Sunday, March 25, 2007

Scaffolding PD Model

The scaffolding professional development model could be a framework designed to support teachers in using technology to increase student achievement. The differentiated professional development model would allow participants to determine personal entry points and select professional development opportunities that meet individual learning needs.

What would be the purpose of the scaffolding PD Model?
· To clearly communicate professional development opportunities that respond to varying readiness levels and modes of learning; and
· To provide a self-assessment continuum describing stages of proficiency that would allow participants to identify and select professional development and support options at each stage of growth.

The article, Differentiation in Diverse Settings, by Carol Ann Tomlinson, in the School Administrator provides some great ideas for differentiating staff development! I found the implementation stories interesting, in particular the Waterside story and how they developed a “coherent and sustained movement in a desirable direction.”

The article reminded me about the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM). I believe an adapted framework can easily be customized in order to provide a scaffolding professional development model. Similarly, in the article, Tomlinson also talks about Watersides’ continuum used to support teacher staff development and needs at each stage of growth as one of the components in their implementation that was successful. Perhaps the CBAM model needs to be resurfaced again!

Recommended Reading:
The CBAM: Concerns Based Adoption Model
The Concerns Based Adoption Model
CBAM - Impact for Administrators
Stages of Concern about Technology use

Saturday, March 17, 2007


Is it really possible to multitask when using technology or are we just switching from one task to the other? I am intrigued with the current studies and interest in multitasking with technology and in particular the impact of multitasking on learning and leadership. Prior to delving into the research, I formed some assumptions about multitasking:
1) Everyone is able to multitask
2) Multitasking is something we should encourage not discourage
3) 21st century learners are able to multitask better than learners before them
4) Multitasking skills can be improved with practice
5) Multitasking makes tasks more interesting

I’m involved in 1-1 mobile computing leadership initiative where a group of school based administrators and district consultants meets face-to-face one afternoon each month. At first, it was really uncomfortable having everyone using their laptops during the meeting especially when presentations were being “delivered” to the whole group. During the presentations I noticed many of the participants checking email, websites, or working on other tasks using their laptops instead of completely focusing on the presenter. We never did establish or communicate any etiquette regarding the use of laptops during the meetings when we started the program. The only instruction given was the expectation that participants use the laptop as often as possible at our meetings as well as any other meetings they attend to become comfortable with using the technology and modeling the use of technology in a leadership position.

One participant asked me if we should have everyone close their laptops in order to ensure everyone is on task. I reflected on how many times I did the same thing as a teacher and said “Everyone put your pencils down and now we’ll begin ….” I suppose pencils could easily be replaced with laptops in the previous sentence. I have to wonder how modern learners expect one-to-one environments to operate. I believe it is possible for students to be present in their seat with pencils down and really NOT be present at all. So what’s the difference if they have a laptop in front of them and we ask them to close the lid? Will laptops OFF ensure students are ON or engaged and motivated to do the assigned task or participate in a given discussion? It doesn’t seem fair to limit learners by our own preferences based on our experiences and technology competencies.

Through extensive research, Harvard researchers, Jiang and Kanwisher, who studied students at MIT, found “that people have surprisingly stubborn limitations on their ability to carry out multiple tasks at the same time” (2003). In the study, it was discovered that students took twice as long to do two tasks at once as when they did the tasks separately. It was found that task switching took longer than task-repeating. The switching time between tasks adds on a considerable amount of time dependent on the complexity of the tasks. So, handling one thing at a time seems to be easier than handling two and we expend more time when switching in particular if the task involves increasing complexity.

Similar to my own personal assumptions, Prensky argues that today’s learners are able to task-switch efficiently and are able to successfully interact with multiple technologies and engage in several activities at one time (2005). I have to wonder if effective task-switching only occurs when the learner is engaged in complementary tasks or more than one simple task. Multitasking does seem more manageable if the two (or more) tasks are simple tasks. I find it much more difficult to multitask when one of the tasks is more complex.

Questions: What are the implications of multitasking for learners and leaders? By understanding the intricacies of multitasking can we avoid limiting learners by our own ideals and lead in changing the learning landscape to support 21st century learners?

Recommended Reading:
Common Neural Mechanisms for Response Selection and Perceptual Processing (Jiang & Kanwisher, 2003)
Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants (Prensky, 2005)