Vygotsky and the Zone of Proximal Development *Teaching Strategies w/Dr. Zhu

 

Hey, there! I'm glad you found me!  The topic for my blog this week is Vygotsky and his "Zone of Proximal Development", or ZPD for short.  A learner's ZPD is where his instruction, and thereby his learning can take place. This optimal learning place is somewhere between what is already known and that which is not known. And the way the learner makes that learning happen is through his interactions with adult guidance and/or more knowledgeable peers. But there is a fine line around one's ZPD. Provide too little support or scaffolding and the learner becomes frustrated; Too much and the learner becomes bored. 

Hence, balance. The teacher's role, as I see it, is to provide just enough support, or scaffolding, to facilitate the learning. The teacher is responsible for providing enough assisted practice to help the learner internalize the strategies to complete the task or learn the new concept. The teacher aids the students in building on what (s)he already knows to learn what (s)he's trying to learn. The teacher builds on the learner's scaffolds to help develop the learner's ZPD. There needs to be a certain level of "imbalance" - or disequilibrium- internally with the student in order to achieve learning. Learning happens because of-not in spite of- this imbalance. The disequilibrium starts the learner's cognitive growth so that his equilibrium can once again be restored.

      

     Knowing what we know about the necessity of disequilibrium, it isn't too much of a stretch to assert that being comfortable, not challenged and uneasy, makes one less likely to learn. It is that uncertainty, the disequilibrium, that signals the brain to start the learning process.  Therefore, one can surmise that being comfortable essentially acts as a "kill switch" to your brain when in the learning process.  Think about the way a first grader learns to write and form letters: a teacher provides guided opportunities for writing (through modeling in the air, on the board, in sand, with one's finger on a peer's back, on one's forearm, etc.) then moves (through a gradual release) to providing tracing worksheets the student completes independently. This process continues as the student works more independently with the teacher being less involved as the student masters the concept. Another example is the manner in which early readers learn to read. The teacher scaffolds the learning by using what the child already knows (s says /s/, a says /a/, t says /t/, models how to put them together (blend) and they become /sat/. The teacher has modeled then has students attempt to "blend" sounds, then has students "read" the word (maybe with a picture icon for support). The teacher, once again, has modeled and provided support through the student's disequilibrium in his ZPD then uses a gradual release as the student becomes more independent. Eventually, the student will demonstrate mastery of the concept. 

                    "When we get too comfortable, we stop learning."

Now consider the scenarios discussed above again. If the teacher in the writing example gave no support and did not consider where the child was academically, the learning would have been too hard and the child would have been frustrated. As a result, no learning would have taken place.  Conversely, if the teacher had given too much support without opportunities for independent practice or made the task too easy, the student would have been bored.  Likewise with the reading example. Too much support or if the task is too easy, then the learner does not enter the state of disequilibrium and thus, does not begin the learning process. When we get comfortable, we get stagnant. In order to grow and learn we have to go through periods of uncomfortableness-to enter the state of disequilibrium-and ultimately, to grow and learn. I'm sure you've heard the old saying, "If you always do what you've always done, you'll continue to get what you've always gotten."  So my advice to you is, if you want to learn, get out of your comfort zone.  Find something in that "sweet spot" (your ZPD) and learn something new. Until next time, readers!                                   

Innovative Leadership in the Digital Age-Wk 5

     So this week, it's all about the Benjamins (so to speak).  Educating the masses costs money. The government has it and school districts want it. So how are we gonna' get it? The majority of school financing comes from state and local funding, with a small portion coming from the federal government. But no matter where is comes from, it's rarely enough to go around. And, unfortunately, that means technology integration is often a lower priority when it comes to funding and budget cuts happen quite frequently. That just means innovative leaders have to leave no stone unturned as they look for alternate funding sources. There seems to be a multitude of resources available to interested parties; one just has to know where to look.  According to an article in USA Today (Arbel, 2021), President Biden has recently put together a $100 billion dollar plan to make internet availability more equitable, more affordable, and less monopolized. Would our district be positively impacted by such a plan? Maybe. Any plan to lower the cost of internet access and make it more affordable would have a positive effect on our community unless taxes are increased in doing so. Our school district recognized the need and has made strides over the past two years to make internet access a reality for our neediest students. Initially, our district leaders were able to secure low-cost internet connections during the pandemic. More recently, we've provided internet hotspots to families who request it. So will President Biden's plan, if it comes to fruition, have a positive impact on our community? I guess only time will tell. 

     My "Call to Action" focused more on professional development with student achievement as a by-product of that PD rather than on infrastructure; use rather than access. As a result, I plan to focus my efforts on funding options that support tech professional development.  One of that "multitude of resources" I alluded to earlier is in "Every Student Succeeds Act" (ESSA) funding. Section 4104 of the ESSA specifically addresses how the ESSA grant might be used for professional development, and that fits right in with my Technology Integration Plan. ESSA for the win! Funding from this grant would allow my district to support ISTE certification for educators in our district. It would also allow us to embrace the use of EdCamps (ISTE, 2018) for tech professional development. Further, it would allow us to implement support for programs resulting in "micro-credentials". Each of these strategies made possible by ESSA funding would go hand-in-hand supporting the goals in our Tech Integration Plan.

     The ISTE (2018) article outlines the steps necessary in order to secure funding through an ESSA grant. Those steps include 

• identifying our state's SSAE grant officers.
• identifying our state's current priorities for the SSAE grant.
• conducting additional research as necessary.       
• scheduling a formal meeting with our state's grant officers to begin official collaboration and planning while advocating for our district's needs.
• forming a planning committee with said officers.
• presenting major findings (made by the aforementioned committee) to the district superintendent.
•  completing a needs assessment,
• communicating with state tech directors for additional guidance and support. 

The ESSA grant appears to be a viable resource for funding the professional development opportunities our Technology Integration Plan calls for.  It also has an added bonus of opportunities for assistance with the process and collaboration with state grant officers. The potential benefits of this grant far outweigh the level of work and research required to win the funding. It's a definite option for our district. 

Resources:

Arbel, T. (2021, April 3). Broadband for all: Inside President Biden’s $100               billion plan to improve internet access. USA Today

ISTE. (2018). Using ESSA to fund EdTech:  Getting the most out of Title IV-A.

     

Innovative Leadership in the Digital Age- Wk 4

     Welcome back to my blog, Friends!  We're getting closer and closer to putting all the pieces together and finally coming up with a Technology Integration Plan.  The goal this week is to consider either student engagement or professional learning.  I chose the latter so here are my thoughts.

Technology Integration for Learning

Professional Learning

      Our district has, for the most part, relied on the age-old method of "sit and get" professional development for as long as I can remember. Then Covid19 happened and forced us to rethink our professional development delivery system. Recently, we have expanded our repertoire to include some video lessons and online support for teachers. In short, our technology professional development has been hit and miss at best. Gura (2018, pg. 73) suggests that..."unless it (tech PD) is tied to well-thought-out, focused goals and plans, it amounts to little more than activity for its own sake, even if it appears to be something needed or wanted at the moment." And that's where we currently find ourselves: struggling to reach our teachers and empower them through meaningful and authentic technology professional development that doesn't become "just another thing" in the long list of things teachers do. The bad news is our district doesn't currently have a formal Tech Integration Plan to guide our steps.  The good news is our district has an Ed Tech Specialist who is a visionary and has the ear of our Superintendent of Schools.  With that said, she has a vision and is making plans to increase her staff from two specialists (LSM and Makerspace) to include a "technology coach" specifically to support our district's elementary teachers. The next piece of good news is that the majority of our teachers are hungry to learn how to use technology in a manner that makes the most of what we have and that helps our students achieve success.  We just need to develop a plan that accommodates a variety of learning styles, addresses a wide variety of available time commitments, and figures out how to entice all our over-worked and under-paid teachers to take part while doing so on a very limited budget.  

     Gura (2018, pg. 74) lists several methods (in addition to the traditional workshop method) that could be viable options to enhance our Ed Tech training:

• Coaching (We'll already have a tech coach onboard next year so this seems like a "no brainer".) 
• Embedded PD (especially since we'll have a "tech coach" onboard next school year)
• Podcasts (We have the capabilities and the resources as well as someone on staff who produces podcasts on a regular basis.)
• PLNs (Professional Learning Networks) online and PLCs (Professional Learning Communities w/i the school setting)

    I believe these to be viable options for our tech training/professional development because the groundwork has already largely been laid. And honestly, anything is worth consideration and a try because we all know what we've been doing isn't working; we need to evolve in our trainings/learning just as technology continues to evolve.  I believe that these "new" training options will appeal to many of our teachers because the coaching and embedded pd can take place during school hours while teachers still work with their students. The podcasts and PLNs can take place at the teacher's convenience. And both of those methods capitalize on methods and platforms with which most teachers are already familiar.  

     Teachers are already making themselves part of professional networks as they connect to various Facebook groups, subscribe to various teaching blogs, and follow education influencers on Twitter and/or TikTok. Platforms such as these are less demanding on teachers’ time because they can write or respond to posts whenever they have free time in their schedule. These sites also provide a space for collective knowledge building and sharing where teachers can find support from large groups of individuals who pool their answers to find the best solution to a problem. One online website that is worth consideration is the Educator's PLN. Although I've not joined it myself, several of my colleagues have joined and frequently share about the relationships they've developed while networking on that site. Edmodo is another education network worthy of a quick look-see.

    For any professional learning activity to be successful, there must be buy-in and Gura (2018, p. 69) says as much. Because teachers are familiar with the previously mentioned platforms, they will have a certain level of comfort with them and will allow themselves to "buy in" to the offerings more readily. In planning for professional learning activities and networking opportunities, it is imperative that we consider what motivates teachers to learn, what feels authentic and meaningful to them, what fits in with their schedule and isn't just "another thing" to do. There must be real value that teachers can see in the experience where teachers can learn and grow with their practice. Teachers must feel as though they are part of the conversation and planning; their needs matter, and who better to talk about their technology needs than those who are in the trenches, so to speak, every single day?

Resources:

     

Gura, M. (2018). The EdTech Advocate's Guide to Leading Change in 

     Schools. International Society for Technology in Education.                                                                     

 

Innovative Leadership in the Digital Age- wk. 3

     This week I'm working to organize my thoughts and refine my ideas about helping meet the technology needs in our district, starting with the creation of a Technology Integration Plan. Through conversation with our Technology Specialist, I have discovered that our district does not have such a plan and hasn't (to her knowledge) since she joined the district in 2019. In hopes of finding a little direction, I perused our state education website only to find the state is no longer requiring school districts to develop Technology plans. In anticipation of creating a plan from nothing, I searched for and found a Technology Plan from our state ("Oklahoma City Public Schools Technology Plan 2014-2015") for reference.  To ascertain the practicality of that document, I am comparing and contrasting the information and framework of that plan with that found in the "District/School Technology Plan Template-Your Blueprint for Success" document. 

     The Oklahoma City Public Schools (OCPS) Technology Plan identifies 13 specific components that align with the previously required minimum requirements for a good technology plan, as suggested by the Oklahoma State Department of Education:

1. Strategies for Improving Academic Achievement and Teacher Effectiveness/Needs Assessment
2. Goals
3. Steps to Increase Accessibility
4. Promotion of Curricula and Teaching Strategies That Integrate Technology
5. Professional Development
6. Technology Type and Costs/Timeline
7. Coordination with Other Resources
8. Integration of Technology with Curricula and Instruction
9. Innovative Delivery Strategies
10. Parental Involvement
11. Collaborations with Adult Literacy Programs
12. Accountability Measures
13. Supporting Resources

The "District/School Technology Plan Template-Your Blueprint for Success" document specifically addresses 

1. Goals
2. Professional Development
3. Technology Funding (Budget) and Timeline/Schedule
4. Coordination of Resources
5. Desired Academic Results/Tech Integration into Curriculum
6. Methods of Evaluation (Accountability)

     Despite looking vastly different, both documents share many of the same focuses. Both plans are multi-year models and include a section where the technology planning committee members are listed (along with their stakeholder role-OKCPS) so it is easy to ensure stakeholders from a wide variety of groups are included in the creation of the plan. They both identify a vision/mission statement that seeks to explain how technology will impact learning in their respective district. They each include clearly defined goals, a section for budget considerations and timelines, and a section for professional development. Additionally, both plans address resources, considerations for tech integration into the curriculum, and accountability.

      While the plans appear to be pretty much in line with one another, the OKCPS plan seems to have a broader focus which encompasses strategies for improving academic achievement and teacher effectiveness, as well as parental involvement, steps to increase accessibility, collaboration with other programs, and content delivery strategies. Further, it specifically includes a Needs Assessment and reference to the ISTE standards whereas the District/School Technology Plan Template (DSTPT) does not.  Conversely, the DSTPT appears to go into greater detail with regard to certain components, specifically budget items and funding/grant opportunities. 

     When pondering Ed Tech integration, Gura (2018, p.58) states, "...the most advantageous condition for success and avoidance of counterproductive efforts will involve clarity through common understanding," and I believe this to be true. For that reason, I believe, when developing the framework for my own integration plan, I will use a combination of the two plans I compared/contrasted.  The plan will obviously be developed with input from a variety of stakeholders, include a shared vision, contain clearly defined goals, budget and timeline considerations, and address professional development as well as accountability and evaluation considerations. 

References:

District/School technology Plan Template-Your Blueprint for Success https://www.uslegalforms.com/jsfiller-desk15/?             requestHash=ea0f9346aba2aeac65baa76ba11ac7838e33a36c5dd98504b08aeaeaf20e78ed   &ref=https://www.uslegalforms.com&projectId=969677596&loader=tips&replace_gtm=false&    et=as#17b242fa7b5745caf30dd1a61265dad2

*(In the vein of complete transparency, I feel like I downloaded and printed this resource from the documents shared on our course BlackBoard.  However, when attempting to locate the original source, I came up empty. Therefore, I am crediting the source I found online as above.)

Gura, M. (2018). The EdTech Advocate's Guide to Leading Change in Schools. International  Society for Technology in Education. https://reader.yuzu.com/books/9781564846471

 OKC Tech Integration Plan https://www.okcps.org/cms/lib/OK01913268/Centricity/Domain/2015%20OKCPS%20Tech%20Plan.pdf

 

Innovative Leadership in the Digital Age wk. 2

    Hey, Everyone! So this week my assignment is to begin to conceptualize and plan for the Technology Integration project I'll be creating as a final requirement for this course.  In keeping with the "Call to Action" I put together in EDUC 5353, my audience for this project remains the Ed Tech department leaders and district leadership. When considering exactly who the stakeholders are I'm choosing to include, I considered who will be most affected by the changes made as a result of my plan.  First and foremost, I feel like it is imperative to include teachers in this process. Helping teachers make the most of the technology they have access to and make the soundest instructional decisions when integrating technology will greatly benefit the 21st-century learners our district is molding. Who better than the ones actually charged with molding 21st-century learners to communicate what they need and what works best for them?  Their choices and behaviors directly impact the students with whom they work. Next, I chose to include students as stakeholders because, as 21st-century learners, they are looking to teachers to help prepare them for their next steps as life-long learners. Finally, I chose to include administrators as they affect the success of any change in their building. As leaders, their willingness to embrace or "buy in" to an idea speaks volumes to their staff and can either help them see the benefits or could send the message that it's just another thing to do. O'Hair's K20 model, described by Williams et al., (2008), begins with this in mind as they being their Phase 1 implementation with district administrators and superintendents, relying on these individuals to eventually foster whole school change through a shared vision. This shared vision (and subsequently, shared decision-making experiences) increases trust levels and risk-taking among the stakeholders (Williams et al., 2008).

    Currently, our district is in a newly formed partnership with K20. Thus far, we've participated in several community surveys which included representatives from a variety of groups: administrators, community members, teachers, students, and parents. Based on the data collected, a committee was formed with representatives from each of these stakeholder groups and brainstorming sessions began. This steering committee has put together a Continuous Strategic Improvement Plan (CSIP) and identified goals and objectives for our district for the next five years.  Among those objectives are two factors that I addressed in my "Call to Action" that are contributing to our current digital divide: improving student-centered use of technology and enhancing staff through training and development. For these reasons and others, I feel like it makes the most sense for me to use O'Hair's K20 model of change as the basis for my Technology Integration plan. 

     Williams, et al., (2008) identifies one of the primary strategies within O'Hair's K20 model as the use of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs).  Our district has for several years required weekly PLCs within each building so that is a practice with which we are very familiar. Taking advantage of this already well-established process will signal to our teachers that this is not going to be "just another thing" but rather a sustainable commitment and an opportunity to learn and grow together as a team through collaboration. Another practice this model allows me to capitalize on is that of continuous professional development as a strategy for change. While we have fallen short of that in recent years (Covid related?), O'Hair's model will provide structured, frequent, sustainable professional development to support the integration of technology and provide networking opportunities for teachers and staff (Williams, et al., 2008).      

     To determine the degree of inequity occurring within our digital divide, I have created a survey (adapted from others) for members of each of the administrator, teacher, and student stakeholder groups in my building.  My plan is to use the information and data garnered from that survey to identify specific areas of need and areas of strength to use in my integration plan. Hopefully, the data revealed in the survey will help me write a Technology Integration Plan that, along with my "Call to Action,"  will help me lay the groundwork for becoming an agent of change for our district. In addition to participating in my Needs Assessment survey, my administrator and I had an informal discussion regarding my expectations for the Tech Integration Plan. She had some valuable insight to share as she serves on the steering committee for our K20 partnership. She mentioned that factors such as scope, funding, and commitment of time will all be influenced by the shared vision created through guidance from our K20 partners. This, again, makes O'Hair's model for change an excellent fit for my plan for our district. 

References:

Williams, L. A., Atkinson, L.C., Cate, J. M., O'Hair, M. J., (2008)Mutual support between learning community development and technology integration:  Impact on school practices and student achievement.  Theory Into Practice, 47, pp.294-302.

Innovative Leadership in the Digital Age wk. 1

    So, after the challenges Covid19 brought to teachers and students,  I found myself taking a more critical look at the state of education. We weren't prepared to meet the needs of our students "virtually" during that time and scrambled to make sense of the chaos we suddenly found ourselves in. Students and teachers had experience and were comfortable using technology for socialization and connectivity (i.e., TikToc, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) but we hadn't, for the most part, embraced the use of technology on a consistent basis for academic purposes. And therein lay the problem. It became pretty apparent to me, as I'm sure it was to every other teacher in the world, that education was about to see some very drastic but necessary changes. And that's the moment I realized I wanted to be a part of that change. Hence, my current pursuit of a degree in Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis in Educational Technology.

     Likening recent advances in technology to the past, our text refers to this new period of change as the "Fourth Industrial Revolution" (Sheninger, 2019). The author points out that the manner in which technology is utilized for education is changing and as a result will affect the way our students learn. As evidenced by the challenges we faced attempting to teach virtually during the first few months of the pandemic, our schools are not keeping up with the rapid changes we're seeing in technology. And that, according to Sheninger (2019), is directly affecting our learners and causing a disconnect between schools and students. Sheninger mentions several tools at teachers' disposal, with which many teachers are already familiar.  However, the way we use those tools requires a more purposeful, thoughtful integration. Gura (2018) suggests that although we may have the technology resources and support to create 21st Century, student-friendly learning environments, we are far from possessing a comprehensive understanding about how to do it. Likewise, with regards to integrating technology, Sheninger (2019) suggests that, "The calling now for all educational systems and leaders is to empower students to learn in powerful and meaningful ways like never before" (Sheninger, 2019, p.6).

      Rashid and Asghar's article acknowledges that the landscape of education is changing but asks the question if students' engagement with technology actually aids or hinders their academic performance. Their study, similar to the two texts we're reading, identified student engagement, technology use, and self-directed learning as impacting students' academic performance. The part that seems to be missing in much of the tech integration currently taking place is the level of use and students' self-directed learning part. While the assumption that technology actually advances students' academic performance hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, we do know that students' learning needs have changed and we need to change the way we teach. My goal is to help teachers move from the ways of the past, embrace and develop a better understanding of how to integrate tech in authentic and meaningful ways, and teach for the future...our future.  

"Our students have changed radically, Today's students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach."

-Mark Prensky (2001, p. 1)

References:

Gura, M. (2018). The EdTech Advocate's Guide to Leading Change in Schools. International Society for Technology in Education. https://reader.yuzu.com/books/9781564846471.  

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 604-612.

Sheniger, E. (2019). Digital leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times 2nd Edition.  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Corwin. ISBN: 9781544350837

    

      Hey, there! Where've you been? I've been waiting for you, hangin' out here in the digital divide, so I'm glad you found me! My purpose in the blog this week is to share a little more information about my "Call to Action", specifically to discuss my intended audience.  

     The bulk of my intended audience is the men and women who comprise the technology department, specifically those individuals in the Educational Technology department, within our school district. Technology changes in our district begin with this group and are driven by the department's desire to "provide a better education for all students.". Of the three individuals in the Ed Tech department, one is a technology specialist with a Masters degree in Educational Technology. The other two are Teacher Tech Trainers. One of the two trainers holds a Masters degree in Library Media Science and was the lead tech trainer for the secondary schools before making the move to the Ed Tech department. The other trainer is a former elementary classroom teacher with no advanced degree but she's been in the department for four years so she is familiar with the technology issues facing the teachers in our district. The head of the department (Director of I.T.) holds a Bachelors degree in Informational Technology. For those reasons, I can confidently say these individuals are well versed in Ed Tech concepts and lingo and will have a better-than-average understanding of the topic in my "Call to Action". I have chosen to include these individuals in my audience because they are the ones who make the decisions regarding technology in our district. I also plan to include our district's Director of New Staff Development.  Her support and cooperation will be paramount to the success of any new Ed Tech program designed for new teachers as they come on board and acclimate themselves to Lawton Public Schools. My goal is to "sell" the strategies and best practices included in my  "Call to Action" and garner the support of each of these aforementioned individuals so we can eventually work on developing a partnership of sorts with the local public university. As it stands right now, our local university offers a class in Media/Technology but (for the most part) we are not seeing new teachers come in confident in their tech abilities. A partnership with the university would by extremely beneficial as it would allow us to have some input and share our tech knowledge in the development of material that would help new teachers thrive with regards to using Ed Tech rather than just survive it.

     With regards to the prior knowledge I will need to provide in my presentation, I believe my intended audience, for the most part, will be pretty well versed in and familiar with the topic. My topic is providing ongoing professional development to in-service teachers as well as pre-service teachers. However, for the benefit of our Director of New Staff Development, I will explain the meaning of "digital divide" and provide some background knowledge to give her a frame of reference. I will assume she has only a basic understanding of digital equity issues and, as a result, will be quite specific about what it is and why there is a need for ongoing related professional development. My hope is that my explanations and research will be so thorough she won't have any questions but I will continue to think about/anticipate possible questions I could expect from her. 

      There will be the matter of reviewing and/or updating the district technology plan. I have not seen one and am not even sure if we have a current one. Nonetheless, we can address that issue once my proposal is accepted. We must obtain buy-in from teachers and administrators so thoughtful, engaging presentations will be key to their acceptance of a new plan/more professional development. It must NOT appear to be "more on their plate"; they must see the value and benefits of additional training and be willing to commit to being actively engaged during the professional development. Our school community has already identified improving student-centered use of technology as an objective in our Continuous Strategic Improvement Plan.  Helping them see the connection between a teacher's use of technology and a student's use will be incredibly important to my cause.