BFTP: Framework for teaching and technology

To what degree should teachers be held accountable for the effective use of technology provided to them by their district? And if there should be accountability, how might it be assessed?

Many districts use Charlotte Danielson's Framework for Teaching as a guide for teacher evaluations.

Danielson organizes effective teaching practices into four domains each with several sub-domains:

Domain 1:  Planning and Preparation

• Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
• Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
• Setting Instructional Outcomes
• Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
• Designing Coherent Instruction Designing Student Assessments

Domain 2:  The Classroom Environment

• Creating an Environment of Respect   and Rapport
• Establishing a Culture for Learning
• Managing Classroom Procedures
• Managing Student Behavior Organizing Physical Space

Domain 3:  Instruction

• Communicating With Students
• Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
• Engaging Students in Learning 
• Using Assessment in Instruction
• Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness

Domain 4:  Professional Responsibilities

• Reflecting on Teaching
• Maintaining Accurate Records 
• Communicating with Families
• Participating in a Professional Community
• Growing and Developing Professionally
• Showing Professionalism  

I find little to disagree with in this list of teaching practices.

I've been doing a little digging in regard to Danielson's attention to the use of technology to support effective teaching practices. And I am not finding much. Danielson pays scant attention to technology (CDs, overhead projectors, calculators, and computers! p36 in Enhancing Professional Practice - 2007) in her book. The page and a half that addresses "electronic technology" emphasizes that technology is a tool, not an end, reminds readers of the digital divide, and excuses us oldies who are fearful of those new fangled gizmos. One of the "seven common themes" is appropriate use of technology. but descriptions of what constitutes "appropriate use," do not appear in the teacher assessment rubrics.

Danielson justifies this lack of technology use definition by saying that technology is not what teachers do buthow they do it. (p32). And I agree with that. But a case can be made for an inclusion for skillful technology use as a part of teacher assessment, whether using Frameworks or other tools. 

• First, effective technology use is still relatively new and not as well understood as traditional teaching practices by both teachers and those who evaluate them. There is no long history of effective practices that are a part of the culture of education. A simple guide would be a kindness.
• Second. communities through their very investment in educational technology demand that all teachers use and all student get the benefits from those investments. As educators and public servants we are not honoring the financial commitment made by our taxpayers if we do not require the use of the resources they provide. 
• Finally, this is one way to ensure that the skills and benefits students receive is not wholly dependent on the individual commitment to technology use by teachers. I don't think we are talking about "teacher-proofing" the curriculum here anymore than asking that every teacher teaches to a district curriculum, uses the selected textbook, or participates in expected home/school communications.

So, unless someone can point me to some who has already done this and  has made it available for anyone to use, I am going to be looking as some specific ways teachers can use "electronic technology" to do their jobs more effectively as suggested by the Danielson framework. (Seriously, let me know if you know of this having been done and save my weekend!)

Somehow we in technology have too long run on a parallel, but unconnected course with mainstream education - the world of curriculum directors, staff development coordinators and principals. Perhaps we need to change tactics with technology people working with mainstream tools, "frameworks, and goals rather than simply creating our own. I know I need to buckle down and do a better job of this my own district.

It's a concept.

My efforts here:

Domain 1:  Planning and Preparation

Domain 2:  The Classroom Environment

Domain 3:  Instruction

Domain 4:  Professional Responsibilities

Original post January 28, 2011

The role of the plunger

What would have happened if you and your organization, instead of working on today's crisis, built something worthwhile for tomorrow? Seth Godin

Mr. Godin, with all due respect:

_________________________________________________________________________

One nickname I was given in my former district was "The Plunger." I am sure there were many more that were unsuitable for publication in this blog, but I was proud of that particular sobriquet.

Big projects, especially those involving multiple parties needing to work together, often get stalled. Like a clog in a drain, special attention needs to be given to some problems in order to get the work flowing again. Hence the need for a project Plunger.

Here are a few things I've learned about removing the really big turds in project plumbing.

• Set deadlines in writing. And then review them now and then. Projects without deadlines tend to be pushed to the back burner when the daily alligators get high. Stephen Covey in his 7 Habits book writes about tasks that are important, but not urgent. Identifying deadlines ads urgency to the important tasks.
• Check in but don't micromanage. Regular meetings of internal staff provide a sense of urgency when reporting on project completion is always on the agenda. Personally, I hate to both micromanage and be micromanaged. Let people do their jobs as they see fit and only intervene when deadlines start making a loud whoosh as they speed by.
• Just pay for the unexpected expense. Too many projects stall when a unexpected piece of equipment or network installation or server upgrade or whatever pops up. Don't take weeks fighting with a contractor over reasonable expenses. Too often these disagreements become points of pride that lead to jams. Pony up and get moving.
• Call or visit in person, don't rely on e-mail. Do NOT reply on e-mail when waiting for a response from a person who needs to complete a task before your staff can complete a task. Pick up the g.d. phone and call. If you get voice mail, leave a message - but call again. Relying on asynchronous communication is among the biggest causes of delays. Oh, if folks be local, drop in. Unexpectedly. Squeaky wheels really do get the lube.
• Meet F2F or in conference calls. Bringing all parties together in complex project delays is among the best tactics to get things moving again. Define responsibilities. Establish revised deadlines. Articulate communication paths.
• Call the boss. If you are unsuccessfully dealing with inaction by a technician, call that technician's boss. Don't tattle, but problem-solve.
• Go to the top - but only in real emergencies. Now and then I need to talk to the CEO of an organization with whom I am working. But usually only do this in a genuine emergency, usually if the health or well-being of human beings are at stake. Pull this string too often you will get the rep of the boy who cried wolf. Save these calls so when you have to make them, the recipient will know you are damn serious.
• Keep your boss in the loop and document your efforts to CYA. "Nuff said.

Big projects often come with big headaches. As Burns wrote, "The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men, Gang aft agley." But knowing the road ahead may have bumps shouldn't keep you from moving your organization forward.

Happy plunging.