As we move forward in this process, I see it as important for us to consider where we are going in the longer term. Ed has questions about this in his document, but where do we go with the content areas? Can we embed technology into the content without losing the technology emphasis necessary for the students acquisition of 21st century skills?



Peter

Great use of a wiki! Maybe I'll show it at Dynamic Landscapes in our wiki workshop?

Should we revise the present technology grade expectations and leave them as an assessment document?

The TGE’s only offer a one level of knowledge option for all learners, the least common denominator. It seems to me we are looking at the wrong end of the scale. Learning is what we are after and a check list of skills will not build capacity. Only a change in pedagogy will transform our schools. Therefore, revising the TGE’s and continuing to assess them in check list form will not help the transformation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are the technology grade expectations in fact a curriculum in their present format? Should they be?

Some teachers see the TGE’s as a curriculum. They would like to have a technology class that teaches the students technology. They do not see the relevance to their classroom practices.

Some teachers use the TGE’s to include technology in planning. They include technology in activities but the technology in not integrated.

The teachers that integrate technology do not see the TGE’s as a curriculum and in fact don’t really use them.

Charlie

If we revise the present document, are we concerned that two content areas would get first “dibs” on which ones they would assess?

Bad idea! Remember “It takes a village to raise a child.” Technology needs to be embedded in all educational areas.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should we consider the alternative route? If so, are we, should we be, concerned that without assessment the technology may not be integrated as effectively as it might be with the assessment component by some teachers?

Yes, we should take the “The Road Not Taken”. We need to connect technology to pedagogy and teacher evaluations. Maybe the GLE’s should transform into something like performance tasks that align with the ISTE standards for teachers and students. The technology skills and the assessments of skills do not transform the classroom nor do they promote innovation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the technology grade expectations are presently an option in all Vermont schools, does it really matter which way they are presented?
No, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that we provide a vision for change that leads the transformation our teaching community.

Charlie

Charlie raises some terrific points - which I mostly support. However, today I spoke with our Curriculum Coordinator about TGEs and told her that the general consensus, my opinion, is that IT isn't truely integrated until the curriculum is built to include it; as opposed to being assessed separately - and usually by someone other than the classroom/content area teacher. Her staunch reaction was that teachers would never "go for it", that they wouldn't include TGEs into their curriculum b/c they would see it as "more" they are responsible for. This represents a serious reality...although most of us probably believe tech tools should be embedded/integrated, the accountability part leaves more questions than answers. The Village wants to raise the child, but no one volunteers to change the diaper!

In the RFP, we might want to include a more formal evaluation of the current TGEs for all SUs in Vermont: awareness of, success of integration, impact on creativity, assessment process, etc.
The vendor could provide an analysis of the items which impact integration across SUs: teacher self-assessment, technology resources, bandwidth, etc. I know that Paul has collected some of this data in the past. This could be done via online survey.
Developing a baseline would set the stage for where we are and where we want to go.
I would like to see all technology standards integrated into all areas. Piecemeal placement of TGEs into content areas will only water down and fragment technology integration. We may also run the risk of reducing teacher creativity which Ed alluded to in our discussion of performance tasks.
I like the idea of adopting standards like NETS and or 21st Century Skills. Instead of TGEs we could have a slim collection of technology “Power Standards” that provide: endurance, leverage and readiness for the next level. Standards would be written in student centered language so that kids can understand them. The last time we did this, we argued about not missing anything. We became stuck in the details and included the kitchen sink.
I think any standards that we adopt should be almost timeless and broad enough to allow for teacher interpretation and creativity. As a group of technology professionals, we have the capacity to help teachers interpret instructional technology standards and utilize them.

I think we need to figure out what the "essential" questions are. Have they changed since we created the TGE’s? Do teachers (and students) still need to know the what, how, when, and where about tech integration? Here are a few questions that might have value:
1. What skills and understandings should our students be able to apply to their future learning in the area of information technology?
2. How do we assess these skills and understandings? Formative? Summative?
3. How can we best support learning in the content areas?
4. What systems will enable us to determine if our students are successfully developing 21st Century skills?
5. What kind of data do we want to generate and share with the larger community? (administration, school boards, taxpayers)
6. How can we help teachers maintain the big picture of 21st Century Learning, and at the same time, keep the focus on what kids know and are able to accomplish?

I think Friday gave us a good start towards defining the challenge. I like the idea of focusing on one or two content areas and I think that the Language Arts GE’s are a good starting point. If the language arts curriculum could be redefined as the “new literacy” then a lot of pieces would fall into place. The challenge will be to bring the Vermont Language Arts Curriculum into the 21st Century. I believe that Library Media Teachers might be our best allies in this effort.

Heather Chirtea
 
 
Ignoring content decisions for a minute...and taking a slight tangent….I am struck by this idea: If we’re pushing for true 21st Century transformation, then perhaps we need to look at generating more than just a "document" for the tech GEs.

In the UK, they have a system to put the standards online, connected to a SIM system that allows teachers to check off proficiency for every student, by standard. Teachers "Browse" for the standard, review a collection of lesson plans which were uploaded and vetted by other educators, then teach that standard. They don't need to re-invent good practices, because the shared system allows them to instantly see what's working in other classrooms, by standard. For measurement by standard, they can browse for a relevant worksheet or online assessment, grade it, and check off the students' proficiency. 
 
Kids/parents/teachers/administrators can see exactly what's been taught, where the deficiencies are, and meter progress through the curriculum. Transparency is the key to the system. Kids can track their own progress, and see the targets. This gives them the power to take control of their own proficiencies/deficiencies. "Student-centered learning" becomes viable because there is a system of standards, checks and balances that promotes it.
 
I like Rob G.'s comment above "The Village wants to raise the child, but no one volunteers to change the diaper!"  We have to look at the root cause of the "diaper". We know that many teachers are feeling over-taxed with current demands and many are fearful of technology. From a very practical perspective, if computers could suddenly lighten their curriculum management and planning load, then would they come? 
 

More from Heather

We did an anecdotal research study on formative assessment in 2003, which turned up some unexpected findings on the utility of using formative assessments for daily diagnostic purposes.
[ http://www.toolfactory.com/Research/Article.htm ]http://www.toolfactory.com/Research/Article.htm

There are several integral processes moving forward in Vermont education at the present time.
• The 21st century classroom and school, as described by Ray McNulty and the Connectivity 21 program
• The new state technology plan which includes the SU tech plan process and guidelines
• Technology integration – I recommend a podcast in iTunes university by Dr Ruben Puentedura which contains his 4 levels of integration model SAMR – substitution, augmentation, modification and redefinition – also in a pdf on his blog http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/
• The Tech GE process we are beginning now

All four of these are important in the transformation of our classrooms into the 21st century and must be considered together in the creation of the tech ge’s. We cannot create the ge’s based on 20th century teaching and learning or classroom models nor can we create them in a vacuum.

Some guiding questions include:
• Will the ge’s be flexible enough to be applied to all of the 21st century literacies?
• How will the ge’s be included in student centered learning and project based learning?
• Will meeting the technology standards be based on the learning outcomes in the NETS that can be designed into student centered learning and PBL?

More guiding questions (I exceeded the character limit)
• Will the ge’s have enough depth to provide all levels of integration – the enhancement level of substitution and augmentation and the transformational level of modification and redefinition?
• If the ge’s are integrated into the curricula how does that fit into open ended project based learning, real world problem solving and other types of student centered learning? Will they be identifiable and portable enough to be moved from the curricula to projects?
• How can technology support learning measured by the high stakes testing? Should it? What will be lost if it doesn’t?
• How do we implement and assess the ge’s? In an open non-grade level system? A formal but non-grade level system? Or stay with the well-defined traditional existing system included in the new standards? (NETS 6 b)
• What role will teachers play in facilitating, implementing and assessing the new gs’s?
• What professional development will be needed? We should keep this in mind as we design the ge’s or the process or the RFP
• What expectations will there be of our leadership? Administrators, school boards and the community
• How will we define success? How will we measure it? Will we measure it? If we have open ended project based learning that allows students to learn and find solutions to and create and design projects will we require them to be skilled in the use of certain technologies, that enhance communication, collaboration and creativity? Will that be designed in? Will it be up to the students to decide what skills they need and to acquire them? (high school level)
• What roles will students, teachers and administrators play in the 21st century classroom? How will technology support those roles? How will the ge’s support technology integration and assessment?

It seems to me that there are really two issues on the table here and the discussion revolves around whether nor not both belong in the revised GE's. One issue is technological competency and the other is technological literacy. As an example, most teachers and many students know how to send an email (competency) but it requires literacy to understand the impact of the use of the technology. It seems to me that becoming technologically literate is essential if we want students to have a clear understanding of how technology affects them personally and its social, economic, and political impact. Its understanding is also necessary for any meaningful discussion or debate to take place. Personally, I would prefer that the GE's not focus exclusively on just competency (specific skills) but rather compel users to move toward greater technological literacy.