Sometimes, magic happens all by itself . . . that's why it's magic I guess. Sometimes, it's hard to see the magic even when it is right in front of you, which is why it is so important to work together, collaborate on projects, bounce ideas off of one another, and most of all, just be transparent as your colleagues will see things that you do not or have overlooked . . . and that's when the magic happens.
So why am I blathering on about magic? No, I have not dusted off the old "Magic - The Gathering" cards, not that I have any of those anyways ;-) The reason why I am thinking about all of this is a moment in a meeting last week where a number of fragmented projects/ideas/initiatives all came together and fell into place. Just like magic! Let me explain what went down . . .
After coming back from the IB Computer Science curriculum review, I had a number of ideas about implementing a Computational Thinking curriculum at my school, which would be integrated into K-12 classes (I wrote about this in my previous posting here). As we are in the process of applying for the PYP and MYP programs, we have an unique opportunity to put such a program in place from the beginning. To facilitate a conversation about this, I called a meeting with the curriculum director, the two principals and one of the teachers who will be transitioning into offering MYP Design.
The meeting progressed nicely at first, where I introduced the group to the Teaching and Learning with Technology (in the IB Programmes Guide) that I worked on last year. I am really excited about how we can use this guide and the AID lens as we think about technology as a literacy. The Teaching and Learning with Technology guide provides us with the big umbrella for digital learning, under which all of our work as tech coaches and Co-Directors of Digital Learning (we refer to ourselves as the Digital Learning Team or DLT for short) will fall. The first puzzle piece (shaped like an umbrella) fell into place.
I then brought the ISTE Standards for Students into the conversation. As a school (since before I arrived here seven years ago), we have always said that we used/employed these standards for students, but we have never really documented the how/where/why of the standards nor have we truly adopted the corresponding standards for teachers. All talk and no concrete action, which has been frustrating. In talking about how the DLT would like to formalise the school-wide adoption of the ISTE Standards, a whole bunch of puzzle pieces got shaken loose in the conversation.
We first talked about how we would like to implement the standards for students by embedding them into the PYP and MYP planners. This will provide us, in our roles as tech coaches, with an avenue to engage our faculty in planning for the integration of technology far beyond simply using technology in the classroom for teaching and learning, the creation of digital products, or conducting research online. The 6 ISTE Standards for Students are:
This immediately led to an expansion of the conversation to include the ISTE Standards for Teachers. The teacher standards are currently in a similar state of implementation - talked about but never fully implemented in any way. Where it has always fallen apart is that the school has said we use the teacher standards, but has never backed that up or tied it to teacher evaluation/appraisal. With a reformulation and relaunch of our process/system for evaluation, unexpectedly another puzzle piece was on the table and "in play". "Timing is everything" as the saying goes, and the timing was perfect to have the ISTE Standards for Teachers embedded in our evaluation/appraisal process. Right now, we are a technology-rich school with lots of great things going on that are being facilitated or enabled by technology. But without a connection between tech integration and teacher evaluation/appraisal, it can be "hit or miss" from one teacher to another. The really reluctant tech teachers "just don't do technology" and have not been held accountable in any way. This in turn has made our coaching role at times to be uncomfortable or awkward to say the least. By including the standards, the DLT now has a formal avenue to work with all of the faculty to improve with their technology integration and to move their students forward to meet the student standards. Tech integration standards are not meant to be something to hold over the teachers heads or to be used against them. On the contrary, by having the standards in place, the DLT can use these to help teachers improve their pedagogy and teaching practice, with and through technology. One big missing puzzle piece . . . found!
As our roles as Co-Directors of Digital Learning is new this year, and is adjunct to our roles as technology coaches, we are in the process of defining and writing our own job description. The conversation now turned to the other ISTE Standards for Coaches and Administrators, naturally. We formally adopted the coaches standards years ago and use it to define and evaluate our role as tech coaches. With our new dual role, we have also decided to adopt the administrators standards for the co-director part of our new position. We have taken these two sets of standards and have embedded them directly into our job description, to give us an accurate description of what we do, that can also be used for our evaluation. Think of that?!? A living job description which is actually usable, and devoid of edu-speak and HR jargon. Writing our job description is/was an entirely separate project, but realising how it fits into place with these other pieces was serendipitous. These "big picture" pieces make up the corner pieces of the puzzle and completed the rest of the outside frame.
I then guided the conversation back to where it began - with integrating Computational Thinking concepts into K-12 classes. I am particularly interested in the framework that is being developed by the K12CS.org consortium which includes the CSTA (Computer Science Teachers Association), ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) and Code.org (which is connected to industry and brought us the Hour of Code). When this framework is finished (summer of 2016, so this is on a fast track), it will provide a framework which schools can use to guide the development of their own curriculum related to Computational Thinking, computer programming and computer science. Embedding Computational Thinking (and digital citizenship while we are at it) into existing K-12 curriculum is directly connected to a number of the ISTE Student Standards (in both the current and draft versions) and would give us, as the tech coaches, another means to fully integrate technology into lessons/units/programs of inquiry/projects, start conversations with teachers when they are planning, and to guide teachers and students to meeting the ISTE standards.
Implementing Digital Citizenship and Computational Thinking curricula to complement what we are already doing to scaffold students to fulfil the ISTE standards completes the puzzle. As we have a fully integrated model for technology across the school (meaning we no longer have specific technology classes that all students go to), we have been lacking a structure/framework for teaching students the skills/concepts/abilities to meet the ISTE standards. With all of these puzzle pieces falling into place, I think we just might have just found what we have been missing in terms of the structure, time, place and buy-in from faculty, that has been absent for years. Just like magic, all of these pieces came together through one very deep conversation. I had not really thought about how these things all fit together before, but this conversation really sparked something . . . just one of those aha moments I guess to savour and reflect upon.
So why am I blathering on about magic? No, I have not dusted off the old "Magic - The Gathering" cards, not that I have any of those anyways ;-) The reason why I am thinking about all of this is a moment in a meeting last week where a number of fragmented projects/ideas/initiatives all came together and fell into place. Just like magic! Let me explain what went down . . .
 |
| One of my favourite "tech quotes" of all time |
After coming back from the IB Computer Science curriculum review, I had a number of ideas about implementing a Computational Thinking curriculum at my school, which would be integrated into K-12 classes (I wrote about this in my previous posting here). As we are in the process of applying for the PYP and MYP programs, we have an unique opportunity to put such a program in place from the beginning. To facilitate a conversation about this, I called a meeting with the curriculum director, the two principals and one of the teachers who will be transitioning into offering MYP Design.
The meeting progressed nicely at first, where I introduced the group to the Teaching and Learning with Technology (in the IB Programmes Guide) that I worked on last year. I am really excited about how we can use this guide and the AID lens as we think about technology as a literacy. The Teaching and Learning with Technology guide provides us with the big umbrella for digital learning, under which all of our work as tech coaches and Co-Directors of Digital Learning (we refer to ourselves as the Digital Learning Team or DLT for short) will fall. The first puzzle piece (shaped like an umbrella) fell into place.
I then brought the ISTE Standards for Students into the conversation. As a school (since before I arrived here seven years ago), we have always said that we used/employed these standards for students, but we have never really documented the how/where/why of the standards nor have we truly adopted the corresponding standards for teachers. All talk and no concrete action, which has been frustrating. In talking about how the DLT would like to formalise the school-wide adoption of the ISTE Standards, a whole bunch of puzzle pieces got shaken loose in the conversation.
We first talked about how we would like to implement the standards for students by embedding them into the PYP and MYP planners. This will provide us, in our roles as tech coaches, with an avenue to engage our faculty in planning for the integration of technology far beyond simply using technology in the classroom for teaching and learning, the creation of digital products, or conducting research online. The 6 ISTE Standards for Students are:
- Creativity and Innovation
- Communication and Collaboration
- Research and Information Fluency
- Critical Thinking, Problem Solving and Decision Making
- Digital Citizenship
- Technology Operations and Concepts
This immediately led to an expansion of the conversation to include the ISTE Standards for Teachers. The teacher standards are currently in a similar state of implementation - talked about but never fully implemented in any way. Where it has always fallen apart is that the school has said we use the teacher standards, but has never backed that up or tied it to teacher evaluation/appraisal. With a reformulation and relaunch of our process/system for evaluation, unexpectedly another puzzle piece was on the table and "in play". "Timing is everything" as the saying goes, and the timing was perfect to have the ISTE Standards for Teachers embedded in our evaluation/appraisal process. Right now, we are a technology-rich school with lots of great things going on that are being facilitated or enabled by technology. But without a connection between tech integration and teacher evaluation/appraisal, it can be "hit or miss" from one teacher to another. The really reluctant tech teachers "just don't do technology" and have not been held accountable in any way. This in turn has made our coaching role at times to be uncomfortable or awkward to say the least. By including the standards, the DLT now has a formal avenue to work with all of the faculty to improve with their technology integration and to move their students forward to meet the student standards. Tech integration standards are not meant to be something to hold over the teachers heads or to be used against them. On the contrary, by having the standards in place, the DLT can use these to help teachers improve their pedagogy and teaching practice, with and through technology. One big missing puzzle piece . . . found!
As our roles as Co-Directors of Digital Learning is new this year, and is adjunct to our roles as technology coaches, we are in the process of defining and writing our own job description. The conversation now turned to the other ISTE Standards for Coaches and Administrators, naturally. We formally adopted the coaches standards years ago and use it to define and evaluate our role as tech coaches. With our new dual role, we have also decided to adopt the administrators standards for the co-director part of our new position. We have taken these two sets of standards and have embedded them directly into our job description, to give us an accurate description of what we do, that can also be used for our evaluation. Think of that?!? A living job description which is actually usable, and devoid of edu-speak and HR jargon. Writing our job description is/was an entirely separate project, but realising how it fits into place with these other pieces was serendipitous. These "big picture" pieces make up the corner pieces of the puzzle and completed the rest of the outside frame.
 |
| Digital Yin and Yang |
I then guided the conversation back to where it began - with integrating Computational Thinking concepts into K-12 classes. I am particularly interested in the framework that is being developed by the K12CS.org consortium which includes the CSTA (Computer Science Teachers Association), ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) and Code.org (which is connected to industry and brought us the Hour of Code). When this framework is finished (summer of 2016, so this is on a fast track), it will provide a framework which schools can use to guide the development of their own curriculum related to Computational Thinking, computer programming and computer science. Embedding Computational Thinking (and digital citizenship while we are at it) into existing K-12 curriculum is directly connected to a number of the ISTE Student Standards (in both the current and draft versions) and would give us, as the tech coaches, another means to fully integrate technology into lessons/units/programs of inquiry/projects, start conversations with teachers when they are planning, and to guide teachers and students to meeting the ISTE standards.
Implementing Digital Citizenship and Computational Thinking curricula to complement what we are already doing to scaffold students to fulfil the ISTE standards completes the puzzle. As we have a fully integrated model for technology across the school (meaning we no longer have specific technology classes that all students go to), we have been lacking a structure/framework for teaching students the skills/concepts/abilities to meet the ISTE standards. With all of these puzzle pieces falling into place, I think we just might have just found what we have been missing in terms of the structure, time, place and buy-in from faculty, that has been absent for years. Just like magic, all of these pieces came together through one very deep conversation. I had not really thought about how these things all fit together before, but this conversation really sparked something . . . just one of those aha moments I guess to savour and reflect upon.
