Education Week - Calendar of Events - August 21, 2013 - (Page C6)

MOOCs Provider Targets K-12 Teacher PD By Sean Cavanagh In attempting to bring “MOOCs” to the world of teacher training, the Silicon Valley company Coursera and its partners at universities and other institutions are courting a new and potentially vast audience, one that is becoming increasingly accustomed to receiving professional training via the Web. The decision marks the first time that Coursera—a major provider of “massively open online courses”—has moved into K-12 education. Until now, the company has provided free content in higher education, a landscape also served by providers such as edX and Udacity. At this point, seven universities have agreed to provide free online coursework through the venture, along with five other institutions that provide educational content. The courses will not be offered for credit, but rather as content that can meet teachers’ requirements to obtain ongoing professional development through continuing education units, Andrew Ng, the co-founder of Coursera, said. Twenty-eight free online courses are being provided initially through the program. Topics range from direct academic content in such areas as evolutionary biology and literacy to broader pedagogical lessons, such as how to structure discussions to promote learning and how to survive the first year of teaching. While the primary audience for those courses is practicing teachers, including those in foreign countries, who are trying to improve their skills, Mr. Ng predicts the online courses will appeal to others, including parents curious about the instruction their children are receiving and online visitors who are considering a teaching career and want to understand its demands. “There’s a huge need out there” for high- quality professional development, Mr. Ng said. And “for someone trying to see if [teaching] is their profession, this would give them an entrée into what the profession looks like.” Tapping Resources Teachers and aspiring teachers are already tapping online resources for professional training, evidence suggests. Seventy-four percent of teacher colleges offered some kind of online for-credit courses as of the 2009-10 school year, a survey released this year by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education found. And the number of teachers using online professional-development resources, including social networks, webinars, and professional learning communities, has risen over the past few years, according to nationwide survey results published recently by Project Tomorrow, an Irvine, Calif.-based nonprofit. Forty-one percent of the teachers surveyed reported having taken at least one online class, up from 33 percent in 2008, according to the organization, which promotes the in- novative use of math and science resources in schools. The higher education institutions partnering with Coursera are the University of California, Irvine; Johns Hopkins University’s school of education, in Baltimore; Match Education’s Sposato Graduate School of Education, in Boston; the Relay Graduate School of Education, in New York City; Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College of Education and Human Development; the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education; and the University of Washington’s college of education. In addition, five museums and other institutions will provide course content: the American Museum of Natural History and the Museum of Modern Art, both in New York City; the Commonwealth Education Trust, a British organization focused on improving education and teacher training; the Exploratorium, a museum in San Francisco; and the New Teacher Center, a Santa Cruz, Calif.-based group that focuses on improving teacher skills. Leveling the Playing Field? Coursera forged agreements with the universities and other institutions after researching institutions the company believed were taking innovative approaches to teacher training, Mr. Ng said. “We heard a fairly consistent [list of] organizations,” he said. Other universities and institutions could join the venture, he said. Mr. Ng said the new arrangement for teacher professional development will follow the same free model his company has used so far. The only potential cost to users would be a fee they are charged if they want a certificate stating they have completed a course. That revenue would be shared among Coursera and the institutions, he said. Robert Pianta, the dean of the Curry school at the University of Virginia, said his institution does not expect to receive any revenue from the Coursera arrangement through fees or other means. The school is offering an online course through Coursera to help educators understand how effective teacher-child interactions boost early-childhood development. “This is an opportunity for us to innovate,” Mr. Pianta said. “It’s a good idea for us to be experimenting in this way. ...We think it’s going to help us go out there to a much broader audience.” Sharon Robinson, the president of AACTE, said the Coursera venture reflects the increasing demand for timely, flexible course offerings. She said she did not regard it as a threat to the institutions her association represents. “This would help us bring some really im- portant content to a wider group of users than would be possible otherwise,” Ms. Robinson said. “It levels the playing field.” This article originally appeared in Education Week. Getting Real About Educational Technology By Kyle Redford Educational technology enthusiasts regularly make a case against teachers who refuse to get on the tech bandwagon. They quickly dismiss anyone who does not wholeheartedly embrace every element of this new educational frontier. They raise questions regarding the professional flexibility of these “resisters.” I actually have a different complaint: I am beginning to lose patience with the simplicity of the conversation around classroom technology. When it comes to discussing the potential of technology in the classroom, I am neither cheerleader nor denier. But I am wary of being labeled a technophobe when I occasionally express skepticism about the educational value of a computer game or an app. To think critically about technology is not an automatic dismissal of its potential value. Why are we looking at educational technology as a monolith—something that teachers have to absolutely embrace or reject? I can’t be the only teacher encountering dilemmas related to the uses of iPads in the classroom. For example, not long ago, my class was sprawled across the room writing essays on their iPads during writer’s workshop. I was conferencing with individual writers while trying to keep an eye on the others. With a small class of generally independent and invested 5th graders, this is not typically too much of a problem. However, something about the way a group of boys had gathered on beanbags in the class library exuded odd energy, so I moved in to investigate. As I approached, it was clear that they were nervously scrambling to close out of something on their de- vices. One student, less nimble than the others, could not move quickly enough to hide what had been distracting this group for the past 25 minutes: Minecraft. After questioning, I found out that they had been lured down the rabbit hole of an engaging session of dopamine-rich computer play with this game, all of them so wired and distracted that they had pretty much forgotten they were even at school. And this was not the first time: We had been through this game of cat and mouse just the day before. Inevitable Trade-Offs First let me explain. These kids are not troublemak- ers. They are not bored. And they are not lazy. They are all highly intelligent, curious, earnest, hard-working students. They were devastated to be caught ... again. They were worried about the consequences, but they were also horribly ashamed. Two cried. One boy said, “Take the iPad away from me. I can’t handle it.” A few others blamed Minecraft, complaining that it was so addictive they couldn’t resist it, even knowing that playing it would get them in trouble. As frustrated as I was, I knew that we teachers had our fingerprints on this problem as well. Why did I expect 10- and 11-year-olds to resist the siren song of the iPad’s distractions when my adult colleagues and I are struggling with the same compulsions? It is time to end illusory thinking connected to educational technology. I do not have anything against Minecraft or other digital games. I acknowledge their potential for inspiring creativity, engagement, and collaboration. But I also want to talk about real trade-offs. My students need to learn how to write, and as their teacher, I need to stop suspending disbelief about the distracting allure of games on their learning devices. Is it fair to put dessert on their lunch trays and then tell them that they can only look at it and smell it, but they cannot eat it until they get home (assuming their parents permit dessert)? By having gaming apps on their iPads, I am concerned that I am setting them up for unnecessary failure and shame. Accuse me of being a tech resister, a slow adopter, or an “old school” educator for raising these questions. But I am not afraid of technology. In fact, I am a big fan of educational technology’s potential to help my students explore ideas or express themselves more creatively, efficiently, or effectively. Several of my dyslexic students have recently mastered speech-to-text software, and it has transformed their abilities to demonstrate their understanding and align their oral and written expression. They are now passionate “readers” because of the accessibility of audiobooks and they connect with their favorite children’s authors through Twitter. As a professional, I am grateful to social media for making educational conversations, resources, and professional-development opportunities more accessible. But we need to stop oversimplifying the role tech plays in our students’ lives. A deeper, more thorough, look at tech’s benefits and trade-offs is needed. What are we potentially sacrificing when we do not carefully guide our children’s use of their devices? Student engagement is an empty notion if we are not asking how they are being engaged. Are outcomes enhanced because of the addition of a specific technology, or hindered? We should be filtering our use of technology through this kind of inquiry. As a teacher of 26 years, my central question has always been: “What is the most effective way to teach this material?” Daniel Willingham, a cognitive scientist from the Univer- sity of Virginia, recently did a survey of the research looking at the learning benefits of gaming. Considering this is relatively new territory, it is not surprising that the conclusions raised more questions than they answered. I am not arguing that we have to wait until we know all the answers to explore the benefits of gaming in the classroom. But we owe it to our students to have more honest conversations about the accompanying untidiness. Technology in schools is here to stay. Consequently, it is time for educators to begin to have more sophisticated conversations about best practices and to explore the inherent challenges. The learning potential of educational technology is infinite, but as with every learning tool, platform, or approach, educators need to sift through the tensions and talk about the challenges and trade-offs. It’s time to give educators encouragement to apply critical thinking to technology without the fear of being labeled a Luddite. Kyle Redford is a 5th grade teacher at Marin Country Day School, a K-8 school in the San Francisco Bay Area. She is also the education editor for the Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity. This essay originally appeared on the Education Week Teacher website. 6 EDUCATION WEEK 2013 CALENDAR OF EVENTS & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORY www.edweek.org/go/calendar OPINION http://www.edweek.org/go/calendar

Education Week - Calendar of Events - August 21, 2013

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Education Week - Calendar of Events - August 21, 2013