John Hendron – Page 2

Replacement Costs for 1:1 Equipment

by John Hendron · May 16, 2017

Dear parents,

As we collect equipment associated with the 1:1 program this month, we wanted to provide an updated list of costs associated with missing or damaged equipment. Some of these costs are lower than what were published in the fall due to a reduction in pricing from Apple.

32GB iPad Air 1 ($394)
64GB iPad Air 2 ($394)
iPad Case ($31)
iPad Charging Cord (USB-Lightning) ($13)
iPad Charger ($19)
Kajeet Wifi Hotspot Device ($140)
Kajeet Wifi Hotspot Charging Cord ($5)
Kajeet Wifi Charger ($5)
Kajeet Wifi Hotspot Case ($5)

If you participated in our voluntary insurance program, damage for the iPad should be covered. The associated equipment such as charging cords, charger, and case are not covered by the insurance program. If your child is continuing in the program with a device that is not slated to be replaced, he or she will receive the same device next school year.

There is no insurance coverage for the Kajeet program. Damaged or missing equipment will need to be replaced.

Digital Learning

by John Hendron · Feb 23, 2017

In 2000 I had the opportunity to attend my first VSTE Conference thanks to the support of the tech leaders here in Goochland for allowing a new teacher to immerse himself in other ideas from educators from around the state. It was the start of a tradition for me. Since that time, I’ve attended every VSTE conference since. For two terms I served on its board of directors. Later in 2002, I began representing Goochland at a metro-Richmond meeting of the Greater Richmond Area Educational Technology Consortium (GRAETC). I was an active member of that organization for 14 years.

I was so proud this morning to see us affiliated with both organizations in this morning’s broadcast by VSTE of Digital Learning Day 2017. Three of Mr. Frago’s students appeared on a live broadcast this morning with Dr. Richardson to talk about the Scrum process used in their class to facilitate project-based learning. Ms. Leiderman, our secondary technology coach, helped facilitate the conversation and made the interview of students possible.

Scrum is well-aligned with some of the ideas collected by Canadian educator and author George Couros about learning. In his book The Innovator’s Mindset, he juxtaposes traditional ideas about school with ideas about learning. Here are some examples:

School promotes starting by looking for answers; learning promotes starting with questions.
School teaches compliance; learning is about challenging perceived norms.
School is about giving you information; learning is about giving you information.
School promotes surface-level thinking; learning is about deep exploration.

I am passionate that there are great examples each and every day where technology is empowering and amplifying learning here in Goochland. On this #DLDay 2017, I’m so proud of our students and our teachers being featured on this webcast for the benefit of others across the Commonwealth and the world.

For more on Scrum, check out our teacher’s Scrum blog

Embracing Rejection

by John Hendron · Jan 10, 2017

It’s common sense, I believe, that if we want something, we take it.

This works well when sitting at a family table with a bowl of fruit in the center. Feel like an orange? Take it, it’s yours.

It won’t work as well at the local grocery store. Yes, I can take what I want, but I have to pay for what I’ve placed in my basket. But I still have the freedom to take what I want.

What if what we want requires asking for it from someone, maybe someone we don’t know? The fear of rejection is so powerful that many times we won’t even ask. There’s a psychological penalty for rejection. And out of fear of being rejected, some of us simply won’t ask.

This talk by Jia Jiang resonated with me, mostly because I could relate to his logic. I didn’t want to experience rejection.

Funny thing is, when he embraced it and decided he could stomach it, he learned a lot.

I think here could be potentially a lot of take-aways from his experience.

In case you’re interested, here is Jiang’s blog posts where he documented his rejection.

Designing for Deeper Learning

by John Hendron · Jan 10, 2017

This past summer I had the opportunity to work closely with four teachers in a new project that defined new roles. We wanted four innovative teachers to think about spending extra time with us to help us develop a set of instructional experiences. We called these new positions “Curriculum and Innovation Teachers” or C&I for short. What resulted from this extra month of work over the summer was a series of G21 projects that we populated into Schoology, our learning management system. Before I get to the projects, please permit me to go into a little more detail about our aims.

Several years ago I wrote a plan which helped establish a blueprint for the type of instruction we knew would help benefit students in Goochland when we had a 1:1 program that support it. I called this our “Innovation Plan” and I don’t aim here to re-hash the thirty-eight page document here. However, there were a few important things in that plan that are worth pointing out.

What might we expect with the expenditure of money for a 1:1 program? A benefit of some sort, we’d hope, right? The thing is, there will be no academic benefit to students in a 1:1 program if the pedagogy used in the classroom hasn’t changed alongside the introduction of the tools. Meaning, if we’re still teaching the way we did before the 1:1 came, then something is wrong.
We see motivation and excitement about learning wane as students get older. We label this “engagement with school.” And so we have to address learning head-on. Who is responsible for learning? Let’s let students own their learning. By designing instruction around learner-centered approaches, we hand-over control to students. When students feel they have control, they take ownership. The best example I’ve seen of this thus far has been our approach with Scrum.
Projects offer us an alternative to traditional assessment. Projects many times include skill development and opportunities to apply knowledge. Using a student’s performance at tasks designed by the teacher allow us to capture evidence of understanding and application in a more real-world way.
We need, as educators, to engage with quality exemplars of good instructional design. Our work started with looking at a “gold star” project aligned to the best practices established by the Buck Institute, a leading source for project-based learning resources. We spent time together dissecting the project, looking at how it aimed to engage learners, support the standards, and above all else, gave students choices in the learning activities. Our first project was a re-write of one of their example projects, to more closely align it to the Virginia SOL and adapt it to our technology.
Finally, deeper learning. We had to make sure everyone was on the same page about what deeper learning is, and what it’s not. Our aim in every single experience was to approach deeper learning. So much of the design of a quality PBL is the same as the aims for deeper learning: tight integration with standards, student voice and choice, problem-solving, developing an academic mindset, developing communication…

As August approached, we took stock of what we’d come up with. So much of the work was done in my absence, so it was amazing, from my perspective, to stand back and take a look at what these four ladies–Krystle Demas, Sarah Smith, Beth Ferguson, and Jennifer Gates–were able to produce. We introduced these projects to teachers in grades 3-8 with a series of “Launch Parties” at different schools.

Today, our C&I projects are located in the Resources section of Schoology for elementary and middle school teachers. Projects cover all content areas, with many overlapping. We created a chart to capture which content areas were covered with each project. Finally, we produced a document for distribution to our friends (PDF with hyperlinks) in other parts of Virginia so they could get a peek at our work.

This January-February we will be making a recommendation to our school board to expand these roles to a total of eight C&I teachers for the upcoming summer to continue this work. In addition to writing these curricular documents, these teachers are honing their skills, becoming coaches and trainers, and are able to creatively re-think our approach to instruction. As a result of their work, everyone now has access to high-quality exemplars of what’s possible when we change some of our ideas about pedagogy and provide world-class tools in the hands of each one of our students.

Approaching Digital Citizenship

by John Hendron · Nov 14, 2016

I am sometimes consulted on issues relating to students developing digital citizenship, and this has only increased since our one-to-one program has begun in Goochland. Sometimes these discussions with teachers or administrators focus on undesired behaviors from students, such as playing games, forgetting to bring the iPad to school, or having it charged.

Students have been playing games on computers since I’ve been a teacher, so that’s nothing new. Forgetting an iPad is not terribly different than forgetting to tie a shoe or bring a pencil to class. It happens.

I know it’s frustrating to deal with these behaviors as a teacher when you’ve spent time and energy designing a great lesson that will make use of the iPad or computer. It’s like encountering a slow truck ahead when driving to work, if you could only get around the impediment, life would be sweeter. We don’t want to slow down on the road, we don’t want extra steps to take, and having to deal with Johnny’s (I chose ‘Johnny’ as that was my nickname as a five year-old) 15% charged iPad with a home screen littered with all the best as-of-yet not unfiltered web games requires–a really deep breath!

It’s not that I believe game playing, or behavior within Schoology, or remembering to charge an iPad are trivial things that we should ignore. I think they all are addressable as developing digital citizenship. Let me elaborate!

Reconsidering Behaviors

B. F. Skinner is probably the most-recognized authority on behaviorism. His experiments showed us that we could induce certain behaviors, or curb others, through conditioning. These ideas have been translated into instructional design. Learning to drive a car is a very behavior-centric pursuit: we get guidance from an instructor about how to operate a car on the road based upon common rules everyone will follow. It might be boring, but it works. Once you’ve met the standard, you get a license, and you’re ready to roll.

Johnny knows the speed limit. It’s 35 here. And he knows what a speed limit is. Yet, his behavior is to go 40-45 in the car, and each time, the driving instructor taps the brake to slow Johnny down. Before Johnny takes his test, he may need reminding about driving the speed limit (or below) multiple times. Hopefully when he’s a licensed driver, he remembers to mind the limit and slow down.

Imagine another way to learn to drive: every sixteen year-old gets issued a bumper car. There are no rules, per se, anymore. Eventually, a system of rules will establish itself, and once everyone stops bumping into one another, we can remove the bumper.

In the first scenario, we are introduced into a prescribed system and the outcome has to be compliance with the system. In the second, the system is formed from experimentation, trial and error. I like the system we have for learning to drive a car, but learning to ride a bike is closer to the second example. We put on training wheels and you learn how to make adjustments so that eventually you can remove the trainers. It’s only through that experience of self-discovery does the habit stick.

Constructing Understanding from Experience

Who said “once you learn to ride a bike, you’ll never forget”?

When it comes to learning digital citizenship, we have to decide whether we’ll take a behaviorist or constructivist approach to learning about citizenship. The problem is, one is not very impactful, and the other would be way too chaotic! I think more than likely we need a dual approach. Society at large, and our schools specifically, already have rules about how we behave in general and how we behave when armed with technology. We have an acceptable use policy, and the government has laws and expectations about things like copyright and libel. And universities especially have rules around things like academic honor. So, part of the discussion should include what rules exist and why we have them. Teaching “what” the rules are and not “why” would be silly, right? Driving on the wrong side of the road seems obvious, but with how we behave in online spaces, it’s less obvious to some.

Johnny knows he can’t drive on the left side of the road because oncoming traffic would hit him. But when Johnny shares disparaging comments to his peers in an online discussion, he doesn’t feel the emotions his peers feel when they’re hurt. It’s through that experience that Johnny may come to understand the impact his actions have on others.

The constructivist way of learning about citizenship takes longer and is messier than looking at rules. But it has the highest potential of sticking with us. When we experience hurt feelings by another student in an online forum, it’s emotional and we’ll remember it. When we write an email to an adult and get support for funding for a project we want to take on, it’ll mean something when we took the time to perfect our letter-writing skills. And when we get in trouble for playing a game in class, it’s an opportunity for us to not simply remind Johnny he shouldn’t have been playing a game, but to figure out why Johnny made the choice in the first place. We might just learn that the lesson is boring to Johnny and he’s coping with that boredom. We might learn that Johnny is already to move on to the next concept, or that Johnny is stuck, and needs more help.

I don’t suggest we don’t have rules and just let “anything go.” But I want to remind everyone that giving kids devices and giving them tools to explore and communicate can’t be totally controlled by setting expectations or rules. Kids will bump into things and it is our job to help course-correct their “driving” with digital technology.

Approaching Citizenship with our Gadgetry

The best approaches when it comes to applying behaviorist principles to establishing rules include consistency. A rule for one teacher should be the rule for another. Kids only get confused when one teacher has one set of expectations, and another teacher’s are different, or contradictory. Take the time to discuss rules that work well with your colleagues.

Most important is when rules help students define a moral position. As educators, we might adopt a “games are evil, games are anti-education” moral stance on games. Not educational games, mind you, but, the games that are for pure entertainment.

It’s easy to understand rules when they align with moral positions. But it’s confusing when a moral position is not aligned with a rule. When we make exceptions to rules (i.e., “you may play games when your work is done”), it help sets a moral position about games: they’re appropriate awards for completed work. But how do we explain to students the rule in the AUP with no game playing, and why it exists?

When it comes to the constructivist mindset with citizenship, we have to both design opportunities for learning in this area, and approach it regularly to see how everyone is doing. That includes continual dialog with students and designing lessons where students can be successful in applying twenty-first century skills as part of the learning. That means giving kids opportunities for communication, research, and inquiry, and using their devices to accomplish some of these tasks. Hopefully they take our recommendations and follow our rules, but when they don’t, it’s still a valuable learning experience. And remember some kids will need those experiences to really learn.

I firmly believe that if we are all “tuned” to addressing digital citizenship as a regular, quotidian task, then ultimately it becomes easier to address this important aspect of having and using technology each day. And hopefully issues, like those I’ve described, become less frequent and less frustrating to those of us in the classrooms.

G21 Projects Provide Deeper Learning Experiences

by John Hendron · Aug 18, 2016

Congratulations go to our three sets of G21 Award Winners, recognized this year at our annual 2016 Convocation.

G21 is our project-based learning program that is focused in how we use technology to foster twenty-first century skills, deeper learning, and student-centered instruction.

Each August we recognize three superlative projects from the past year.

Elementary Award – Jennifer Gates and the 4th Grade Team at RES
Secondary Award – James Frago
Divisionwide Award – Ariel Perry (GES Kindergarten) and Jennifer Abbott (9th grade English)

The Hum of Scrum

by John Hendron · Jun 30, 2016

Scrum is a method by which software developers work together on efficient teams to rapidly collaborate on application development. Focused around the idea that the effort of many can trump the efficiency of just one person, Scrum, or the process as it is called– scrumming–helps companies that employ the technique to maximize the potential of its team members.

So why did the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) choose to feature an article highlighting the work of educators Joe Beasley (GES) and James Frago (GMS) in its quarterly publication, entrsekt? Beasley and Frago began using Scrum this past school year (first at GES in Beasley’s classroom, and later at GMS, when Frago became a long-term substitute teacher) and really noticed that the process or method for working together was helping their students.

In the picture above, Beasley’s students at GES are using the Scrum technique, using a shared file folder and sticky notes (called a Scrum board) to organize their efforts at a building project in Minecraft EDU as part of a unit on literature they’re reading in language arts.

The magazine is distributed to ISTE’s members all over the world. The publication of the article highlighting their experience using Scrum in the classroom debuted at this year’s ISTE conference in Denver. I am so proud of Joe and Jim for trying this in our schools and finding success in showing kids how to work together effectively towards common goals. Watching kids using Scrum in the classroom is exciting, because amid peaks of chaos that can result from a number of simultaneous discussions taking place among each team, we see students truly engaged with their tasks, communicating effectively, and developing their skills and knowledge in a very learner-centered modality. It is especially exciting to see our students featured in this article, and to have Goochland County Public Schools represented on the world stage with educational technology.

My thanks go out to Bea Leiderman, our secondary ITRT, who has taken a special interest in Scrum and helped make possible the opportunity at ISTE for Joe, Bea, and Jim to present the technique and the outcomes of the method with a captive audience. We are hoping a free version of the magazine becomes published soon for all of our local stakeholders to read.

« Previous Page