Optimizing Learning with Technology Requires a Strong Leadership

Optimizing Learning with Technology Requires a Strong Leadership

School Network Experts must remember learning is optimized by access to information. Teaching is best delivered by trained educators & administrators, not your limited understanding of what is best for these trained adults to access.

Eric Waller article, Taming the Internet through Traffic Control in CETPA Databus Fall 2009 (Volume 2009, Issue 4) inspired a closer look at the limitations on the optimal learning environment.

A professional in networking is obviously stated in the 3rd paragraph of the article. Yet, expertise in creating and promoting the optimal learning environment is in critical need of improvement.

The example of video streaming 500,000 pages last month “clogging” the bandwidth is a statement of fact. Instead of preventing these pages from being delivered, an optimal educational technology expert would evaluate with a more critical analysis along with the administration to uncover what these sites were delivering. Then connect it to educational targets such as standards and invention. Video streaming is not always bad. Not every video delivers just a Metallica video. In fact, if was a real world example as recommended by the state framework, it could be a video with Metallica and other musicians, who influence a change in the delivery of music content using economics, policies, government regulations and other means. Economics, policies and government are part of any good school district curriculum.

Removing the network experts and the Informational Technology department from the vision of the district limits the effectiveness of technology and quality use of computers defeats the purpose of a forward thinking district.

For example, when a perfectly good website is filtered preventing access to students learning is limited. With a school year limited to less than 170 days to teach all the state mandated standards, access to important content needs to be frontloaded. Instead most technology experts use fear of a security breach as a guide, with the assumption that teachers will complained when they and their students really need access.

Typical Problem: Limits to the Optimal Learning Environment
A teacher prepares for a lesson on her home computer. She uses all the new technology installed on her computer and accessible from the Internet. All these resources are built into her textbook program and she assumes she will be able to use at her school computer. Then she gets to school with the networking filtering on the school computer and her well planned lesson is foiled. The filters and administrative blocks unknowingly prevent her and her students to access the textbook website. Now, her motivation and support to move teaching and learning forward with technology is broken.

The access to the content becomes a struggle between what the teacher is responsible to communicate and what the network expert is suppose to access. There is where the problem begins. Research shows teachers do not communicate failures in the classroom well. And if they do express a problem, the optimal is an immediate solution to solve the problem, yet limited resources and other reason prevent the problem to be solved. Instead access to information using the school computers is passed off as it did not work. Often teachers are heard saying, “See, I tried it. It did not work.” Then they concede, “I just managed my class and my students the best I could. I handed out worksheets, when the computers didn’t work.”

The typical school network expert response, “If I had known what you were doing with your instruction the filters could have been lifted.”

The problem is complex, because the typical network expert will claim he or she didn’t know the teacher needed access. While the teacher “assumes” the network expert has the knowledge and is invested in the delivery of the content needed. This is a valid assumption, because textbook curriculum is adopted by a committee and approved by the administration, the board and parents. The typical textbook adoption includes the online access to the textbook, workbooks and other educationally designed resources. Is the problem access, protection of network slowing or who should tell who, what they need from the Internet to properly teach?

The complexity to the problem is advances. Most Informational Technology (IT) departments, whether in a school or in a professional environment, rule from the perspective that if no one complains then nothing needs fixing. The typical teacher does not feel an obligation to defend her use of the computer or technologies. If she knows the textbook offers an online edition, yet the network expert has filtered out the website or prevented installation of the required software, like Adobe Acrobat Reader, then she figures it doesn’t work. She will teach the way she taught in the past, because before technology the lesson worked without a problem. Waller’s article references that help desk calls were reduced with more filtering. Could the reduction be contributed to teachers and users giving up on the system working?

The other complexity to the problem is teachers who “complain” too much are labeled incompetent or trouble-makers. When a teacher reports a problem regarding her classroom, the initial response is that she needs help managing her resources or her classroom discipline. And when help is provided it will be in several days or weeks due to limited resources. With the limited amount of days it takes to teach all the standards a teacher is going to move on using her tried and true lessons that don’t use the technology.

The other complexity to filtering and prevention of access is that it limits collegial interactions. Research indicates that teachers do not engage in collegial interactions to improve instruction. Typical interactions among teachers are complaints about students and administration.

School textbook adoption processes are transparent. The state of California framework clearly states access to content is increasingly more important. Opportunities for students to access high quality and instruction is required for students to meet and exceed standards. Networking Experts

Yet, when filters and laisse faire communication between network experts and educators surfaces access is always prevented as the Wallers’ article suggests. The filters that limit access usually surface for the following reasons.
1) Did not know you needed access. e.g. the textbook website.
2) Social Networking sites are time waste and bogs down the network.
3) Personal email access is blocked.
4) School email is prefer, yet, attachment size is limited.
5) We have policy…

A recommended solution to better use of the technology is not new policies and more filters. Instead embrace the state framework to provide access to quality instruction and make decisions based on the goals and leadership of your school district. Monitor technology use to improve performance. Focus policies on delivery of optimals. If a school has a network that support the business of education, but limits the delivery of instruction, then is the district really moving education forward using the latest technology?

Wallers’ article infers that student access will lose out to business of education using the extreme example of a Metallica video. What if it was a video for teachers to improve the practice of instruction, or news regarding a life changing events, such as a man on the moon, the presidential election or terrorist attacks on the country, the decision would be more controversial. Making these determinations need to be driven by the goals of the districts, the state’s initiative to provide access to quality curriculum and instruction, not unaligned IT policies.

Wallers’ article does reference students who find work around to filtering. Instead of trying to stay ahead of the students and sometimes teacher ability to workaround the system, embrace the motivation to use technology. Then focus your capacity to monitor and develop quality instruction and student user agreement. When a student cannot follow the user agreement then use monitoring tools to improve their learning. If the student cannot follow the agreement, traditional paper and pencil learning will be implemented.

Every network has built in monitoring tools, to determine:
1) Who logs-in?
2) Where the user logs-in? Most monitoring devices track the computer the user logs in on, such as home or work computer.
3) How much time the user is using the network?
4) And the websites visited and for how long?

By tracking where and what the user is doing on the district computer through data collection and analysis performance can be determined. The performance of a teacher planning a lesson, or researching curriculum can be monitored to improve performance.
A teacher who is struggling can be compared to a teacher who is highly evaluated. Other scenarios are to compare a teacher’s online activity from one semester to the next. Or another scenario is to compare a teacher’s use of the school adopted programs, like an online essay grader to a teacher who teaches writing more traditionally. Of course, more controversial use the computer will be uncovered, but the district leadership, vision and policies to determine remedies are better use of the technology and completely banning its use.

Since data driven decision-making is so powerful and highly recommended by research and administrators, technology use makes sense to monitor and drive instruction, not prevent it.

Train administrators how to monitor teacher performance.
Administrators use the technology to enhance teacher evaluations.
Train teachers how to monitor students’ use of the technology to drive instruction, monitor student performance and mastery of the standards.
Teachers use the technology to improve instruction, and monitor students individually and in aggregate.
Work with adoption committees prior to implementation technology and access to the newly adopted curriculum is seamless. In good program management every involved in the final implement is required to participate in the “kick-off” or the initial project meeting and throughout the process. This involvement of the all the stakeholders ensures system requirements can be met and implementation can be optimized.
Develop user agreements and district policies on technology use based on district’s goals, state initiatives and management student and teacher performance.
Celebrate and encourage proper use of the technology to motivate more the end-users to improve their own performance.
Blend filtering, spyware, adware and other technology networking tools to improve performance, not prevent it use.
Improve the use of User Agreements betweens students, parents, teachers and the administration. Uphold the consequences for inappropriateness.
Use training models as a way to level users’ access.

In conclusion, the vision of access to information should be unified amongst all the school districts administration, teachers, board, parents and students. With a unified vision to access optimal performance can be achieve in a timely support manner. Working together from the beginning of technology implementation throughout with all the stakeholders holds more promise for success than a system restricted by fear that of use will be inappropriate.

Waller’s final remarks indicate that personal responsibility and close supervision cannot be substituted. The technology allows more access and capacity to monitor and govern these important virtues of people performance. Let’s use the technology to drive instruction and improve learning.

If your technology implementation is underway will to many restrictions or conflicts between the end-users and the technology experts, consider mediating the problem with an educational technology expert who can draw-up a needs assessment. Then work with the experts, administrators and end-users together to draw up a solution. Make the goal use of technology a powerful means to improve delivery of instruction and improve collaboration.