The Digital Literacy Center project was geared to increasing digital literacy skills for a primarily adult audience of traditionally under-served community members, including senior citizens, homeless, and low income residents. Here are some highlights and findings from this work:

• We conducted 24 classes, as well as 37 individualized “drop in” tech help sessions, four school sessions, and seven train-the-trainer classes.
• The program was enthusiastically received with 98.9% of participants reporting learning something by participating in the program. 94.3% said they were more likely to participate in a similar library activity in the future.
• The audience served was very diverse, ranging from those with very basic technology skills to those with more advanced proficiencies. The most popular classes were those related to smart phones and small business marketing.
• The audience for the help sessions varied, but tended toward those with lower levels of technology proficiency. The most requested help topics were in using smartphones and recovering and managing passwords.
• There is a big demand for both formal tech classes and informal tech help. The range of skill levels and types of questions along with the high degree of variability in individual device configurations requires flexible and experienced staff to meet these needs.
• Through professional development that was offered (both formally and informally), the library staff not only gained new skills, but began to see themselves in a role to provide technical support and other non-traditional services. This was a huge move forward for the library and its patrons.
• The curriculum developed for this program will be used in other parts of the county in 2019-20.

The expansion of the Creativity in a Box work allowed us to put these boxes in more locations around the county, to conduct 15 creativity-oriented workshops (primarily but not exclusively for youth), and to create new “Workshop in a Box” kits.

As we increased the reach of the program, implementation fidelity varied. Not surprisingly, the closer we were to the implementation (e.g. facilitating events vs. supplying resources and materials to others to implement), the more successful the results were. (This is a reminder that “train the trainers” type models are challenging.) At times, it was difficult to get information back from larger libraries that were not under county management. Staff changes were also a challenge. In addition, larger libraries seemed to struggle more with non-traditional resources like these. More professional development and support could help with this.

One of the most successful kits was the “Photo Challenge” kit, which includes 10 digital cameras, instructions, and photo challenges for kids to complete. This workshop is super-easy to conduct and is one of the most popular with participants, who have ranged from ages 2 to teenagers and even parents. Another very popular workshop is tie dyeing.

Overall, the project was a success with over 600 people participating, and 84.5% reporting that they learned something by participating. Importantly, there are a large number of resources (including 24 “Creativity in a Box” kits, four “Workshop in a Box” kits, and refills of consumables for all of this) that will be available to the nine participating libraries for years to come.

Sustainability is always a big consideration in the grants we administer. It is important to us that the work that is put into a grant be able to continue on after the grant funding concludes. (For example, our Free Book Box project is still going strong a couple years after the initial funding cycle.)

For 2019-20, we have on tap a Mobile Technology Lab project that will make a mobile lab of laptops available to smaller rural branches and will also expand our offering of tech literacy classes and individual help sessions. We are also going to be doing another oral history project. The first work we did in this area was in Portal. This new work will be more extensive and involves another local community.

The post Library work appeared first on K12 Handhelds.

As many of you know, I’ve spent much of this year working on a project to explore the adoption and implementation of K-12 core instructional materials and to explore business models for the successful and sustainable publishing of such open educational resource (OER) materials.

I’ve written about some of this work as it’s progressed, and now the final report on this is available.

The report covers state and district adoption processes for K-12 core curriculum, considerations that are important to districts doing adoptions (particularly as it relates to OER publishers), attitudes toward OER, publishers’ perspectives on product and OER, information on business models for OER publishers, and recommendations to those in this market.

I learned a lot in the conversations and research that comprised this work. I am grateful to the Hewlett Foundation and everyone who participated.

The post Adoption and implementation of K-12 core instructional materials – final report appeared first on K12 Handhelds.

We can either see this as an opportunity to innovate and improve learning…or we can just go on with business as usual.

I recently gave a short talk about this at SXSWedu. Here it is. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

The post A unique opportunity appeared first on K12 Handhelds.

At the end of the end of this session (with no time left to respond), this great question came up:

“How do you all suggest differentiating when it comes to kids who don’t work well with technology in a technology based class?”

[wait time…in case you want to think or write about this yourself before I start thinking aloud ;]

Differentiation is all about accommodating different learning styles and empowering learners to guide their own learning. If some learners don’t work well with technology, don’t force it. Instead, help them find strategies that work for them.

(Side note: I think it’s probably worth some time to look with these learners at why they “don’t work well with technology.” Is it certain kinds of technology? Is it certain kinds of content or activities? Are there other factors in play? Do they use Facebook or play WOW? Saying that someone “doesn’t work well with technology” seems a little like saying someone doesn’t work well with paper. I’m not discounting the possibility, but just saying that it merits some exploration. It’s a big world, technology is.)

Depending on the age of the student, I would put equal onus on him/her to puzzle through this. Some exploration about how we learn and taking responsibility for our learning is a good thing for all of us.

Then, if you end up at the same place, accommodate! There are a million ways to learn that aren’t technology-based. When I taught, we had very little access to technology, and so I differentiated in many other ways that you’ve probably all used. I made up independent learning project folders that students could choose from and work on at their own pace. I encouraged individual reading and writing on topics of choice. I tried to avoid a lot of whole class work and to give students flexibility in pacing and had them track and monitor their own progress.

What would I do differently now (but with no technology)? More language support. More use of multiple resources. Less use of textbooks. (There are many non-technology options: magazines, trade books, video, mentors, hands on experiences, etc.) And always more acknowledgement of where students are starting from and working from there, rather than trying to fit a learner into a hole he/she just doesn’t fit in.

And of course, I’d probably try to find some alluring, atypical technology treats to dangle in front of these learners as well.

How about you? What ideas do you have?

The post What about students who don't work well with technology? appeared first on K12 Handhelds.

Among the main points of this presentation were:

• The Common Core standards offer a unique opportunity for schools to examine the interconnected realms of standards, curriculum, assessment, and professional development, and hopefully, to improve learning.
• Common Core represents a significant change. If you think you have implemented Common Core and your classrooms don’t look substantially different than they did before, you haven’t really implemented Common Core. (Related points: Cross-walk documents and superficial alignments are not the best tools to realize the benefits of this change.)
• New assessments are coming in 2014. They too will be very different. We need to explore how students are being prepared for these assessments and, of course, for the real world.

I feel a certain amount of sadness that most educators seem to view Common Core as yet another worthless series of hoops they are being asked to jump through, rather than as an opportunity to do the kind of deeper learning that many of us feel is missing from classrooms.

One of my concerns about Common Core is that many districts seem to be implementing the new standards very quickly, possibly without considering all the opportunities and ramifications. New instructional materials are being purchased hastily. Professional development and planning is inadequate.

In the audience of school board members I spoke with, approximately two-thirds said that they have already implemented or are well into implementing these new standards. Many are doing this without being aware of the forthcoming new assessments and without thorough thought about related curriculum and instructional materials issues.

For example, at a time in which many districts are making large curriculum purchases, might it be a good time to think about digital content? New ways to involve teachers? Etc.

As we discussed these issues, there was a fair amount of discontent in the audience about the current state of assessment. Teachers are not afforded the professionalism to do what they know is best for students. Charter schools are often lauded without being held to the same standards. Deeper learning is not happening in many classrooms. Many new mandates are unfunded. There was plenty of unhappiness and blame to go around.

But perhaps it is time to put aside the blame and start doing some things that we all believe are best for our students.

This point in time might be the best opportunity in decades to look deeply at standards, curriculum, assessment, and the professional role of our teachers — it is simply too important to rush through or not do to the best of our abilities.

The post Common Core: The good, the bad, and the ugly appeared first on K12 Handhelds.

Yet, as I’ve seen the beginning of Common Core implementations, they don’t seem to be living up to that potential. And the outcry from teachers about the problems with Common Core have surprised me. They largely seem to view it as the millionth change imposed on them by the powers that be. “This too shall pass” is what I’m hearing. This passive resistance has surprised me because I saw Common Core as a part of the solution to the curriculum and assessment problems that everyone sees.

I talked to someone from an organization involved in Common Core who said “If a school is implementing Common Core, and it doesn’t look radically different from how it looked before, they aren’t really implementing the Common Core.” Again, what I see so far isn’t radically different curriculum or classroom practice.

So why the disconnect?

I think the answer lies in part in how schools are implementing the standards, which looks something like this:

• Look at a cross-walk of old standards to new standards.
• Identify major changes between grade levels and any additions.
• Layer that onto the old and proceed.

I think that process misses the spirit of the Common Core.

In business, we do something called zero-based budgeting. The idea is that instead taking last year’s plan and adding a bunch of incremental stuff to it, you start from zero. This forces a hard look at every decision and its relation to the overall mission.

What if a curriculum were designed from scratch using Common Core? I venture to say it would look quite a bit different than one taken from previous years with cross-walk items added. Probably a lot more like what those of us who were hopeful about Common Core were thinking. And what a wonderful opportunity for some collaborative professional exploration around standards unpacking and curriculum mapping.

Anyone doing this?

The post Zero-based curriculum planning appeared first on K12 Handhelds.

Unfortunately, to date, these have only been available as pdf files. Pdfs are good for printing, but not much good for other uses, like putting on mobile devices, interacting with, making movies, etc.

The great thing about open-licensed content, though, is that you can remix it.

So this summer and fall, I’ve been working on taking these pdf files and remixing them into PowerPoint presentations, separate jpg art files, and interactive VoiceThreads (with audio and the ability for students to record their own audio).

original pdf:

ppt:

voicethread:

All of these resources for almost 80 stories are available  on Curriki, along with ideas for using them.

Thanks to FreeReading, the Hewlett Foundation, and Bon Education for inspiring the idea to do this and to Steve O. and David Wiley and his Educational Productivity Pledge (see P.S.) for the impetus to move ahead with it.

The post Free, open early literacy resources appeared first on K12 Handhelds.

States are cross-walking their current standards to the Common Core and adding their 15%. Districts are frantically trying to figure out how they’ll implement the new standards. Pundits are either hailing the new standards or criticizing them.

I’m not entirely convinced that these new standards are better than many states’ standards, but I think there potentially are benefits to be gained from having a more nationally consistent approach to standards and assessment. More importantly, I think the intent behind the Common Core — namely to reflect deeper learning and more emphasis on real-world skills (and presumably less emphasis on teaching to ridiculous bubble tests) — is good.

Of course, the real test (no pun intended) will come when the new assessments come out in a couple years. If these assessments meet their goal of assessing deeper, more meaningful, real-world skills, then they, along with the Common Core, will be a strong impetus toward meaningful change in education. Students will simply have to learn in different ways to meet the challenge.

In the meantime, most groups are addressing the Common Core, not by looking at their intent and implementing meaningful reform, but by cross-walking their standards and moving existing instruction units from grade x to grade y to fill the holes.

Surely, this is not what the advocates of the Common Core had in mind. Equally certainly, it is not what our students (or teachers) deserve.

The Common Core was not a plan to do the same thing in a different sequence. It is a call to look at learning in a different ways. It demands new methods, new materials, new ways of thinking about learning.

And if the new assessments shape up as planned, and we haven’t taken the opportunity to embrace some new approaches, we’ll be in for even more vitriolic accountability discussions.

The post The potential of Common Core appeared first on K12 Handhelds.

But what is being done about it? The feds seem to be steamrolling ahead with the same old same old. States are in crisis. Districts are busy covering their proverbial asses. Some of the best teachers are leaving education. Proponents of ed reform seem to be mostly engaged in hand wringing and name calling.

Charter schools and other fringe initiatives seem to have little chance to make a difference for the huge number of students moving through the K-12 system.

One opportunity for real reform is in online learning. There is broad consensus that online learning is going to be a dominant part of the educational experience for many students in the future.  Most states have significant online learning programs. Online learning helps address teacher shortages, which are projected to worsen in the next few years. Blended learning is being written into everyone’s plans. Schools are finding more flexible options necessary, and students are demanding it.

But online learning can take many appearances. It can be a transformative learning environment with an emphasis on deeper learning, collaboration, and 21st century thinking skills. Or it can be the same industrial model of content cramming coverage, dull textbooks, and (online) lecturing heads.

These choices are being made right now as online course structure is being designed.

Equally important are the decisions about what role public K-12 schools are going to have in online education. Will they embrace the challenge to develop and facilitate  enriching courses or will they cede that role to commercial providers in the way that has been done with textbooks?

To choose the latter path will mean lots of money being directed toward traditional, proprietary content that supports the status quo.

To choose the former will require plenty of creativity, energy, professional development, support, and more. But it just could be the path out of the current morass we’re in.

The post How to effect change? appeared first on K12 Handhelds.

I can think of no better way to use such funding than to develop high-quality, open-licensed curriculum resources that would be available for free use worldwide. Teachers and students in one-to-one laptop programs across the country could benefit from this content.

A more detailed concept paper of this idea is available here.

If you are with a school district that would be interested in a collaboration on such a project, please contact me at karen at k12opened dot com.

The post Stimulus funding for open curriculum appeared first on K12 Handhelds.