to their highest potential until they completely know how to use the computer and navigate with it. This still puts those children at a disadvantage from the more skilled students, which in turn still leaves the achievement gap open. Just like the article discusses, the achievement gap can only get smaller if teachers, librarians, parents and students are given the proper training on how to use the computers effectively.