Final thoughts

EdTech 541 was a very interesting class. I was fully aware that as someone who is no longer in the classroom, many of the things we would do in this class would not be immediately applicable to my professional life. The activities and projects did help to reaffirm that my district is on the right path in integrating technology, and also allowed me to appreciate that the hard work we performed about ten years ago to move forward with technology integration had paid off. From reading what others are experiencing in their own districts, I feel blessed to be in a technology rich school district.

The readings were informative in nature, and though they provided interesting tidbits along the way, for the most part I did not find the textbook to have been beneficial (or worse, disadvantageous) to this course. I did not rely on much theory to support the activities and projects I created. I transformed or adapted activities that I successfully did with students in the past to use new technologies, but most of these modifications came from my understanding of how technology works in my district, what we can do and what we can’t do. Having a previous overview of technology usage in the district was invaluable. Many of the activities proposed in this course involved signing up for web services. This is the stuff of a director of technology's nightmares! Services that require students to sign in require careful vetting before students are allowed to input personally identifiable information. It was useful to use a tool like Canva, for example, but if a teacher from my district took this class and returned with the idea that they could implement Canva in their classroom, they would in short order find themselves having a lengthy conversation about data security and the approval process for new services. Folks, help your tech people reach retirement. Don't sign up for services before letting them vet those services. We say no for a reason. We're not being mean, and we're not out to make your life harder. We're here to protect everyone's data, and that includes yours!

Professionally, I have had some growth through this course, but again I can’t say that it was consistent throughout the course. There was nothing in this course that was earth-shattering, jaw dropping, “are you kidding me?” moment where you realize that there was a way to do things more efficiently and effectively, and you wasted all this time. There were a lot of light bulb moments, however, where either I learned something new, thought about ways to improve things, or realized there was a better way to do a particular task.

Given that I am no longer in the classroom, I do not have as many opportunities to do anything differently because of this course. I do plan on adding my face to more of my videos, as there is some consensus that this is beneficial for students. I plan on widening the number of professional development opportunities we offer to our staff, and our tech integrator team already has a date scheduled in late August to devise a plan to get into more classrooms the next school year.

 

Additional feedback

I appreciated how well organized and structured the course was. It might have been too organized. I had to look at the week’s assignment sheet, then cross reference that to the listed links within each module. Some of the links had the assignment description (vision), while others didn’t (Relative advantage chart; ), which led to some inconsistencies. For example, in Week 1 the instructions were:

• Create your Vision Statement and post it in the Vision Statement discussion forum, as well as on your final project website.
• Respond to at least two other students' blog posts.
• Submit the links to the webpages of your course website that contain your Vision Statement and Relative Advantage Chart using the respective assignment submission links.

However the Vision statement link in the module had the instructions to:

• Put your Vision Statement in the Blog. Share your vision statement with the class by posting a link to your Blog link on this discussion forum. This is due by the end of the module. Please post early so that others can comment on your Blog. Comments to other students' Blog entries can be made in their Blogs or within the discussion forum. My preference is that comments are made within the Blog, so that the they are available after the course ends.

Thus the weekly lesson said to post on our newly created website, the module said to post the blog link, so I surmised that it was to be in both places but that wasn’t explicitly stated. Perhaps it would be better to either posting all assignments with the same texts from the weekly lesson, or not posting any text and referencing the weekly lesson instead.

Another suggestion for a short semester would be to even the load a little better. For example, Week 5 required creating one lesson plan. Week 6 required 2 lesson plans, resources posted to the web site, 2 blogs, and 2 substantive replies to both blogs for a total of 4 substantive replies. Perhaps one of these blog entries could be moved to Week 5 to better even the load. 

Similarly, the last week asks that we post the link to the finished website and provide critiques to other students. Many students have busy professional lives and tend to post the bulk of their work late in the week. Week 7 starts Monday June 21st, and ends Friday June 25th. I am willing to bet that most of the posts will happen very close to Friday if not on Friday itself, so this expectation can be unrealistic. Second, the number of students in this course creates a large number of websites to examine. I would have enjoyed seeing some of these activities earlier in the course. Viewing the entirety of a website at the last minute is not as valuable as it could have been had we been looking at other people’s web pages throughout the course. Perhaps the scope of some assignments can be reduced to trade a weekly review of what was posted on websites. Another option could be to decrease the number of blog replies from 2 to 1, but then ask that students look at different student websites every week and provide feedback on what is already there. This would give an opportunity to improve our website as we went along, instead of crossing our fingers and hoping that all is good.

Overall, though, I really enjoyed this class, and I appreciated the companionship of other scholars sharing their thoughts, insights, and ideas with me!

 

Self Evaluation

I met all criteria outlined in the rubric. My posts were rich in content, contained insights into the field of technology integration from a district leader’s perspective, and linked to previous content as well as real life situations. I provided a wealth of details and examples on how various aspects of technology are deployed in a small rural district in New Hampshire. My blog entries were supported by research and information from the textbook, and the references were cited using current APA style. All required postings were made early, on Monday or Tuesday of the week. Other students had plenty of time to comment, and I replied to every single comment posted to my blog or in Canvas about my blog posts. I also replied to two or more students to every topic, offering detailed responses and feedback, and often providing examples based on their responses that applied in my current situation. I therefore propose a numerical grade of 160/140, given that rubric models assume that people who perform at the proficient level will earn an A, and I have exceeded that and therefore achieved the fabled S rank (gamers, did you catch that reference?). Based on my self evaluation, I have attached the rubric below, highlighting my self-assessment. In my district, the onus is on the evaluator to provide evidence that the self-evaluated assessment is incorrect. This has made for some very interesting conversations over the years with evaluators who thought I was full of it, but then couldn't provide evidence that would indicate otherwise. As an educator, if you don't want anyone to exceed the maximum grade on a rubric, don't provide an outstanding opportunity to do just that. I welcome your feedback.

 

Criteria	Outstanding	Proficient	Basic	Below Expectations
Content 70 points	Rich in content, full of thought, insight and synthesis with clear connections to previous or current content and/or to real life situations made with depth and detail.	Substantial information, thought, insight and analysis has taken place with some connection to previous or current content and/or to real life situations but lack of depth and detail.	Generally competent in summarizing learning, but information is thin and commonplace with limited connections and vague generalities.	Rudimentary and superficial regurgitation of content with no connections and/or completely off topic.
Readings and Resources 20 points	Readings (from course text) and other resource materials are used to support blog comments. APA style is used to cite references.	There is some reference to readings and other resource material. No or limited use of APA style references.	Little if any reference is made to readings and other course materials.	Readings and resources are not mentioned.
Timeliness 20 points	All required postings are made early in the module to give others time to comment.	All required postings are made but not in time for others to read and respond.	Some or all of the required postings are made, but most are at the last minute without allowing for response time.	Some or all of the required postings are missing.
Responses to Other Students 30 Points	Two or more substantial posts with at least one detailed response made to address another students' post.	One or more satisfactory posts with at least one satisfactory response made to address another students' post.	One satisfactory post with a brief response to another students' post.	One brief post or no post at all and no response to another students' post.

 

Assistive Technologies

Since the iPhone arrived on the market in 2007, smartphones and tablets have revolutionized how we use and consume technology. These tools are now ubiquitous and are used by billions of people every day. Within these tools, however, are many accessibility features that have been built to modify the device’s operation and looks. These accessibility features are beneficial for people with disabilities, who may otherwise not be able to access certain content or perform certain actions while using the device. These features allow devices to “enhance the performance of individuals with disabilities by enabling them to complete tasks more effectively, efficiently, and independently than is otherwise possible” (Roblyer & Hughes, 2019, p. 314). This is very important in education, because “technology is used to make the curriculum accessible,” allowing students with disabilities [to] have the same opportunities to learn as their peers” (Roblyer & Hughes, 2019, p. 316).

This blog post reviews the following capabilities of accessibility tools for iOS 14: VoiceOver, Speech to Text, magnifier, keyboards, hearing (headphone sound adjustments and sound recognition), and general features that don’t fit neatly in any category. I present a workshop to our new staff members during orientation in August that deals with these tools.

VoiceOver allows the device to “read” everything that is displayed on the screen. Go to Settings, then Accessibility then VoiceOver. This fundamentally changes how your iOS device operates by requiring you to double-tap everything to perform the same action that used to require only one tap before. VoiceOver can adjust the rate of speech and can modify the voice used to read the screen content. For blind or visually impaired students, this is a great tool, but with the ability to turn every page of text into an audiobook, reluctant readers also benefit from this feature.

Speech to Text can be used to dictate any information to any app that pulls up the keyboard. Click on the microphone icon on the left side of the space bar, and dictate away! This ability is perfect for individuals with reduced mobility or physical impairments, and can also be used by reluctant writers or slow typists, as well as by folks who are in a hurry and who dictate a lot of messages. I personally use this feature every day when sending text messages back and forth with my team members, because I can dictate while walking, without needing to look at the screen. You need to learn how to dictate your punctuation, but that doesn’t take much effort before it becomes second nature.

Magnifier is one of the most awesome tools for anyone who has ever had trouble reading something with small font or needing to look at something in great detail, or who requires high contrasts in colors. Go to Settings, then Accessibility, then Magnifier and turn it on. A new icon will appear on your home screen. Click on this icon to use Magnifier. This tool is great for visually impaired students, as well as for those who can benefit from differently colored information. Magnifier performs better than Camera, and does not clutter your photo library with extra shots.

Keyboards allow you to add extra keyboards and gain access to accent marks. This is a great tool for students of foreign languages, and for those who like to spell my name correctly. Go to Settings, then General, then Keyboard. Find another language, then tap on Add Keyboard. You can now cycle between languages by clicking the globe icon to the left of the microphone and the space bar. Note that Speech to Text will also switch to the keyboard language. I can dictate a quick message in English to one of my team members, then hit the globe, switch to my French keyboard, and dictate a message in French to my mother. Both messages will be dictated and spelled correctly in the language of choice, often leading to hilarious messages when I forget to switch back to the other language and dictate a message. For example, “Je vous appelle ce soir,” which translates as “I will call you tonight,” renders as “Show who is apples as well,” which sort of sounds like what I said in French, but is supremely incorrect.

Headphones can be modified to provide enhanced sound quality on supported devices like Airpods. Go to Settings, then Accessibility then Audio/Visual, the user can alter sound frequencies, and is “intended to be an accessibility feature for those who are hard of hearing, it will really improve sound quality for millions of people” (Cross, 2021b, p. 54).

Another accessibility tool is Sound Recognition. Go to Settings, then Accessibility then Sound Recognition. This allows the user to let the phone detect one of a dozen sounds and deliver a vibration and on screen notification. This tool is “meant to help deaf users be better aware of sounds they may need to react to in their environment, but anyone who likes to use headphones while they work or chill out at home will probably appreciate it” (Cross, 2021a, p. 46).

Zoom is a great tool to increase the size of everything on an iOS device. Go to Settings then Accessibility then Zoom and select your size preference. It takes some time to get used to the controls, but it’s a great way to increase the size of everything on the screen, and is another tool for visually impaired students, or anyone who  has trouble reading a small phone screen. 

Along with Zoom, you can modify the display text by going to Settings then Display and Brightness then Text Size. You can also access more options by going to Settings then Accessibility then Display and Text Size, which contains a ton of extra options, once again perfect for visually impaired students.

References

Cross, J. (2021a, February). Three great iOS accessibility features everyone will want to use. Macworld - Digital Edition, 38(2)2,  44–46.

Cross, J. (2021b, March). iOS 14: 5 great hidden features you should know about. Macworld - Digital Edition, 38(3), 53–56.

Roblyer, M.D., & Hughes, J.E. (2019). Integrating educational technology into teaching (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Relative Advantage of Using Technology to Enhance Content Area Learning

The advent of personal computing and the development of mobile devices have contributed immensely to a rise in technology usage in schools. Some of this technology supports the schools’ infrastructure and management, but most of it has been deployed to enhance the learning that happens in content areas. From educational games to library databases, and from word processors to search engines, many teachers have wholeheartedly adopted technology in their classrooms to improve their curriculum and to facilitate their students’ acquisition of knowledge and skills. Nowhere has technology been more effective at enhancing content area learning than in foreign language instruction.

Prior to the Internet becoming widespread, language teachers needed to travel overseas to acquire authentic realia and offer their students a connection to a culture only represented in books and through the odd foreign language movie. Technology has transformed all of this, allowing teachers and their students to instantly encounter another culture through its art, language, movies, newspapers, radio, music, and literature. For a French teacher, it is now possible to stream a radio station from Sénégal, conduct a virtual museum visit in Belgium, explore living in Paris through street view maps, read the newspaper from Québec City, and livestream a beautiful view of l'Anse à l'âne, Martinique. Technology allows the classroom to extend to the world, making available cultural resources that were simply not accessible previously. This provides a huge relative advantage for foreign language teachers.

Technology can enhance the foreign language content area learning by connecting students with “a range of native speakers of the FL, including varieties of the language not spoken by the teacher, and to up-to-date examples of how the language is currently used” (Roblyer & Hughes, 2019, p. 368). It fosters access to countless resources available online. It provides “collaborative tools, fostering creativity and learner autonomy” (Roblyer & Hughes, 2019, p. 370). Through easy audio and video recording capabilities, technology creates a safe environment for students to learn and perform a new language in a quiet space, away from other students and the inherent risk of ridicule when speaking a new language (Taghizadeh & Hasani Yourdshahi, 2020, p. 984). It expands the classroom to virtually the whole planet, providing access to authentic language and exponentially increasing cultural contacts between students and the target language’s society. Finally, technology allows language learners “to contact actual speakers of other languages in distant locations” (Serostanova, 2020, p, 187).

Of course, technology is not all advantages. There are several disadvantages to using technology to enhance content area learning, and these are reviewed in this blog post. Overall, however, technology has been very beneficial and advantageous to the foreign language content area, and foreign language teachers continue to remain on the cusp of new technologies, from augmented reality field trips to attending live concerts taking place an ocean away. Relatively speaking, technology is a clear relative advantage for foreign languages!

References

Roblyer, M.D, & Hughes, J.E. (2019). Integrating educational technology into teaching (8th Ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Serostanova, N. (2020). Integrating information and communication technologies in the process of foreign language teaching and learning. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 5(1), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs20141.187.197

Taghizadeh, M., & Hasani Yourdshahi, Z. (2020). Integrating technology into young learners’ classes: language teachers’ perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(8), 982–1006. https://doi-org.libproxy.boisestate.edu/10.1080/09588221.2019.1618876

Obstacles and Suggested Solutions for Integrating Technology Into the Content Area

Technology is an effective tool to enhance the learning that happens in educational content areas such as foreign languages. Widespread adoption, however, is blunted by several obstacles that prevent technology from being as potent as it could otherwise be. These obstacles include lack of technical mastery, the inadequacy of teacher professional development, the shortcomings of infrastructure support, and teachers’ own perceptions of technology strengths and weaknesses.

By far the largest obstacle in the path of a foreign language teacher is teachers’ lack of experience and knowledge in utilizing technology and their incapability to understand its abilities” (Taghizadeh & Hasani Yourdshahi, 2020, p. 983). Teachers have studied teaching techniques, curriculum design, effective discipline, and possess the linguistic knowledge to impart a new language to students. However, unless personally inclined, most teachers have not studied technological tools in depth. They have learned how to use technology through professional development workshops and conferences, through watching peers adopt some of these technologies, and through using technologies in their own personal lives. They have not developed the theoretical and practical underpinnings that would support the deployment of various technologies in the classroom. For most teachers, “the focus is on the practical utilization of certain software rather than considering the pedagogical aspects of utilizing the software for teaching” (Taghizadeh & Hasani Yourdshahi, 2020, p. 986). Teachers can adopt an app or a website to use with their students, but if they do not feel confident in using that tool due to lack of experience or understanding, the relative advantage is nullified by poor implementation. A solution to this problem is to provide constant opportunities for professional development. Events like teacher days should include a technological component. Staff meetings could contribute 10 minutes to a short tech segment by a practitioner in the building showcasing what they do. The tech department can create multiple tech shorts that teach a specific concept or idea in two minutes or less. After school workshops can be offered, and so can attendance to conferences like the Christa McAuliffe Technology Conference. Encourage teachers who successfully integrate technology to present what they do. It may not directly translate to another class, but the spark might ignite a different way of using the tool.

The second obstacle relates closely to the first, and that is the inadequacy of teacher professional development when it comes time to use technology. Districts are very good at providing technology tools to improve student achievement. They are not as good at providing the time and the knowledge necessary to master the tools themselves: “In order to support teachers to use technology, professional development programs must be offered to teachers to help them understand the relation between the academic information about the use of computers and the use of computers in various contexts” (Taghizadeh & Hasani Yourdshahi, 2020, p. 986). For example, a French teacher initiated the purchase of an electronic textbook for their French III class. In conversation in mid September, that teacher admitted they had not yet used the textbook because they didn’t know what to do with it. The tech department had rostered the textbook, ensured that all students had access to it and could indeed access it, but we had not done the extra step of ensuring that the teacher felt comfortable with their new tool. After all, our thinking was that if they selected the tool they knew how to use it. We now build in required training time for teachers who wish to adopt a new app or an electronic textbook, so that they (and us) understand the capabilities they have to transform their content and improve student achievement. Any new technology tool being used should come with support from the tech department and with extensive training for teachers on best practices for using this tool.

A third obstacle is the shortcoming of the infrastructure provided. The effective use of technology requires a robust network that carries reliable connections accessible throughout the district (Taghizadeh & Hasani Yourdshahi, 2020, p. 985). It also needs devices that can support the learning and handle the desired tools. A foreign language teacher may wish to do a project using Google Earth, but if the school computers cannot support that software, the teacher will find themselves stymied. Similarly, many schools experienced underwhelming capacity on their Internet connection during Covid. It is essential for teachers seeking to integrate technology in their content area to check and see if the district infrastructure can support a new tool.

Finally, a fourth obstacle to effective integration of technology within content areas is teachers’ own perceptions of their technology strengths and weaknesses, including “their style of teaching, their utilization of computers for purposes other than teaching, … [and] the school culture” (Taghizadeh & Hasani Yourdshahi, 2020, p. 985). Many teachers are not comfortable using technology, and this reflects in the choices they make in their classrooms. Others perceive their lack of experience with a specific technology as a challenge to learn more and figure out how best to use it in the classroom. Institutions can discourage the use of technology in content areas by blocking specific sites or applying blanket policies that limit the use of innovative and emergent tools. Teachers working in such a culture may decide that the difficulties of effecting a positive change outweigh any relative advantage they would derive in implementing new technologies in their curriculum.

Of course, technology is not all obstacles. There are several relative advantages to using technology to enhance content area learning, and these are reviewed in this blog post. While these four issues persist, however, it may prove difficult for teachers to adopt new technologies in their content areas.

References

Taghizadeh, M., & Hasani Yourdshahi, Z. (2020). Integrating technology into young learners’ classes: language teachers’ perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(8), 982–1006. https://doi-org.libproxy.boisestate.edu/10.1080/09588221.2019.1618876

Relative Advantage of Using Video in the Classroom

Here's the text of the presentation, for individuals who have accessibility issues or who want to read the reference section.

There are many benefits of using multimedia in the classroom. There are also some disadvantages. I’ll address the disadvantages first, before examining the advantages offered by multimedia. 

 The first disadvantage, as anyone who completes this assignment will experience, is that creating multimedia takes significantly longer to prepare than a regular lesson. I had to type this script, then record it, then re-record parts of it to fix errors, then process it, then upload it, then finally publish it. A written blog post became a video that took three times as long to complete. A casual research of studies that discuss the impact of multimedia on students often point to improvement in achievement, but none of them suggest that this improvement is three times better. From a purely accounting of time, creating multimedia presentations may not be the most effective method to improve student achievement. 

The second major disadvantage of multimedia is that it is entirely dependent on the technology to work. From not sharing links properly (I’ve done that a few times in this course already), to wifi issues and even to a complete failure of the Internet, multimedia works great when there are no issues of technology. Just ask a teacher how their plan for using multimedia in their classroom while a substitute was there went. Invariably, something went wrong, and the lesson didn’t happen as planned. Multimedia failed, and students did not learn what the teacher had hoped that day. 

With that being said, however, there are several advantages to adding multimedia material in your classroom. According to Jones & Cuthrell, multimedia allows the pairing of visual, audio, and text, which access different processing parts of the brain in both hemispheres: “The brain’s left hemisphere processes language thereby enabling learners to process dialog, lyrics, and plots. The right side of the brain is used to process nonverbal input such as visual images, color, sound effects, and melodies. Video also taps into the human brain’s core intelligences which are verbal/linguistic, visual/spatial, and musical/rhythmic” (Jones & Cuthrell, 2011, p. 77), which creates multiple cognitive pathways and improves the odds of retention. 

Multimedia is most effective when they are combined with text and other activities. Using multimedia such as interactive videos that require active input on the part of the students through Edpuzzle or Playposit, for example, helps keep the attention focused and holds the student responsible for the information being presented. This helps students move from passive consumers to active participants, and increases engagement. In their study, Sykes & Emma reported that “students using video in that study reported they felt like they had a stronger grasp of the theory than did the traditional students. When made to apply the skills learned from the videos, the students using video in the study performed better as a group than the non-video students” (Sykes & Emma, 2012, p. 78). 

Another advantage of multimedia is that, according to Jones & Cuthrell, it possesses “the ability to grab students’ attention, create anticipation among students, and increase memorized content among other potential outcomes” (Jones & Cuthrell, 2011, p. 77). 

 Multimedia must be effectively crafted, however, to have the maximum educational impact on students. In a video presented at ISTE University in 2020, Michele Eaton, author of The Perfect Blend: A Practical Guide to Designing Student-Centered Learning Experiences and Director of Virtual and Blended Learning for the Metropolitan School District of Wayne Township in Indianapolis, presents several elements of effective multimedia presentations, with an emphasis on video. The first element she presented was not reading the same text that is present on the screen in the video, as this duplicates the information tracks a student’s brain needs to comprehend. This affects the cognitive load and leads to reduced overall understanding and processing of the information presented: “When we do that we actually see a drop in comprehension and retention by 79%” (ISTE U, 2020). 

Michele Eaton also suggests that teachers should show their faces. Using two devices, teachers can start recording a Zoom presentation or a Google Meet, join in with the second device in mute and silent mode, which allows them to display their face in one corner while showing there presentation on the main screen, whether it be another video, a file or browser from their computer, or a paper from their document camera. She points out that “mediocre video with okay lightning, with your face in it and your voice is always going to be a hundred times better than some overprocessed videos on Youtube, and that’s because students want to see you” (ISTE U, 2020). 

Her most important suggestion is to ensure that videos teachers create for their students are short: “Under five minutes is going to be optimal. Anything longer than that and it starts to become difficult to really focus our attention. It becomes a lot of information that’s difficult to process,” affecting the cognitive load and once again decreasing retention (ISTE U, 2020). 

In conclusion, if you overlook the amount of time needed to create multimedia material for your class and potential issues of technological malfunctions, multimedia makes for a great addition to a teacher’s arsenal of tools to help students achieve. 

References 

ISTE U. (2020, April 29). Multimedia in online learning: Part 1 [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6Ipc5XXTxA  

Jones, T., & Cuthrell, K. (2011). YouTube: Educational potentials and pitfalls. Computers in the Schools 28(1), 75–85. https://doi-org.libproxy.boisestate.edu/10.1080/07380569.2011.553149  

Sykes, R., & Emma, T. (2012). The impact on student learning outcomes of video when used as a primary teaching tool in the Internet hybrid classroom. Annual International Conference on Computer Games, Multimedia & Allied Technology, 77–80. https://doi-org.libproxy.boisestate.edu/10.5176/2251-1679_CGAT11

Responsible Use Policies

This week’s blog topic is an interesting one. The reference to Acceptable Use Policies is dated in New Hampshire, where most districts have migrated to Responsible Use Policies agreements beginning in 2015. An unscientific survey of 20 school districts surrounding mine revealed that not one of these districts has retained the Acceptable Use Policy label. The New Hampshire School Board Association first proposed model Acceptable Use Policies in 2010, then replaced these with Responsible Use Policies in 2018. My own district’s Responsible Use Policy replaced the Acceptable Use Policy previously adopted in 2010 in 2017, and I piloted the policy change after discussion at the staff, administrative level, and community level.

Roblyer and Hughes define the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) as an “agreement created by a school or other educational organization that describes the risks involved in Internet use; outlines appropriate, safe student behavior on the Internet; asks students if they agree to use the Internet under these conditions; and asks what information about themselves, if any, may be posted on the school’s website” (2018, p. 504). This definition appears not to have been adapted to changes in the last decade, and seems to refer to the state of the AUP back in the early 2000s. Missing from this definition is the larger scope of other technologies, such as devices and social media.

AUPs began to be implemented by school districts in the late 1990s, early 2000s when it became clear that the Internet was a useful tool for education, and as a result the federal government began to provide funding through its E-Rateprogram. In 2001, the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was voted into law. CIPA required districts wishing to receive E-Rate funding to demonstrate that they had policies in place to protect students, filter content, and teach digital citizenship (Sauers & Richardson, 2019, p. 28). AUPs were crafted to describe how districts addressed these issues. They also provided guidance on acceptable ways for staff and students to make use of the technologies provided by districts.

Some AUPs were created by district administrators, and relied on prescriptive lists of ways in which the various technologies could be used. Other AUPs were developed by committees of teachers and students, and described the way in which technologies would empower them to further educational goals. Yet others were crafted by chief technology officers and tech departments to explain in no uncertain language what the policies and procedures were for using technologies. Hybrids of these models also yielded AUPs. AUPs were then presented to parents and students, and required a signature before students would be allowed to use the district’s technologies.

Regardless of how they were created, these AUPs “tend[ed] to be out-dated and rigid, lack[ed] specificity and robustness, and serve[d] to overcover the legal issues inherent with children using technology” (Sauers & Richardson, 2019, p. 27). The growth of mobile devices and LTE cellular service meant that for all intents and purposes students could access unfiltered material on their own personal devices during school hours, bypassing the school filters and gaining access to the whole of the Internet. The emphasis on punishment and “do nots” were not effective tools in teaching our students how to be good digital citizens.

In a blog post I wrote back in December 2017, I explained the reasoning behind the district switching from an AUP to a RUP. I described the changes between the two, and pointed out that the district’s “Acceptable Use Policy was focused on the school desktops in the computer lab and the portable laptops available in carts in both schools, and discussed what students should not do with technology. By implementing a revised document called the Responsible Use Policy, we reframed what could and could not be done with technology to focus on the responsibilities of the user, and we included our 1:1 iPad program in the policy. Our hope is that this document better highlights responsible use and appropriate digital citizenship” (Vallée, 2017), not only with our district-own devices, but in students’ lives as well. Simply said, “AUPs focus on all of the things employees and students cannot do, and responsible use policies instead focus on the ways employees and students should act” (Sauers & Richardson, 2019, p. 31), as AUPs were “likely a holdover from times when technology was new and something to fear, rather than to embrace” (Sauers & Richardson, 2019, p. 37).

RUPs should include references to legal issues, usage, and physical treatment of devices and of the technologies, and should be designed to explain how a technology-driven education can be provided in a responsible and respectful manner that displays good digital citizenship skills. It must offer a vision not of what is acceptable to do, but what it should be used for. It must also address local concerns and circumstances, and thus should not be a copy and paste of state or national organization recommendations. Finally, RUPs need to be developed by the school community as a whole, and include staff, students, administrators, parents, and members of the business community, and be driven by the district’s vision and mission. Saurs and Richardson conclude that school districts “serve as a hub of innovative thinking, doing, and practicing. Hence, policies should be constructed so that they increase the diffusion of technology innovations in P–12 schools, rather than focus on what students and teachers should not do” (Sauers & Richardson, 2019, p. 40).

Here are four Responsible Use Policies from New Hampshire, which address these elements: My own District’s Responsible Use Policy; Freemont School District’s Responsible Use Policy; Goffstown School District's Responsible Use Rules; and Merrimack Valley School District's Responsible Use Agreement.

References

Roblyer, M.D., & Hughes, J.E. (2019). Integrating educational technology into teaching (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. 

Sauers, N. J., & Richardson, J. W. (2019). Leading the Pack: Developing Empowering Responsible Use Policies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 51(1), 27–42. https://doi-org.libproxy.boisestate.edu/10.1080/15391523.2018.1539644 

Vallée, E. (2017, December 1). Moving from an acceptable use policy to a responsible use policy. https://maipadpilot.blogspot.com/2017/12/moving-from-acceptable-use-policy-to.html

Relative Advantage of Using the Basic Suite for Learning

I first chuckled when I read this week’s blog post requirement, which was to provide a rationale for students and/or educators to use basic suite applications such as word processing, spreadsheets, and presentation tools. I had not realized there were students, and, more importantly, teachers, who did not use any of these tools. Then I wondered. Since the question is being asked, perhaps the individual who doesn’t know the power and relative advantage that the basic suite provides is not as endangered as I thought. What would they rather use? Pen and paper? Chalk? Cuneiform tablets? Finger paints? Basic suites save time and increase the efficiency of distributing information. There are some issues of privacy when using the online capabilities of basic suite tools such as Google Workspace, where “Google appeals to educators with well-designed technology and to cash-strapped districts with affordable prices on the front end, but they then collect and extract information from students and educators on the back end” (Krutka et al, 2021), as a recent filing in federal court case, New Mexico v. Google alleges, but overall basic suites are in fact close to some of the simplest and safest software running on a device.

In my work environment, there are three basic suites being used at the same time. We offer the Mac and iOS suite of Pages, Numbers, and Keynotes for staff and students. We offer Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint to staff. We also offer Google Workspace for staff and students. From preference surveys done in the past, staff prefer Microsoft to Google by slim margins, with Apple far behind. Students prefer Google over Apple, but use iOS products for specific projects. Depending on the grade level students may not have mastered the basic suite, but even 1st grade students know how to start a Google Doc or a Pages document and use the dictation capability of their iOS device to use speech to text. Skills progressively increase until high school as our librarians and digital learning specialists help craft specific lessons and projects that promote their use. However, we still show tricks to seniors, and our optional staff training on basic suites are well attended.

One thing that has changed over the years is the training that new students bring with them. Even as recently as five years ago, we offered a training day in August for students enrolling in middle and high school so they gained experience in using basic suite tools, as well as how to effectively use an iPad and Schoology, our learning management system (LMS). It is now the rare middle or high schooler who doesn’t know how to use Word, Pages or Docs, how to operate a tablet, and how to use a LMS. As for staff, six or seven years ago the overwhelming majority of new hires who were recent graduates could use basic suite tools, but that was not necessarily true for more experienced teachers who were making the transition into our district. That too has changed, and we no longer provide basic suite training in our August New Staff Orientation. Many of our staff members in fact seek and obtain certifications, whether they be Google Educator Level 1 and Level 2, Apple Teacher, or Microsoft Office Associate

As far as the relative advantage, anyone old enough to remember having typed papers on a typewriter, filling out lesson plan templates by hand, or attempting to reconcile a checkbook appreciate the ability to instantly correct documents, use spellcheck and word count, receive grammatical suggestions, use formulas and functions to perform complex calculations, and use the thousands of features available in basic suite tools. Personal computers would have never gained a foothold in American houses without the availability of the basic suite, and while technology complexifies and constantly changes, the basic suite remains an anchor for the production of communication and information.  

References

Krutka, D.G., Smits, R.M. & Willhelm, T.A. (2021). Don’t be evil: Should we use Google in schools?. TechTrends. https://doi-org.libproxy.boisestate.edu/10.1007/s11528-021-00599-4