Computer Science/Computational Thinking Across the IB Programmes

I have been away from TechXcursions for a little while . . . well, a few months actually.  So it's nice to carve out some time to write some things down.  It's been rather busy the last few months with being on the recruiting hamster wheel + roller coaster ride, plus adapting to my new role as a Co-Director of Digital Learning (with its accompanying shared leadership role, which is a work in progress - that's another posting that I need to reflect on in the near future), and working on the recent IB Diploma combined CS and ITGS curriculum review in The Hague last month.  The external curriculum review is where I got thinking about the worldwide Computer Science/Programming movement and how it fits into the IB Programmes - PYP, MYP, DP, and even CP.

I don't think anyone would argue that there is global interest in incorporating programming into K-12 schools.  Some US school districts and states are developing their own curriculums or mandating programs that reach down into Kindergarten classes.  President Obama just announced a $4 billion USD program to bring "coding" to US schools over the next few years.  Some other countries are ahead of the US and have been working on these kinds of programs for a number of years, including the UK, New Zealand, Australia, Finland, and Canada.  The US movement has garnered a lot of press recently through the third year of the Hour of Code and Obama throwing a lot of money at the problem of the disparity between CS graduation rates and the job market.  The ball is rolling and CS is moving forward, so how do IB world schools get involved?

For the recent curriculum review, this is precisely what I was asked to consider and present my views to the international committee.  Such a big topic was intimidating at first, so I let it sit in the back of my mind and percolate.  Well, that approach didn't entirely work as I really struggled with how to approach and present this important topic.  I ended up writing down what I wanted to say on the flight to Amsterdam, but I still wasn't happy with it.  After talking over the presentations with a friend over dinner (thanks Pilar), things became much clearer for me.  I ended up scrapping most of what I was going to do for the presentation, and rewriting it late that night.  In the end, I no longer had a KeyNote presentation or any visuals, just a whole lot of things to say and connections to be made.  Here is (generally speaking, as there are some things from the curriculum review that I am not permitted to talk about) what I presented . . . 

• given the world wide movement to implement computer science or computer programming or computational thinking or coding in K-12 schools, there is an obvious need to address how CS/CT can be delivered in the IB programs
• from here onwards, where I refer to CS I am essentially taking about Computer Science (CS) and Computational Thinking (CT), which is the broader but more unfamiliar term

• in the Teaching and Learning with Technology Guide (published through the OCC in December 2015) technology is considered as a literacy, and fits into the IB philosophy of multi-literacies; full disclosure here - I worked on the guide with Pilar, so I am pretty close to it and I do want to see it used by IB schools (it really is useful for getting teachers to think more broadly about educational technology in their classrooms at all grade levels)
• just like "we are all language teachers", now we also have to consider that "we are all technology teachers"
• if we consider computer science or computational thinking across the IB Continuum, both are inherently tied to all three aspects of the AID lens - Agency, Information (or Insight), and Design (from the Teaching and Learning with Technology Guide)

The AID lens - from 

• CS/CT is an essential component of technology literacy, which people are now realising (I believe this is one of the driving forces behind the worldwide programming movement)
• many K-12 schools have moved to 1:1 laptop programs and have adopted an integrated approach to teaching technology skills, so there are no longer any specific tech-related courses that all students take, particularly in the elementary grades
• embedding CS into each of IB programmes can be done through the application of the AID lens to existing school programs/units of inquiry/projects/lessons, which in turn means integrating and embedding CS concepts into existing curriculum . . . but how and when do we do that?
• right now, there is a consortium which is working to develop a CS framework to guide schools to bring computer science and computational thinking into K-12 schools
• this work has already begun, and is being driven by the Association of Computing Machinery ACM, the Computer Science Teachers Association CSTA, and by Code.org (who have brought us the Hour of Code and is connected to industry)
• K12CS.org hopes to have standards and a framework released by summer 2016, which can be adopted and used by schools, with exit computing standards for grades 2, 5, 8, 12 (these do not fit very well with the PYP, MYP and DP programmes but this work will be important to watch and connect with)

I think the keys to bringing in K-12 Computer Science and Computational Thinking concepts into the IB Programmes, hinges on three factors:

1) awareness/exposure with CS/CT principles to teachers - many teachers (especially of the younger grades) believe that programming is only for older students and is beyond their teaching ability and the capability of their students; essentially they are afraid of it; this is beginning to change with movements such as the Hour of Code and national or state computing programs that are being developed that reach down to Kindergarten - as these gain traction and attention, more and more teachers will be exposed to computational thinking concepts; computational thinking is the broader term that includes programming and computer science, as well as other thinking models such as algorithmic thinking, logical thinking and procedural thinking; what a lot of people do not realise is how the principles of computational thinking can be applied and used in all areas and disciplines of study

2) a framework such as what K12CS.org is developing, can be adopted and moulded to fit into existing programs and curriculum, and used to guide teachers at all grade levels; it is not about creating and adding in a new curriculum for computing; the approach has to be to embed CS principles into the existing curriculum by teaching topics/lessons/units of inquiry in different ways and using different approaches, but to reach the same learning objectives

For example, in the PYP, imagine you are working on a Unit of Inquiry which has to do with the environment and weather; as part of the unit you are considering what happens in winter and how snow is formed; you could engage students with exploring the geometry of snow flakes, using the Frozen tutorial from the Hour of Code, while at the same time they are working on algorithmic thinking, angles and geometry, exploring looping structures, programming and problem solving; I would much rather have students explore creating mathematically correct snowflakes of their own design through the Frozen princesses, then cutting out geometrically incorrect square snowflakes from paper to stick in the windows . . . we have all seen these, right?

 

3) training and education - being exposed to CS/CT concepts and having a framework as a guide is not enough, teachers need to be trained in how to integrate and embed these concepts into their classroom and current programs; perhaps this can be introduced into Level 2-3 IB trainings or specialized CS/CT integration workshops can be developed?  for schools with integrated technology programs, it would fall on the tech integrator/coach, or curriculum coordinator, or team leader to be well versed in computational thinking concepts so that they can guide and connect these concepts with the existing curriculum

So what would this look like across the IB Programs?

• in the PYP, CS/CT has to be integrated into the existing units of inquiry and the existing curriculum at schools; perhaps this is best done through hands-on digital tools (like Scratch), robotics, maker spaces, and online interactive tutorials (like the Frozen princesses)
• in the MYP, programming skills can be developed through the Design course and further developed by continuing to embed/integrate CT concepts into the core course areas; broader CS/CT concepts could perhaps be integrated into multidisciplinary projects or explored in depth through the Personal Project; furthermore, a pathway to connect CS development through Design to feed into the Diploma CS course needs to be articulated; back in the days of MYP CT and DT, I did just that by creating a CS rich option in G10 for students which fed into CS (my CS classes tripled the next year and had a number of girls in it, whereas I had only 1 girl complete AP/IB CS in the previous decade - creating pathways really does work)
• in the DP, we of course already have Computer Science; my personal opinion is that the current course is too broad and shallow, and allows schools/students to take the course but do very little programming, which is the heart of CS, and it does not resemble what is done in first year university CS courses; 
• to address this problem in DP CS (which I have written about before here and here), if I were in charge I would do the following:

A) move CS back to the Mathematics group, and have schools offer it as a second math course (as it does not fit with both the Nature of Science and Design) OR keep it in Sciences and develop the Nature of Computing/Programming OR change it into a multidisciplinary subject spanning groups 4-5 as CS has always suffered from being scheduled against group 6 subjects (not sure if this solution would help at all though as CS would still be competing against the Arts and students taking two Sciences/Humanities courses for enrolment numbers) 

B) revert the CS syllabus back to be focussed on programming and using a prescribed language or two (much like what APCS has maintained over the years with Java) 

C) combine the IA and Case Study (or just the Case Study) to work with and expand upon a given large scale program, plus allow students to work in small groups/teams and figure out new ways to assess this kind of project; furthermore, "pairs programming" and other group projects should be encouraged for classwork over the two year course

• lastly, in the Careers Program I believe the courses in the DP would guide what this looks like and the options available; students taking a new programming-centric CS course like what I suggest above, would be better suited to completing work terms in industry; work placements in industry in some parts of the world or for some international school students would be very challenging if not impossible though; back home in Canada, we had a G10 work experience program and my most successful placements were with EA Sports, Digipen (school for computer animation and game programming) and Nintendo (through Digipen); this program in turn helped my students move into university CS programs or take two year certifications more directly aligned with their passions and interests - this is what we want isn't it?  

I think there is a roadmap in here for how IB world schools can engage with Computer Science and Computational Thinking from K-12.  I am going to start working on this now, as we are in the process of applying for PYP and MYP.  What do you think?  Are you an IB school with all three programs?  How are you engaging with the programming movement?

Building Tech Integration in IB Diploma Courses

A friend in the US recently asked me for some help with how to get started with integrating technology in a school which offers the IB Diploma Program.  She observed that the faculty were very well versed in the IB Diploma and were very experienced teaching their courses, but there was a lot of reluctance with integrating technology in their classes.  She was looking for some examples, particularly in Math and Science, for how teachers are integrating technology in Diploma courses, and was also looking for some recommendations for US-based trainers who might help to move the school forward.  My response to her ended up being pretty long and detailed, and seemed worthy of posting it here for others to read and take ideas from.  So here's most of what I wrote . . .

To get to your question about integrating technology into the IB Diploma, you are correct in your observations about some teachers being very reluctant to consider technology in their classrooms, especially when it comes to teaching IB Diploma courses.  I treat all of the HS faculty as specialists in their fields because they are experts, and with a school the size of ASW (the HS is about 275 students G9-12) the faculty all teach predominantly stand-alone courses (there are very few courses in the HS let alone the DP, that are shared between 2-3 teachers).  HS faculty often cite not having the time to integrate technology, often talk about the deep and wide curriculum to get through, or intimate that they just don't see how something might be used in their course.  Seeing some piece of technology or a tool used within the context of a specific class can really tip the balance here, but finding those examples or the people who are actively "doing it" is the challenge.  Moving people along is tough when they don't want to move, so employing peer coaches/tech leaders within your school, getting faculty to expand their professional network to connect with people outside of their school, and exposing your staff to new ideas/tools/pedagogy has worked for me here (but it is a slow process).  One of the parts of all of this that we continue to struggle with is whether faculty "have to integrate technology" rather than just use it in class, as technology integration is not connected with teacher evaluation in any way.  As a result, we are a school which is technology rich and has lots of great things going on, but we still have teachers who actively resist tech in their classrooms because "they are doing just fine without it, and their IB DP scores are pretty good." 

With all of that in mind, here are some things/tools/ideas/projects/links for stuff that we are doing here at ASW in IB DP courses, which have grown out of our 1:1 Laptop Program (mostly since I changed our program to Macs three years ago).  Much of this has developed from encouraging teachers to allow students to demonstrate/show/share their understanding in more creative ways using digital tools.  Also note that I have tried to list things here which are beyond stuff which would fall within using Moodle or GAfE for communication/collaboration/organisation:

• Teachers flipping their classroom by creating their own short instructional videos (Visual Arts, Economics, Math) or by using online resources with students (Khan Academy)

• Digital audio recording and podcasting/vodcasting for Languages

• Using digital simulations for abstract concepts or experiments (Explore Learning gizmos for Math and the Sciences)

• Students creating video products which demonstrate their learning/understanding in creative ways, such as for their Group 4 Project, using green screens for making History news casts from WWI, creating short visual summaries for acts from a play or chapters from a novel, or creating short animations to demonstrate/summarise a concept or process

• Apps and other specialised features for supporting EAL and Learning Support students (i.e. OpenDyslexic font and browser plug-in, or using text to speech features)

• Providing online databases for students to access scholarly journals and other peer reviewed research

• Connecting and collaborating with experts/students/classes remotely (i.e. our G10 English classes worked with classes in Colorado - https://ahsthisibelieve.wikispaces.com, and our History classes recently participated in some online talks with historians from the UK)

• Graphing calculator simulator (Ti-Smartview) for better instruction and classroom use of the graphing calculators for Math

• Using an iPad with a fine-tip stylus as both a document camera and as an annotation device (instead of an interactive whiteboard)

• Pixton for creating graphical/cartoon summaries which demonstrate a student's understanding (this has been used with Languages and the Sciences very successfully)

• Online and free apps as resources (i.e. interactive unit circle for introductory trigonometry - http://www.touchmathematics.org/topics/trigonometry, Quia.com for online quizzes and review, Videonot.es for annotating online videos, Piktochart for creating infographics, World Newspaper Map - http://newspapermap.com/ for comparing different perspectives on world/current events)

• Using Google Sites to document their CAS projects - all G11-12 students are now doing this, as of this year

• Using Google Docs to document the research process as G11 gets started with their Extended Essay, which can be shared with the IB DP Coord, HS Librarian and their EE Supervisor

• ToK Google Site collection/aggregator using Scoop.it for current events and articles pertaining to different ways of thinking

This list has a few things which all IB DP students are doing/using, and I hope there's enough Math and Science stuff here to get you started.  In terms of an American trainer that might be good for you, we brought in Tom Daccord (http://edtechteacher.org/team/tom/) and also sent some of our new staff to his summer institutes in Boston over the years, which have been very good.  This helped to jump start some of the faculty, to get the ball rolling.

Another project that I have been working on with the IB has been the "Role of Technology in the IB".  A pre-publication version of the guide is currently available on the OCC.  In addition, some of us who were part of the small working group in the summer also presented a mock-up of the tech integration "AID lens" at the recent ECIS ICT conference in Munich.  A copy of our presentation "Thinking More Deeply about the Role of Technology Integration in the IB Programmes" is here, and the short video that has been prepared by the IB is shown below:

What is important to consider with all of this, is that some IB Diploma teachers are reluctant to engage with technology integration as they do not see how to incorporate technology into their lessons or units, and they do not have the time to devote to learning and using some new tools.  But tech integration shouldn't be focused on just tools - it should have a broader view of technology and the integration of technology.  The more I think about the "AID lens", the more I like it, as it has this broader view of tech integration leading towards tech literacy.

Remember those reluctant teachers who don't use any technology in their class, at all?  Are they really not doing anything for tech integration and building technology literacy?  Depends on how you measure or look at it.  Take for example, two History teachers who have assigned a research project focussed on different aspects of WWI.  Teacher A has made the final product a 2000 word essay, while Teacher B wants students to be creative and produce a short video using a green screen as a news cast from the trenches.  With the SAMR model, does the essay extend into the transformative levels, or does the news cast video?  Many people see the video project as incorporating more tech, so it must be higher up the SAMR scale.  Through the "AID lens", both projects come out about even as they both contain essential elements of Agency (ways of Being), Information (ways of Knowing) and Design (ways of Doing).  Both projects are building tech literacy, just with different student products.  Don't get me wrong here, I am not against the SAMR model (it certainly has its uses and it is really good for helping teachers think about tech integration).  But how do you measure if something is transformative?  Why would the video project be better for student learning?  Just because it's flashier?

I have been struggling with this for awhile now, but I am beginning to see how the "AID lens" brings a different perspective into play (which I think is worth considering).  Have a look at the "AID lens" and think about how it could be used in curriculum planning . . . what do you think?

Some after thoughts . . . here are a few more IB applicable tech tools to consider:

• Desmos online graphing calculator is wickedly good and you can get it on your iPad too
• Wolfram Alpha - online computational knowledge engine is very good at math . . . try entering an equation into it and getting it to solve it for you . . . and then walk through the steps for solving the equation one by one . . . 

Back to the Future . . . or at least the 1980's

Today (thanks to a colleague), I came across an interesting article from OpenCulture.com which included a series of short videos from the BBC Radio 4 and The Open University.  The collection featured in this article is titled "Has Technology Changed Us?" and includes 4 short animations narrated by Gillian Anderson (from cult tv show fame).  The X-Files link immediately grabbed my attention (I have two personal connections with the tv show, but those are different stories ;-), as did the title of the series.  These are well worth taking the few minutes to watch them in order, but the one that really spurred me to share is the first episode titled "Rewiring the Brain" (embedded below).

With our 1:1 Laptop Program, there is a lot of talk/discussion/inquiry/angst surrounding screen time, computer/gaming addiction, distractions, finding balance, multi-tasking and a general decline in student attention spans.  After watching this video this morning, I think it's time to revisit hosting an Unplugged Day in the HS again.  I did this two years ago (see the original blog posting here as well as the follow-up reflection posting here and a second reflection here) with mixed results, but it is time to come back to this idea of going without technology for a day to better understand its impact on our daily life, and how deep our "need to be connected" runs.  With HS students, I think discussions about total screen time in a day, and making home agreements about computer usage come into direct conflict with the realities of school life and the curricular requirements of programs like the IB DP.  My experience has been that some of our students today have little or no awareness of just how wired they really are, and unplugging them from the web/net is the only way to give them some perspective.

After my first Unplugged Day, I really thought that this is something that we all need to do as a community - both teachers and students across the board.  We all need to seek balance in our lives, especially when it comes to our technology use.  Some people are better at it than others, and some people are totally addicted to their devices and don't even know it.  One of my best friends is completely attached to his mobile (he frequently checks it while you are actively engaged in a conversation, or when eating a meal) but seemingly has no idea about how others perceive his mobile addiction.  How many others are totally addicted to their devices and don't even know it?

Last year and this year (right now during the month of March, actually), I have challenged students to participate in the UNICEF World TAP Project where people can raise clean drinking water for the needy by not using their mobile phones (click here to see my blog posting on this project too).  This project has been pretty successful within the school, but again, has been limited to those students and teachers who elect to engage with it and learn about themselves.  It needs to be pushed out to the entire community and done together, whether they think they need it or not.  So it's time to go back to 1984 but as an entire HS this time.

I just had an initial conversation  with my principal about doing a school-wide Unplugged Day either in April or May this year, and he is all for it.  After talking through the possibilities for the day, we decided that there are a number of learning outcomes associated with this project that will make it bigger and better, such as:

• Connecting the day to the IB Learner Profile, where April for us focuses on "Thinkers" (which is a perfect fit with "We use critical and creative thinking skills to analyse and take responsible action on complex problems.") 
• Digital Citizenship to generate staff/student self-awareness of their own tech usage
• Make this into a school wide Spirit Day, including an 80's dress-up, Unplugged Coffee House lunch time performances, Advisory competition, and other themed "touches" to give it life and to make it fun
• Get student leadership involved to make this into a CAS project
• Most importantly - have everyone in the school participate this time . . . we are all in this together!  Connect and reflect on the process through grade level Advisory classes.

Getting everyone on-board is the next step, so I had better get started with the planning and communication with the staff . . . I hope a month is enough advanced notice!  Or we will have to rebrand it as "1985 on 8/5" and move it to May . . . but that would leave out the seniors as they will be in the middle of exams.  Hope it doesn't come to that!  Have you ever hosted an Unplugged or Blackout Day in your school?  What made it successful?  What made it flop?  What kinds of learning and self-reflection took place as a result?

Six Months into a TechXcursion to the MacWorld - Part 2

The beginnings of our transition of the HS 1:1 Laptop Program from Tablet-PCs to MacBooks is documented in an earlier post here.  This post is continuing with the story of our journey of change, moving a few mountains along the way, and raising the dead a few times as well.  Looking back on the last 2 years it becomes clear to me that it was a huge roller coaster ride, complete with dips, turns, hills and valleys, and with a few undead zombies along the way.

Stops and Starts . . . and more Roadblocks

We began the 2011-12 school year with our recommendation to the Tech Director to shift the HS laptop program from PCs to MacBooks, after the Tech Collective's work from the previous spring.  After Bill approved of our recommendation for platform change, it was then taken to Admin for their approval.  And that's when we ran into the first major roadblock - it was discussed at Admin and was it was determined that the HS could not proceed with a change in platform without consulting the other school divisions first (which had not been done of course).  After many discussions in various venues and much tap-dancing on Bill's part, he was able to finally convince Admin that each school division would address their own needs and platform of choice individually when it was their turn to refresh their own laptop program.  This decision included some interesting discussions along the way, as many thought that a platform change in the HS would inevitably make it a fait accompli that the other school divisions would follow suit.  We were able to successfully argue that each division would make their own decisions in due course, and that it was Bill's job to ensure that this happens.  One hurdle negotiated.

The next big question that was raised came from the Business Office - would a platform change be very expensive and cost prohibitive?  With this next big wall looming in front of us, Bill and I embarked on a thorough and exhaustive feasibility analysis of the costs involved.  This work had already been started, but it had to be extended to include the platform change impact on the school network, school systems, technical support, technical training and certification, cost of repairs, and cost of extended warranty in addition to the projected cost of the machines, software licenses, and faculty training.  This was a huge job which essentially boiled everything down to the simple answer that yes, in the end it would cost more to do a platform change (primarily due to changes and duplication of some software licenses, and training that would be needed for the technicians and network managers).  How could a platform change not incur some additional costs?  Once more, we were dead in the water . . .

This roadblock started a big discussion about how budgeting is done in the school and whether budgetary decisions were going to impede or prevent educational decisions.  We started this process of exploring our laptop program refresh with a simple question of whether our decision was going to be denied or changed by the business office, and we were told at the time a firm "no".  But here we were.  We argued that our recommendation for platform change was an educational decision and based on the needs of the high school programs.  We argued that the overall cost would be reduced over time as there would be fewer problems and repairs, and therefore reduced cost for servicing and work-time in tech services.  And we also argued that our recommendation for platform change was actually a 40-50% reduction in cost from our existing Tablet-PC program, simply because the outgoing machines would cost over $2000 per unit to replace.  We were literally comparing apples with onions here, and after a long and hard fought battle, we were finally permitted to move forward once again, and begin discussions with Apple and our local provider about contracts, servicing and pricing.

What Flavour of Apple to Get?

Our initial discussions were with the only premium reseller in Poland, in conjunction with Apple Poland.  Everything was progressing quite well, albeit slowly and methodically, as a contract and purchase of this size has never been done in Poland before.  We started discussions focusing on the old White MacBook and the MacBook Pro, for which we were receiving very aggressive pricing but they were still beyond our means.  But the White MacBook had been relegated to education sales only, and it was difficult at the time to get the information we needed on pricing and servicing for them.  Time passed with no firm numbers to work with and then everything came crashing down once again.  I was attending the November ECIS annual conference in Lisbon when I received the news that the school's budgetary deadline had passed and that our proposed platform change was once again completely dead - without a contract in place which was within our budget, we would have to scrap all of our work and proceed with a PC laptop along the lines of the HP machines that the MS had purchased earlier in the year.  Here I was at a huge tech pre-conference day with the other tech coaches, and I receive this depressing news to start my day.  But in the next 24 hours, the roller coaster would come back to the platform and we would get on board for another ride.

The fortuitous moment came when Bruce (one of our ES tech coaches) and I went to attend some of the Apple iPad workshops at the conference the next day.  For some reason the published schedule of Apple workshops had been completely changed so we were asking around to find out what the new schedule was going to be, when we started talking to Rowan Simms (who we found out is in charge of Apple Education for Europe).  One thing led to another and our discussion stretched out to over an hour and ended with a phone call to Bill our Tech Director.  Rowan was able to clarify a number of outstanding questions that we had (about European pricing of the White MacBooks for education, support and servicing for them, and policies revolving around their availability in the future) and we were again back from the dead.  I was beginning to feel a little sick with the roller coaster ride, but I was happy that we had a way forward.

We were able to reassure Finance that we would be able to stay within the target budget and continued to wait for a contract that we could sign.  In the new year, we received word from the reseller that they could not offer us a contract for the White MacBooks because the model had formally reached end-of-life and they could not give us a contract which could not be fulfilled.  This was becoming an episode of The Walking Dead - we just had to refuse to die!  Along with the public announcement of the demise of the White MacBook, came the elevation of the MacBook Air to being the new base-line Mac with new pricing.  The education only model was also introduced a short time after in North America, so we then turned our attention to getting a contract for the education Air model.  But the educational pricing had not been released in Europe yet, and there seemed to be no timeline for it either which placed us in a conundrum of either signing a contract or continuing to wait.

The American School of Warsaw hosted the CEESA annual conference in March, which led to another timely meeting with Rowan from Apple, who happened to be attending the conference.  I had an informal meeting with Rowan where we discussed how he was in the process of still deciding whether to release the MacBook Air for Education model in Europe, and that he was strongly leaning towards not releasing it at all.  Rowan and his team were concerned about the small storage capacity of the SSD (only 64 GB) combined with the small screen size (on the smaller 11" Air) were going to come back to bite them.  We had already considered the specifications of the Education Air and had determined that these features worked in our favour with our school owned laptop program.  With our program, we want our students to treat their school machine as their learning platform, and not as their general purpose entertainment and gaming centre.  By populating our laptop program with smaller, light-weight machines we are giving students a more ergonomic machine for moving to and from home, and around the school.  The smaller 11" screen is only a fraction of an inch smaller than their current Tablet-PC screens, and the smaller size also made it less of a gaming platform.  The 64 GB of storage was also seen as an advantage, as there would not be space on the machine for students to store all of their music, videos, movies and tv shows that they typically want to carry around at all times.  In short, students would have to manage what is stored on their machines.  This is not to say that they could not have a few shows to watch on an airplane, or some music to listen to on a long train or bus ride, but they would have to manage their files in order to do so.  Our student image was estimated to take up approximately 25 GB of storage, which would leave students with about 30 GB for their school work and other files - ample room for all of their work, some video projects, and anything else that they might be working on.  This was a win-win situation in our opinion.  Rowan took our position under consideration and in the end, notified me that our discussion convinced him to release the Education Air model in Europe.  Alas, it would not be in time for our contract and purchase of over 300 Airs though.  This development did lead to further negotiations however, and the newly reduced prices on the 11" Airs came in within our budget.  We were back on track!

Mac 101 Basics - Initial Teacher Training

With a contract in hand which would include 13" Airs for faculty (almost 50x machines with larger screens for older eyes, plus more storage for school stuff), 11" Airs for students (280x machines), Apple applications training for faculty and Apple Certified Technicians training for our technicians, we were set to go.  Frustratingly, we received the teacher machines very late in the school year due to supply problems in Europe, but we had to make due with the little time we had.  Cramming in the basic training for the faculty new to Macs while creating differentiated training for the more experienced teachers all in the last two weeks of the school year (interspersed with graduation, final exams, awards ceremonies and packing up classrooms) is really not recommended or what I had hoped for.  Putting the new machines into the hands of the faculty a full year or even a semester in advance would have been ideal, but it simply did not happen or even come close.  As I only had a few weeks to work with to develop our teacher machine image and to conduct training before the summer holidays, I got cracking.

What I built was a differentiated training program for faculty (which was later adapted and used with students as well) which included:

1. Hands-on training sessions for faculty with no experience with Macs, individually or in small groups (whatever was more comfortable for each person)
2. Personalized, direct training for those faculty with some experience with Macs, directed at the school set up and applications that were being included on the image
3. Flipped-video resources delivered through Moodle, for those teachers with some experience with Macs and to act as a personalized asynchronous resource for the newbies (the videos followed everything that I did with the newbies in the hands-on training sessions); you can have a look at the resources that I created here (Mac 101 Basics) and here (Mac 202 Next Steps)
4. Links to other Apple training resources online, for faculty use and reference over the summer
5. Created a group of Mac savvy students called the Apple Corps who would lead the rollout in August and provide in-class first response help for staff and students
6. I also made it clear that faculty could contact me by email throughout the summer if they had any questions or problems with their new machines.

After a frantic couple of weeks of training sessions, we closed the school for the summer and the high school faculty took their new machines with them for the summer to get better acquainted with the new machine.  For some, it was as simple as getting used to the new machine and configuring it for themselves.  For others, it was just taking the time to reacquaint themselves with a Mac, understanding what has changed in OSX, and having the time to explore and use the machine.  The beginners group was the one that I was really concerned about.  We had the complete range of emotions during the training and going into the summer, from tears and trepidation, to exhilaration and anticipation.  We even had a few teachers who really wanted to keep their old PCs over the summer, but that could not happen as the old machines were being collected, re-imaged and cleaned up, and then re-distributed within the school.  Throughout the summer I monitored the Moodle class for activity and waited for emails asking for help, but everything went rather smoothly (a little too smoothly perhaps - time to board the coaster for another ride?).

Leading the Apple Corps & MacRollout Day

The Apple Corps was formed before the summer simply by polling the student body for returning students who are Mac experienced, who are interested in helping run workshops on MacRollout Day, and would be back in Warsaw and available to come into school a day early for training.  For their services they would receive their school machines a few days before everyone else, would get an Apple Corps shirt for MacRollout Day, and could use this as a CAS project if they were in G11 or G12.  I definitely wanted to brand this group of students, so I named them the Apple Corps and created a logo based on the school athletics logo that I designed a few years ago of the charging winged Polish Hussar - the students really liked this so the branding efforts paid off.  In the end, I had over 30 student volunteers of which 24 were available for the early training session.

I vetted the list of student volunteers and even had a special parent & student sign-off to ensure that they were available at the end of the summer holidays for the training session, and for them to receive their school laptop early (according to our Responsible Use Policy).  I polled these students to measure their experience with Macs, areas of strengths, and comfort levels for running workshops for beginners, intermediate users, or application workshops for experienced users and used this information to form them into pairings as workshop leaders.  I then developed detailed, step-by-step lesson plans for each of the 15 different workshops that were going to be delivered and matched up the leaders with their strengths and abilities.  I had to include a few teacher volunteers to lead workshops as well, to fill out all of the workshops on offer.  When I originally polled the student body to form the Apple Corps, I also had everyone self-assess their own familiarity with Macs and indicate the kind of training that they would prefer at the beginning of the school year.  As I had all of the student needs data and the workshops organized, it now became a simple (but lengthy) task of scheduling all of the students into workshops, along with teacher supervisors.  The workshops were all student-led by the Apple Corps, so I assigned faculty members to training sessions according to their readiness levels with Macs, where they could participate and learn alongside the students.  This worked out really well as it put the Apple Corps students into the driver seat.

In the end, we ran 5x complete Beginners hands-on workshops (2+ hours each with a break in the middle), 4x Intermediate video-based hands-on workshops (self-paced with support, lasting for 2+ hours each), plus 6x Apple Applications hands-on workshops (1 hour each where students signed up to attend two different trainings).  We began the day with an assembly and big launch event, which included a few commercial breaks such as our own "I'm a Mac" video which Bill and I put together (be  nice - it was done in one take).

From there, we managed the rollout of machines to the students in groups according to the workshop they were attending.  We started out with the beginners groups, to maximize their workshop time for getting started, and managed to rollout 275 machines in under an hour and got just about everyone off to their workshop sessions - this was the biggest Mac rollout ever done in Poland!  Everything went a little crazy after that, as one of servers got hammered by all of the new machines trying to access their mobile accounts through the network for the first time, and slowly died.  Things got better after that server had a quick RAM upgrade and was restarted, and the Apple Corps got on with their workshops. Some of the students had to improvise their sessions while the server was down, but they did a fabulous job of not panicking under pressure.  With the MacRollout Day complete, we were off to the races!

Faculty Apple Training

Just a few last words about training the faculty over the year, and what we have had available.  Since the beginning of the school year we have worked through up-skilling the teachers with their Macs, as they have become more familiar and comfortable with their new machines.  Some of the teachers who were complete beginners jumped right in over the summer and were ready to run in August.  While others did not use their Mac very much over the summer, so were at various levels of experience ranging from near beginner to having some experience (albeit rusty).  This is what I expected to happen, given that we did not get the teacher machines until right before the summer, so we tried to individualize and differentiate the further training we had available, throughout the year.  The options that were on offer included:

1. Student-led workshops on MacRollout Day - teachers were assigned to supervise workshops which matched up with their current familiarity and ability level, so that they would learn alongside the students in the session
2. Ongoing, individual, "just-in-time" learning as needed through working with me as the HS Tech Coach, as teachers adapt previous projects or start new ones which take advantage of what the MacBook Airs have to offer
3. Group training through HS departments on specific applications
4. Outside Apple Trainer - as per our contract, an outside Apple Trainer was brought in for a week. Training sessions on specific applications were identified for each department and were delivered to departmental small groups, and the remainder of the trainer's time was organized into individual and small group differentiated training sessions on applications by request
5. The Tech Advocate in each department focussed their attention over the year on Mac specific tech tools and applications that would be applicable for teaching and learning in their discipline
6. Speed-Geeking Tech PD - the HS once again conducted our own Speed-Geeking mini-sessions on a variety of tech tools, which had a Mac focus
7. Apple Corps students have been available and supporting students and teachers directly in class (they are identified by an Apple Corps sticker on their lid)
8. Mac 202 Next Steps - another Moodle course was started as an extension/continuation of the Mac 101 Basics course, and as an online reference which teachers could use to further their learning with Macs, as they became more comfortable with the machines.

Apple Corps - Come join the "Air Corps"!

Final Thoughts on Leading a School through a Platform Change

It has been a long road to get where we are now, full of twists and turns, drops and rises, and walls to crash in to.  The roadblocks and check points along way have been many, but we have gotten to our destination nonetheless, and perhaps a little wiser as well.  My takeaways from these last two years are:

• There will always be a wide range of ability, experience and willingness to change amongst the staff and student body - anticipate this and think about their wants, needs and their perspective
• Look at every piece of software that people use and dig deep to verify that it is compatible with the new OS and version, or have a viable alternative to change to 
• Staff and students will need to be trained, retrained, and trained again - be patient and persistent
• It takes a lot of time - start discussions with staff, students, parents and admin early and keep the dialogue open throughout
• Some staff will be very resistant to changing platforms/machines - this often comes down to a fear of the unknown which can be remedied with hands-on training and lots of support
• There will always be costs involved even if you are changing to a cheaper machine - refocus the conversation on the teaching and learning, rather than the financials; it's really about the verbs (what you are going to do with and through the technology ), rather than the nouns (what piece of technology is being purchased)
• If you have a Technology Vision statement to work towards, then use it to guide the process of change
• Get the students involved - we had data from the student body supporting the platform change as we engaged with this process, and the student Apple Corps group has been fabulous in helping to move the entire school forward with our platform change (this would not have happened without them)
• Change is scary, time-consuming hard to do - a change in platform is not only a physical change in technology, but also a cultural and philosophical change for some people in the community which makes it even more difficult to achieve . . . make sure that the end result will be worth the time and effort, get people on board the roller coaster, and work from there . . . the others will come with time.  

You know how you have to stand in line forever before getting on a ride?  You know how a roller coaster takes a long time to work its way up the first hill before really getting started, and then it's all over before you know it?  This is the same ride . . . it will take forever before it really gets started and it will be over before you know it, so hang on tight as it will be a crazy ride along the way.

Six Months into a TechXcursion to the MacWorld - Part 1

We are now just past halfway through our first year of a platform change for our 1:1 laptop program in the HS - this blog entry contains my thoughts and reflections on the change of platform, how the process has gone, and where we are now in the world of Macs.

A Short History Lesson - Origins of the ASW 1:1 Laptop Program

I think a little history lesson is needed, to get started - going back to the beginning. The American School of Warsaw has had a PC-based laptop program for about 7-8 years now. It started in the MS and then spread to G5 in the ES, before moving up into the HS the year before I came to Poland. As there were some connections between the school and a US-based PC manufacturer, the 1:1 laptop program was launched with PC laptops in the MS. By the time I arrived here, the HS had evolved into a Tablet-PC laptop program. Coming as an Apple Distinguished Educator from the oldest MacSchool in China, I was a little concerned about the laptop program that I was inheriting, but was encouraged by the fact that the school had Tablet-PCs rather than regular PC laptops.

All of my previous schools have either been PC-based or multi-platform, so working in a PC environment was not an issue. I was actually quite excited to be going into a Tablet-PC program as that was new for me, and provided a different dynamic in the classroom - namely a stylus/pen to go with each machine. The school had already gone down the road of implementing a school-owned model for the laptop program, due to the significant cost of the Tablet-PCs, which was also new for me. The reality of the program that I walked into though, was far from sparkling.

There were a number of factors which led me to explore the possibility of changing platforms for the school, away from the existing Tablet-PC model. Without getting into all of the nitty-gritty details, the main factors at the time were:

1) The Tablet-PC program was not introduced into the HS with enough support and training for the faculty, or any lead time to put the new machines into the hands of the teachers before giving them to the student body. It is crucial when introducing a laptop program into a school to ensure that the faculty are comfortable with the machines, thoroughly trained, and very well supported as they adapt to a huge paradigm shift in their day-to-day pedagogy. Needless to say, the first year of the laptop program (before I came here) was pretty rocky for the faculty. A common refrain that I heard from teachers was that the "tablets were dumped on us", and that they had no input in the process or decision to bring in the laptop program.  Part of the fallout of this was that the 1:1 program was faltering and sporadic when I came onboard, and hardly anyone was using any of the tablet features of the machines.

2) The Tablet-PCs were very expensive to buy and support. As a result of their huge price-tag (over $2000 per machine, times by over 300 faculty+students), the program was brought in as a school-owned model with a 4-year replacement cycle. This initial proposal must have sounded good on paper, but was not sustainable - not even for the first few years.  The 4-year program was simply too long for a school-owned model - it was apparent after the first year that the machines would not last three more years of heavy usage in student hands.

3) The Tablet-PCs were very fragile and expensive to repair. Combined with the school-owned model where there was very little sense of ownership amongst the student body, and with only a 3 year warranty/care agreement in place, this created a sure-fire recipe for disaster. Machines were always getting broken, were taking a long time to be repaired, and students had no ownership or sense of responsibility for their machines. The school started the program in more of a library mode - students would get a machine kind of like taking a book out of the library, use/read it, and return it when you are done in whatever condition - good, bad, or ugly. Charging students for damage or loss of their machines was an unpopular policy that I introduced in my first year here, but it has certainly helped to change the uncaring attitude of the student body towards the machines. A further extension to the model that I introduced at the same time was to have each machine assigned to a student so that it stays with them until they leave the school, graduate or the machine gets replaced, to create a greater sense of ownership. Even so, these changes did not completely solve the problem - they merely addressed some of the symptoms with bandaids over the gapping holes in the management of the program.  In short, we had a laptop program populated with machines that didn't work or were frequently broken.

4) The Tablet-PCs that we had were underpowered and frequently crashed/failed. Fully 2/3 of the student machines were DELL XTs (the first model of Tablet-PC that they produced) which have numerous well documented problems, incompatibilities and design flaws, all of which were painfully evident every day when placed in the hands of students. They simply did not work. Combined with the frequent freezing/crashing that occurred when students tried to use the stylus for inking on documents, these machines were reduced to being very expensive, fragile, underpowered and sickly laptops.

As last year was the 4th of the HS laptop program working with these Tablet-PCs, we were due for a refresh for the beginning of this school year. The shortcomings of the laptop program that I inherited were apparent, so I began working on our laptop program refresh one-and-a-half years in advance. If the refresh was going to include a platform change, I knew that we would need a lot of lead time - in fact, it wasn't enough!

Changing Platforms - Reflections on the Process 

With a complete refresh of our HS laptop program coming in August 2012, I set about working on the question of platform as early as I could. Even though I started this process in the spring of 2011 (almost a year-and-a-half in advance) it turned out to be not enough lead time. The first order of business was to form a technology committee, the likes of which had never been seen in the school before, which I dubbed the HS Tech Collective. Note that I was not using "collective" as a reference to communism or the Soviet organization of work units. Rather, it was a term that was used at my previous international school which I always liked in a geeky, trekkie sort of way, which I adopted. I have always liked branding and the concept of putting an identifying mark on things, and by calling it the Tech Collective I could use it in many different ways. For example, our first order of business was to make some "collective" decisions for the HS . . .

Key words from our HS Technology Vision Statement research

I sought to have representation on the Tech Collective from each of the departments in the HS, as well as for Technology and the Library. In the few remaining months of the school year we set about working on two goals to complete before the end of the school year: writing a Vision Statement for technology in the HS, and to start exploring what the faculty wanted from the 1:1 laptop program in the future. There has never been a Vision statement for technology written specifically for the HS, and working through this process really brought the Collective together through a collaborative research and writing project. The question of what the faculty wanted from the laptop program had never been asked before, so this was the logical next step after the Vision Statement was completed.

With the first goal completed, we approached the laptop refresh question by asking teachers "what do they want to do with technology to enhance teaching and learning?" As our tech director puts it, the question focussed on the verbs rather than the nouns - what the physical machine was going to be was left out of the discussion. Feedback was gathered from all of the departments, which was sifted through, organized, summarized and analyzed by the Tech Collective. Surprisingly, this stage of the process was not as time consuming or as onerous as you might think. The primary outcomes from this research was as you might expect: that the faculty wanted to engage students with more multimedia projects and video, to communicate and collaborate more within the school and with the wider world community, to move students into being digital producers rather than consumers, and to better integrate technology into their classrooms to enhance teaching and learning. The one message that stood out however, was that everyone wanted "machines that just work".  I took this as a clear message of pushback about the failings of the existing Tablet-PC program.

From there, the discussion turned towards the nouns - what kind of machine do we want which will fulfill the identified needs of the faculty? Four options were tabled for consideration and investigation: Tablet-PCs (as a continuation of the existing program); PC laptops (which was essentially what the existing program had devolved into being); Mac laptops (which were on the edge of the picture due to questions about servicing and support in Poland); and finally iPads (which were quickly growing in popularity for school programs). The Tech Collective's initial questions focused on funding for the refresh and how much latitude we would have in this decision. The answer to the budget question immediately took Tablet-PCs off of the table, due to their high price point and our history of dysfunctional and fragile machines in the school. With the question of latitude, we were assured that whatever decision we made was for education reasons and would not be reversed by administration. We were now in a place where we could explore and investigate what types of nouns would best meet our needs as a school, as a faculty and as a student body.

The question of using iPads for our 1:1 laptop program was explored in depth, as this was a very enticing possibility for the school. Many international schools, as well as ones back at home have been investing heavily in iPad programs, so there was a lot of buzz on this topic. As an Apple Distinguished Educator, a lot of the buzz in the Apple Education world was clearly centred on iPads in the classroom, so this option deserved its due attention. Now remember, we were researching this fully two years ago from the writing of this post, and the iPad world has significantly matured since then. Two years ago, it was readily apparent that iPads would be very sexy and cutting edge to bring into the school, but would not fulfill many of the requirements that the faculty had already identified about what the machines needed to be able to do. In terms of supporting our existing programs and courses, integrating and meshing with other existing technologies that were already in the school, and meeting the basic computing needs of the student body and faculty, the Tech Collective regretfully took iPads off of the table. If the same conversation, research and investigation were conducted today, the outcome might be entirely different. Now, we were down to the age-old question of Mac vs PC?

To complete the process as objectively as possible, we set about answering this question by matching up Macs vs PCs across each of the items that the faculty had already identified for what they wanted to do with technology. By no means was changing to Macs a foregone conclusion - there were a number of roadblocks and obstacles in the way, many of which stemmed from having a PC-based program for many years in the school. Rather than getting bogged down in the semantics of one machine has this piece of software or can do "this" while the other does not, we worked with broader generalities such as video editing capabilities, battery life, initial cost, cost of repairs and ease of use. All of this was complicated by the fact that not everyone on the Collective had previous experience with Macs, so they found it difficult to make objective decisions on each item. In the end, it was clear from our research and data that Macs fulfilled more of the wants and needs of the faculty, and would be the machines "that just work" that we were looking for. As such, the Tech Collective made the recommendation to the Tech Director and Senior Administration to change platforms, which was later approved and supported by the faculty as a whole. PCs have long been the machine of choice in this school, so our recommendation was immediately followed with a detailed feasibility study which delved down into specific software titles that would need to be replaced or purchased, implications for our network and servers, and training that faculty and technicians would have to undergo in order to be successful. But a firm decision to change platforms had been made which we were going to move forward with, and what a long and arduous trip it has been. Keep reading for Part 2 of this TechXcursion to the MacWorld, for how our platform change was raised from the dead - twice, how our eventual rollout went earlier this year, the training and support for the faculty and students that has been ongoing, and to look at where we are now, half a year into our great leap forward.

BYOD - How does it fit in an international school 1:1 laptop program?

This blog entry came about after a friend and former colleague posed a simple question to me in an email - what do I think about BYOD? An innocent enough question, coming from a HS principal in the Middle East who is considering starting a 1:1 laptop program. As we have been in discussion again about changing the model of our 1:1 program away from a school-owned model, and BYOD has been brought into the conversation, this little question resulted in a rather long response . . . so I thought I would drop my thoughts on the subject in here as well . . .

The BYOD question is a big one. We have been hashing through this ourselves the last little while as we are considering switching to a student-owned model. In international schools, the BYOD question is very different than in a public school back home though. BYOD is a huge buzzword right now so don't get caught up in the hype, which is clearly focused on schools back home. So let's get into this from an international school's perspective . . .

First of all, schools back home are going BYOD to get technology into the classrooms without incurring very much cost to the school itself. There are still costs however, particularly in infrastructure and connectivity, in-house technical support, and teacher training. These are all very real and important issues which must be in place before any laptop program is launched or it will fail for sure. The machines themselves are just one part of the equation, and you need everything else as well in order to succeed.

Let's talk about the different models for laptop programs first, and then come back to the other considerations such as your faculty, the school programs on offer, and how the laptop program will support learning and be integrated into the classroom.

In my mind, there are 4 models for laptop programs (all with their own advantages and disadvantages):

1) BYOD - all students buy their own machines ranging from laptops to tablets to smart phones, which meet some kind of minimum specifications prescribed by the school. The school would still need to provide wireless connectivity and would have to provide training and support for at least the faculty (assuming that the school provides machines for the faculty). As there is no consistency with the hardware or the software in students hands, what you end up with is a program where computing is an adjunct to what is going on in the classroom. There will be some integration of technology, but it will not be consistent across the school as not everyone has the same tools to work with all of the time. The integration that you do see will be with the faculty who take this on and use Web2 tools which are browser based, free, and multi-platform. The faculty and technology integration in general, end up being the losers here, as it becomes very challenging to support students using a variety of equipment in the classroom, and to do anything constructive with integrating technology when there is no commonality of tools amongst your students.

2) Student-owned model with a strict prescription for the make/model/operating system allowed within the school. With this model, the school regulates exactly what machine the students have, but they are owned by the students and they can buy them anywhere they want. With this kind of model, the school might also have students buy into a school software package/licensing agreement to ensure that everyone has the same software tools available to them, but this scheme might not be appropriate or do-able within the school environment you are in or within the laws/regulations of the country. Some people call this "Bring This Device" as you are specifying exactly what the student needs to have. There will likely be pushback from some parents with this kind of model as some companies/organizations only pay for the tuition of their children, so this would be an extra expense. Such a model is also challenging for a school to implement and regulate - you have to be really firm with this or else it will morph into the regular BYOD model above. Another consideration here is that the school will have little to no hand in the support and warranty/servicing of these machines as they would be coming from various sources/vendors with different warranties, operating systems and overall packages. This can get pretty messy, especially if you are trying to tell a parent that they just bought a new machine which does not fit the school specifications . . . making it very hard to strictly enforce.

3) Student-owned model where students must purchase a complete package of machine plus software through the school. The school can completely regulate what the students have in their hands without actually owning all of the machines. With this kind of model the school can offer machines at reduced prices through volume purchasing and special deals with the vendors, but this is again subject to the laws and regulations of the country that you are in. And there will always be pushback from certain segments of you school population depending on what platform you choose, vendor you work with, and whether people have access to buying the same machines at cheaper prices elsewhere. And there will also be the segment of the population who will not want to incur the extra cost of buying a computer as well - they will want everything included in the tuition costs. The faculty and students are the clear winners here, as technology integration can really take hold and be effective in any classroom. The real difference between this model and the one above is that the school is enforcing the overall package that is bought by the student/parents for use at school and therefore has better control over the software, operating system, support, maintenance and warranty of those machines.

4) School-owned model where the school purchases, provides, maintains and supports all of the machines in the school - this is our current model which we are actively looking to phase out over the next few years. The school has complete control over everything in this case, which is great for the faculty and for the student body in terms of integrating technology in the classroom as everyone has same tools. It's also great for parents as there is no extra costs involved to them - everything is part of the tuition no matter if it is being paid for by a company, personally, or by another organization such as an embassy. The loser here is the school due to the tremendous cost involved with implementing, maintaining and supporting such a program. Combined with a lack of ownership of the machines by the students, this creates an environment which is very expensive to keep working - we are finding our 1:1 program to be hard to sustain in the long run using this model. With changing student populations from year to year, rising costs for repairs/replacements each year over a three year refresh cycle, and completely replacing all of the machines in a school division each year (on a rotation), it all adds up to a lot of fiscal headaches. Strangely enough, the students can be winners or losers in this model, depending on the grade they are in and where their school is with respect to the refresh cycle. My daughter is currently using some old, decrepit netbooks through this year, and then will move to a used PC laptop next year which will be in its last year of usage. After that, she will get a brand new machine (which will likely involve a change a platform) to use for two years, unless the school changes to a student-owned model by that time. So her computing outlook in the school is not very good for the next few years, which does not sit well with me as a parent.

I have worked within a BYOD laptop program at a previous school, which was very difficult on a day-to-day basis. Even as a technology and computer science teacher, it was often frustrating trying to help and support students in my own classes who had different machines (PC laptops, Mac laptops, Tablet-PCs, old machines, new machines, machines on their last legs), difference operating systems (various versions of Windows and Mac OSX, different languages, and even the occasional Unix box) and different software packages (licensed versions of Office, pirated copies of software from the market or downloaded online, and free/trial/alternative versions of various packages). On a day-to-day basis, I found it very difficult to support my students with their projects, and I know that other faculty who were less tech savvy simply gave up trying. These teachers either did not try to integrate technology (because they couldn't) or they assigned projects where the students decided upon the tools that they would use to complete them (some with technology and some without). In both of these cases, technology was not being integrated in these classrooms but was relegated to being an add-on if the student had the right tools available and the knowledge to use them.

My school currently has a school-owned model which is also not ideal. We are looking to move to a student-owned model over the next few years which is somewhere in between #2-3 above - this is all in discussion right now. Our current model is simply not sustainable, economically speaking. Moving away from the school-owned model has been discussed in past years, but has always been knocked back for a variety of reasons, but it might just be the right time to make a change now.

Other considerations that you have to think about that play a major role in this decision include:

1) Money - Who is paying for the program? Included through tuition, a capital levy, or simply budgeted for every year? BYOD and school-owned models are both all about the money - when the school has the money and when it does not. This is why BYOD programs are popular in public schools back home, and seem to be part of the conversations in international schools when they just starting a 1:1 laptop program. It seems to me that international schools which start out with a BYOD program either keep with that model due to financial reasons, or change to a more integration friendly over over time.

2) Full Technology Integration - Are you aiming for a fully integrated program (meaning technology is available for use 24/7 on a 1:1 basis, with coaches/integrators available to support faculty, and with a possible shift away from dedicated technology classes and computer labs)? If you are getting rid of your computer labs and are expecting all teachers and students to use technology in the classroom whenever it is appropriate to enhance teaching and learning, then you need some kind of consistency with the tools on hand. In my opinion, this is where a BYOD program falls down, hard. Not all devices are created equal - I find it very hard to expect teachers to come up with innovative and engaging lessons which integrate technology, where they have to differentiate for the different learning styles and abilities of their students, as well as the myriad of devices that they might have in their hands that day. It can be done, but is it asking too much of the faculty?

3) School Program - Will the platform/machine be expected to support all aspects of a student's course load, or will the school maintain specialized labs and software licenses for these courses/purposes? If you have courses in your school which have special needs for hardware or software as most international schools do, then a BYOD program will have to be supplemented with specialized labs and software licensing schemes to get these tools into the hands of the students, whereas the other models above can somewhat mitigate these factors. For example, we have art, design technology and photography courses which use specialized software and have corresponding hardware requirements for running the software packages. With a BYOD program, all of these courses would either need to be outfitted with all of their own equipment to support them, or the courses would have to be completely overhauled and redesigned. The potential cost of providing the hardware and software for select students in these courses who do not have the right kind of device, constitutes having a bank of school-owned machines, which is contrary to the aims of a BYOD program. So would the school's program and/or curriculum change instead? Another example involves specific software that all students need to use to connect with various pieces of science equipment and probes. With a BYOD program there would be a large segment of every grade who would need to frequently borrow a laptop just to get their lab work done. Having to keep banks of machines on hand for student use is not cost effective in the long run.

4) Purpose - What is the overall purpose of introducing or bringing in a new piece of technology into a classroom, department, team or school? How will it be used in the classroom to enhance teaching and learning? These are the questions that come up in my mind whenever a new piece of technology is proposed, and these questions still apply to a whole 1:1 laptop program initiative. If you want to simply allow technology into the classrooms and see what happens, without great cost to the school, then a BYOD program could be the way to get started. But if you want to move towards a model where technology is ubiquitous and fully integrated into the classroom, then a lot of time, energy, thought and research should be invested beforehand to see which model best fits where your school is now and where it wants to be in the future.

In summary, for international schools where the stakeholders pay a lot of money in tuition, I think that there is a strong expectation for these schools to be on the leading edge with technology and integration (no matter who is paying for it all). Can a BYOD program deliver all of this in an international setting? Not in the long run - the continual frustration of having a huge mixture of devices in the classroom weighs down the faculty and leads to the eventual change in model to either a student-owned or school-owned model. My previous school started out with a hybrid BYOD model and now has firmly moved to a model which is close to #2 above. My current school still has the school-owned model which it started out with about 6-7 years ago, but is now considering changing to some form of a student-owned model. Note that the administration wants to explore moving to a BYOD program, but it is the recommendation of the tech department that we fall somewhere in between these two extremes.

What am I in favour of? A student-owned model which gives them ownership and responsibility of their machine, and allows them to take it with them when they leave the school or graduate. A model which levels the playing field for the student body, placing the same machine with the same set up and software on it, in the hands of the students and the faculty. I am in favour of a laptop program which supports teaching and learning, without placing a huge onus on the faculty. And finally, I am for placing technology in the hands of students which is ubiquitous and transformative to their learning.

On Computing Karma

Have you ever thought about your karma with respect to technology? The CK part of SNiCK stands for Computing Karma. Just what was I thinking?! If you think about all of the computer/tech using people that you know (and there should be a lot of them), you can probably pick out a few who fall into 2 special categories: those who can break/freeze/crash a computer just by looking at it sideways, and those who seemingly can fix a problem just by their mere presence in the room. You know this second kind of person - they are the one that you call or go to when you have that problem that just will not go away, and the problems disappears as soon as you show it to them (often without even touching the machine ;-). You might also know of someone who always has a problem with their machine, no matter the time or place (and for a special few, the problems are not only confined to computers but spread to the tv, mobile phone and the gps in the car - anything that has lights and goes "bing"). A select few of these people seem to have a powerful "field of disruption" around them which can mess with various technologies from a distance. Do you know who I'm talking about?

Is your Computing Karma more Yin or Yang?
On/Off?  0/1?

To me, these two small groups of people represent the far ends of the Computing Karma spectrum. Most people fall somewhere in between, but most people know someone who falls into one of these groups. These two groups often have some almost magical qualities about them. I think the word karma aptly describes the magical/mystical aura that surrounds these people. As a tech coach, some people place me firmly on the "fixing/healing" end of the spectrum. I have often encountered situations where the tech problem at hand gets solved or fixed or just plain disappears, just by walking into a room. I quite like the challenge of these kind of problems, as trying to debug what is actually going on without any evidence makes it fun, but that's just the programmer geek part of me speaking.

Furthermore, as a tech coach, I often encounter faculty members who fall closer to the other end of the spectrum, in the break/freeze/crash technology group. Yes, they really do exist, sometimes in large numbers within schools. Working with these staff members is also challenging and fun, as the problems that they bring to me are always unique and complex. Contrary to popular belief, I do not resent working with these kind of people - I embrace it. As the person in charge of our 1:1 laptop program, learning systems and faculty tech PD, the people who have a knack for breaking things often inadvertently find major issues with systems or hardware that were previously undiscovered, or they magically get to the root of an underlying systems problem without even knowing it. In the programming world, they try to make systems and computer programs "bullet-proof" and hire people to test and break software before releasing it. So I have a built in testing group like this, who have an inherent knack for breaking things, to rely on to find the bugs and problems with any new system that we rollout.


Can you change your computing karma? Is it set for life? Personally, I think you can, or else your karma changes from device to device as you try new technologies. I have worked with who could never understand one device (say a particular brand or type of mobile phone), but once they found one that clicks with them, it transformed how they used and interacted with the device. So maybe their Computing Karma changed with the device. Maybe the device has its own Computing Karma and it all depends on how well the two intersect/collide/enmesh with one another like the polarities of two magnets placed alongside each other - attraction vs repulsion.

So what does this have to do with tech coaching? The faculty that I work with all have varying levels of attraction and repulsion with the technology tools and systems that are in their classroom, in their hands, and used within the school. When I am working with a faculty member, whether it is in some kind of prescribed tech training or in a more collaborative coaching role, getting a read on the staff member's comfort levels and affinity with the tech tool is an important clue in how to approach the training session, at what level to offers the training, and what the end goal of the session should be. Getting a quick measure of someone's current Computing Karma with respect to the tech tool or system on hand, can make a real difference in the success of a training session. Sometimes, it's more about finding the right tool for the job which matches the person, then it is about fitting the person to the tool.

Where do you think your Computing Karma falls on the spectrum? What tech tools/systems do you have an affinity for?