SAMR: Have we missed the point?

I’m a big proponent of continua theories of change simply because change is complex and doesn’t happen quickly. We progress and grow in stages over time. It’s not like today I’m not fluent at Spanish but tomorrow I will be. Or bowling. Or particle physics. Developing expertise with anything takes time, especially technology.

Different continua have been used to describe the ways teachers and other educators develop technology proficiencies. Probably the first, or at least one of the most well-known early continua theories, was developed through the original ACOT (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow) project (Dwyer, Ringstaff & Sandholtz, 1991). In the late 80s and 90s, teachers were observed learning to use the new Apple personal computers, and the observers described patterns of how teachers routinely developed proficiency across five stages.

To date, I believe the ACOT project resulted in the only continua of proficiency based on evidence from practice. It was observational evidence, which is not like conducting a research experiment, but there was still sufficient evidence to make generalizations about how teachers develop proficiency.

And I use the word continua, not continuum, because the ACOT researchers developed a multi-dimensional look at technology proficiency. The ACOT continua describes ways that technology proficiency can develop across five stages by considering

  • What the teacher is doing
  • What resources are being used
  • What the students are doing
  • And the learning environment

ISTE (the International Society of Technology in Education) has also published continua related to their National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. While not based on observations of a known set of teachers, the standards and the continua are based on expert practitioner advice. In ISTE’s case, that’s 10s if not 100s of thousands of expert practitioners across the globe. It’s still not an experiment, but pretty good advice.

And ISTE took the continua idea to a new level, developing continua for all five of its NETS for Teachers and the substandards that support them. The ISTE continua also describe how teachers use technology to help promote student learning—and learning in complex ways—like communication and collaboration, and critical and creative thinking. Again, the focus is not just technology, but how teacher use of technology supports student learning.

These standards are under revision and will be announced this summer at ISTE’s annual conference. I look forward to see what the new continua look like as they will have to address the new NETS for Students released last year.

Sometimes, Simple is Not Best

This brings me to the current fascination with a popular continuum: SAMR. It’s the current darling of the EdTech world, especially for EdTech departments in districts and teacher preparation programs. I have no personal vendetta against SAMR, but I’ve come to realize why I don’t find it very helpful. One of those reasons is, perhaps, the primary reason for its appeal: it’s simple. For me, it’s too simplistic. Or perhaps the way we interpret is.

The acronym stands for Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition. So, on the surface, it’s a continuum, right? Yes, but a continuum of what? What’s the focus? During conversations I’ve had in the districts that have adopted SAMR, usually the focus is the technology. The most common interpretation is that Modification is better than Augmentation is better than Substitution because of the technology teachers use.

But I counter, what’s the purpose of school? Why do teachers get up every day and go to work? Why do we send a nation of young people to school every year? Why is schooling a core expectation for the citizens of our country? Ask these questions and most people will say, “it’s for the kids.” Which, for me, is the best answer. We have schools so our kids can reach their potential, academically and otherwise. It’s not about the technology.

It’s not that the continuum idea is a bad one, and I’m sure the intentions were well meant. But you can oversimplify complex concepts and lose sight of the real purpose of promoting student learning. Any one technology is likely to have very little impact on changing practice and impacting student learning without some work on building teacher capacity. This can often mean tackling deep-seated philosophies of a teacher’s role and even the role of students in the learning process. No technology alone is going to do that.

Consider the level of Substitution. Many of my tech compatriots suggest that teachers replacing paper-based worksheets or multiple-choice tests with word processing or quizzing software represents Substitution. But not for a veteran user of PBL, or expeditionary learning, or inquiry-based learning who never used worksheets or multiple-choice tests. I never did. What does Substitution look like at that level of student-centered teaching? Interpreting that Augmentation is better in some way because the teacher used a different tool misses the point.

I highly support the use of a continuum of proficiency—or tech proficiency development. Let’s just be careful of what they really mean and keep our sights set on what’s important: improved student learning. Tech is cool. Tech is fun. But tech is not what it’s all about. In the words of one of my favorite quotes by organizational theorist and professor Russell Ackoff…

“You can’t simplify a complex problem or complex situation into a simple situation with a simple solution. Solutions must address the complex parameters of the situation.”

References

Dwyer, D. C, Ringstaff, C, & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991). Changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45–52.

 

Scaffolding Coaching Conversations

I thought I was through with the coaching thread, but I’ve been doing a lot of coaching this month, so I’m going to continue for a while. Plus I’ve joined ISTE’s ETcoaches in a slow Twitter Chat (#ETCoaches) and book study about coaching. There’s still time to join in.

I take an eclectic approach to coaching. I use the best from what I’ve read, workshops I’ve attended, and from working with some great colleagues. All of this morphs into my own approach to coaching, but even that’s not final. I keep learning new things, especially from the coaches I work with, and so I keep tweaking and hopefully improve the approach I take. One piece I’ve been working on recently is providing a visual scaffold to support a coaching conversation. This winter I developed a Coaching Conversation Placemat that some of my coaches have been experimenting with. They and some colleagues are also giving me feedback on the tool, and I’d be glad for any additional ideas.

Coaching Conversation Placemat

Coaching Conversation Placemat

A Road Map for Conversation

A roadmap is a guide. It provides options. It doesn’t suggest you have to take the same route every time to get where you want to go. You might hang out along the way and see some new things, or zoom right through parts to save time, but in the end you want to reach your destination. I give my coaches different handouts and guidelines for supporting their conversations, but I wanted one that matches my approach.

Currently, I suggest coaching conversations be fairly focused in scope and explicit in terms of outcomes. But those outcomes are determined at the onset of each conversation. For me, coaches begin by determining a goal for the conversation with their colleague and take explicit steps to move towards some tangible action steps each can take following the conversation. This conversation is influenced by the different types of conversations common to cognitive coaching, but throws in a few other ideas, as well. One of the greatest benefits of having a structure is that it helps to address one of the major challenges teachers face, and that’s a lack of time. Keeping focus saves you time.

The focus of this type of coaching conversation is reflection–allowing educators to reflect on their practice in a safe environment with a non-judgmental peer. Holding back judgment and not jumping to a “quick fix” is a critical part of the conversation. In fact, this type of conversation may be one of the only times that master teachers have an opportunity to truly reflect on their practice rather than struggling to find time to learn some new strategy or resource. Many teachers tell me reflection is valuable, but they don’t often have time to do it. This held true this past week.

Putting the Placemat into Practice

It can be difficult to coach a strong, veteran teacher. In fact, one of the teachers this week commented at the beginning, “I’m not really sure why I need to be coached.” But through the conversation with her friend and newly appointed coach, she reported the conversation was extremely helpful. All of our volunteer teachers commented on how helpful it was to take time to reflect on what was going well and working on their own goals rather than having an evaluative conversation that often takes a deficit approach.

Having a goal for the conversation helped teachers to focus their reflection and comments. When asked to describe their goals, these veteran teachers often had a lot of ideas. They had ideas of how they’d like their lessons to unfold and shared several different strategies and resources they’d like to try to get there–sometimes many different resources. Having a coach keep the conversation focused helped these teachers cut through some of the noise in their thinking and have a deeper conversation about the most important aspects of their goal, again, making the most of their brief time together. It also allowed the pair to determine if there were any underlying factors that might influence the teacher’s motivation or thinking (see last week’s entry on first- and second-order barriers for more on this topic).

This conversation is not about learning a new resource or strategy. That’s a different type of conversation and any skill-building training, exploration, or collaborating on a lesson can occur later as an action step after this conversation. The coach goes into the coaching conversation without any preconceived ideas of potential outcomes, because the first idea may not be the best idea. The coaching conversation helps to determine the educator’s specific goals prior to seeking out any particular strategy, approach, or technology to use. Too often, we present resources first–especially technology resources–and then teachers have to figure out how to use them. And since being back in the classroom can be so hectic with little time to practice, new resources often just don’t get used. Having coaching conversations first saves teachers time and effort as resource selection is more goal-oriented and practical.

Feel free to download the Coaching Conversation Placemat (PowerPoint or Google Doc) and use it or modify it for your coaching needs. I’m especially open to suggestions on how to improve it. (I’m working on a more linear representation for some of my coaches thanks to their feedback.) I created this at the end of December, but it has been tweaked after being reviewed by some of my coaching colleagues and my new coaches. Please let me know if you use it, if it’s helpful, and how you’ve changed it to make it better.

MVUSD Dell Mentors round 2

Congratulations to the second round of Dell-Certified Mentors from Moreno Valley USD, CA!

 

Lessons Learned from Coaching, the Finale

This final post in this three-part series is a celebration of the great educators I get to work with in the Dell Mentor Certification process. We’ve had some rewarding moments together, and my current cohorts are no exception. In Jim Knight’s book he notes, “Coaches make it possible for teachers to take time to have real conversations about teaching.” It’s sad that many teachers don’t get that time to reflect with someone, because it’s really powerful when teachers do have that time.

“Coaches make it possible for teachers to take time to have real conversations about teaching.”

Jim Knight

First-Order Challenges Often Mask Second-Order Barriers

I’ve been a fan of Peg Ertmer’s work for a while, so you should know how great it is to be able to work with her on our technology integration textbook (under revision for the third edition, by the way). One of my favorite pieces of Peg’s is a think piece she published a while ago in ETR&D (1999) about how second-order barriers often underlie the more often mentioned first-order barriers, and are the true barriers to effective change. First-order barriers are extrinsic barriers that are often relatively easy to address. They can be perceived as things like a lack of time, limited access to devices or support, or lack of professional development. I agree with Karen Cator, the former EdTech Director for the U.S. Department of Education, when she said at an ISTE conference that there are lots of ways schools can and do address these types of barriers. First-order barriers can be and often are overcome through simple strategies of resource allocation, scheduling, and varied modes of services.

Time is one of the most often cited first-order barriers; however, it’s easy to observe and catalog where teachers spend their time and find ways to help them better organize their time to get a bigger payoff. They can even use technology to save time, as technology can easily perform routine teaching duties, like taking attendance, assessing knowledge comprehension, and recording evidence of student work. Even limited access to devices and PD can be overcome through strategic—and sometimes creative—use of resources (time, people, and money) and getting people across a school or district to work together rather than in silos. But once that happens, technology initiatives often have to deal with the underlying intrinsic barriers to change, or second-order barriers.

These barriers often relate to our very own philosophies and perceptions of who we are and how we think people should act, especially ourselves. Since I work in education, second-order barriers often relate to a teacher’s basic understanding of what a teacher should be, how they manage a classroom, and how students should behave in that classroom. In other words, second-order barriers can be challenges to our foundational understanding of what we think and know to be true about ourselves and our profession. Pretty heady stuff.

The Power of Coaching

During a visit this school year with one of my Dell Mentor cohorts, the candidates observed classrooms and then participated in a role play exercise to practice their coaching conversation skills. Some had the option to pretend to be one of the teachers we observed or they could choose a professional issue they were working on as the focus of their conversation with their peer. What resulted, literally every time, was magic.

In one, a young teacher worked with one of the other coaches on what to do with students who complete their work early in class. He noted that some of his students rushed through their work and would begin socializing at the end of class and it became disruptive. He wanted them to remain quiet and busy. When questioned, he noted that the students that finished their work early also often did well on their assignments, so he didn’t have the leverage of poor performance to get them working. After some conversation, and working through our summarizing and clarifying questioning techniques, I asked, “Does it upset you that they finish early, even though they’re doing well?”

His response was a vehement, “YES! They don’t act the way I did in school! They don’t push themselves to do more.” At this point, it may be obvious, but we went from discussing the first-order barrier of keeping student busy during class to the underlying, second-order barrier of a perception that his students have different motivations or possibly work ethics when it comes to a topic this teacher is passionate about. It was really quite a breakthrough facilitated primarily by his conversation with a colleague. What resulted afterward changed the direction of the conversation and the types of support he was offered.

That type of breakthrough seemed to happen each time one of my groups completed their role play. At another school, one of the coaches pretended to be a teacher we observed and started out asking for help on using a technology, but her colleague helped uncover that the teacher was really seeking approval from her students. In another, a veteran teacher had a conversation with her younger colleague that began with frustration with students and parents. She had been trained in and was trying more student-centered pedagogies and her students were pushing back. They “just wanted to know” what to do without having to take on so much responsibility for their own learning. The underlying challenge her colleague uncovered was that this new approach changed her role in the classroom so much that she was feeling a bit uncomfortable. It was very different from what she, and her students, had done in the past, but she felt the gains in learning were well worth it. In all of these conversations, having someone—a trained someone—to share concerns and open up became a great catharsis.

These teachers are lucky because they had someone to talk with. Upon completion, these newly certified Dell Mentors will be additional resources for the school district to support more collegial conversations. Having a trusted someone to talk with about your teaching–whether a coach, an administrator, or another teacher–is an important component for helping teachers feel and be successful. I appreciate the honor of working with so many coaches and teachers and look forward to learning more from them in the future.

Please note: Over the past year I helped develop the process for Teachers and Mentors to become Dell Certified and was happy to work in two school districts that had educators successfully complete the process. This work is coordinated by Advanced Learning Partnerships for Dell Education. 

Resources

Ertmer, P. A. (199). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.

Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching. A partnership approach to improving instruction. NSDC.

Tech-tonic Shifts: What can school leaders do to support change?

Please note: This is the fourth and last in a series of posts in response to a request from Susan Swift, a language arts teacher at Hempstead High School in Dubuque, IA, who is writing a book on technology integration. 

So, now you’ve gotten started. You’ve bought some new materials, perhaps some technology devices or new curricular materials, or you’ve brought in some trainer to help spread the word. Boxes have been opened, people have been trained…now what?

Unfortunately, this is when a lot of initiatives fall short. They’re frontloaded with planning and training, but the resources aren’t put into place to nurture and sustain the effort. I can tell when I visit a school or district with a follow through problem when teachers (or other staff) talk about “what we did last year,” or even the year before and there’s no clear connection from year to year or initiative to initiative.

This also happens in those districts or schools with implementation overload. Every year someone introduces new materials, new methods, new devices with no clear long-range plan that ties them all together. I was visiting one school where the faculty complained they had “too much” training. They were introduced to so many things, they said it was like a buffet. But in the end, as one overwhelmed teacher told me, “Just show me 1 or 2 things that works and give me time to really learn how to use it.”

I developed the following guidance for school leaders implementing technology initiatives in their schools, but they could help anyone charged with implementing change. You’ll see some advice repeated from earlier, but that just highlights the importance of some of these strategies. This list began with advice from Margaret Heritage (2010) but I’ve combined some items and school it down to be a little more manageable.

  1. Communicate. This bears repeating. School leaders articulate, and constantly communicate, the value of any change effort. This begins with and returns to the vision, but it has to be relevant. If it’s not important to school leadership, it’s not important to teachers. Administrators who don’t buy in to a change effort can actually derail it. School leaders help everyone–teachers, other staff, parents, students–understand the importance of the initiative and reinforce it through multiple and varied communications.
  2. Support. School leaders provide explicit support to their teachers and staff related to the effort. People participating in and impacted by the change will need different kinds of support. Often, this implies new kinds of support. Determine what kind of support is needed. Be specific. Avoid platitudes or overgeneralizing. Yes, teachers need professional development, but what kind? Lesson study, observations, time to collaborate? Yes people will need time, but what kind of time specifically? Time to collaborate, to plan, to experiment? Identify the types of support and prioritize those needs.
  3. Dedicate time: School leaders find and protect time to engage in real work around the change initiative. Change efforts require ongoing time for meeting, reflection, and discussion. If these times succumb to other meetings or duties, the change won’t occur. Many schools have professional learning communities (PLCs), some just in name only. Any change effort, if worth doing, should be incorporated into existing PLC efforts. Every PLC meeting should result in some tangible outcome related to the change effort.
  4. Embed and connect: School leaders make connections to other initiatives. Teachers don’t have a lot of time, so even the best intended initiative won’t be effective if they don’t understand how new initiatives support existing initiatives or processes. School leaders should make these connections explicit, communicate them often, and tie them together. If a new technology initiative is implemented, school leaders help teachers understand how it will impact or support lesson planning, instruction, classroom observations, communications with students and parents–everything.
  5. Allocate resources: School leaders make strategic decisions about the allocation of resources that support the initiative. Not all resources require new funding. New initiatives should be implemented as an effort to addressing an existing need. Is literacy an issue? How will the change initiative support literacy? Conduct an analysis of what does and doesn’t work and get rid of those that don’t! Too many schools hand on to legacy programs that are ineffective just because “that’s the way we do it around here.” It can also help to get staff from different departments, along with the budgets they oversee, to get together and see how a new effort can support their work. Very often, technology initiatives can support multiple programs (e.g., Title programs, special education, literacy, and technology programs) and can be made affordable when budgets are combined across programs, something that may not be attainable by a single program’s budget.
  6. Take risks: School leaders establish and nurture an atmosphere of risk taking and learning from mistakes. School leaders will have to consider how they deal with taking risks and making mistakes. Teachers are not the only ones who will be trying new things or having to learn new skills. School leaders should be sure to learn alongside teachers by determining which trainings and meetings they’ll participate in with teachers. They may also want to consider which meetings they won’t participate in, in case teachers want some time to practice and work on their own.
  7. Acknowledge and celebrate! School leaders comment on, encourage, and celebrate teachers who demonstrate positive aspects of the initiative. Whenever a school leader visits a classroom, they should be sure to recognize aspects of the initiative (catch teachers doing good things drawn from the initiative) and comment on and encourage teachers who are doing so. And plan for and implement celebration! What celebrations are already in place where teachers and others can be acknowledge for the work their doing? Can they be acknowledged at staff meetings, daily announcements, with letters or cards, in newsletters, or on digital media like the school website, Facebook page, or other means? Celebration is fun and encouraging but often overlooked.

I encourage school or change leaders to do an analysis of existing strategies and processes that support each of these seven strategies. Include people responsible for them, such as the school secretary that puts together the school newsletter where you’re going to acknowledge the good work of your teachers, or the department heads that are going to carry your message back to their colleagues on a daily basis. Determine what works and whom to involve.

You may also need to develop or implement new strategies. For example, some schools may have department meetings but not really PLCs. If you plan to support the change effort with teachers from multiple departments, schools may need to find and adopt a PLC model to help organize those meetings and make them more effective.

In summary, I suggest that we, as an education community, know a lot about implementing and sustaining successful change initaitives. Unfortunately, we, as individual educators, may not always know about this body of knowledge nor about the strategies necessary to successfully implement change. Hopefully this brief overview provides some concrete ideas and strategies for those either leading or succumbing to change efforts and will find it helpful to make those change efforts more successful.

References

Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment. Making it happen in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Tech-tonic shift: Basic needs of capacity building

Please note: This is the third in a series of posts in response to a request from Susan Swift, a language arts teacher at Hempstead High School in Dubuque, IA, who is writing a book on technology integration. It’s taken many months to get back on track with this, but I’m done and have part four on the way.

In 2013, I helped the Appalachia Regional Comprehensive Center (ARCC, 2013) put together a two-day regional seminar on systemic change. Presenters came from several states along with the U.S. Department of Education and the Council of Chief State School Officers. At the opening session, Erick Oetjen, a senior vice president for ICF International, the organization that holds the ARCC contract, opened the seminar with a few experiences from his own work supporting large-scale, capacity-building efforts, especially in areas related to social change.

Eric eloquently and quickly laid the groundwork for the seminar by outlining four key components that anyone implementing a capacity building change effort should consider. (He was so good, that he was later featured in a one-hour webinar in which he was given more time to expand on these ideas. You can find the webinar archive here.) Eric gave these four guidelines that I believe represent some key basic needs for supporting capacity building change. I elaborate on each briefly in relation to technology initiatives, specifically, which is where I most often see these coming into play.

  1. Think broadly about the stakeholders and engage them early. Too often technology initiatives are seen as external to the day-to-day work of the school, which is promoting student learning. Technology initiatives are often isolated, sometimes stigmatized, so it’s difficult to get widespread buy-in. Sometimes we think it’s only the IT staff or the technology coach that needs to buy-in, but any successful school initiative will include all stakeholders, from administrators, teachers, and other staff to parents and–most importantly–the students. Eric notes that if you don’t engage all stakeholders early, you’re going to have to at some point in order to be successful. I add that if you don’t plan to engage them early, you may not like how some of them get involved and the negative impact some stakeholders can have on even the most worthwhile initiative.
  2. Move towards a common language. I sometimes think that educators are the worst in terms of jargon–what I call “educationese.” I’m sure every industry has their own, but in education we use so many common words (e.g., authentic, engaged, problem, project, assessment) that often end up meaning very different things in an educational setting. Eric warns that if change leaders don’t help everyone come to a common understanding of key terms, concepts, and process, people end up “talking past each other.” Common language, of course, starts with a clear vision and constantly referring to that vision to make sure your initiative is on track. I’ve gone so far as to creating “word walls” or glossaries of key terms to help everyone get on the same page.
  3. Develop a communication strategy. Eric suggests having a clear communication strategy that is implemented early and regularly can make or break a change effort. This really can’t be overemphasized. When I work with organizations and ask about communication, it’s often sloughed off as if “been there, done that.” People will cite organizational newsletters, websites, meetings, without ever determining if anyone actually reads or pays attention to these things. Don’t take communication for granted. I led a team of about two dozen educators through an audit-type visit of a large school district in my state. The superintendent told me we should look for innovative use of technology. That he had been pushing for innovation since he got there. What we found was that communication–from the central office to the schools to the classrooms and back up that chain–was lacking and the top priority we encouraged this superintendent to consider in order to reach his goals. It turned out no one had the same idea of what innovation was and so any use of technology, from using an overhead projector on up, ended up being considered innovative. Not exactly what the superintendent had in mind.
  4. Design for early results. This was a unique suggestion Eric made that I would not have included, but makes perfect sense upon reflection. As an instructional designer, I incorporate strategies to motivate the learner based on the work of John Keller who developed the ARCS motivational design model (A = get the learners Attention, R = make the material Relevant, C = build the learner’s Confidence, S = ensure the learner is Successful.) I use this model often and try to be sure that the materials I develop allow the learner to be successful early. Start with small success to build motivation and increase complexity over time. Eric suggested a similar philosophy, noting that even if you can accomplish small or even temporary results early, they will build momentum for the initiative and help it keep moving forward. Same idea. I’m glad he applied it to capacity building.
Learning from Los AngelesUnfortunately, the Los Angeles Unified School District suffered through one of the least successful technology integration efforts perhaps in the history of schools–at least since personal computers were introduced into schools in the 80s. Costing more than a billion dollars and a much reported dismal failure–one that cost the superintendent his job–the one good thing that came out of the effort are some lessons learned. These five lessons were posted in Edutopia (Gliksman, 2014) and should serve as the basis for anyone planning any technology initiative in the future.

  1. Change starts with a vision.
  2. Top-down strategies rarely work without communication and consensus.
  3. Training requires more than an introductory “how-to” workshop.
  4. Technology should empower students.
  5. It’s not about the device.

 

References

ARCC. (July 18-19, 2013). Exploring the parameters of systemic change and capacity. Regional Systemic Capacity Seminar, Crystal City, VA.

Gliksman, S. (2014). The LAUSD iPad initiative: 5 critical technology integration lessons. Edutopia. Available from: http://www.edutopia.org/blog/lausd-ipad-technology-integration-lessons-sam-gliksman

Tech-tonic shift: What type of change do you want?

Please note: This is the second in a series of posts in response to a request from Susan Swift, a language arts teacher at Hempstead High School in Dubuque, IA, who is writing a book on technology integration.

I have the great privilege of working with one of my professional mentors. Dr. Sharon Harsh is an exemplary educator who is also an acknowledged national leader in the field of organizational change, especially as it relates to education. She has studied the organizational change literature across many industries and has used that knowledge to craft strategies and procedures to support systemic change at the statewide level to much success. For this, she is acknowledged by the U.S. Department of Education, and I get to pick her brain often and learn from her. How cool is that?

Early in the change process, those in charge really should sit down and determine what kind of change they’re really seeking. Harsh (2012) summarizes that there are three levels of change, and using strategies for one type to address another can not only be ineffective but can frustrate those involved and hamper the ability to implement future change initiatives. She describes three types of change:

  1. Incremental or first-order change occurs when a change initiative is localized to an individual or small group of individuals within an organization. In schools, this can occur when a group of teachers take a class or attend a training together and attempt to implement a strategy they’ve learned. Or perhaps a grade-level team may work on adopting a new technology resource together. In this type of change, an individual may build capacity, but the organization as a whole stays very much the same.

  2. Transitional or second-order change ramps things up a bit. This type of change focuses at a larger group of people, a well-defined group, such as a workgroup or a team in an organization. In schools, this could be a group like all counselors, all algebra teachers, or all technology coaches (to use a Dubuque example). The goal of second-order change is to help an entire subgroup of the organization build their capacity to meet the goals of the organization, but whole-scale organizational change is still not occurring.

  3. Transformational change or third-order change is true systemic change in which all of the players in an organization are impacted, some profoundly. This type of change is, obviously, the most challenging type of change to undergo and see to a successful conclusion, because it can impact the entire culture of the organization. It may require people to reflect and modify their philosophy of their role in the organization and what they want to get out of being in the organization. Some may leave the organization. In a successful effort, everyone changes to some degree.

 

Again, more great lessons, but what does this mean for schools? Especially those in the midst of a tech-tonic shift? In my experience, the most obvious answer rests in the mismatch between intentions of a change initiative and the strategies used to get there. Transformational change is hard. It’s complex and requires a great deal of preparation and forethought. As Harsh is fond of quoting, “complex problems require complex solutions.” Simplistic approaches won’t lead to successful change in complex situations, like whole-organization change. Transformational change is truly a contact sport. It requires rallying the troops and getting everyone on the same page. It can even involve thinning the troops or finding those more sympatico to the change vision.

In my experience, too many education organizations attempt to implement transformational change through incremental strategies–using simplistic strategies that can’t address a complex problem. In most cases, those I work with are seeking transformational change whether they originally intend to or not. Also in most of these cases, the strategies used are limited to individuals or a small group or do not tackle the larger and more complex issues related to revising personal philosophies, developing a shared vision, or changing organizational culture. Yes, those are challenging aspects, which may be why so many people want to avoid them, but you have to be true to yourselves and those with whom you work. If you want transformational change, roll up your sleeves and get ready to do some heavy lifting. If you’re not ready for the long-term investment required for transformational change, change your sites. Focus on incremental change, and select strategies that will support it.

References

Harsh, S. (2012). Taking successful change initiatives beyond capacity: A multiple-dimension approach to capacity building. Fairfax, VA: ICF International.

 

Tech-tonic Shifts

Please note: Susan Swift, a dynamic language arts teacher at Hempstead High School in Dubuque, IA, asked me to contribute some thoughts on a book she’s writing about technology integration. This and the next three posts (at least) are in response to Susan’s request.

I’m not sure whether she realized it or not, but Susan has selected an ironically appropriate topic and title for my chapter. As a former music teacher, I’m pretty well versed in the idea of tonics as they relates to sound. That combined with my current status of helping educators plan for, integrate, and evaluate technology-based initiatives can truly be summed up as approaching the idea of “tech-tonic” shifts from many perspectives. In music, tonic shifts (some might say modulations) follow certain rules or guidelines. They are usually prepared for, some quite eloquently so. Sure, some day an Arnold Schoenberg will come along and bend those rules completely, but in all reality he and his contemporaries were also working from some very strict rules of their own. Every domain has some accepted ways of doing things, and we can all learn by knowing some of those rules or guidelines.

Unlike musical composition, there may not be hard-and-fast “rules” for technology integration (or any other change effort), but there are certainly lessons learned–both in education and from the larger field of organizational change. After leaving the classroom, a fortuitous accident led me to further study in instructional design for both general education and corporate training. Adventures in this field include product and program evaluation as well as providing technical assistance to a wide range of folks. Some of this has been official, such as serving in leadership roles for a Regional Education Laboratory and two Comprehensive Centers, both of which are programs funded by the U.S. Department of Education. The latter, the Comprehensive Center, is specifically charged with “building the capacity” of state education agencies (SEA). A daunting task, if you think about it. And not one to take lightly. Show up on the front step of any SEA and say, “I’m here to build your capacity,” and you won’t make it past the door.

So, with a few well-earned battle scars and even a few checkmarks in the win column, with those in the other column probably providing stronger evidence for what not to do, I hope to share a few ideas. I’ve culled these from my experiences from working with educators from across the country in terms of supporting organizational change–from single schools to entire states. Whether wanting to focus on isolated integration in a single classroom or school or working on whole-scale organizational change, these are some of the rules I’ve learned.

Continuum Theory

While I often work with schools and districts that are beginning their journey of technology integration, we’ve been using digital technologies in classrooms for quite a while. I didn’t use a personal computer in my own education until working on my Master’s degree, but computers have been in classrooms for almost half a century! That means lots of years of experiences and lessons learned. One of the most important lessons learned that I keep returning to time and time again is one that comes from those early days of integration, and that is, as teachers (and school leaders) integrate technology, they do so across a continuum. This lesson was first (and perhaps best) presented by researchers for the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) project in the 1980s (Dwyer, Sandholtz, & Ringstaff, 1991). Yes, the 1980s. We’ve been doing this “tech stuff” that long.

The basic lesson from that time is that educators adopt technology along a continuum. This is a foundational truth I find holds true in every technology initiative I’ve worked with, with mentions found repeatedly in the literature since that time in various reincarnations, such as the National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) from ISTE and the (what’s old is new again) SAMR model. Maybe I need to recycle some decades old idea with a new label?

The ACOT researchers described their continuum with 5 stages, from Entry to Innovation. Along the way, teachers build their skills and knowledge and learn how technology provides support to create learning opportunities that just can’t be done without the technology. Yes, I went there. Things you can’t do without technology. It’s not just about efficiency. It’s about creating new learning environments. Need proof?

In Virginia, students can access and control the same telescopes astronomers and other space scientists do to explore the night sky (the catch is the Virginia telescope is in Australia because it’s night there when our kids are in school). There are other probes students can interact with, from the bottom of the Puget Sound to a rover on Mars. Students are also interacting with their favorite authors and others through telecommunications that bring them into their classrooms in real time or through asynchronous blogs or chats. And kids are running their own businesses, filming their own documentaries, and writing their own apps. Do that with paper and pencil.

It takes some time to get to that stage, however, whether you think of the continuum as having 3, 4, or 5 stages. ACOT says 5. ISTE says 4. I sum it up in 3:

  1. Replication. Teachers begin by using technology to replicate what they are familiar with. If they are familiar with a lecture followed by students working independently on handouts, they might support a lecture with presentation software and print out (or post digital) handouts for students to complete. If they like collaborative groups and problem-based learning, they incorporate technologies that allow students to work together in and outside of classroom and solve problems.

  2. Adoption. Teachers start to see the value of technology, become more efficient at what they do, and even try some new things that the technology makes it easier or more effective. Gradebooks and lesson planning tools are ones that many teachers first see increased benefit from using. Not only do they make grading easier and save time in terms of creating, storing, and sharing lessons, but these tools also have added benefits like securely sharing grades with students, sending out notifications, running reports, and even providing communication opportunities with parents.

  3. Transformation. This is where teachers create activities or entire learning environments that just can’t be done without the technology. I’ve given some examples, but what might be considered transformative is continuing to change. We’ve seen this recently with the widespread emphasis of personalized learning, blended learning, mobile learning, competency-based learning and the impact these trends are having on well-worn (and some would say outdated) educational stalwarts, such as seat-time and Carnegie units.

Continuum of Adoption

Continuum of Adoption

All of this may be interesting, but what does this mean for supporting change? How does this promote technology integration? For me, the golden rule of the continuum is: you have to meet the teacher where s/he is. A teacher at any stage can use technology effectively and promote student learning. If the teacher is at the replication stage, a change agent (often a technology coach) can focus efforts at supporting that teacher as s/he learns to use technology to replicate what they feel comfortable with. When they’re ready to move up the continuum, they will, if given the support they need. Transformation, while fun, can also be challenging. And if you’re not there, don’t expect to get there immediately. Maybe not even in a year. And some teachers never will.

My hope is that all teachers first feel comfortable in the stage they naturally find themselves and occasionally push themselves beyond. Those who may not believe transformation is their goal might benefit from working with someone who is at that stage, because it is possible for all teachers. But it doesn’t have to happen every day or every lesson. The first goal for all teachers is promoting student learning, and change agents can help teachers reach this goal every stage of the continuum.

References

Dwyer, D. C, Ringstaff, C, & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991). Changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45-52.