What Should They See? by Bob Sprankle

Administrators should be able to see varying aspects of critical thinking and problem solving through technological products. Undeniably, students should be able to identify the skills they are developing through the use of technology in a project with real life application. If students are not able to identify the higher order thinking skills they are supposed to be learning or cannot answer the question "What problem are you solving?", there needs to be a serious look into the legitimacy of their learning. In my experience, what often happens are teachers are really trying to integrate technology into their curriculum but their concept of true integration means throwing a new program to the same project they did last year. At first glance, the product is different but the critical thinking and problem solving of the project has not increased; the face of the project has changed to mask the same lower level thinking skills. Thus, if the scope and complexity of the project really pushes an administrator's thinking with regards to problem solving, perhaps the evidence of technology integration in the class is actually warranted.

What Should They See? by Bob Sprankle

I hope to see students "using" the technology more so than the teachers. The Technology tools available today in the classroom are ideal tools for project oriented learning. The disparity between classrooms I visit is remarkable when it comes to student "time on tech". It should come as no great surprise that our younger generation of teachers are the ones proactively making technology a part of the learning in the classrooms as they deliver curriculum.

What Should They See? by Bob Sprankle

An administrator conducting a 3-minute walk-through must be properly prepared to watch for true signs of technology infusion in the classroom. I prefer the term "infusion" over "integration" because we have been integrating technology for years, and the picture we have of technology integration is still a rather disjointed scene. Technology infusion, on the other hand, flows smoothly in the classroom. It's the heart, or the base, of student learning. Evidence that an administrator may be able to observe in three minutes would include: 1) the level of excitement in the classroom - is it "bubbly" excitement, which may indicate some novelty in using the technology? or is it a "humming" excitement, which may indicate a comfort with technology which is driving student motivation? 2) the comfort level of the teacher with the technology - is the teacher's use of the technology fluid or choppy? 3) teacher/student collaboration - does the teacher appear to be comfortable with having the students in the "driver's seat"? 4) student motivation - are the students purpose-driven, using their time purposely to achieve their goals? 5) authentic experiences - could the lesson be conducted just as well without the technology involved? Yes, we could continue with a discussion on whether the evidence I mentioned above is of technology infusion or effective teaching, but I will simply ask, "Isn't it the same?"

What Should They See? by Bob Sprankle

An administrator conducting a 3-minute walk-through must be properly prepared to watch for true signs of technology infusion in the classroom. I prefer the term "infusion" over "integration" because we have been integrating technology for years, and the picture we have of technology integration is still a rather disjointed scene. Technology infusion, on the other hand, flows smoothly in the classroom. It's the heart, or the base, of student learning. Evidence that an administrator may be able to observe in three minutes would include: 1) the level of excitement in the classroom - is it "bubbly" excitement, which may indicate some novelty in using the technology? or is it a "humming" excitement, which may indicate a comfort with technology which is driving student motivation? 2) the comfort level of the teacher with the technology - is the teacher's use of the technology fluid or choppy? 3) teacher/student collaboration - does the teacher appear to be comfortable with having the students in the "driver's seat"? 4) student motivation - are the students purpose-driven, using their time purposely to achieve their goals? 5) authentic experiences - could the lesson be conducted just as well without the technology involved? Yes, we could continue with a discussion on whether the evidence I mentioned above is of technology infusion or effective teaching, but I will simply ask, "Isn't it the same?"

What Should They See? by Bob Sprankle

Our teachers have lobbied hard that 3-minute walkthroughs (or drive-by shootings) not become the basis for evaluations. Why you ask? Because all those components of your PLN i.e. "Much of my own success of an integrated curriculum comes from what I have learned from my own generous PLNs (through Twitter, Facebook, Edtechtalk.com, numerous Ning groups, Classroom 2.0, blogs, etc.). To put it bluntly, I couldn't do it without them." Yes, all these sites you discuss are blocked at our school by the state. No facebook, no twitter, no Ning, very few blogs or forums. Nothing gets through the filters. It is frustrating to be told to form collaborative groups and teach in a new way, but to continually be limited to the old materials. What is the point in developing a lesson that relies on technology tools that can't be accessed in the classroom?

What Should They See? by Bob Sprankle

Admin should look at the different aspects their teachers are using each source of technology. Is a classroom teacher using the computer to show typing skills, educational videos, skype, pen pals with other classrooms or are they just surfing the internet and checking email? A 3 minute walk through may not represent all the ways a teacher uses their technologies available. Perhaps 3 minute walk throughs of the same teachers at different times of day may be a more acurate representation of what they are incorporating into their curriculum.