Google Meets the 4 C's

Check out how so many of Google's Tools can enhance the 4 C's in your classroom! Explore this Symbaloo to see what Google can do for you! Starting at the top left, tools are arranged by communication, collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking. Make a goal for your class today and begin using some of these great tools!

iPad Appaholic

A few years ago, my friend and fellow GCT, Brandon Wislocki, presented Appaholics Anonymous at FETC, and I had the pleasure of co-presenting with him. It was a lot of fun to throw out apps with a  quick review and then hear what apps others are using.

I quite often hear people say, "Tell me what apps I need." Although I don't think there's one right answer to that question, I have updated my go-to list. Truth is, the way each teacher uses an app is going to differ from class to class.

One thing I think we should do consistently, however, is look for apps that are not content specific, and instead are based around the four C's of creativity, communication, collaboration, and critical thinking. Creating instead of consuming has become a big focus for educators, and although there may be a plethora of apps designed to provide practice through games, flashcards, and the like, we need to focus on the ability to differentiate, personalize, and encourage critical thinking.

The apps in this Symbaloo are arranged with one each of the 4C's in a corner, and general tools for everyone in the middle. Feel free to add this to your mix, and share apps that may have been omitted!

Losing the Buzz Before We Get There

Recently, I read this article, titled 5 Educational Buzzwords that are Losing Their Buzz. The idea intrigued me. My initial reaction was that this would be a great resource to use with schools that are moving into the realm of "21st Century Skills" (that phrase is going to come up again very soon). But when I finished reading, I had an entirely different perspective. It resonated with me so much with me that I felt I needed to respond openly about it.

First, I have to make it understood that I don't disagree with the author. The facts and supporting information listed explaining why each of these items have shifted to the wayside makes sense. For example, numbers three and four on the list were blogs and Web 2.0 (the original author also saw the irony there). In 2007, I authored my graduate thesis on these topics. They were not a new concept then. Coupled with the fact that I think technology years are something like dog years (one human year = seven dog years), even emerging technologies from 7 years ago are now ancient. Think about the amount of technology you have deemed obsolete in seven years. So have these topics lost their buzz? Well... keep reading.

My concern is this - I live in the midwest. And when I say "midwest," I mean the area you've seen on movies and think, "Oh my gosh! That little town is so cute! They don't have a stoplight and everyone knows everyone else!" You know, one-horse-town midwest.

There are a few metropolitan areas within driving distances (50 miles to a town with a population of 164,000), but in our immediate area, think small. Really, really, small. Internet access in our areas is poor. Cellular service is spotty. However, many schools in the area are recognizing the necessity to integrate technology, and are launching this effort, regardless of the capabilities (or lack of) with the network.

So the key word there is launching. That means a focus on technology integration, 1:1 programs, "21st century skills," and "student-centered learning" is beginning. When areas of our country are moving on and students have access to very advanced programs and opportunity, some students in little, remote, rural areas are just getting started with these buzzwords that are essentially outdated. This presents a huge challenge. I believe that these buzzwords are a foundation for innovation in schools today. Because educators, just like our kids, are at every level on the ability scale, and because where I'm from, new opportunities move so much slower (and so does our network speed), we need to be prepared to utilize those buzzed-out learning opportunities.

I discussed this with a like-minded educator over the weekend. As we talked, I asked this question, "OK, so these things are outdated, but our teachers have never heard of them before. What do we do?"

I would like to hear other opinions on this, and I'll go ahead and give you mine. Just like in the classroom, we differentiate for our learners. In a 5th grade classroom that I taught, I had a range of reading levels from 1st grade to 9th grade. I figured out how to make sure everyone could find information that was appropriate for their level. When teaching adults, the same thing applies. From experience, I know that a similar range of ability is present with technology skills in both students and teachers.

Just like with our students, we have to figure out where our teachers are in technology integration. Maybe you'll use a scale like this one, one that's built around the four C's, not technology. Maybe it will be something different. Regardless, you (or a teacher you work with) may need to start using blogs to get kids to collaborate depending on skills, mindsets, and network capabilities. Some teachers are going to jump in and begin using Skype, FaceTime, or Google Hangouts to collaborate without hesitation. Our job is to differentiate, challenge, and support. That's what it's all about.

I do believe that the thoughts I'm sharing were recognized when the article I am responding to was initially written. I believe that when the author gathered his thoughts on this, it was presented as a challenge, encouraging us to move to the next level, because (we all know this), we get in our comfort zones and stay there.

So, are the following words outdated?
Student-centered
21st Century Learning Skills
Blogs
Web 2.0
ePortfolios

In my opinion, based on geography and skill level, some of them are not. That being said, should we be content with reaching these levels? No. I believe that in all we do, we need to strive to get to the next level. Whatever that might be, and whatever level we may operate on, even if it is dog-years old.

What if.... We went 1:X instead of 1:1?

I had a great conversation with a fellow GCT recently, and we discussed the idea of 1:1 programs. He brought up a valid point - often, a 1:1 program is adopted, but the technology alone doesn't make a transforming difference in the classroom. We appreciate the new tools. They're faster, easier, and (hopefully) more engaging than using paper and pencil, but if we treat the technology like a $1,000 pencil and paper, that's what we'll get in return. What makes these programs a success is when students and teachers are reaching the upper levels of SAMR and Bloom's in real and relevant learning opportunities.

This also got me thinking about device selection.  Being a part of five different 1:1 programs, I've employed successful use of laptops, Chromebooks, and iPads. Often, I am asked by colleagues what device they should choose.  My answer is, "What are you wanting students to be able to do as a result of your 1:1 program?" It's not about the device. It's about how it's used, just like my friend and I discussed.

Every device has its strengths, just like we do as learners. As educators, we employ all kinds of strategies to reach all students. Within one classroom, we will differentiate for strengths and enrichment, weaknesses, capabilities, and resources. We recognize that all students are different. And I think we recognize that our resources are different, too. The good news is that we do have direct control over the differences in our resources.

Think about the last time you went to a meeting or a conference. What device did you bring? Here's what that looks like for me:

Yes, I am that person. The one that has at least two devices connected to the network, and a third that is using cellular data just in case the network gets overloaded. I'll use these devices differently depending on what I'm doing while at the conference (and what my physical surroundings are like).

So for example, during a keynote, I'm probably using my iPad mini or my phone to tweet (again, depending on network). During a featured session, if I'm sitting at a table, I'll probably use my laptop to tweet and my phone to take pictures. If I'm sitting in a lecture hall, I'll do that with my iPad. I'm sure this sounds familiar to many. Let's transfer this real life aspect to the classroom.

In the classroom, if we provided students with multiple devices (or had a very good BYOD program), our students could be empowered by the capabilities of each unique device. Let's say, for example, that my students are involved in a lesson in which they are collecting data to develop a new product. If they are using a feature like Google Forms to develop their survey, they'll probably want a keyboard, so a Chromebook or laptop would be best. When they are out collecting that data, a tablet would be the best option (as long as they stay on network). When analyzing that data, again, a laptop or Chromebook would be best, and when they present that new product to their class, the device choice would vary greatly depending on presentation choice. Considering the different ways students can present, from PowerPoints, Google Slides, infographics, and videos, the go-to device will change daily.

As a former director of technology, implementing 1:X was at the top of my priority list. In our testing phase, we began four classroom 1:X projects, and devices varied from laptops, desktops, Chromebooks, and iPads. In a true student-centered classroom, it worked beautifully. Students loved the voice and choice they had, not only with research and their end products, but also with devices. Meeting all of the four C's was a natural result.

Trying to grasp that student voice, I once asked fourth grade students in a 1:X classroom how being able to choose their device affected progress in research and presentation. The student liked it, no doubt about that. But the bigger take-away for me was that 1:X was so like the students' own personal lives, they hadn't even realized that there would be anything other than choice.

There are some big stumbling blocks with 1:X. Costs, repair, and network capacity are enough to make the technology department stop and hyperventilate for a few moments. But I think that the opportunity for students is enough that we should look to get around those barriers. They will, after all, be the same barriers faced regardless.

We need to constantly be asking ourselves what if, and why. If our answers are management, financial obligations, or because someone else did it, those are the wrong answers. If our answers are things like empowering students, differentiating instruction, and creating, we're on the right track. Going back to the conversation about successful 1:1 programs, it's not about the stuff. It's about what students are doing with it.