Jared's Technology Integration Initiative

Rationale and Initiative

The expectation among many proponents of online learning is that the blended classroom, in all its forms, is a “hybrid innovation” that will eventually be replaced by the fully online classroom.  According to a recent paper published by The Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation, “the models of blended learning that follow the hybrid pattern are on a sustaining trajectory relative to the traditional classroom. They are poised to build upon and offer sustaining enhancements to the factory-based classroom system, but not disrupt it. The models that are more disruptive, however, are positioned to transform the classroom model and become the engines of change over the longer term, particularly at the secondary level. Any hybrid variety of blended learning is likely to fall by the wayside as the pure disruption becomes good enough” (Christensen, Horn, & Staker, 2013).  While it is certainly true that eventually technology will be sufficient to meet all of the needs of the average student, and completely remove the need for the brick-and-mortar school, this does not seem likely to happen soon.  After all, we still have brick-and-mortar banks, post offices, and shopping malls, all of which are entities that could conceivably be replaced by digital technology, and all of which offer most of their services online already.  It is likely several patrons of these entities prefer to receive some services at the physical location.  Similarly, there may, in fact, always be a significant portion of the population that wants children to attend a brick-and-mortar school as long as school is free, and continues to offer the vast number of services it currently provides.  As Christensen, Horn, and Staker concede, “Almost every student has access to a government-funded school of some sort. We predict that hybrid schools, which combine existing schools with new classroom models, will be the dominant model of schooling in the United States in the future” (2013).  With this in mind it is up to today’s educators to become familiar with the many forms of blended learning and to contribute new innovations to these in anticipation of changes yet to come.

Last year, a handful of teachers at Bridgeport High School took a major step toward joining in the effort to innovate.  We held a semester-long professional development on the idea of the “flipped classroom.”  While teachers in school districts in other states had been using the flipped model for some time now, the idea was still relatively new to our area.  Even for those of us who knew what we were getting ourselves into, this was our first experiment delivering course content primarily through digital media.  Throughout the semester we learned quite a bit about how to create, find, and deliver content.  We also learned more about how to interact with students through social and educational media online.  Perhaps one of the many lessons we were surprised to learn was that there was still a place for some traditional classroom elements.  While our “digital natives” truly appreciated the advantages of having the bulk of the course online, many still longed for those things associated with the brick-and-mortar classrooms: face to face group discussion, live student presentations, and (believe it or not) a traditional lecture from time to time.  Over the semester, it was becoming clear to my colleagues and me that the flipped model might not be the best fit for our particular school community.  Still, we had gained so many educational advantages through the use of digital media that there was no going back to a traditional classroom.  When the second semester began, many of us were, on our own, struggling to create ways to combine our digital techniques with our traditional ones.  Through this, many forms of blended classrooms were beginning to emerge naturally.  As this became apparent, there were a several teachers among the original group of “flippers” who longed for some more professional development on the sundry ways to employ the blended model.

From that point on, we began to evaluate what was good about the digital aspects we wanted to keep.  From our experiences with flipping we had learned that using the technology “speaks the language of today’s students”, “helps busy students” to balance school and the other facets of high school life, “helps struggling students” and special needs students by allowing them to “pause and rewind their teacher”, “increases student-teacher interaction”, and helps include parents by making the “class transparent” (Bergmann & Sams, 2012, p. 20-33).  We also began to list what was good about the brick-and-mortar classroom.  Many of my colleagues echoed the words of Katrina Gulliver’s article from The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Digital Natives Like a Good Lecture, Too.”  In essence, many students still seem to value the experience of being in the same room with an expert in the content who can model, in person, the journey of learning.  “They don't just want the professor's role to be showing them where to find this stuff somewhere else. They want to hear what we have to say” (Gulliver, 2015).  Perhaps there is something valuable to being the “’sage on the stage’ rather than the ‘guide on the side’” (Gulliver, 2015) at times. While there may be many “Web Evangelists” who scoff at these old-fashioned sentiments, there are just as many traditionalists who reject the idea that online learning is necessary and inevitable.  The simple fact is, the brick-and-mortar school isn’t going away anytime soon, and neither is digital media.  Both are a major part of every student’s life, so it is the wise teacher who learns to blend them effectively.  Furthermore, if it true that “the blend of online learning into schools marks the most powerful opportunity the world has to make student-centered learning a widespread reality” (Horn & Staker, 2015, p. 11), then it is the good teacher who seeks to blend at all.

This brings us to the Technology Integration Initiative: I would like to work with the current blended learning users at my school to gain, through research and discussion, a more thorough understanding of how the blended classroom model can be used to improve our school.  Then, I would like to invite more instructors in the school to a blended-learning focused professional development community that would spend the 2015-2016 school year incorporating existing technology in the classroom in ways that are new and beneficial to our school, students, and community. 

Needs Assessment

We can no longer ignore the need to effectively incorporate technology into daily instruction.  So many daily tasks from banking to communicating with relatives are conducted online.  Furthermore, many of those things we do advance our careers or better ourselves, from attending college to applying for jobs are accomplished, at least in part online.  However, many schools, even with all of their computer labs, distance learning labs, and wireless internet access are still using technology to simply create and print documents, do research, or conduct standardized testing.  There is still little use of the technology to improve the quality of instruction or the communication between students, teachers, and parents. 

For many schools, the technology is already there.  It is just that much of the faculty is not sure how to use it beyond the traditional sense.  I feel my school falls into that category.  We could use some professional development on how to use what we have to benefit the student. 

Our high school is made up of approximately 720 students, and 49 teachers.  We have most of the basic technology available to high schools.   We have eight computer labs, two mobile lap top labs, and one iPad lab.  Each of these contains of approximately thirty separate computers or tablets.  Every room in the building is equipped with wireless internet access, including the cafeteria and auditorium.  We have a technology support person on site, who teaches half of the day and maintains building technology the other half.  We also have efficient support from our local RESA technology specialist.  These staff members keep the computers up-to-date and in good repair.  Problems are often resolved within a day.  While it seems that any school could always use more computers, the technology and our students’ access to it is sufficient if lab time is scheduled properly.  The real need in our school is staff training on making the most of these labs to help “beef up” our instruction, increase student participation and achievement, and reach other students who are not advancing in the current system.

Cost Benefit Analysis

Since we already have the technology in our building, and since this initiative seeks to use a number of free or already purchased online services (Schoology, Edmoto, Office 365, School Website, etc.), there will not be need to raise any funds for new equipment at this time.  That need may present itself in the next couple of years, but for the 2015-2016 school year, we have the essentials. 

Our main cost is time.  In order to make this professional development happen, teachers will need to put in several hours that not factored into the regular school day.  Offering stipends to both professional development presenters and to the participating teachers as incentive and compensation provides more options for training times. 

After working with some colleagues on a grant proposal, we estimated that fifteen teachers would want to participate in the initial six-hour training session.  The standard teacher stipend for out-of-school professional development is $35 an hour, so the initial session would cost $3150.  The expert presenter’s stipend plus expenses was estimated to be $315.  Throughout the first semester we planned for two follow up professional development meetings for the fifteen participants, totaling $525 each.  A few incidental technology costs for materials, copying, and equipment were estimated to be $250.  The total cost to for these teacher incentives then would be $4765. 

We requested this amount of funding through a competitive grant proposal made available to us through our PDS relationship with Fairmont State University.

The possible benefits of this training are immeasurable. To have a group of fifteen enthusiastic teachers ready to help others in modeling and implementing blended learning would be one of the most powerful examples of what we stand to gain from using the technology effectively.  I think an initiative like this could be just the right thing to help keep our school relevant and effective.

Technology Implementation Plan

The following timeline shows the plan for the professional development and the implementation of this technology integration initiative:

June 2015- Volunteer advocates introduce and promote the need for blended learning in our school through a presentation at a year-end staff meeting.  The invitation to the Professional Development will be offered at this time.

June-August 2015- The Professional Development will be available on the county online CE portfolio, My Learning Plan.

August 2015- Initial session will be conducted by guest presenter with expertise in blended learning.  Fifteen participants will attend for six hour training and begin creating blended learning classroom materials, modules, or units.  Participants also begin online communication that will continue in coming months.

September 2015- Follow up meeting, after school.  Participants will share blended learning efforts, products, and samples of student work.  Online communication between teachers continues.

November 2015- Follow up meeting, after school.  Participants will share blended learning efforts, products, and samples of student work.  Evaluation of training will be completed by participants.  Online communication between teachers continues throughout 2016 semester.

May 2016- School technology needs re-evaluated by staff in year-end faculty meeting.  Are we ready for 2017?

References

Ávila, J., & Pandya, J. Z. (2013). Critical digital literacies as social praxis: Intersections and challenges. New York: P. Lang. 

Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Washington: ISTE. 

Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Staker, H. (2013, May 1). Is K-12 Blended Learning Disruptive? An introduction to the theory of hybrids. Retrieved May 3, 2015, from http://www.blendedlearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Is-K-12-blended-learning-disruptive.pdf

Gulliver, K. (2015). Digital Natives Like a Good Lecture, Too. Chronicle Of Higher Education, 61(18), 1.

Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2015). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass.

Kuo, Y., Belland, B. R., Schroder, K. E., & Walker, A. E. (2014). K-12 teachers’ perceptions of and their satisfaction with interaction type in blended learning environments. Distance Education, 35(3), 360-381.

Raths, D. (2013). 9 Video Tips for a Better Flipped Classroom. (cover story). T H E Journal, 40(11), 12.

Sheninger, E. C. (2014). Digital leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times. California: Corwin.

Staker, H., & Horn, M. (2012). Classifying K–12 Blended Learning. Retrieved 2015.

Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Lexington, KY: CreateSpace? 

Zomorodi, M. (2015). A Parent's Guide to All that 'Ed Tech' In Your Kid's Classroom [Radio series episode]. In New Tech City. New York : WNYC.

Link to PD Material:

BHS Blended Learning Powerpoint

Link to TI Word Document:

TI Paper by JSMB