Journal Review: Student Data Privacy, Digital Learning, and Special Education: Challenges at the Intersection of Policy and Practice

This article was a review of the fact that digital teaching and learning in schools is a double-edge sword. As the authors state, technology has "raised the specter of dangerous and privacy-invading misuse, simultaneous with the potential for customizing education" (Stahl, Karger, 2016). The authors briefly talk about the promises of educational technology being able to provide teachers with an unimaginable amount data, while providing the ability to analyze the data. Schools and educational researchers can easily see how the demographics of students correlate to pedagogical practices and student achievement.

However, Stahl and Karger focus greatly on the concerns that arise as schools collect more data on students and as schools continue to partner with more and more third-party vendors that have access to that student data. The main focus of concern from parents and student advocates focus on understanding what data is being collected and whom has access to that data. Stahl and Karger provide situations in which teachers and staff might form biases on students based on records of negative behavior or poor academic performance. They also reference a study that found many districts signed contracts with third-party vendors that didn't prohibit the sale or use of student data for marketing and advertising purposes (Stahl, Karger, 2016).

Finally, current federal laws that impact student privacy were discusses. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) states that parents and students have the right to view the education records of the students and can request a change or challenge any information in the records. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides greater transparency for parents. It states that schools must tell parents what information is being collected on a student with a disability, why, and how that information will be stored. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) was enacted to protect children under 14 from having their data used for commercial purposes.

In general, this article provided more information about student data privacy than I have received prior. I have seen these acronyms before, but didn't understand what they meant to how they impact student data and privacy. All educators should have a basic understanding of these laws to prevent violating these laws as we try to expand our digital pedagogy.

Stahl, W. M., & Karger, J. (2016). Student Data Privacy, Digital Learning, and Special Education: Challenges at the Intersection of Policy and Practice. Journal Of Special Education Leadership, 29(2), 79-88.

Journal Review: Promises and Pitfalls of Virtual Education in the United States and Indiana

This article addresses the rise of virtual schools in the United States as either an alternative to traditional schooling or as a supplement. The authors then looked at some of the promises and pitfalls of virtual schools. The areas they looked at are financial, program quality, teacher quality and certification, and program oversight. I will briefly summarize their conclusions.

Financially, virtual schools are a mixed bag, depending on the state and if the virtual school is state-led, charter school, district-led, or private. Because virtual schools have lower over-head costs, operating costs can range from $300 - $5,000 less per student than a traditional, brick-and-mortar school. However, because many states don't have laws providing a funding formula that includes virtual schools, some students end up paying for their education. This can limit access to underprivileged families (Holstead, Spradlin, Plucker, 2008).

The virtual programs can vary in quality. However, it is hard to accurately rate virtual programs because some focus on gifted students wanting access to more rigorous classes and others focus on at-risk students needing an alternative education(Holstead, Spradlin, Plucker, 2008).

The certification process of the virtual school teachers also varies. In some situations some of the instructors are not certified. However, more states are stepping up their certification and consistent professional development requirements. 

Oversight of these programs also varies depending on the state and situation. At times, there are oversight measures in place, but they aren't enforced because states don't have laws that cover virtual schooling programs.

The go-to complaint about virtual schools is that students lose the social interaction that brings about a lot of social and emotional growth that is just as important as academics. It is interesting that the authors don't mention this. Because of this, virtual schools should limited in adoption. West Aurora High School has credit recovery options for students after they fail a class. From conversations with students, they tend to work through the material not for the sake of learning, but in order to accomplish their classes. Virtual schools for supplementation is good, but it should have limited applications. It should be an option for at-risk students and students who are limited by their local public schools. There is still value in going to a school, interacting with your peers and their is some content that is better hands-on and in a controlled environment.

Holstead, M. S., Spradlin, T. E., Plucker, J. A., & Indiana University, C. P. (2008). Promises and Pitfalls of Virtual Education in the United States and Indiana. Education Policy Brief. Volume 6, Number 6, Spring 2008. Center For Evaluation And Education Policy, Indiana University,

Journal Review: The Changing Role of the CTO

The role of the Chief Technology Officer, or CTO, has evolved over the last 2 decades. As school districts have wanted to focus on making more efficient and strategic decisions with technology, and the role of technology, the CTO has taken on more responsibility. Previously, the CTO was more focused on the nuts and bolts of the technology that the district owned. They were not part of the decision making process with regards to staff or technology. Now, they have moved to being part of the superintendent's cabinet and focusing on how technology can be used to further district goals and initiatives (Dessoff, 2011). Now, the CTO is part of meetings when teachers and administrators want to adopt a new piece of technology, whether it be software or hardware. CTOs are bridging the gap between the technology department and academics (Dessoff, 2011). Because of this change, the CTO has to be adept with communicating the technical aspect of software/hardware, but also the instructional benefits of incorporating the software/hardware.

In West Aurora District 129, this idea of strategic and efficient spending on technology is becoming more evident. When the technology pilot was first started three years ago, teachers had to have research backed ideas on how they were going to improve learning in the classrooms with technology. As the pilot has grown, district administration has continued to ask the same question; "How is this going to improve student learning?" Our Director of Technology (same role as CTO) has consistently been in meetings bridging the gap between administration and teachers, curriculum and technology. Our Director of Technology has done well to ask for feedback from teachers, but has focused only on technology-literate staff. CTOs/Directors of Technology should try to get feedback from all teachers. 

Dessoff, A. (2011). The Changing Role of the CTO. District Administration, 47(6), 44-50.

Journal Review: Getting to the Heart of Technology: Virginia's Instructional Technology Resource Teacher

Coffman, T. (2009). Getting to the Heart of Technology Integration: Virginia's Instructional Technology Resource Teacher Program. Learning & Leading With Technology, 36(7), 20-23.

Summary:

This article describes how the state of Virginia tackled instructional technology integration. After NCLB, the state devoted millions of dollars to ensuring that every school has two types of technology positions; Instructional Technology Resource Teacher (ITRT) and Technology Support Staff. The Technology Support Staff are just in charge of infrastructure for the district/building. The ITRT position is in charge of providing support for teachers as they integrate technology into their classrooms. The state mandated that districts must have at least one ITRT per one thousand students. This article was published in 2009 and at the time of the publication the state started to see data that suggested this initiative has already increased scores on the Virginia Standard of Learning tests.

I think this is a great start in technology integration for the state. This initiative ensured that all districts began technology integration close to 10 years ago. I also like that the state set a minimum number of ITRT staff that a district can have. Right now, West High has one Instructional Technology Specialist for a building of 4000 students. She also works in the library, so isn't even a devoted ITRT. The district has tried to make up for that by providing small stipends to four teachers to help, but those four teachers don't get extra time in order to be resource to the staff. 

Journal Review: "I Tolerate Technology - I Don't Embrace It": Instructor Surprise and Sensemaking in a Technology-Rich Learning Environment

Fairchild, J. L., Meiners, E. B., & Violette, J. L. (2016). "I Tolerate Technology--I Don't Embrace It": Instructor Surprise and Sensemaking in a Technology-Rich Learning Environment. Journal Of The Scholarship Of Teaching And Learning, 16(4), 92-108.

PARTICIPANTS

The study looked at 7 teachers in a tech-enriched classroom that had flexible seating, tablets for every student, an interactive whiteboard, and a document camera. 

METHOD

The study wanted to answer two questions;

1. What tensions will be revealed for instructors teaching in a technology-rich classroom?
2. What sensemaking strategies will instructors report in response to these tensions?

In order to answer these questions, the researchers interviewed the instructors weekly for 30-90 minutes. 

RESULTS

The researchers identified 3 tensions. Below I will summarize each tension.

• Freedom V Confinement - Although technology allowed for freedom to try new things, it takes a lot of time to try and implement new things.
• Contentedness V Fragmentation - Technology allows for greater collaboration, but at times it becomes easier to seclude self.
• Change V Stability - Here it was decided by most teachers that the teaching has to change with the introduction of technology. Teachers can't continue doing the same thing after getting technology. "There is more to technology integration than electronics."

The researchers identified 2 sensemaking strategies. Below I will summarize each tension.

• Adaptation - Teachers quickly realized that they had to "roll with the glitches" instead of getting caught up in technology glitches. 
• Reframing - Most teachers realized they had to change the way they taught and their role in the classroom.

REFLECTION

This article seemed to solidify what has been said in class lately. The article did a great job in providing the insight of teachers that were struggling with technology integration and getting at what are their struggles. I have two big take-aways. 

1. Teachers have to learn how to adapt to technology glitches and this can be scary. However, adapting to these challenges in front of students in a calm, positive manner is good modeling for when they come across glitches. Instead of giving up in front of the students or getting angry, teachers need to show good problem-solving skills. The issue for technology coaches and administration is; how do you get teachers comfortable at "rolling with the glitches"?
2. Technology is a change agent. Teachers will only get frustrated with technology if they try to jam technology in their old lesson plans. Successful integration involves making changes to how you teach and what you teach. 

Journal Review: The Pedagogy of Technology Integration

Okojie, M. C., Olinzock, A. A., & Okojie-Boulder, T. C. (2006). The Pedagogy of Technology Integration. Journal Of Technology Studies, 32(2), 66-71.

SUMMARY

The article starts by identifying 3 reasons why teachers are reluctant to incorporate technology. Shortage of computers, lack of computer skills, and computer intimidation were listed. Then the authors defined educational technology as any technology (video, media, devices) that is used to enhance and facilitate learning. Authors did a study (without identifying methodology or participants) and found that many in-service and pre-service teachers do not understand what it means to integrate technology and when asked, they focus their responses on the different devices, not the learning itself. Too often teachers focus on the tool and not the task. 

Also, the authors suggest a few fixes to the current integration of technology. Technology integration needs to focus on the task (not the tool), involve students in the design stages, and create an implementation plan before buying technology. 

REFLECTION

First, the article itself was lack-luster. It claims to have data from a quick study without mentioning any details of the study. 

Having said that, I agree that too often teachers, technology coaches, students, and administration focus on the tool and not the task. I have sat through too many professional development sessions that taught me how to use apps (garage band, iMovie, etc) without showing me how to incorporate it into my classroom beyond a superficial level. 

It is an interesting idea to have students involved in designing technology-based tasks to learn set learning objectives. I often have prescribed ways for students to learn, practice, or demonstrate understanding, but I have never talked to students about what they need to learn, and how they want to tackle that learning objective. I see that as a way to help teachers get new ideas, take the stress off of teachers to create these grand projects, and as a great way to engage students. However, teachers that struggle to give-up control, will find this even more terrifying. It would require teachers to be flexible and would require a great group of students that want to learn. 

Journal Review: Are Schools Getting a Big Enough Bang for Their Education Technology Buck?

Boser, U., & Center for American, P. (2013). Are Schools Getting a Big Enough Bang for Their Education Technology Buck?.

Summary

"Schools are not using technology to do things differently."

The Center for American Progress wanted to see if states and schools are getting "enough bang for their..buck" with educational technology funding. It was found that no state has completed a return of investment analysis. Studies have been conducted with what are students doing with technology. For the most part, students are using technology to complete basic tasks, not tasks that require higher-order thinking. 

The Center for American Progress identified the following potential aspects of technology;

• Boosts the reach of highly effective teachers
• Creates greater personalization and differentiation
• Improves testing by making it less expensive and more adaptive.

They continue by saying that schools need to allow technology to be the transformative tool that it can be and not resist change. 

Finally, the Center for American Progress concludes by requesting the states and schools to complete return on investment study to decide if the spending on technology is necessary. If it is found that technology is not providing enough of a difference given the cost, then schools and states need to find a different way to spend money.

Reflection

The quote above is my big take away. I have heard this before, but here is research that shows it. I agree that too often schools take technology and continue to do what they have always done, with technology. Technology is transformative, but schools are resistant to change. I look at what my department is doing right now and see that, despite having 32 chromebooks in each room, we are developing new curriculum without developing transformative curriculum. The curriculum could have easily been created and implemented without computers. I can't help but question, why do we have the technology?

Having said that, I disagree with some of their conclusion. If a return on investment study is done and it finds that the technology is not providing enough of a difference given the cost, we should not abandon technology. Instead, we need to mandate changing how we are using the technology. Don't take away technology, change the way we are using technology.