Category Archives: LOTI

Rethinking the Continuum: Teaching, Learning and Technology (Keywords: 4Cs framework LOTI)

A short time ago, after a conversation with a colleague, I imagined the following continuum:



Not being satisfied with that, I worked on it a little, and it ended up looking like this:

GoogleDraw version


For fun, I dropped the SAMR model into the equation, even though it has become quite controversial. In truth, I wonder if such “complex” models can really do more than describe ideas and mayhem endemic to school districts. As a technology director, I see my role as facilitating the technical side of things, allowing curriculum to blend technology into their work. And, this approach would probably work except for the deleterious effects of high stakes testings and interventions mandated from on-high.


It may be that the role of Instructional Technology Specialist is an anachronism from a bygone era, but unfortunately, until curriculum folks aren’t running around trying to meet TEA requirements that result in fascinating contortions, we may not see much progress without the hardy Instructional Tech Specialist.

“Research consistently shows that technology adoption requires the presence of pioneers to field-test technologies, contextualize their use for specific purposes, and then help their peers implement them.” Source:ISTE, 2013, p.6 as cited in Dr. Kristi Shaw and Kaye Henrickson’s presentation

This results in curriculum experts who may not know how to hook up their mobile device to a digital projector, create a wiki, or create a form to capture data or analyze it in a spreadsheet, perpetuating paper-n-pencil approaches that have been replaced in other areas.  I can think of at least one instance where this has had disastrous impact on school district public relations (e.g. a curriculum specialist published confidential data online).

That this dichotomy exists, well, that’s pretty astonishing given the amount of technology available, right?


TOWARDS A  NEW VISION FOR INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGISTS
In Naturalizing Digital Immigrants, order it here, a different approach is suggested. Their “collegial coaching Model for Technology Integration” includes these points, which they elaborate on in their book:
  1. Establish the Need: Explore fears, hesitations, insecurities, and overarching goals, helping focus them on 3 tools.
  2. Create partnerships: This suggests adapting past projects and blending technology into those, focusing on content.
  3. Differentiate technology projects, supporting teachers in short-term, easy to attain projects, building confidence over time, moving on a continuum from personal to professional.
  4. Assess Progress: This involves aligning technology-enhanced activities to what was originally intended to be taught, constantly refining how you teach to match what students need to learn.
  5. Ask reflective questions. One nifty quote they share includes one from John Dewey, such as reflection allows one to convert “action that is merely appetitive, blind and impulsive into intelligent action” (Dewey, 1933). I can think of no better description for the avid app consumption that occurs when teachers are given iPads (“Go get this free app now! You can tutor kids with it!” rinse, repeat).
Read my blog entry about this framework

While it is tempting to continue as we are, with curriculum in one silo and instructional technology in the other, it is critical to realize we can’t continue as we have been. But we may very well have to so long as our colleagues in Curriculum & Instruction are taking their marching orders from those bent on destroying public schools. In fact, instructional technologists may be all that stands between helping learners be “CREATIVE, COLLABORATIVE, and INNOVATIVE, not compliant, complacent, and disengaged” (Source: Todd Wold)


HOW TO ACHIEVE CREATIVE, COLLABORATIVE and INNOVATIVE
When I envision changing what is happening in the classroom, I confess that some of the transformations I’d like to see include the following:

  1. Problem-based Learning, or at worst, Project-based Learning: For me, choosing one of these approaches involves rethinking how you approach teaching and learning in the classroom. As a result, far better than any other instructional approach I’ve seen, PBL engages students not with technology but powerful ideas and learning possibilities that technology usage can only accelerate. Read More about PBL | Visit Professional Learning Site
  2. Collaboration: The hallmark of today’s technology-embedded classrooms must be increased communication opportunities, as well as collaboration. In my article on 3 Steps to Leverage Technology for Dual Language, any reader can perceive that these uses transcend technology and enable powerful, interactive activities that can be done at a distance. You’re no longer collecting digital stories for classroom consumption, but creating a multimedia anthology of digital stories to be read, viewed, listened to across the wide global spectrum.
  3. Lifelong Electronic Portfolios: As consumers, most of our lives are captured through what we buy and sell. As learners, most of our work disappears at the closing of a grading period, if not sooner. Creating lifelong ePortfolios will enable students, parents, and teachers greater insight into what we learn, how we learn and what impact that has on us as human beings.
    Find out more: ePortfolios | Picture Portfolios | Holly Clark’s Post on Digital Portfolios
  4. Empower the Previously Impossible or Hopelessly Difficult: Technology should allow us to learn in ways previously impossible. If it doesn’t, then we have to overcome the “So what?” factor. For me, this means that Substitution/Augmentation activities benefits are so terrific that it’s a “Wow!” moment that leads to Modification, or that the fundamental learning activity has been redefined. Consider technologies like an iPad and Moticonnect, which fellow blogger Richard Byrne highlights through a guest post by Maggie Keeler and EdTechTeacher…I don’t know about you, but MotiConnect is pretty incredible augmentation of what may have been done in the past. Communication and Collaboration fall into this, too. Gathering and analyzing data via GoogleSheets with students groups across the Nation is pretty incredible.
  5. Amplify Student Voices: Powerful learning can come when we hear our own voice in the world. Students are, to be obvious, human beings, too. Affirming their ability to impact social justice issues in their community–which goes well with PBL–as well as connect via social media to highlight their burgeoning efforts can help them develop their Voice. “Voice” because crafting a digital presence means recognizing that when we possess and use digital devices, we are on a world stage which can transform our lives in an instant for good or ill.

If we commit to these 5 transformations in our classrooms–is your campus ready?–we will have achieved the often-unrealized promise of technology in our children’s lives. . .and, they will have learned much of what we hoped they would.


Some related materials to this conversation:



Keep up to date on #EdTechCoach topics with the Flipboard eZine:


Read it on your mobile device or via the Web

Everything posted on Miguel Guhlin’s blogs/wikis are his personal opinion and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer(s) or its clients. Read Full Disclosure

Same Old, Same Old

“What do you mean technology in schools won’t work?” I was having a discussion with a college professor 12 years ago one summer day. His cynicism, for that’s what I perceived it as, marred his leadership and humor. For him, the research clearly showed that technology integration was a failed strategy.  I certainly believed that technology could transform teaching, learning and leading.

And, when I read about Twitterbees swarming around new ideas, the concepts of PLNs, etc., it’s clear that for many, technology CAN shift how each of us learns and collaborates. That aside though, school systems resist change. Although new technologies find their way into schools, they don’t necessarily result in the desired change:

Individual change resistance is the refusal of a social agent (a single person, organization, corporation, etc) to fully support or adopt new behavior. Systemic change resistance is the tendency for a system as a whole to reject an attempted change, even if that change is promoted over a long period of time by a substantial fraction of the population. That’s what’s happening in the sustainability problem, so when we say “change resistance” we usually mean systemic change resistance. Source: Change Resistance

Through crucial confrontations and conversations, I believe we can see individuals change. In truth, though, those who won’t change or who actively resist change, as one principal put it to me, “should be encouraged to exit.” But I often find that resistance isn’t about an individual, rather, a system that fights back.

Image Source: 

Over 20 years ago, I was introduced to the Levels of Technology Implementation (LOTI), a Concerns-based Adoption Model (CBAM) approach that took a hard look at technology integration in schools. I haven’t seen anything better or more comprehensive since Dr. Chris Moersch introduced me to these ideas in Edgewood ISD, while teaching 6th grade bilingual at a school where the Mr. Demetrio Rodriguez–made famous by the legal case that names him–would often put in an appearance. Even then, CBAM and LOTI clearly outlined the kinds of fundamental changes we needed to see.

See more

Although the LOTI remains today, folks–as in The Importance of Change Management in Facilitating Instructional Technology Adoption (Kelly Walsh)–continue to hearken back to the original articles like this one, Implementing Technology in Schools, published in 1991:

The effective technology coordinator needs to understand curriculum, principles of staff development, organizational development, good pedagogy, and be especially skilled in understanding human dynamics…The technology coordinator needs to understand good pedagogy in order to assist teachers in being able to use technology to support and improve a good instructional program.

When I reflect on my years of serving in my role as instructional technologist, or technology coordinator, I see where this argument has gone wrong. While well-intentioned, it is plain wrong.

These days, when I wake up in the morning, I try to ask myself, What am I doing differently? What can I help others do differently? While I fear that different isn’t always better, I’d rather not be caught up in the quicksand of yesteryear.

Here’s how I’d revise that advice about technology in schools:

  1. Curriculum specialists need to take advantage of any and all technologies for facilitating teaching and learning.
  2. Adult learners need to organize and connect with each other to build their own learning networks that are independent yet collaborative with school district PD efforts.
  3. Pedagogy is only good if it employs the latest technologies that make learning possible in ways that were previously impossible without it.
  4. A “good” instructional program isn’t one that teaches children how to learn the way we did, but rather, helps children learn in ways our teaching can only suggest.
That’s all.


View my Flipboard Magazine.


Make Donations via PayPal below:


Everything posted on Miguel Guhlin’s blogs/wikis are his personal opinion and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer(s) or its clients. Read Full Disclosure

var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push([‘_setAccount’, ‘UA-3445626-5’]); _gaq.push([‘_setDomainName’, ‘mguhlin.org’]); _gaq.push([‘_trackPageview’]); (function() { var ga = document.createElement(‘script’); ga.type = ‘text/javascript’; ga.async = true; ga.src = (‘https:’ == document.location.protocol ? ‘https://ssl’ : ‘http://www’) + ‘.google-analytics.com/ga.js’; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(‘script’)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })();

Blending Rigor & Relevance with SAMR and P21

For fun, I asked myself, what would a revised Rigor & Relevance chart look like if we included Dr. Ruben Puentedura’s SAMR Model and the Partnership for 21st Century Schools (P21.org)? The more I reflect on it, I’m not sure the Rigor & Relevance framework holds up when you throw in SAMR and P21 components. 

Let’s reflect together and see….

The LibreOffice Draw version of this document is available.

Source for Framework and Supporting Information Moving from standards to instructional practice Willard R Daggett. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin Reston:Dec 2000. Vol. 84, Iss. 620, p. 66-72 (7 pp.)


In the figure above, you can see several components:

When I played around with this framework before, I was more focused on comparing LOTI to the Rigor and Relevance Framework:


As you might imagine, things are a bit different. I’m not sure that in the revised framework, that SAMR fits…what do you think?


Rigor & Relevance Framework: What is it?

The Rigor/Relevance Framework is based on two continua, a knowledge taxonomy and an application model. The knowledge taxonomy (familiar to educators who have studied Bloom’s Taxonomy of learning) describes the increasingly complex ways in which people think. At the low end is the ability to acquire knowledge and recall or locate that knowledge in a simple manner. The high end of the knowledge taxonomy denotes more complex and abstract cognitive activities. At this level, knowledge is fully integrated into one’s mind and can be located and combined in logical and creative ways. Assimilation of knowledge is a good way to describe the activity represented by this high end of the knowledge taxonomy. The assimilation level is often referred to as higher-order thinking skills; individuals performing at this level can solve complex problems and create unique work.
The second continuum, known as the application model, is one of action. Although the knowledge continuum is largely passive, the action continuum describes putting knowledge to use. At the low end, an individual acquires knowledge for its own sake; at the high end, an individual uses that knowledge to solve unpredictable real-world problems.


The Rigor/Relevance Framework is represented by a four-quadrant model. Quadrant A (acquisition) represents gathering, understanding, and storing bits of knowledge for its own sake. Quadrant C (assimilation) represents more complex thinking: students extend and refine their knowledge to use it automatically and routinely to analyze and solve complex problems and create unique solutions, but it is still knowledge for its own sake. Quadrants B (application) and D (adaptation) represent knowledge in action. In Quadrant B, students use acquired knowledge to solve problems and design solutions. The highest level of application is to apply appropriate knowledge to new and unpredictable situations. At the Adaptation level (D), students are able to use their extensive knowledge and skills to create solutions to perplexing problems and take action that further develops their skills and knowledge.

Get Blog Updates via Email!

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner



Everything posted on Miguel Guhlin’s blogs/wikis are his personal opinion and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer(s) or its clients. Read Full Disclosure

Teaching Innovation – HOT, FLAMING VIDEOS

Forgive the hyperbole, since hot and flaming may not be the best way to describe the new YouTube videos from Dr. Chris Moersch on the Levels of Teaching Innovation (LOTI)! But you will have to make that determination.

Here’s the announcement:

It’s officical! I have been working on getting these videos edited and uploaded for what seems like forever, but The LoTi Classroom officially has its own YouTube channel. There are five videos where Chris analyzes classroom videos based on the H.E.A.T framework. I am pretty excited about how they turned out, but I would also welcome any comments or suggestions you might have before we tackle the next round.

To see the videos go to http://www.youtube.com/user/loticlassroom

LeeChel Moersch, M.Ed.

972-523-1053

email: leechel@loticonnection.com

Skype & IM: lotigirlleechel

If you don’t know about HEAT, you will definitely want to check out these other videos that Chris recorded when he came to my city some time ago. Those ARE on fire, probably because of the visual effect (smile).

I made the following suggestion, slightly edited to reflect new info I just became aware of:

You know, though, that most schools can’t access YouTube videos.

Would you also consider getting your own account at TeacherTube.com and VImeo? That way, you could easily share the appropriate video source with campuses that can’t access YouTube.

Are you releasing them under Creative Commons Copyright ShareAlike-Noncommercial-Attribution? That way, folks will get really excited they can re-use your content under that copyright. To get even farther reach, drop the “noncommercial” expectation. That way, those videos will appear EVERYWHERE in content portals organized by commercial vendors.

Check them out and offer feedback!


Subscribe to Around the Corner-MGuhlin.org


Everything posted on Miguel Guhlin’s blogs/wikis are his personal opinion and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer(s) or its clients. Read Full Disclosure

Engaging Administrators with EdTech

Are you in Texas and trying to get administration to better understand how to use technology in instructional settings? Then, definitely consider participating in the LOTI Professional Administrator Program advertised below…having gone through it myself, I can highly recommend it!

Get printable PDF flyer or click on the images below to see them full-size.

Print PDF flyer


Subscribe to Around the Corner-MGuhlin.org


Everything posted on Miguel Guhlin’s blogs/wikis are his personal opinion and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer(s) or its clients. Read Full Disclosure

LOTI Lounge Down for Maintenance

LOTI Fans, the Lounge may be down for awhile…check out this recent announcement:

Attention All LoTi Users!

In order to keep the LoTi Lounge running smoothly so that you are able to easily access Profiler, Observer and all the LoTi resources, the LoTi Lounge website (www.lotilounge.com) will be undergoing routine upgrades and maintenance during the week of Thanksgiving.

This maintenance will require the LoTi Lounge website to be unavailable November 23-27, 2009.

During this time you will not be able to access the LoTi Lounge which includes the LoTi Digital-age Survey, Profiler and Observer. Please plan your activities accordingly around these dates. We apologize for any inconvenience.

If you have any questions, please contact Fred Saunders.

Fred Saunders
fred@loticonnection.com
760-522-8567


Subscribe to Around the Corner-MGuhlin.org


Everything posted on Miguel Guhlin’s blogs/wikis are his personal opinion and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer(s) or its clients. Read Full Disclosure

Irrelevance – A Badge of Honor


Source: http://www.webdesign.fm/images/badge.jpg

The role of technology in our classrooms is to support the new teaching paradigm– support students teaching themselves (with teacher guidance)….
Source: Marc Prensky, The Role of Technology

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to conduct a two day workshop. It was the first time in awhile I’d stepped onto–forgive the metaphor–the “field of battle.” Of course, I LOVED it. I relished the close connections with teachers, the challenge of sharing technology-based instructional strategies and tools that pushed them to move outside their comfort zone.

I couldn’t help but smile, the kind of smile that comes to one’s lips when you encounter a fierce challenge that, rather than knock you flat, spurs you to greater lengths. “This has to be the most irrelevant two days of workshops I’ve had!” proclaimed one teacher. At the end of the session, though, she was smiling and offering thanks. I joked with her about her remark as she heaped praise, claiming it wasn’t even close to making up for her painting all technology workshops offered during the 2 days, including mine, as “irrelevant.”

Yet, irrelevance is not so bad a thing. I was reminded of a quote I prominently displayed–my own creation without attribution–in several of my presentations:

If technology is irrelevant to how you communicate and collaborate, then your classroom is irrelevant to your students.

In the case of these classrooms and lack of approaches to technology use in teachers’ rooms, I’m not surprised to hear that workshops on using Read/Write Web tools, digital storytelling, GoogleDocs are irrelevant…it’s not a surprising reaction from teachers who work without technology, preparing children in a way that David Warlick has characterized as the 1950s:

Without contemporary tools and contemporary information environments — all we can do is continue to prepare our children for the 1950s — no matter how many hours they’re in school every day…

[our focus should be on] . . .crafting learning experiences, within networked, digital, and information-abundant learning environments, where students are learning to teach themselves, and begin to cultivate a mutually common cultural and environmental context for for their lives.

This idea of students teaching themselves, a paradigm shift as Marc Prensky calls it at the start of this blog entry…well, it’s completely foreign to what many teachers are doing now. As I chatted with a colleague this morning on the phone, as I drove into work, school districts are CURRICULUM-FOCUSED, rather than learner-centered. Our work as educators is wrapped up in mandating the curriculum, marching lock-step in line with what must be taught.

Where teachers are doing well without technology, asking them to embed technology in ways that disrupt their work might be perceived as well…bold, if not rash.

I ran across an old comment I left on Dean Shareski’s blog:

…change happens one person at a time, outside the control and in spite of the school culture that tries to maintain control over everything (a futile effort but ignorance blinds their awareness of that).

[then, I quoted this old parable I’d found on the wall of a portable in a small district in Texas I had occasion to present in when in my mid 20s one hot summer day….]

THE TALE OF THE TIRED TEACHER
There’s an old proverb: ” You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” But around this ranch, I keep getting told it’s my fault when the horse won’t drink. “Make the water bluer,” someone says, “Make it colder. Try adding sugar to sweeten it a bit. Make it shallower; maybe the horse is afraid of deep water. Put the water in a smaller container so the horse isn’t overwhelmed by so much water.”

I get told maybe I should consider the poor horse’s background. Maybe it wasn’t taught to drink properly–it needs a course in remedial drinking. Some idiot says I don’t recognize a horse when I see one…Says I really have a camel and shouldn’t expect it to drink like the other horses.

The boss says I’m not providing enough motivation to make the horse drink. He says I should give the horse an enthusiastic pat and keep telling it what a great horse it is. I should reward it with sugar when it drinks. Or build a waterfall and decorate it with rocks so it looks like a fun place to drink at this spot. When all fails, I should hold the horse’s head under the water until it is forced to swallow some.

And I faithfully try all these ideas. And the horse still won’t drink. So I have another solution. I think it’s time to give water only to the horses that want to drink. Any horse that doesn’t want to drink water should be worked harder. Make it work up a sweat so it gets thirsty. Make it haul a load or run faster until it appreciated a drink of water. Put the pressure back on the horse instead of me…because I’m getting mighty tired of trying to drown horses.

Put the pressure back on the horse…learner centered approach? I have to remind myself of the following:

  1. To achieve higher order thinking, student learning and questioning needs to be at the synthesis/evaluation/creation levels.
  2. To be engaged, students need to help define the task, the process, and the solution…collaboration with others extends beyond the classroom.
  3. To be authentic, the learning experience is directly relevant to students and involves creating a product that has a purpose beyond the classroom that directly impacts the students.
  4. Technology use is directly connected to and required for task completion involving one or more applications, and students determine which application(s) would best address their needs.

This can take the form of work that IS being done. Consider this work shared by Robin Ellis some time ago:

We are a team of 8th grade students who are learning how to use technology to improve our understanding of Alternate Energy.
On this wiki space we will be keeping track of the things we learn and compiling information about the topics that we study. Join us on our journey to save the world!

Some people hesitate to take action because they are waiting to become “good enough” to make a difference. In fact, we never will have all the answers. It is impossible to be correct all of the time. So take a new attitude this year and join the discussion!
Source: http://team8bluesavestheworld.wikispaces.com/

Self-directed learning…back in February, 2009, Robin wrote this short entry on the subject. At the end, she asked:

When decisions are made for students and they are given little voice they are unlikely to develop a sense of responsibility. If they believe their opinions and preferences don’t matter they are unlikely to take ownership of their learning. Without ownership what is their motivation to succeed?

How do we begin to involve students in their education? What are we doing to prepare them to be self directed learners, what is taking place in your district to move students and forward in this area?

Simply, self-directed learning means that students want their work to be perceived as authentic, purposeful, valuable to the society and culture in which they live.

Working with a group of teachers over a two day period, my goal wasn’t to highlight the irrelevance of what I had to share, but to use technology to spotlight how relevant their work could be among a global community of educators. If such work is irrelevant, then I like it just fine.

Image Citation:
Tired horse. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/asilverman/media/tired.jpg


Subscribe to Around the Corner-MGuhlin.org


Everything posted on Miguel Guhlin’s blogs/wikis are his personal opinion and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer(s) or its clients. Read Full Disclosure

LOTI and Rigor and Relevance


Note: Presence of a particular initiative on the chart above is not an endorsement!

Rigor & Relevance Framework: What is it?

The Rigor/Relevance Framework is based on two continua, a knowledge taxonomy and an application model. The knowledge taxonomy (familiar to educators who have studied Bloom’s Taxonomy of learning) describes the increasingly complex ways in which people think. At the low end is the ability to acquire knowledge and recall or locate that knowledge in a simple manner. The high end of the knowledge taxonomy denotes more complex and abstract cognitive activities. At this level, knowledge is fully integrated into one’s mind and can be located and combined in logical and creative ways. Assimilation of knowledge is a good way to describe the activity represented by this high end of the knowledge taxonomy. The assimilation level is often referred to as higher-order thinking skills; individuals performing at this level can solve complex problems and create unique work.

The second continuum, known as the application model, is one of action. Although the knowledge continuum is largely passive, the action continuum describes putting knowledge to use. At the low end, an individual acquires knowledge for its own sake; at the high end, an individual uses that knowledge to solve unpredictable real-world problems.

The Rigor/Relevance Framework is represented by a four-quadrant model. Quadrant A (acquisition) represents gathering, understanding, and storing bits of knowledge for its own sake. Quadrant C (assimilation) represents more complex thinking: students extend and refine their knowledge to use it automatically and routinely to analyze and solve complex problems and create unique solutions, but it is still knowledge for its own sake. Quadrants B (application) and D (adaptation) represent knowledge in action. In Quadrant B, students use acquired knowledge to solve problems and design solutions. The highest level of application is to apply appropriate knowledge to new and unpredictable situations. At the Adaptation level (D), students are able to use their extensive knowledge and skills to create solutions to perplexing problems and take action that further develops their skills and knowledge.

Source for Framework and Supporting Information
Moving from standards to instructional practice Willard R Daggett. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin Reston:Dec 2000. Vol. 84, Iss. 620, p. 66-72 (7 pp.)

Matching LOTI to the Rigor/Relevance Framework

The Levels of Technology Implementation (LOTI) are already matched to the knowledge taxonomy. As one proceeds from Level 0-Non Use of Technology to Level 4b-Routine Integration of Technology, there is a corresponding increase in the knowledge taxonomy. Levels 4a-Mechanical Integration and 4b-Routine Integration can be placed entirely in Quadrant D-Adaptation where students are able to use knowledge and skills to create solutions to perplexing problems and take action. Technology at Level 4 of LOTI is best described as “the use of technology to identify and solve real life, authentic problems.” Higher levels of LOTI-Levels 5 & 6-focus on expanded student experiences directed at problem solving, issue resolution, and student activism surrounding a major theme or concept, as well as are comfortable with a wide variety of technology tools. A quick overview of the LOTI is shared below…


var addthis_pub=”mguhlin”;


Subscribe to Around the Corner-MGuhlin.org


Be sure to visit the ShareMore! Wiki.


Everything posted on Miguel Guhlin’s blogs/wikis are his personal opinion and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer(s) or its clients. Read Full Disclosure

Video that Lesson


Source: http://etc.usf.edu/plans/i/header.gif

“Miguel,” asked a kindergarten teacher in my Summer Summit workshop 7 years ago, “do you have a video of a LOTI 4 kindergarten teacher?”

When I started in one district, I was keen on finding examples of great teaching that could be used to illustrate the Levels of Technology Implementation (LOTI) Framework. I was sure that if I could find videos to show teachers, everything would change. I realize now that fixation on that ONE thing that would CHANGE EVERYTHING was an illusion, a conceit of mine that asserted, “Miguel, if you do this ONE thing, YOU will change EVERYTHING.”

Alas, I’m wiser now and know how true that statement is, but certainly not in the way I’d imagined it. I won’t elaborate on that point, except to write that I must not be the only one suffering from this dream to actualize a LOTI 4+ reality in schools.

Over 100 videos taped in Florida schools!
Choose the lessons you wish to view from the matrix at left. They are presented in a brief, open-ended style to make them easy to adapt to many situations.

This website features exemplary models of technology integration across Florida, including lessons from the school districts of Bradford, Broward, Collier, Hardee, Hernando, Hillsborough, Leon, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Seminole, St. Johns and Walton counties. Please see the credits page for further information.

Check out these models of technology integration in Florida. What LOTI stage are each of these?

And, by the way, kudos to the folks who did this! Great job!


var addthis_pub=”mguhlin”;


Subscribe to Around the Corner-MGuhlin.org


Be sure to visit the ShareMore! Wiki.


Everything posted on Miguel Guhlin’s blogs/wikis are his personal opinion and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer(s) or its clients. Read Full Disclosure

Are You on FIRE? LOTI District Trainer


Image: Tonia Reed (Friendswood ISD) and Dr. Chris Moersch

This past week has been exciting and action-packed! On the hunt for new professional learning opportunities for staff, I found out from LeeChel Moersch that pricing for short online courses is running about $1800 for 30 vouchers. That is, I can run a cohort of 30 people through a 10-week, online learning course–I just had a bunch graduate from one and they loved it–for $1800. This is a phenomenal price and beats any of the other providers I’ve seen out there. The content of the course is also top notch.

Furthermore, I found out from the training I attended that about 6 school districts in Texas–including Cypress-Fairbanks ISD–are participating in designing online courses and training staff. It’s definitely worth looking at.

You can find an online list of courses–but to be honest, they’ll customize the courses to match a district’s needs.

Disclosure: Not a thing to disclose! Please note that I’m not paid to write any of that, it’s what I’ve experienced and have to share it.

That said, the training I went through this week was engaging. Here’s the “piece of paper” as my Dad liked to say:

Nice to have participated in this session…below is some information shared during the session, including a presentation I put together to “graduate” from the training. My thanks to colleague, Tonya Mills for her contributions.

fire

View more presentations from mguhlin.

Additional Resources

Click the image above to start watching Dr. Chris Moersch share about how to TURN UP THE H.E.A.T. with Levels of Technology Implementation.

HEAT is an acronym for…

HIGHER-ORDER THINKING

* Students taking notes only; no questions asked

* Student learning/questioning at knowledge level

* Student learning/questioning at comprehension level

* Student learning/questioning at application level

* Student learning/questioning at analysis level

* Student learning/questioning at synthesis/evaluation

ENGAGED LEARNING

* Students report what they have learned only.

* Students report what they have learned only; collaborate with others.

* Students given options to solve a problem

* Students given options to solve a problem; collaborate with others

* Students help define the task, the process, and the solution

* Students help define the task, the process, and the solution; collaborations extends beyond the classroom.

AUTHENTICITY

* The learning experience is missing or too vague to determine relevance.

* The learning experience represents a group of connected activities, but provides no real world application.

* The learning experience provides limited real world relevance, but does not apply the learning to a real world situation.

* The learning experience provides real world relevance and opportunity for students to apply their learning to a real world situation.

* The learning experience is directly relevant to students and involves creating a product that has a purpose beyond the classroom that directly impacts the students.

TECHNOLOGY USE

* No technology use is evident.

* Technology use is unrelated to the task.

* Technology use appears to be an add-on and is not needed for task-completion.

* Technology use is somewhat connected to task completion involving one or more applications

* Technology use is directly connected to task completion involving one or more applications.

* Technology use is directly connected and needed for task completion and students determine which application(s) would best address their needs.


var addthis_pub=”mguhlin”;


Subscribe to Around the Corner-MGuhlin.org


Be sure to visit the ShareMore! Wiki.


Everything posted on Miguel Guhlin’s blogs/wikis are his personal opinion and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer(s) or its clients. Read Full Disclosure