Wifi is Arriving: A New Dawn
“Technology is now considered by most educators and parents to be an integral part of providing a high-quality education” (U.S. DOE, 2003, p. 3)
Today’s education system has been given the task of preparing students to be ready for a world where multi-literacies are a must. Students are to be taught more than just the core subjects – they are to be prepared for a world of global networking and linguistic skills, far beyond those found in simply using their mother tongue. Today, I would like to examine how our education system is developing to provide teachers with opportunities to foster student development and create meaningful, real-world learning experiences.
My district is part of the stone age. It is 2015 and FINALLY we will be installing WIFI into all of our schools. If I were to say I worked in the back and beyond, perhaps then it may be acceptable (although they probably have wifi so as not be entirely remote!) – but no, my school district is the little wealthy enclave outside Vancouver, known as New Westminster. Somehow, despite being available to the mass people since the early 2000’s, New West has only JUST discovered it!
The British Columbia Education System is currently under revamp and incorporating technology into all aspects of our teaching high on the list of expectations. This makes sense as technology is becoming the medium to transmit all of our information, from correspondence by email, to speaking through text, to solving complex linear equations through group analysis with people around the globe, and many more! But there are several things holding teachers back as well as the education system, from making this leap. Today I will discuss two of these: Teachers and Districts.
As we ourselves as educators become more comfortable using technology we begin to be curious as to how we could integrate technology in more meaningful ways into our classrooms. Unfortunately, teachers pedagogical beliefs and their technology practices are heavily rooted in their experiences. “Teachers who know the same things about technology might believe different things about its use. (Ertmer, P. a. (2005), p. 30)” Ertmer examined how teachers beliefs about technology were formed and came to the conclusion that the only way teachers will make leaps and bounds in their ability to meaningfully integrate technology into their classrooms is to be provided with experiential Pro-D experiences where technologies are introduced and tried!
Another way would be during pre-service training where technology is incorporated into the units of study. A great example of this is the Pre-service teacher who had a supervising teacher who used technology was more likely to use it themselves, than students who did not (Ertmer, p. 33). I saw this with my student teacher this fall. She had never used a Smartboard before but I use it every class and encouraged her to give it a try. She was hooked and will likely never look back!
Secondly, regardless of whether teachers believe in incorporating technology, our districts play a huge role in whether teachers even feel as though they could try integrating more technologies into their classrooms. The district influences teachers in two ways: firstly, by supply the resources, and secondly, by providing adequate pro-d to facilitate teacher development. Technology is hugely unsustainable, and therefore, very costly, as new technologies are constantly becoming the latest gadget every school needs. When districts (like mine!) limit accessibility to wifi – teachers who may have had a brilliant and meaningful idea – get stung by the inability to complete it easily. The more often ideas become impossible, the less likely teachers are to keep trying. By providing adequate resources (like connectivity) it becomes possible for movements that are more sustainable, such as the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) movement, to occur and facilitate meaningful learning experiences that foster technology educational development. Encouraging professional development that really aims to help teachers
According to O’Donnell and Engell (1999), the only sustainable technology currently is papyrus – and our students do need to know how to use it! But according to Ong, writing and print and the computer are all ways of technologizing the world (p. 79). We need to facilitate good uses of all types of technology within our classrooms and teachers need to be willing to try and districts need to be available to offer that support.
I can not wait to see what I will be able to do once I have Wifi in my classroom! Let the games begin – I am ready to experiment! I am also excited to see what else my district supplies us with (a technology fascilator for starters!) and the professional development opportunities that arise that can foster technology development within the new curriculum.
References:
Cambridge Forum radio broadcast: From Papyrus to Cyberspace, 1999 with James O’Donnell and James Engell
Ertmer, P. a. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39. doi:10.1007/BF02504683
Ong, Walter. (1982.) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Federal funding for educational technology and how it is used in the class- room: A summary of findings from the Integrated Studies of Educational Technology. Office of the Under Secre- tary, Policy and Program Studies Service: Washing- ton, D.C. (Found within Ertmer, P (2005))
Great post Sarah! You touch on so many of the ideas that I find frustrating within my own school system. Unlike you, we have been lucky enough to have Wifi for awhile and just a couple of years ago the government fulfilled a promise to put SMARTboards in every classroom in our province. My school has done fundraising, and we now have close to one hundred iPads for our K-3 school. But, we have one tech person for all three schools in our area (about 1800 students total). He is scheduled at my school on Wednesdays and Friday afternoons. How can one person handle all the technology issues that arrive with that amount of technology? Due to my own personal interest in technology, I have been helping out as much as I can, but I can only do what I can get done in my spare time (and with two young children, a full time job and Master’s courses, you can understand spare time is pretty rare).
To add insult to injury, I applied to the board for educational leave to finish my Masters and was told that preference was given to those enrolled in Administration (though we already have three teachers on staff with a Masters in Administration, besides the existing principal and vice principal). They want us to have 21st century learners and they expect us to incorporate the technology into our teaching routines, but they are not prepared to support us in this endeavour. This year we we’re only given two days of pro-d and it was the same topic on both days, completely unrelated to technology! This time could have been much better spent introducing some technology to those teachers that need the meaningful experiences that you quote from Ertmer. In a study by Inan and Lowther (2010), overall support was found to have the strongest indirect effect on integration of technology in the classroom (p.145). If our governments and school boards were as committed to technology as they try to appear, there would be more support for teachers in the schools. When I started teaching about thirteen years ago, there was a teacher in the school assigned to technology. Now when we would think we are more in need of this support, they are removing it. This does not seem to be the most logical way to do things.
Fethi A. Inan and Deborah L. Lowther
Educational Technology Research and Development
Vol. 58, No. 2 (April 2010), pp. 137-154
Great post Sarah! I agree that the delivery of knowledge and learning has changed dramatically over a period of time. I have come to a point that I feel that I cannot imagine teaching without internet. Wireless technology like mobile phone and tablets have become a commodity, therefore students are becoming more and more comfortable using them as they are using it at home or organizing their academics etc.
In all my schools where I have taught they were pro toward the use of technology. In my present job majority of students are ESL. Therefore integration of technology make difficult language or abstract math concepts visible which they can relate. This makes it easier to comprehend the difficult concepts.
As we know that change always bring benefits and drawbacks. Therefore one of the biggest challenge which educators are nowadays facing is the distraction caused by wireless devices. Our kids have become efficient in multi-tasking. For them sending instant messaging or Facebook update is just a click away. Here the questions comes back to teacher as distraction caused by using wireless devices or computers might be the result of failure to involve students in classroom rather than the reason they are not involved and engaged.
Hi Sarah,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts/reflections on the plight of the current education system here in B.C. I think that your sentiment is largely felt and shared amongst many educators here in the province, however, as you had mentioned, the spectrum of technological integration is varied amongst the districts.
I recently attended a seminar with a representative from SET-BC, and was informed that SET-BC is changing up their delivery model to help support technology integration in more holistic and prolific ways here in the province. Apparently, one of the new services offered by the organization is one of coaching and training for teachers who wish to better integrate technology in their classrooms. That being said, I would assume that anyone who is taking the MET program probably wants to be able to be in a role in which they can support their own districts in the way that SET-BC is aiming to offer support, but perhaps this movement will cause a ripple effect that will allow district administrators to see that teachers with educational technology degrees are indeed value added?
Here’s a link to new service model if you are interested: http://www.setbc.org/download/public/SET-BC_New_Service_Delivery_Model_2014-12-11b.pdf
– Yik Wah
Thanks Yik Wah! I got that through our UDL group and am currently grappling with how it could be an effective use of my time and my students time. I have worked with SetBC a few times and really enjoy it but as I was talking to a colleague about signing up for some technology on loan, we realized, it would be on loan.. which meant I could develop some great techniques to incorporate it into my teaching.. but ultimately.. the next year it would be gone. What are your thoughts about that? Is it worth it? I’m really debating the BYOD model instead…!
Distraction due to wireless devices is a primary concern at my school too. And from what I remember in the Cambridge forums, it is also a concern of O’Donnell and Engell, although they do not refer specifically to wireless devices, I think you could rather easily infer it from their concerns of the effects of the oncoming knowledge society. Although from what I read so far in Ong’s book Orality and Literacy, he takes a rather balanced “sitting on the fence” approach as he straddles the benefits of orality and literacy. If Ong were to write a book on 2015, I wonder what he would write? What would it be called?
Susan, your post really made me think of the phrase “if a tree falls in the forest, does anyone hear it?” This refers to the question if an event happens and no one is there to witness it, does it actually happen? Is it possible to crave for chocolate ice cream if you’ve never heard, seen or tasted it before? Is it possible to crave the “good life” if you’ve never heard, seen or experienced it? Is it possible that the district of New Westminister is simply accustomed to the lack of wifi and have developed strategies to work around it?
Another question I have is just because I can touch it on a screen or swipe it, does that action imply that I am somehow learning the lesson in a more meaningful way than if I made a posterboard? Or a real model of a bridge? Or a genuine electrical circuit using batteries, breadboard and resistors?
I cannot speak for O’Donnell and Engell, the audio-cast of the Cambridge forum was just that, it was an oral activity. Reading Ong’s book however took much longer and therefore made bigger impact on me. I feel that Ong would have much to say about this topic.
My title in my school district is Lead Technology Integration Teacher. My role is to mentor and assist teachers in integrating technology with curriculum. Some schools have access to more of a variety of technology depending mostly on the success of the PAC, and the purchases made through their fundraising. Sometimes this leads to the “have and have nots” in regards to current technology. UnfortunateIy I would say you qualify as a “have not”. So I will share with you what I share with my other “have not” colleagues. Remember, technology is only a tool, it is not the learning outcomes or the content we teach. You have technology, is it just aged compared to some. Although I completely understand your frustration, I have become quite creative with mimicking technologies. I once downloaded a Smart Exchange lesson from home, loaded it on a memory stick as I was teaching at a school without wireless, projected the lesson onto a standard white board so we could write and interact with he lesson on a regular white board. The students were perfectly capable of manipulating the items from the computer rather than a touch screen. The lesson went just as well as at a school the previous day with a Smartboard.
The “haves” are having problems now too. Smart Technologies has changed their software licensing. You now can only have software loaded onto 4 machines to run the Smartboard. This is learning to a management nightmare. Districts have purchased Smartboards under the impression that whomever uses the board has access to the software. But now districts are being forced to purchase site licenses at a high cost and in some classrooms there are unusable boards because they can’t load software onto machines until an inventory of how many machines have the software needs to be done. Yikes.
With budgets driving education, it is getting harder and harder to keep up with current technologies. Teachers are continually being as creative as possible to do the best for our students with what we area given. New curriculum is being written with the understanding of new technologies as an underlying theme. Unfortunately it comes with a lack of funding to support it. I fear we may never catch up with the moving target of current technologies.
Thanks Corinne! I have definitely come to terms with being a “have not” and love the fact that it challenges me to be creative and to be reflective about whether or not technology actually ADDS to my students learning vs. is a distraction.
I was reflecting the other day on when I first started teaching here in New West – I had so many different ideas and was incorporating technology into my LA classes with every project. As the years go by, I offer it, but more and more, I like to challenge them to be great writers and to be creative and to be confident … and if they need technology to help them in some way, great – it’s a tool – but it’s not the skill itself.
I didn’t want my post to come across as a complaint – I am happy to teach confidence and how to be a kind person without all the bells and whistles that come with new laptops, wifi, etc. I guess the challenge is to keep being creative when you feel stifled in so many ways. This is a challenge in public schools around the world – the funding is minimal – technology isn’t sustainable – software needs CONSTANT updates and everything costs money!
I wonder what my classroom will be like in 10 years! What is going to change and what will stay the same? ..!
Interesting information regarding Smart Technologies. I love my SmartBoard and use it daily, but I recently found out that Vancouver will not be installing them anymore and won’t replace them as they wear out. Perhaps it’s partially due to the licencing that you describe.
I do think that it would be almost as effect with simply a projector based on the way that I use it. I find that it’s faster (and neater) to simply type rather than to use the pens. As well, I’m also faster and more accurate using the mouse over my finger. It is nice to have students able to come up and demonstrate/manipulate things, but I’m not sure it’s that much more effective than a whiteboard or chalkboard.
I don’t know what I’d do if I moved to another school/district without projection technologies. I have years worth of lessons/plans on my drive. It’s actually a bit of a scary thought.
It is a shame that we have to rely so heavily on PACs in BC because it really has made us a district of ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. I sometimes feel guilty working at my present school that encourages us to spend money on resources and technology, I haven’t always been in this position, and I know many other aren’t. There needs to be a more equitable funding strategy put into place.
Connie, I do the same job as you but I don’t have the nice title! They just give me some release time to do it.
Anyways, what you mentioned reminds me of a term I stumbled upon while reading Chandler’s essays. He refers to the difference between technology-push theory versus demand-pull theory. To summarize, are we being controlled by technology or is technology in control of us? Exactly what is the pecking order?
I think what you mentioned in the Smart software is a prime example. Who is in control here? You are correct in that Smart recently changed their licensing so that each Smart projector or Smartboard purchase only allows four licenses of the software. This is in response to the problem that people are buying devices such as the Epson BrightLink interactive projector or Mimeo Interactive device (works with any projector) and using th Smart software. Ontario school district, or it may be the Catholic school district in Ontario … not sure which one. They recently took Smart to court to challenge Smart’s refusal to sell software licenses unless you also purchase their hardware. This was Smart Tech’s way of saying that they do not want their software to be used with other interactive products. Ontario teachers won, and you can now purchase Smart Notebook for use with any interactive device.
The Interactive whiteboard industry has gone through a major overhaul in the last seven to nine years. When it first started, you had to rip out our whiteboard and replace it with a Smartboard and a projector. So you had to do all the contruction to remove your whiteboard which often involved cutting your pen tray in half and fixing the walls. They you had to install the Smartboard AND wall mounted projector. Not to mention you have to buy BOTH of these devices. that was quite the cost.
Today, you can buy an interactive projector WITHOUT the smartboard. The interactivity is built into a small sensor that mounts on the wall. Its that easy. Not to mention this adds finger touch as well as pen touch. On top of that, its multi-touch as well. The original Smartboard is a single touch only. The pricing is where the changes are most evident. The original Smartboard we installed eight years ago costed over $5K for the projector and the Smartboard. This does not include installation.
Today, the Smart Lightraise 60wi costs < $2K and includes two pens, the sensor and the entire multi-touch interactive package with four software licenses. And you do not have to rip out your whiteboard. You project ontop of a whiteboard. By the way, they just released a Lightraise 60wi2 that is 3500 lumens (brightness).
Looking at the competing product, I feel the Epson BrightLink is a superior product. It has a much better warranty and more input choices. However, its only a tiny bit cheaper than the Lightraise and does not come with software. That is why we went with the Lightraise 60wi's.
Sarah,
I taught in New West for a year and felt your Wifi/tech pain. Then I got a job in South Surrey and what a difference! Unlike New West, I have found Surrey to be very supportive of teachers integrating technology into their classrooms. There are tons of Pro-D days dedicated to introducing different technologies to teachers, and Surrey puts on a dinner series once a month called the Engaging the Digital Learner series, where teachers in the district share how they are incorporating technology into their classrooms, and other “tech savvy” people for lack of a better word present their ideas. I found it to be very inspiring and provided concrete examples and tips/advice for how you could use tech in your classroom. Don’t worry, New West will eventually get it together. Here is a link to one of the presentations from the series about incorporating technology into gym class. https://youtu.be/kn2PbUSduc4
Kara
I guess that is not surprising Sarah, if you compare Surrey to New West. You are probably comparing the largest school district to the smallest one. The advantage of course is a greater ability to invoke an economy of scale. On the other hand, I’m sure there are many advantages to working for a small tight-knit school district like New West.
That is very interesting what Surrey does to support tech. At our school, I get a couple of release blocks that are dedicated to supporting teachers and their technology needs. This include putting on staff meeting demonstrations, running in-service programs, attending various seminars and bringing back the good stuff so-to-speak. I also get one release block to manage all the IT and network stuff. What ends up happening is that some days I’ll use all three blocks to manage the IT infrastructure, other days I’ll use all three blocks to help teachers use technology the way they see fit.
All of this makes me think about something I just read in one of Chandler’s essays on Techno-Evolution. Have we reach the point of no return in our technology evolution where we cannot live without our computers and devices? If my computer network shut down at school, or our internet went down, could we still operate? I am not sure. (By the way, we bridge two internet connections … one from Shaw and one from Telus. I one fails the other picks it up automatically with the exception of those services that depend on a static IP address).
Thanks for sharing that presentation, Kara. Lots of examples of educational technology in a domain we normally wouldn’t expect it.
Thanks for your post. I have a few things that I’d like to add to the conversation. First, the addition of Wi-fi so recently in your school district is a bit shocking considering your socio-economic area (as you described it). Our board has had Wi-fi for several years now but I think that it was actually more about BYOD and reducing costs of maintaining and upgrading computers than it was for student learning and/or convenience. Since I arrived at my new school two years ago, we’ve lost two computer labs and they are not being replaced. Our student enrolment has stayed the same; the board says “use the Wi-fi on the devices that students have anyway”. While this may be true, it really does seem like Wi-fi was a way to save money rather than increase student achievement.
Secondly, I would like to respond to the comment about pre-service teachers and their use of technology. Personally, I think the old model of one year teacher’s college is a complete joke. How can you be classroom ready after two placements? I’m glad to see that Ontario is changing that model and doubling the time to get into the classroom. I’m old now; when I went to university the first time, we had a four year B.Ed program and in each year I was in the classroom. We did a whopping two or three session ‘technology in the classroom seminar’. I learned how to load film into a projector and how to make an overheard on a machine (be careful not to melt it!). Needless to say, this was before the internet and when technology meant a chalkboard or filmstrip projector. I do believe that more time should be spent on technology and how to use it properly prior to being in the classroom. However, who is to say that the schools will have it anyway? I had to a take a program called ILP through my board (please don’t ask what it stands for as I’ve blocked it from my memory) and in the end, I got a laptop computer and projector in my classroom. Woo. The problem is that is runs on our Wi-fi network (that isn’t that reliable) and I have just one…for me. I can use it at point of instruction and so forth, but it really doesn’t help my students much.
Anyway, in summary, it is interesting to see the inconsistency across the country with respect to Wi-fi access, teacher training and so forth.
Jody, thanks for the post, I really enjoyed reading what you said about technology class in teacher training and how to load film and use a projector!
As for your remarks about teacher college. I did my PDP at UBC 12 years ago. I remember when I started my practicum, my teacher supervisor told me to forget everything I learned at UBC. I thought he was joking but he wasn’t. He said he was going to how me “how its really done” and he did just that. This was a difficult situation as my program supervisor at UBC required me to follow their criteria.
I don’t think Faculty of Teaching has any other option but to run their programs the way they do. Pre-service teachers are grouped by cohort (PE teachers, science, socials, tech-ed). Then they proceed through their cohort specific programs. But UBC would not know where you are going to teach. Will you be in a school located in a white collared neighbourhood where kids get dropped of in BMW’s? Or are you going to teach in a school located in blue collared neighbourhood where both parents work and kids get dropped off in Toyota Corollas?
Its the same situation when I took my comp-sci degree. They simply do not know if I’m going to be making video games, phone apps, programming robotic controls in a manufacturing facility, working with scientists collecting data for algae blooms or data-mining for a big business.
I’ve been teaching for 9 years (10 including TOC), I still feel that I’m not able to step into another classroom if the community demographics are different that the school I’m teaching in right now.
Sarah you make some very important points.
We have wifi in our school for a while however the server capability was only recently upgraded this past Spring Break. So even with Wi-Fi access prior to March it still could mean significant download/lag times.
In response to Daniel’s comment about living without our devices, the Wi-Fi in our school was down for one morning April and it was definitely an awakening of how dependent my students have become to their devices and the tools we use at school. With my grade 6/7 class, we in put in practice Technology Free Wednesday mornings, with exceptions if required. The purpose was to make ourselves aware of how much we use technology and especially for my students that it doesn’t become their third arm.
Our school recently purchased ipad carts for our school. Some teachers were leery about using them on a regular basis in the classroom because of what Sarah had mentioned about Pro-D training and time to practice with the application to feel confident enough to use it in a lesson. In order for strides to be made in online technologies, resources have to be put in place to support teachers as professional development is considered a crucial component to educational improvement (Killion & Williams, 2009). As online students, I wonder if there is any interest to have online professional development opportunities? Online opportunities could be asynchronous or synchronous allowing teachers to use tools such as YouTube, Moodle, videoconferencing, or online meetings to further their knowledge
In addition, it can be easy for the focus to become the technology itself instead of the process of whatever is being learned. We were introduced to a program called Kahoot.ca in which a teacher can form questions to then ‘test’ or poll their students on. The students find it very interactive and competitive because the top 5 scores are shown after each question. The students were intrigued to use an Ipad/computer in this game scenario but it’s still important to note teachers still need to have their learning objective in the forefront and choose meaningful topics and activities, use effective technology, and encourage collaboration among their students (Kerr, 2009) in order to promote meaningful student-student interactions while using technology.
Kerr, C. (2009). Creating Asynchronous Online Learning Communities. Ontario Action Researcher, 10(2), 1-20.
Killion, J. & Williams, C. (2009). Online professional development. Multimedia and Internet at Schools, 16(4), 8-10.