Running head: EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITIES

Educational Technology Communities Michael Post Liberty University

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITIES Abstract Education requires a community, and in a community various persons incorporate different talents for the good of the group. Educational technology must be similar, we must look to strengths to help and guide the community. Community members are compensated, but that isnt always in a monetary mode. Compensation should include the success of helping the community in classrooms, staff, and academia. Several questions and thoughts revolve around successful educational technology community and what is determined to be good practice. Volunteers join the community to assist, support, and add ideas and viewpoints to a goal of helping the educational village. Why dont we have more educational technology communities and why are we afraid of good community. Some samples of community ideas are also mentioned. Keywords: technology, community, service, teamwork, elementary, middle, high school,

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITIES Educational Technology Communities Community is the goal, the formative word, and a useable design in educational

technology. One of the disturbances in the word community is the definition; can we all agree to an agreeable definition? Why is a definition so difficult to produce among colleagues working together for the same goal? Without getting too philosophical, the suggestion might include individualism. Individualism is based on the individual, obviously, but when does the individual take the time to stop being so individualistic that they can comfortably blend with the educational community? We seem to be working for the same goal, helping students to learn and become successful citizens of our world. Technology should be a great help to that target, it allows access to educational experts, curriculum and lessons, and stories of successes, and failures to direct so that communities might learn, improve and avoid problems and consequences. Throughout these thoughts community, learners, teachers, and students are interchangeably used as these all become invaluable members of the community of educational technology. A community needs a common vision and goal. A common vision isnt just created, it needs to be flexible enough to adjust, yet firm enough to represent the intended goal. This idea takes planning, social interaction, and research to begin the process. Then the collective needs to collaborate, chew, and process the data to follow a desired direction for the technology community. This effort and creation will build a foundation for community. Inside this discussion and planning time, an opportunity might be taken to look at the various roles each member should expect from the group (Glazer, Hannafin, Drew, & Rich, 2009). The goals are so important as they vary depending on the technology, desired outcomes, and need an effective

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITIES

mode of delivery to reach the community. The technology and community need to connect to be most useful (Simonson, 2000). A community requires a willingness to cooperate and a desire to learn, and in that effort it is necessary to give and take constructive criticism. Sometimes the term criticism is threatening and instead calling it feedback to make it sound less domineering. Constructive criticism isnt a personal attack, but a different viewpoint to consider the best scenario for the community. As an individual we take criticism personally, but as a group we take it communally to make our educational community a better operating system. Educational technology needs to be considered a continuing part of professional development, not just an additional elective. It needs to be a continuing interaction as education and technology continue to blend. Community should last for the duration, and keep growing and editing the group of learners. The technology doesnt need to be complex, fancy, or unique, it needs to be effective for learners and community to use and incorporate. Assessments are now technologically based and allow for rapid data acquisition for the learners, teachers, administrators and the whole community. We need to be prepared for technology whether we considerate useful for our education system. It may well be community members who are willing to learn and try may be more effective in the technology community as they may be more open minded about implementation (Wright, 2010). If the planning and communication continue beyond the professional development state, the community continues and doesnt end like staff training might end with a rush to the exit with no further action. Teacher training programs frequently teach technology priorities in individual classes. This may be useful, but perhaps it would be better to also include technology across the spectrum of teacher training. If technology is the important tool that education can use to reach students

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITIES with various methods and media, then perhaps it needs to be a main staple of training, not just a brief sideline glimpse. Good training for teaching, and focused here, good technology training

requires proper courses, experiences, and beliefs implemented together to help the integration of technology into the technology community focusing on education (Teo et al., 2008). Although mentioned in the year 2000, the equivalency theory still causes an educational technology community to think and consider the following concepts: does one size fit all for a class, community, or individual? The theory suggests no. Simonson suggest that using a tool limits; instead consider all the tools available. This allows the group to find an assortment of tools that will find the right hands to put them to use. The techniques and technology will be used by those who have strengths and interests in those areas of development (Simonson, 2000). Does this mean that the individual doesnt exist? On the contrary, this should make the individual and the community better, as regardless the outcome; we have gained some useful experience for future endeavors with our community or perhaps another community. Community members are colleagues and all are within various levels of training and experience. All are in the profession, and so we need to treat our community professionally. Freedom and trust are given between professionals, but unfortunately we do have to set limits to guide and protect one another. But, if the relationship is built on trust, freedom, respect and professionalism than exceptions and adjustments can be made with the consent of the community. Residents of the educational community are learners and self-guided students who are motivated, thoughtful, and designers in the process of their own educational process. Normally they are lifelong learners with a passion for the cause. They can formulate the building and design of new knowledge acquisition. Community members as students also aid in the

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITIES implementation of learning community environments, which may be either organic or virtual in the educational setting (Carneiro, 2006).

This is where community size comes into consideration, too large a group and the time to confer takes too long and too small a group doesnt present the benefit of experience that strengthens a group. Size would depend on the community impact area; worldwide educational impact would require a larger choir of colleagues rather than a small group needed for an individual school. Communities in technology need to be refreshed as teachers join education and teachers may move on from education. A technology culture and forum shares thoughts, concepts, and examples that build and improve community. Teachers are prepared to teach, in part, by the mentors who they work with and those who observe them in pre-service training. If technology isnt mentored, then the new arrivals may not deem technology as a priority. This may or may not be true, the mentor in some cases isnt prepared to show good technology practices because they are still learning and incorporating these skills (Teo, Sing Chai, Hung, & Beng Lee, 2008). The mentors in community must be strongly integrating technology to be considered experienced in the field. Many new community members might consider that the mentors use technology but arent experts or firm believers in educational technology. (Liu, 2012) This might be in part due to the speed at which technology moves. Another suggestion might be for use of educational sabbaticals in community. Chances to explore, recharge, and prepare for the newest tools that educational technology presents are a major benefit of some sabbatical research time. Perhaps that community teacher on sabbatical becomes the technology integration specialist or technology media guru during the break from the classroom. This is a term widely used in the college and university system, but traditional teachers of lower grade level could use this and

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITIES perhaps limit teacher burnout. They can offer suggestions, tips, and model some of the latest techniques. Different community members may have a different focus in realms of technology,

but there is likely something to be gained across the genres of technology whether your specialty or not. The hardest part of educational citizenry could be beliefs. Different beliefs are good for diversity, but when a decision needs to be implemented, it may be difficult to include all beliefs. This is where a community may be built or broken. Communities need to analyze beliefs and discuss what seems to be most applicable and important to the community. This process can kill a community, some might drag their feet since it isnt a pedagogical concept that they favor. A good leader or leadership team needs to be ready to make tough decisions that benefit the community. The community needs to support the leadership, and try the technology integration with best intent. The community can then discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a concept and therefore update their beliefs as a community with true efforts, not a halfhearted attempt The overall injury here can be time, over discussion, or lethargy. Is learning simply an isolated theory or does it work when connected to group outside of community? This isolationism is being challenged by those who want more collaborative approach (Hodgkinson-Williams, Slay, & Sieborger, 2008). A cohesive technology community needs to ebb and flow, be prepared to make mistakes, and share credit for success or failure. Perhaps that might mean making a new community, to further explore views that need interpretation. Communities that divide need to do so positively, and at an appropriately decided time or interval. Time to consider is this society progressing, digressing, or is it stagnant and needs to move onward or outward. Even separated communities can share information and data to build educational concepts. Professionalism was mentioned previously. A problem can revolve around hurt feelings and

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITIES close the potential communication between communities going different directions. The goal is to help the community, and the broader educational community with insights to guide based on experience not just theory. Another strategy that can be used is to train the student teachers. Student teachers often

mirror the model teacher, if they shy away from technology; the student teacher isnt going to be asked to integrate in their practice lessons. In-service training and out service trainings might offer some assistance, as a community they might be seen as less threatening than in a traditional online learning forum. Perhaps also teacher motivation needs to be considered in the progress of educational technology integration. Training and materials are a good start, but what happens after that initial introduction. It also might matter when in the school year that the material is introduced. Teachers and community need to be flexible, but when a system is in place and a new piece is added out of order, it can be difficult to continue when a design is already in place. The new school year offers a good implementation time, but then teachers are already feeling the push for the beginning of the year. Maybe a later year introduction, with a summer planning phase might be a better addition for adding to the curriculum. While mentoring is popular, it may not work for all involved in the community. It may go back to the different opinions and beliefs that may conflict. How do you step around that problem? A learning community online or an in person setting in a school district, they might offer an open forum, which allows for different beliefs (Pancucci, 2007). As long as the community can operate professionally, you should be able to politely disagree, and if you know you will disagree, respond intellectually and not in a condescending manner. The advantage is you can disagree, and not need to respond immediately. Time to think creates a better, less

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITIES emotional and more rational response. A growing group is a learning group, and a stagnant group turns into a cemetery over time. When a community trains together, it is helpful to work on the school site. It seemed to

provide pride and involve unique training that was personal to its own site community. Personal seemed to equate with comfort, and that may help in a developing community. The evidence comes from a study in 2009. Paraphrasing it indicated that teachers appreciated on-site work which allowed you to see the strengths and weaknesses of their system, materials, and work on real issues for the actual community you live and work in daily (Davis, Preston, & Sahin, 2009). Building an educational technology community will take time. It needs to progress but in a patient fashion. It will grow as the community grows and like seeds they cannot bear results overnight. Commitment to time and development need to be monitored and planned with the short range and long term views considered. A master technology program used in an Alabama university took five years. Is that the rule of time? No, community building depends on the colleagues, desire, effort, and more to the completed educational technology community (Wright & Wilson, 2007). One interesting application of community is a non-tradition educational community model. Today we hear of flipped classrooms, sometimes born of necessity, or sometimes of a grant, which again drives the community to strengthen itself. A flipped classroom allows presentation to be created as the task at home, and students can then complete practice work at school. This allows the student to see the instruction and come prepared to ask meaningful questions, which also requires them to take responsibility to evaluate their own abilities (Fulton, 2012).

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITIES

10

Flipping requires preparation as a community, and it opens teachers classrooms and teaching styles to be shared with other teachers who can gain technique and offer suggestions to improve the educational cluster of professionals. It also offers the student the access to another teachers technique and style that might more effectively reach their own thought process. The administration has to support this change with compensation to supply this opportunity to change. The technology department has to be ready to support the change in load. Together this requires a complete effort from the total cluster of community (Bergman & Sams, 2012). Flipping is an innovative trend that benefits from, requires, and excels with the use of technology and community. As suggested in flipped classrooms, the technology community had to be prepared to adapt. Unfortunately not all are willing to change and so resistance to technology exists in some educators (Hicks, 2011). This is poor practice as students today are extremely savvy in technology and this innovation is not likely to regress as other educational trends have in the past. The educational technology community needs to encourage the use of technology and foster and grow the skills in our coming generations. What will it take? Innovators in technology, education, and community development will have to convince the old guard to become flexible and willing to change. Educational systems will have to become excellent and dependable equipment, and educators will need to be prepared to teach, even when technology has a glitch. The systems need support and experts who can be questioned and relied upon in the community. The access to information needs to be organized and accessible, especially with the changes that are coming in an ever changing technological world. As a community grows, tries, implements, and experiments, they are the learning process in action, for they are putting learning in action. All learning and communities are hypotheses

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITIES waiting to be tested. The ways of old may still apply and be useful as well as the latest and greatest theories might reach learners of today and tomorrow. A blending may occur from the past and the present. No one tool or technique is best for the educational learning community.

11

We need others to share ideas, create goals, and effectively consider the success and failures that may come in the process. As a garden needs multiple facets of care for optimal growth, so does the growing of the technological learners that our community teaches and will expect in education in the future. Education, technology, and communities will continue to develop. The focus of development will need to be prepared to include new community experts who have been raised on technology and media. They will need instruction and evidence not to solely use technology alone in education and community. The connection between them will be necessary, useful, and sound collaborative teaching pedagogy. Communities, technologies, and education need to collaborate to assist each other and prepare learning environments for the future.

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITIES References Bergman, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Before you flip, Consider this. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(2), 25. Carneiro, R. (2006, September). Motivating School Teachers to Learn: Can ICT Add Value? European Journal of Education, 41(3/4), 415-435. Davis, N., Preston, C., & Sahin, I. (2009). Training teachers to use new technologies impacts multiple ecologies: Evidence from a national initiative. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 861-878. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00875.x Fulton, K. P. (2012). 10 reasons to flip. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(2), 20-24.

12

Glazer, E. M., Hannafin, M. J., Drew, P., & Rich, P. (2009). Factors and Interactions Influencing Technology Integration During Situated Professional Development in an Elementary School. Computers in the School, 26(1), 21-39. doi.org/10.1080/07380560802688257 Hicks, S. D. (2011, September). Technology in Todays Classroom: Are You a Tech-Savvy Teacher? . Clearing House, 84(5), 188-191. doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2011.557406 Hodgkinson-Williams, C., Slay, H., & Sieborger, I. (2008, May). Developing Communities of Practice within and Outside Higher Education Institutions . British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 433-442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14678535.2008.00841.x Liu, S. (2012, October). A Multivariate Nodel of Factors Influencing Technology Use byPreservice Teachers during Practice Teaching. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 15(4), 137-149. Pancucci, S. S. (2007, Winter). Train the Trainer: The Bricks in the Learning Community Scaffold of Professional Development. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1), 1421.

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITIES Simonson, M. (2000, Winter). Making Decisions: The Use of Electronic Technology in Online Classrooms. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (84), 29-34.

13

Teo, T., Sing Chai, C., Hung, D., & Beng Lee, C. (2008, May). Beliefs about Teaching and Uses of Technology among Pre-Service Teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 163-174. doi.org/10.1080/13598660801971641 Wright, V. H. (2010, Fall). Professional Development and the Master Technology Teacher: The Evolution of One Partnership. Education, 131(1), 139-146. Wright, V. H., & Wilson, E. K. (2007, Feb). A Partnership of Educators to Promote Technology Integration: Designing a Master Technology Teacher Program. Education, 128(1), 80-86.