"Is there really a difference in student performance with technology compared to without technology? My students seem to be doing just fine without it."
I guess that depends on how you define student performance and success. If success is measured only by a test score or by mastery of content, then perhaps students are successful without technology.
"My classes are always engaged and seem to do just fine without technology."
I guess that depends on how you define engaged. I think it's important for students to do things that reflect the world we live in, not the world we grew up in.
"I want to see the proof that technology improves learning before we purchase any new tech."
Whether technology improves learning or not isn't about the technology itself, but how teachers and students use the technology to improve learning.
I hear many stories about failed technology initiatives in schools. The technology was not used to the fullest, or worse it was not used at all. The narrative is all too familiar. Little was done to gather input or get buy-in from stakeholders up front, and little was done to support the implementation after the fact. How many smartboards in this country are being used as glorified projector screens? Almost always, these types of failures are avoidable with proper planning and ongoing support.
But is it really worth it to invest thousands for technology in schools. Is it reasonable to provide a connected device to every student? For years, I've asked my graduate students to think about technology purchases in their own schools. Did it really pay off to buy the technology? Did the technology allow something to be done that couldn't be done before? Was the total cost of ownership considered?
After all, most studies I've encountered don't really support the idea that technology raises student achievement. Of course, student achievement in these studies is usually narrowly defined by test scores. One study I read concluded that technology even widens the achievement gap. It found that more privileged students tend to use the devices more often for learning, while less privileged students tend to use the devices for entertainment.
In spite of these discouraging reports, I believe we need to look further before concluding that technology isn't worth it. As schools consider spending for new technology, there needs to be a clear vision of what success will look like. We need to really explore why we are doing what we're doing. In addition to the questions mentioned before, I would also suggest the following as food for thought.
1. Can we afford NOT to place up-to-date technology in the hands of our students?
Technology is how things get done in our modern world. We aren't preparing students for the world we grew up in. We aren't even preparing students to be successful in the world they grew up in. Our world is changing so fast, our students are going to have to be prepared for anything. That requires adaptability. And it will certainly also include adaptability with the use of technology. Those skills aren't measured on standardized tests. They are measured in authentic situations where real work is being done.
2. Is technology being used in ways that give students greater ownership of learning? Does technology result in a shift in agency to the learner?
It's wise to think of technology in terms of value added. How does technology allow us to do something better than before? And, how is it allowing us to do something we couldn't do before? There are many ways tech improves things we do or allows for new things. But some uses of technology take learning to the next level. These uses are game-changers.
I would like to see technology being used to create big shifts in learning. One of the biggest shifts is to create more authentic, student-driven learning experiences. Technology is a game changer when it is used to shift agency to the learner. It's a game-changer when students take greater ownership of their learning.
So let's consider interactive white boards. They have some possibilities for student agency I guess, but they are probably used more often for direct instruction, led by the teacher. That doesn't mean we should stop using these tools altogether, but I do think we should strive for technology to be used in more authentic ways, where students are given voice and choice and are creating and solving problems.
The most powerful potential for a shift in agency is for students to have access to a connected device in a BYOD or 1:1 scenario. But access is not enough. Just like there are lots of interactive white boards being used as glorified projector screens, there are also lots of laptops being used as overpriced word processors.
To use technology to the fullest, we need leaders in our classrooms and schools who can facilitate a pedagogy that creates greater student ownership of learning. How we use the technology is the critical issue that determines whether the investment pays off or not. So whether you invest in iPads or Chromebooks or some other device, the key question to remember is how will this technology improve student learning?
Question: How do you know technology use is successful in your school? Is it worth the cost? I want to hear from you. Leave a comment below or respond on Twitter or Facebook.
A recent article came across my feed that caught my attention, Why High Schools Are Getting Rid of Valedictorians. It was especially timely since I'd just had a conversation about this topic with a principal from another school in our area. He was interested to know if we still recognized valedictorian or not. We do not. In fact, we haven't had a valedictorian since before I arrived on the scene 8 years ago. I'm not sure how long that decision had been in place before my arrival.
According to a recent article in The Washington Post, American students today are unmotivated and apathetic about their schoolwork, and teachers actually care more about students' grades than the student. Teachers are expected to make lessons more engaging and fun, and to serve more like entertainers than old-fashioned teachers.
The author of the article contends that schools are ending the valedictorian award "because it might make others feel badly about their GPAs." According the article, this decision is just more evidence that schools are lowering expectations. The author seems to draw connections between elimination of valedictorian and student apathy, mediocrity, and even the performance of the United States education system in international rankings. Those are sweeping generalizations with very little evidence to support the claims.
In truth, the school leaders I've spoken with have very different reasons for dumping valedictorian than those presented in the article. Valedictorian recognizes the top student in the class based on GPA. However, GPAs are a terrible way to determine one student as being the best. Often, the difference between the top few students can be less than one-thousandth of a decimal point. And the factors that determine that difference usually have more to do with what classes the students did or did not take than actual academic performance.
For example, we had a student a few years ago who was a National Merit Scholar finalist and had perfect grades in high school. That's right, straight A's. However, his class rank was not even in the top 3 or 4 of his graduating class. How can that be? Well, he was an all-state musician and took multiple music classes every semester. These classes are not weighted in the GPA. Fortunately, he didn't play the GPA game to be the "top of his class" or we would have missed his outstanding musical contributions in our school.
And it is a mathematical game. I could go on with more examples of how the system can be manipulated and often results in students taking classes strategically to have the highest GPA instead of taking classes because they are beneficial to their own future aspirations.
So the decision to get rid of valedictorian has nothing to do with lowering expectations or protecting other students' feelings. In place of valedictorian, our school honors the highest performing students with a cum laude system, so students who earn above a certain GPA are recognized for their academic achievements. Our students wear medallions at graduation to note this distinction.
Moreover, we no longer provide information to students on class rank. It's no longer on the grade card or the official transcript. We only provide the class rank information if it's needed specifically for scholarship purposes.
And that decision is based on a purpose larger than the fairness of the GPA system. We want to encourage students to learn from mistakes, explore a variety of interests, and become better people as a result of their schooling. The GPA system does not reward growth or risk-taking. It rewards perfection and right answers. Stanford Professor Carol Dweck's research on growth mindset is clear that labeling performance is not healthy for improving performance. Instead, the focus should remain on effort, improvement, and dealing with setbacks.
Students cannot always control the results or outcomes in life, but they can always control their effort and their attitude. The loss of valedictorian isn't harmful for motivation or performance. However, labeling students can be harmful for motivation and hurtful to healthy attitudes about learning. One mom shared how the pursuit of valedictorian was not beneficial to her perfectionist daughter.
When educators talk about why their high schools have given up the award, they note the negative message it sends to the kids who lose by a fraction of a point, or the kids who are never in the competition. I am here to argue that it's not even necessarily good for the valedictorian.
The pro-valedictorian author seems to imply that the valedictorian award is important as a celebration and reinforcement of achievement. But is a simple GPA formula appropriate to determine who is achieving the most?
Consider the student who is a victim of abuse, practically raises younger siblings, serves as designated driver for dad, and still manages to make B's and C's in school while holding down a part-time job. Anyone want to question this student's merits as "high-achieving?" Again, effort and attitude are hard to quantify, but there are lots of students overcoming incredible odds to succeed in school. These inspiring students deserve to be recognized too.
That's why schools should focus more on effort, enthusiasm, and attitudes. Rewarding only the highest achieving students won't improve apathy in schools.
Question: What are you thoughts on schools ending the valedictorian honor? How does your school handle recognizing student achievement? I would like your feedback. Leave a comment below or respond on Twitter or Facebook.
I was honored to recently be a guest on John Linney's outstanding podcast, Edspiration. John shares great ideas and does a fantastic job hosting. He has developed a really interesting format for his shows. I've really enjoyed listening to several of his previous podcasts.
During my interview, we discussed adapting to change, possibility thinking, and leading from where you are, and a few other ideas. I would invite you to listen to the full episode if you get a chance. And be sure to subscribe to the Edspiration podcast in iTunes or through your favorite podcast app. I like to use Stitcher.
Alternatively, you can visit the web home of Edspiration at schoolclimateinstitute.org. Below is a rundown of a few of the key ideas we discussed, and an embedded audio player for your listening convenience.
"The secret to success is leadership, and leadership is about making the lives of your team members better." -Tony Dungy
1. Education has been trying to improve on a system that has been fundamentally the same for 50+ years. How can we think about completely new ways to think about education?
2. Everyone can lead. We need leaders from every corner of the school. A title doesn't make you a leader. A willingness to serve others and to take risks are excellent leadership qualities.
3. If the rate of change in school lags too far behind how things are changing in the world, schooling will become increasingly irrelevant.
4. Possibility thinking goes beyond implementing what we already know. We need to dream big and believe there is probably a better way to do most everything.
5. Innovation starts with better thinking. Innovation is spread through leadership.
6. Risk taking is dependent on the level of trust and safety in the school culture.
7. Make learning personal for teachers. How does our professional learning have potential to improve student learning?
8. How are you connecting with other educators? Build your PLN.
9. If your school is going to be successful, it's because of strong teacher leadership.
Question: How do you lead from where you are? How do you exercise your innovation muscles? Leave a comment below or share on Facebook or Twitter. I want to hear from you!
