During a recent webinar we were blown away by Alex’s personality and passion. As someone who’s been in the edtech game since 1993, Alex has built a wealth of knowledge on technology integration and one-to-one computing initiatives. Our conversation was so informative and definitely enjoyable. Check out our Q&A session!

Did you start out teaching in classrooms or have you always held IT positions?

I actually went to school for educational film and video with no intention of teaching in classrooms. However, I quickly realized if I wanted to create education videos, I would need to have a better understanding of learning theory. So I ended up getting my degree in broadcast and electronic communication with a secondary teaching certificate in communications from Marquette University. During my teaching practicum I became interested in non-linear learning methods and around the same time, the Internet went public. I really wanted to learn more about how we could harness the power of the Internet to enhance non-linear learning methods.

The Internet had just started and you already saw those possibilities?

It’s funny you mention that because – even though the Internet was not yet what it is today – I knew it would expose a new way of learning. I had tons of ideas so, as a college student, I wrote a very passionate letter to Discovery Channel detailing how we could harness the power of the Internet and really change the face of non-linear learning. They in turn wrote me a letter detailing how they were not interested (laughing).

Wow really?! That’s very funny knowing what we know now. They missed a good opportunity. So tell me what happened after that.

Well, after college I took a job as a debate coach and technology coordinator at the school where I did my practicum. Then in 1999 I was offered a technology director position at the University of Lake School in Wisconsin where I started their 1:1 computing program. I was there for four years when I took a job at Whitfield School in St. Louis in 2003 where I also launched the school’s 1:1 computing program. Now I’m at Sidwell Friends School; however, when I came here, they had an existing 1:1 program. In addition to that, I’ve consulted on the launch of many 1:1 programs.

Yes, let’s talk about that. You’re also a founding partner of the consulting firm, Educational Collaborators. When, or how, did that come about?

It started because I was doing independent consulting for an education consulting business and I knew how much they were charging schools. It frustrated me because when you are out of the classroom for three to four years you don’t have the same degree of relevance as somebody who lives in it every day. It became clear to me these schools really only wanted to hear from the real subject matter experts, not the business people.

Around the same time I was also reading The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman. While reading a chapter about tapping new labor markets, I wondered why we couldn’t use this same theory to bring down the cost of consulting by keeping our full-time jobs while consulting. So my wife and I got six people together – a mix of classroom teachers and technology integrators – to start our own consulting business, which is now Educational Collaborators.

It’s a great idea especially because school budgets are so tight. Was it slow to launch or was there already a huge market for this at the time?

(laughing) Well, we finally found one school to let us consult for them. Ultimately we were all amazed at how much better this consulting model was because the six of us were able to build a better program for this school than we built for our own schools. We had a wide range of knowledge and experiences which lends itself innovation. Also, though we understood that collaboration makes a stronger product, all of us were amazed at how much each of us learned through working with one another at the depth required to help the school. It really was remarkable!

As far as technologies go, the tools you’ve used and/or recommended in consulting jobs differs greatly, correct?

Yes, I’m a firm believer culture drives sustainability of your initiatives, not technology. I always tell people it is not about the technology but rather the environment you create which makes these programs successful. Every action a school takes needs to be grounded in the mission and goals of that particular school. This is especially true when you make a move as pervasive as a 1:1 computing initiative.

Would you say that’s where a lot of schools go wrong? They try to lay the 1:1 program on top of existing activities when it should really be an extension of their culture and mission.

Yes, exactly! The technology is the easy part. I know that sounds a bit cliché, but it’s easy to find technology that does what you want it to do. The hard part is coming to an agreement across your entire school on the core instructional goals and mission. A good example is Bartholomew Consolidated School District (BCSD) in Indiana, whom I’m working with on CoSN session about BYOD initiatives.

BCSD used Universal Design Language (UDL) for many years before they even started their 1:1 initiative. UDL handles differentiation in a very profound way. When they eventually started their 1:1 program, everyone was really surprised at how well it went. As a consultant, it’s really not surprising to me because every teacher – regardless of discipline – was already on the same page of UDL as their instructional core.

So in your opinion, people miss the boat when they focus only on content and discipline.

Well, it’s not that content and the discipline aren’t important, but teachers and administrators should ultimately be focused on the process of instruction. Content changes too quickly nowadays to be considered the top priority. I’ve found the most successful 1:1 programs see culture and mission as the crux of their success. One-to-one initiatives are more about the process than the output. You don’t value the hammer; you value the house the hammer builds. The laptop, software, technology are the hammer. What matters most is your technology initiatives need to be deeply grounded in the culture of your school.

——

Learn more from Alex by watching his webinar “Managing & Assessing Change in Your One-to-One Computing Program.”

Learn more about Educational Collaborators.

But what about all of the choices? The great news is that SO many choices are available to schools that each has the opportunity to decide how EdTech initiatives blossom on their campus.
 

The less exciting news is that because we have so many options for how EdTech can improve learning, creating and implementing the program that works best for your school can be intimidating and seem nearly impossible.

You may feel overwhelmed with too many EdTech choices (think restaurants with huge menus) and make a decision as many of us do: “I’ll have what she’s having.” The problem with this approach is that your friend’s dinner may not be the one that appeals most to you, it’s just more convenient to go with the crowd. Taking the time to ask your server, check UrbanSpoon, and think about what you’d like for leftovers the next day will likely result in an even more delicious meal that spectacularly suits your refined palate!

We found two blog posts that address this issue with insight and poise (READ: no device arguments here!). William Stites writes about the importance of “educational rationale” for EdTech initiatives (especially BYOD), and Charlie Roy provides snapshots of “lessons learned”in his school’s 1:1 laptop program. These posts are reflections on the importance of choice and making educated EdTech decisions. Just “going with the crowd” and failing to see what’s best for your administration, faculty, students and community may result in less than desirable outcomes.

We’re currently working on a project that follows up on some of these thoughts, so stay tuned for more EdTech planning advice! For now, we’d love to hear your thoughts below. Props to these authors for their candid and thoughtful remarks … We’ll look forward to follow up posts!

The education technology landscape is changing at a thrilling but exhausting pace. To ensure we continue offering the most relevant teaching and learning tools, we embrace a meticulous and analytical product development path by observing market trends over time.

Over the past couple of years, it became clear to us the growing trend of bring-your-own-laptop (BYOL) programs in education is not just a fad but a viable solution for schools facing budgetary constraints. Allowing students to bring any laptop device is a sustainable way to maximize dollars while giving students access to improved learning tools. However, like traditional one-to-one computing programs, these programs have a similar, sizeable challenge: digital classroom management.

DyKnow Monitor CP provides teachers with essential classroom management functionality to oversee mixed OS (Mac and PC) classrooms. Teachers can:

• View thumbnail images of students’ screens
• Block all Internet browsing
• Send attention messages
• Create application rules

Monitor CP harnesses the same technical benefits DyKnow is known for through our flagship classroom management software, DyKnow Monitor: scalability, reliability and minimal administrative upkeep. DyKnow Monitor and DyKnow Monitor CP, while similar in software categories, are not cross compatible. We chose this development method for many reasons, but primarily to help schools maximize their investment and eliminate technical limitations.

DyKnow Monitor CP offers a preview of the next wave in our product development. As always, we will continue thoughtfully observing trends in education in order to bring you the best education tools for optimized teaching and learning experiences.

Contact our account executives to learn more about DyKnow Monitor CP.

This fall we had the great privilege of participating in the Indiana Department of Education’s 2012 Teacher of the Year award program. Myself along with a few others from the DyKnow team had the privilege of attending the banquet to honor all nominees and their families where we enjoyed an evening of celebrating the most influential educators in the state.

As Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Tony Bennett expressed, it’s a shame we only have one night out of the entire year to gather together and collectively praise educational achievements in our state. Keynote speaker Dr. Todd Whitaker reminded the audience “It’s people, not programs” that make true differences in the lives of our students, and “being a teacher matters every day.” He also noted, “[As teachers,] we can’t afford to take a day off. The intensity of the job is what makes teaching so hard.” The energetic crowd cheered along with our charismatic speakers as we all celebrated the triumphs of each nominee based on their tireless work and dedication to their students and improving education in the state of Indiana.

We were humbled to honor 2012 Teacher of the Year winner Melanie Park with DyKnow Monitor and DyKnow Vision licenses, a small token of gratitude for Melanie’s outstanding work at Riverview Middle School, part of Huntington County Community School Corporation. Melanie’s celebrated classroom is now equipped with classroom management and interactive learning software to foster differentiated instruction and collaboration. We look forward to seeing the creative and exciting learning projects Mrs. Park comes up with in her new digital classroom. Congratulations, Melanie!

We scour EdTech sites daily to remain current on research, industry happenings, and bring you the most helpful and relevant resources to encourage high achieving learning environments. We’ve compiled an archive of articles, blog posts and research pieces that have earned the highest response rate when we’ve shared them. We’ve also included links for each source’s website/blog and Twitter account (we follow all of them). Sections below include resources on differentiated instruction, collaboration, interactive learning, laptop programs, teaching with technology, and professional development. If you’re not already, follow @DyKnow on Twitter and “Like” us on Facebook to receive these articles as we come across them.

Feedback is welcome and appreciated – let us know what you think, and re-share with peers and colleagues! Happy reading

Learning:

• “How Technology Fuels Learning” by Tina Barseghian | MindSHIFT | @MindShiftKQED
• “Leaders Share How Tech Has Helped Students Learn” by Lisa Nielsen | TheInnovativeEducator | @ InnovativeEdu
• “Social Media Pioneer Says Technology Will Transform Education” by Mark Schaefer | BusinessGrow | @markwschaefer

Professional Development: 

•  “Professional Development in a One-to-One Environment” by Nick Sauers | 1 to 1 Schools | @njsauers
• “10 Ways to Change the Minds of Tech Reluctant Staff” by Meris Stansbury | eSchoolNews | @eschoolnews
• “‘Digital Literacy’ Will Never Replace the Traditional Kind” by Annie Murphy Paul | TIME | @anniemurphypaul
• “4 Ways to Prepare Teachers for Technology Integration” by Tanya Roscorla | ConvergeMag | @reportertanya

EdTech Deployment & Differentiated Instruction:

•  “Use of Technology-Rich Learning Environment Reveals Improved Retention Rates” by Michelle Cometa | RIT |  @MicShellNews
• “Technology Adds Spark to Science Education” by Tina Barseghian | MindSHIFT | @MindShiftKQED
• “The Times, They Are a’Changin’” by Katie Hahn | DyKnow | @DyKnow

EdTech 1:1 Environments:

• “Study Reveals Factors in EdTech Success” by Laura Devaney | eSchoolNews | @eschoolnews
• “Tablet PCs: A Tool for Instructional Collaboration” by Mike Lafreniere & Greg Foley | Ohio Univ. – Chillicothe | @oucmath
•  “1 to 1 Computing at MICDS: Our Visit!” by Abbey Wilson | DyKnow | @DyKnow

1:1 Implementation:

•  “iPad vs. Netbook for a 1:1″ by Ben Grey | EdReach | @bengrey
• “What Does the Research Say about School One-to-One Computing Initiatives?” by Nick Sauers & Scott McLeod | @njsauers @mcleod
• “Measuring 1:1 Results” by Bridget McCrea | THE Journal | @THE_Journal
• “Successfully Building & Sustaining a One-to-One Program” by Becky Keene | Kent School District

Through my interactions with Matt over the past couple of months it became glaringly obvious we need to spotlight him as our Educator of the Month. He is truly inspiring and we are very grateful he is a DyKnow user.

Check out the recording of his user webinar, and we highly recommend anyone (customer or not) attend his next webinar “The Best Web Tools to Enhance Your 1:1 Curriculum.” ← It is today at 3:30pm EST, so sign up now! Here is a little bit of our conversation:

Q: Have you always embraced technology or did the one-to-one computing program evolve your teaching?

There was a time in my teaching career when technology was less integrated, but I’ve always embraced it. I got my masters in education technology and media sciences. At the time, I really believed media centers were the future of education and I saw myself operating a library media center. But the writing was on the wall for media centers when you implement a one-to-one computing program – it relegates that space. I think the traditional “media center” space is still very valuable; we just need to figure out a way to reallocate that space.

Q: Even though that position changed, you still managed to get closely involved with training and professional development as it relates to technology and the one-to-one program. How did that responsibility come into your realm?

Yes, I’m a tech coach which means I help other teachers figure out effective ways to incorporate the tools our administration gives us. I applied for the position when it opened after one of our former tech coaches was offered a position as a quality outcome coordinator (QOC). The QOCs have been integral to drastically reducing our failure rates in freshman classes.

Q: You are obviously doing great things as an individual contributor, but how do you think the administration plays a role in the success of your one-to-one program?

We are very lucky because our administration and technology team have great foresight. I think it’s probably one of the most important factors in the success of 1:1 program. In order to keep your program innovative but sustainable you need to see the future, embrace it and then learn how to help teachers be successful in that environment. If any administration is thinking about going one-to-one, they also have to create tech coaching positions!

Q: Why do you say that?

Teachers can be skeptical of technology which was a challenge when we started the 1:1 program. They thought the technology would replace them. While technology may replace some things, it cannot replace the human element of teaching. As far as the tech coach position goes, teachers need someone who understands the unique challenges they face in their classrooms. They also want to see someone using the technology successfully before they change everything they are doing. As a classroom teacher, I have that unique perspective which brings down the barrier and alleviates their fears a bit.

Q: Tell me about your coaching technique.

It’s very important to reduce that overwhelming feeling; teachers often think “how will I ever use all of this.” So I emphasize that they don’t need to use every tool we given them. We look at their curriculum and then start small. It was very interesting because initially we worked with teachers who were most interested in embracing new tools but we quickly found that created a snowball effect in a very unique way – through the students.

I started using some tools in my classroom and students would like it. Then those same students walked into other classrooms where there was less technology adoption. They ended up saying things like, “Oh you should use DyKnow for that” or “It’s much easier if you use this.” It wasn’t intentional but it worked out very well because it sparked a natural curiosity. Overtime, we had more and more teachers coming to us with questions.

Q: So it sounds like the students like the program.

Yes, but a challenge we ran into is that students did not know how to use the computers as an educational tool. They knew how to use them for social networking or gaming, but not for learning. So we had to train students how to use the computers as a tool for learning.

Overall though, I believe the students were very excited about the program. Personally, I believe the program is making students take more ownership and responsibility in their work.

“What makes DyKnow Monitor different from other classroom management software?“

Anyone who is budget-savvy knows this (↑) is an important question to ask. Throughout the years, we’ve learned there are many factors you should account for when determining which classroom management solution to purchase: everything from network infrastructure to your long-term technology strategy (think 3+ years).

However, we’ve found many people do not realize that product architecture is another very important factor to evaluate when purchasing classroom management software.

Unfortunately, most companies (we are guilty of this too) showcase only products’ visible-to-the-user features. This can be frustrating for IT personnel because most classroom management tools have generally the same feature list.

Aside from the general look and feel of various products, the biggest difference between Monitor and other solutions is in how the products are built. Why is this important you ask? Because the reliability of a product is directly related to how the product is designed… and I’m not talking about the user interface design, I’m talking about what’s under the hood. 

As it stands today, there are two architectures which developers can use to create traditional classroom management software: Client-Server or Peer-to-Peer (P2P). The differences boiled down into two sentences:

In the client-server model, a server loads and manages student data so the teacher’s computer doesn’t need a great deal of power and bandwidth in order for the product to work. In a P2P model, there is no server so each individual computer (both teachers’ and students’) need to have power and bandwidth in order to accommodate loading and managing student data.

Our product is built using a client-server design. Our development team chose this specific architecture because of our experience with schools during the first few years of selling DyKnow Vision, our flagship software which also uses a client-server model.

Vision was built using this model because the product requires a server to transmit real-time content and facilitate real-time collaboration. However we realized the greatest benefits of a client-server model could be fully utilized in DyKnow Monitor. Here are some of the major pains we learned about from school IT departments while building DyKnow Monitor:

1. IT personnel understand and accept that most products require setup, but they don’t want to purchase products which require a great deal of ongoing maintenance. Who has time for that?
2. They can’t afford to purchase and setup products that consistently fail on their network: teachers won’t use it and IT will stop supporting it. Even if they could recoup the cost, they can’t recoup their time.
3. With hundreds and even thousands of computers on the network, IT can’t afford to setup a product that eats up bandwidth, in turn bogging down the system and deterring teachers from using the product. Products need to scale and use limited bandwidth.

Fortunately, the advantages of a client-server design help solve those pains. Using a client-server design:

• Increases network performance
• Virtually eliminates on-going maintenance (minus upgrades or updates)
• Creates a reliable and secure network
• Scales from one to thousands of users without bogging down the system

I could go on forever detailing the differences between these two architectures and also explaining why you might choose one of the other but I won’t bore you like that today. If you do want more details, download our Client-server vs. Peer-to-Peer Fact Sheet for a more detailed technical explanation and a brief, but helpful, guide for choosing the best classroom management school for your school. You can also check out our Why DyKnow Monitor page to learn more about our differentiators.

To achieve this, our training sessions are structured into four pieces:

1. Model the learning experience: We start off the training day by throwing the teachers into the fire and allowing them to participate as a student would in their class. They are expected to follow along with actual grade level content, participate in discussions, answer and ask questions, and do so without checking email or surfing the web. We want the full student experience:).
    
2. Coach through learning activities: After we have given them a taste of the learning experience, we move into group work sessions that allow teachers to work through step-by-step activities together and experience using the DyKnow’s tools first hand. This allows us as trainers to work with individuals and groups one-on-one as we move around the room and track progress.
    
3. Create relevant content: Learning to use the software is important, but just as important is the process of creating and converting content. Before training, we ask that each teacher bring lessons they plan to use in the near future.  We work with the entire group and individuals to coach them through converting their content they already have and creating new content when appropriate.  The idea is that they leave our training session with at least one lesson ready to deliver to their students.  
    
4. Model the learning experience: Finally, we come full circle, this time asking each teacher to deliver a part of their lesson to the training class.  Using the lesson they created, they teach the group and gain valuable experience and comfort using the tools they plan to use in their classrooms.  As a trainer and group, we provide support and peer evaluation along the way to help them hone their skills. 

Dell and Intel published a collection of Education Grant deadlines for 2011 and 2012. (Disclaimer: they’re not all education technology or education software grants). While we’re approaching the end of the year, you still have some time to apply for various awards and get a head start on next year’s. We’ll share the dates for grants due April-June 2012 in another post soon!

Dell and Intel note these tips for writing grants:

1. Edit
-”Clarify and tighten your narrative into a compelling proposal” 

2. Plan ahead 
-As you edit, make a goal to cut content, not add more
-Be concise and make an emotional connection with your intended message

3. Don’t go it alone
-Include on your finished product: numbered pages, headings and clean margins
-Ask a colleague (or us!) to proofread and provide feedback 

Due November 30, 2011:

• NSTA Awards (10 awards to choose from!)

Due December 2011:

• SeaWorld & Busch Gardens Environmental Excellence Awards
• SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment Environmental Educator of the Year
• 3M Professional Development Grant
• Association for Library Science to Children (ALSC) Awards (5 awards!)
• National Schools of Character Program
• Captain Planet Foundation Grants 

Due January 2012:

• The International Reading Association Teacher as Researcher Grant
• Toyota Family Literacy Teacher of the Year

Due February 2012:

• American Honda Foundation Grant
• NEA Foundation (2 grants)
• Toshiba Large Grants
• Toshiba and the National Science Teachers Association’s ExploraVision competition
• Innovation Reading Grant
• Lowe’s Toolbox for Education
• Intel Schools of Distinction 

Due March 2012:

• National Endowment for the Humanities’ Summer Seminars & Institutes Program
• International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (6 awards!)
• ISTE/SIGOL Online Learning Award
• Toyota TAPESTRY Grants
• Ezra Jack Keats Foundation Mini-Grants
• Captain Planet Foundation Grants
• The Tech Awards Program

The Marketing team at DyKnow (Katie and I) would be more than happy to proof-read any applications and essays if you’d ever like another set of eyes – feel free to let us know. Happy writing!