I’m building a presentation around my backwards planning process, identifying student achievement, then student and teacher behaviors, and then the role of teacher collaboration and leadership.Here are two pieces that caught my attention:
First, Will Richardson’s writing for District Administration asks us to examine the “what” of student achievement. His piece, “What Do Students Really Need to “Know”?, opens with a prediction of phone apps that translate foreign languages into the voice of the speaker…taking one right into conversation. As technology makes information and knowledge available instantly to everyone, does a school curriculum designed by a handful of university professors over a century ago make sense? Do processes like prediction, judgment, causation, and negotiation make more sense? (Richardson cites the work of Roger Schank in Teaching Minds.)Secondly I, found the Arizona Technology Integration Matrix , which examines five characteristics of a meaningful learning environment.
Goal DirectedWithin five levels of technology integration
Thus the matrix has 25 cells examining student and teacher behaviors. Example:
Active/Entry -Students receive content through the use of technology or use technology for drill and practice activities.Active/Adaptation- Students choose or modify the technology-related tools most appropriate for developing learning tasks.
Active/Transformation- Students seamlessly organize the learning tasks and formulate products, discussions, or investigations using any appropriate technologies available.
Those of you facilitating teacher reflection on current practice and exploration of next steps will find the matrix very useable. The definitions for the elements of meaningful learning environments provide a great starting point for many PLC conversations.