GVSU Ed. Tech. Program (EDT 629)

I will start by making a general observation about the ed. tech. program as a whole. It seems that it lacks in three areas: tech tool use, portfolio creation, and basic computer systems knowledge. As an ed. tech. consultant, I have needed to do many things that I was never asked to do in any of my classes. That list includes making screencasts for instruction (and editing them), creating and editing video, using interactive whiteboard features, demonstrating proficiency with tablets, and troubleshooting performance issues.
To address this, it seems that some of the courses' required discussions on these topics could be replaced with performance assessments that students would have to complete. I think it is reasonable for the program committee to identify essential tools and skills that all students should show proficiency in. Then they (The GVSU ed. tech. top dogs) could incorporate those essentials into the curriculum and have students add their evidence to some type of portfolio. If this occurs, graduating students will have something to show prospective employers and be more prepared for the actual tasks they will need to perform.

Also, I think that some type of basic computer course should be required. I have struggled with the technical side of things and would have benefited from an intro course. I looked at ITT Tech, and they offer a course with this description:

NT1110 Computer Structure and Logic | 4.5 credit hours

Organization of a computer is examined in a given popular operating systems environment. Terminology and underlying principles related to the major computer functions will be discussed in the context of hardware and software environments.

That seems like a perfect course for Ed. Tech. students. Perhaps there could be a test out option for those who are already savvy, but I certainly was not.

I'm not saying the program is awful; quite the contrary. I expanded greatly from it. I am saying that it could be enhanced. I also realize that there is a video-related class that I did not have to take. Perhaps that should be mandatory.

OK, I think I'm done. Please let me know your thoughts.

Anti-flipped classroom rebuttal

Lisa Nielsen recently wrote a piece that basically thrashed flipped classrooms. The article is here: http://www.techlearning.com/Default.aspx?tabid=67&EntryId=3379
I felt compelled to address her arguments because I think they are flawed. Her points are in black and my points are in orange:

We have yet to bridge the digital divide...
Many of our students don't have access to technology at home. The flipped classroom method does not have strong provisions in place for these children.

*This is a reasonable point, but it does not work as an argument against flipped classrooms. Clintondale High in Michigan has many students without home internet access, and they put systems in place to allow students to have access at school (See article: http://www.convergemag.com/classtech/Clintondale-High-Flipped-Classes.html.). As Lisa mentioned in a point below, this is something that any school could do. If there are places in which no public access to technology is available then there are options for rectifying that as well. Moving towards a flipped model might help improve access because demand would increase.

Flipped homework is still homework...
There is a growing number of parents and educators who don't believe we should rob children of the time after school with mandatory homework. We believe time at home should be for pursuing passions, connecting with friends and family, playing and engaging in physical activity. In some families it might be the time needed to take care of a sibling, work a job, or take care of their own child. Let us leave children to the activities they and their family choose or find necessary and instead as John Taylor Gatto suggests (in lesson 7), that we should "give children more independent time during the school day" at which time they may also choose to watch flipped classroom lessons.

*I think it is extreme to label homework as "robbing children of their free time". Is it unreasonable to ask students to devote 30-45 minutes a day to viewing videos? Research shows that some type of carry-over from classroom to homework bolsters learning and deepens understanding. They can still pursue their passions and personal connections.
More time for bad pedagogy...
Flipping instruction might end up just meaning we can provide time to do more of the same type of memorization and regurgitation teaching that just doesn't work. When I shared the idea of the Flipped Classroom with an administrator, she said to me with excitement, "This is great! We'll have more class time to prepare kids for the tests!"

*The quote from that administrator is unfortunate and misleading and so is the author's point. The flipped model actually allows more time for effective pedagogy because less class time is spent on basic skill instruction, which is still necessary in most classroom environments. If students get a basic foundation before a class period, then the teacher can carry them through to more complex tasks. You can't design a new building without knowing how to do the math to get there.
Grouping by date of manufacture...
If we really want transformation in education, one thing we must do is stop grouping students by date of manufacture, which the flipped classroom is ideally suited for, but have schools put the structures in place? Are they ready to let students move at a pace that meets their developmental readiness and come to the realization that not everyone at the same age needs to be at the same place at the same time? True flipping should include a careful redesign of learning environment, but this is often overlooked.

*This point is moot as well. With pre-recorded lessons, students can proceed at their own pace. As Lisa mentions, it will require careful design, but so does any differentiated classroom. If specific lessons are not yet recorded, a teacher could direct advanced or struggling students to other available resources.

Lecturing doesn't = Learning...The flipped classroom is built on a traditional model of teaching and learning. I lecture - you intake. While this method of teaching works for some learners, many others thrive with a model that takes a more constructivist approach.
*This could be true, but it doesn't have to be. A teacher can do a screencast that includes multiple modes of representation (notes, video, and audio explanation). Even if it is straight lecture, it is meant to be a building block that will be further addressed in the next class session. So any confusion or lack of understanding can be clarified in class rather than fester in frustration after class.

I am not trying to suggest that moving to a flipped model will be easy or a panacea for education, I just wanted to point out the flaws in the arguments presented by Ms. Nielsen. I welcome any responses.

My Project Plan (EDT 629 blog #3)

A note for those visiting this blog, this post is for a graduate class, so it may not be that interesting to you. If you do happen upon it and want to comment, I welcome your thoughts.

For my project, I am constructing a Moodle course on blended learning. It is a course I intend on offering through Kent ISD in the future and one that I think will be popular with area educators. Ron Houtman has offered a similar course before, but I wanted to get the full experience of creating a course from the ground up while experimenting with different components. I am included a glossary, a personal wiki for students, and other things I have not tried before. I hope to make it both engaging and comprehensive. The course is designed to help participants create a blended learning course in Moodle, so a significant portion is devoted to teaching about Moodle. The course link is provided below. You just have to sign in as a guest.

http://moodle.kentisd.org/course/view.php?id=503.