Stop Apologizing for Not Knowing

I have always been interested in tech, and I've always been willing to show what I know even before I was a technology integrator. Regardless of what position I've been in, there are always people that have apologized while I've been helping them. It's usually a "I'm sorry I'm not good at this" or "I'm sorry that I don't know more about this stuff" or "I'm sorry I'm so stupid with tech." My response has always been the same:

Please don't apologize. I know what I do because early on I learned not be afraid of pushing buttons. If you knew everything I did, I wouldn't have a job. My job is to help you learn.

While I understand that for some people (myself included) saying something like this actually translates into "Thank you for your help", I don't want people apologizing for a couple of reasons. First, to say your sorry means that you feel bad for something. In this case, probably believing that you're inconveniencing the person you're asking to assist you, but just because we're educators does not mean that we are not allowed to ask questions or request help. We are not required to be all knowing. It certainly doesn't mean that there should be feelings of guilt associated with being unsure about how to do something. Second, just by asking, you've already made my day. All I've ever wanted from the people that I've helped is the willingness to learn. Excitement for the learning is a total bonus.


I was working with one of my favorite teachers today, Lori Hron. She approached me to meet with her so she could become more innovative, not even recognizing the amount of innovation already in her classroom. She asked for a standing meeting on the calendar, so every other week around the same time we meet and discuss lessons and projects she has coming up, and we brainstorm ways to create something new out of what she has. My absolute favorite part is that she is so excited. You can see it on her face. It makes me feel the same way working with Lori as it did when I was a teacher and the students thought one of the assigned projects was awesome: total elation and a reminder of why I do my job. A couple of months ago she published her first tweet. A month ago she joined the Innovator's Mindset MOOC (#IMMOOC). Today, she published her first blog post. She has apologized to me for not knowing, and yet has been willing to learn and move forward despite her discomfort with what she didn't know, and I couldn't be more proud to work with her.

I've had people say to me that teachers should be able to learn about new initiatives on their own because they are professionals. I disagree. It doesn't seem like best practice to expect people to learn something new on their own without the district's vision on the initiative and significant professional development. Instead, I believe that because teachers are professionals, they should be willing to learn, and we should respect their time and efforts by providing them with the learning that they need to be successful. That respect for professional learning leads to questions without apology, and hopefully excitement in the possibilities of learning something new.

Supporting Instruction: How is Tech Integration Different?

I've often said that technology instructional support is different than any other content area support. I learned these lessons in my role as a technology integrator, and working closely with the wonderful math and literacy instructional support teachers. While I feel like all instructional support should work in tandem, sometimes, in order to move teachers forward, I needed to provide them with different types of support that may not have been necessary in the other areas. I narrowed them down to three main ways I provided support.

Tech Services: Can you fix this?
I was not tech services, but sometimes I needed to provide technical support when the technology was needed for the lesson immediately. Not only did it work toward cultivating relationships and building trust with the teachers I worked with, but as a professional, my job was not to dissuade the use of technology by leaving the teacher hanging if there was a quick fix in an emergency. Therefore, I did what I could if the situation warranted it. It was often the first contact with a teacher who would end up working with me later. While this was my least favorite role, I knew that some support of this kind was a necessary part of keeping a classroom comfortable with technology use, and in watching me problem solve, I was modeling some of the skills that I would like to see from teachers and students.

Training: Where do I click?
I've always said that the main difference between literacy/math support and technology support is that literacy support teachers, for example, don't need to teach teachers to read in order to teach them reading instructional strategies and best practices. However, in order for teachers to effectively integrate technology, they must have at least a baseline knowledge of what they're using. For example, in order to use Google Classroom with students, teachers really need to understand Drive. Training is the foundation for technology integration. Not only do you provide teachers with the skills they need to try new ideas in technology, but you also show them HOW to learn a technology. As technology continues to change and grow, we often say that we want students to learn how to learn as much as we want them to learn the content. This is what we are doing for teachers when teaching them the skills they need. We are providing them the content as well as the confidence to learn in the future when the technology changes.

Infusing Learning & Technology: How do I empower my students?
Even though it's difficult to get away from utilizing the term "technology integration", I feel like technology should be something that is so seamlessly infused in learning that it is difficult to separate the two. Integration sounds like it is something extra piled on top of the curriculum that is already there. This is often how technology is viewed, but my job was to support teachers in how they could look at their lessons from a new, more innovative angle, and how technology could empower their students to problem find/solve and show their learning. Ultimately, this is typically where the other content areas reside. They are supporting teachers in working with students and how to help them grow.

Oftentimes, the amount of professional development in the area of technology is significantly less than in other content areas because it's seen as an extra. When speaking with other technology integrators or coaches, their frustration is the lack of time given for professional development. I believe this is because when they do get time, it needs to be focused on training, so they never feel like they can move into the third category of learning.

However, if we truly believe that curriculum and technology should mesh seamlessly, it's reasonable to create learning opportunities for teachers where all of the instructional coaches are involved. If a presentation is being created on math strategies, for example, it could be done in Nearpod and modeled for teachers on how Nearpod could be used in the classroom. The teachers are then immersed in the technology that they could be using, and learning the math strategies at the same time, therefore fusing the two together. Not only does this benefit teachers by introducing them to ways technology can engage and empower, but there should also be a reasonable expectation that Math and Literacy instructional coaches have some tech knowledge, and that technology integrationists have general background knowledge in Math and Literacy strategies. Creating a team of instructional coaches to play off each other's strengths allows for professional development that is useful and relevant, and models the kind of collaboration that we want to see.

Sounds Good in Theory...

A friend of mine recently told me that a lot of what I say sounds good "in theory". When I was a classroom teacher, I often read the posts or Tweets of people who were no longer in the classroom and thought that what they were posting was great in this same way, but they had lost the practicality of their idea. Even some of the instructional coaches I felt had lost touch with what the real challenges are in a classroom. Since moving out of the role of classroom teacher, I have tried really hard to remember the million things a teacher has going on at an given moment, how inundated they are with new initiatives whenever I'm suggesting an idea or change, and that they are dealing with real students on a daily basis (versus the pretend class I talk to in my head).

Today, our professional development time was structured like an edCamp. I stopped into a session that was suggested to be a discussion regarding Flipped Lessons, but had morphed into a discussion around how to get students to watch the videos at night in order to be prepared the next day, which morphed into a discussion about student motivation...and it was fascinating. We know, in theory, how to motivate students. For example, the teachers discussed creating relevance between the content and students' lives, but then the Chemistry teacher questioned how he would take some of the more complex chemistry lessons and make them applicable to students. Not that he wasn't willing to learn, after all, that's why he was there. He just didn't know how to implement that practically into his teaching for every concept. We discussed how tired we are of compliance measures...how the teachers want the students to watch the videos because they want to be engaged learners and not just because they are getting a grade, but are constantly demoralized when students just want to know what they "need to do" to earn an A. The general question was: How do we get kids to care about everything they learn ALL the time? How do we, as teachers, make everything we teach relevant to students? Again, we know what sounds good in theory...how do we implement it?

I thought about the fact that I need to do something called a PDP in order to renew my license. Basically, the state collects a bunch of artifacts that we submit to see if we have met a goal that proves we are good teachers. In general, these are seen as something to check off a list. There is no buy-in whatsoever to the process. I related this to a subject that a student has no interest in, and thought to myself, "What would I need in order to be engaged in the PDP process?" I decided I would be engaged if I could create my own goal and work toward something meaningful. Well, guess what? The PDP process allows for that, which means that my attitude toward the PDP is really about my mindset. If that's the case, are students' learning and motivation about their mindset as well? I believe that's something that can be changed, so how do we go about changing that, and not just in theory?

The only reason I was slightly disappointed in the conversation was that we didn't have enough time to finish it. I wish I would have had answers for these teachers and I just didn't. We clearly need to change our practices, but need practical answers on how to implement the ideas. How do we go about creating change to incorporate everything that sounds good in theory?

How Do We Change Teachers' Perceptions of PD?

Last school year, I came up with the idea of creating a Google Apps for Education "Track". Instead of teachers attending one hour sessions on a specific Google App, myself and another Technology Integrator, Matt Callahan, developed a course in Canvas, our LMS, that covered eight of the Google Apps. In each module there are skill based lessons, examples of integration, discussion boards, formative assessments, professional readings on integration and innovation, and finally, a summative assessment that requires the teacher to take something they learned and implement it in the classroom, and then create a 3-5 minute video reflecting on how it went. In each discussion board and for each assessment, there are also choices as to questions to answer or activities to do, and each one is leveled (a beginner, intermediate, and advanced). Teachers are asked to challenge themselves in these areas, but ultimately which questions they answer and which assessment they complete is up to them. We work on district points, so the track is worth a significant number of points for completion toward their yearly goal. Teachers could choose to take it fully online or attend monthly one hour sessions where myself and Matt taught the module and supported the learning that needed to be done.

This track has, without a doubt, become my baby. I love it like I love my own children, and because of that, I am very protective of it. A requirement of joining the track was that it was all or nothing. Teachers needed to finish the whole track in order to earn all the points. When we were previously providing the hour long PD on GAFE, teachers were not attending all of the offerings. So, what was happening was we would have a teacher in a Slides PD that wouldn't know how to create a group in Gmail to easily share the Slides with their students because they never attended the Gmail PD. In order to increase capacity in this area, I felt like the entire track needed to be completed in order to really get a depth of knowledge on  GAFE and the integration into the classroom.

Overall, we have had an insane amount of positive feedback. I have been surprised multiple times by teachers searching me out to tell me how much they learned and enjoyed the track. However, even with the positive feedback, there was always a "but...". I truly dislike buts because they often negate the positive that was just heard. I often think about this quote by G. Couros, and even though I know it means in education in general, I like to apply it to my own thinking as well. The positives in my head need to outweigh the negatives that are often rolling around in there. Something I'm working on. But what bothered me was that the negatives for the track were nothing we were willing to change because it erased the best practices we were tried so hard to include in the learning. It really wasn't about what needed to be changed to be better PD. It was about what needed to change to make it "easier" or "faster". These were the kind of comments I've received:

"I learned a ton but it took me way longer than it should have."
"Why do we need discussion boards? It seems useless to need to talk to other people about this."
"I don't want to do the final reflection. Is it a requirement?"
"If I just finish five modules, can I get five points?" (which my answer was no, it defeated the purpose of the track)
"I attend the face to face monthly meetings. How many can I miss and still get my points?"

Let me be clear: I am all for feedback, and we have taken constructive feedback on the track and made changes for another upcoming enrollment. So, I take all feedback very seriously.

At first, I took some of these comments as a direct reflection on the track's setup  and implementation, but after reading the post on edSurge Why Good Professional Development is Crucially Linked to an Educator's Attitude, I started to reflect and I came to a conclusion that some of the comments may not be as linked to the track as it is to educator's attitude toward PD in general.

Every single teacher in the track (and we had 120 teachers out of 800 in the district take the track for the first year) felt like they learned a lot and the track was worth their time. Even the ones that complained it took too long still felt like they learned a ton. Part of the problem, however, is that points are mandated by our district. Teachers feel like they now must participate in PD in order to move up on the pay scale and remain a "teacher in good standing". And, we all know what happens when we create a situation where people must comply with an initiative...all of a sudden it becomes work when prior to that they would have done it before for their own professional learning. Teachers are becoming disillusioned with PD because they must comply with the points initiative. Now, I'm not saying that I know a better way to implement the system...I'm just saying that this has been a side effect.

I also feel like the type of PD that we had been offering, myself included, was mostly sit-and-get one-size-fits-all learning. Since I've become more aware and fully subscribe the the idea of personalized PD, my PD has improved, but we have still conditioned teachers to feel like their time, opinion, and learning is not going to be valued when they attend professional development, so we are now fighting that battle as well. When teachers leave a PD that has been valuable to them, they can take something back to their classroom and implement it immediately, and they are excited about what they learned...this shouldn't be something that is a pleasant surprise to them. This should be the norm, but this is the attitude that we have cultivated by not allowing for teacher voice and choice in their learning, and now it is shown in the attitude toward PD.

What I think is ultimately happening with most teachers in the track is that they enjoyed learning and becoming a "master" at GAFE, but because it's PD, they don't think they should like it. Last night we watched a guy put a meat hook through his nose on America's Got Talent. I think it's similar to watching something like that...you can't take your eyes off from it because it's exciting, but you know you shouldn't enjoy it. Most teachers commented positively about their learning, the choices they were given throughout the track, and how they now feel more comfortable with their Chromebooks and implementing GAFE in the classroom. As we become more aware of our professional development and how to personalize it to teacher needs, I am hopeful that the attitude will change to the acceptance that PD can be something we celebrate as an indication of professional learning and growth, rather than work we need to do as a part of our job.

Just Keep Swimming or Create Real Change?

Last night, I was participating in one of my very favorite Twitter chats: #PersonalizedPD (Tuesdays, 8pm CST). Question seven was regarding what we've done to try to bring personalized PD to our district, and this was my post:

After laying in bed and thinking about the chat, I started to get a little irritated with myself that I used #JustKeepSwimming, because to me that phrase implies that I'm fighting to stay afloat, and  just staying afloat in my job has never been one of my goals, although admittedly some days I absolutely feel like that is all I'm doing.

What I really want to do is cannonball into the water. Some teachers will think it's funny and enjoy the ruckus, while others will grimace and mumble about the splashing, but all will move forward on the waves. And when others see me cannonball, they just might get out of the water and try to cannonball themselves, and then we can all be moved from their waves as well. I don't want to float, or wade, or tread water or just keep swimming or any other type of water analogy that implies I'm not moving forward.

Part of the challenge in being an instructional coach is that we are expected to provide the professional development, but don't always have access or authority to make the changes that we want to see or we believe to be best practice. We can implement new learning and personalization into our own PD, but there are times that our PD is still managed top-down, and we have very little say in how that looks outside of our own sessions and planning. To continue to focus only on my own PD would be the equivalent of allowing myself to keep swimming, or maintaining the status quo. To create a lasting change, because I believe THAT strongly in personalized professional development, is what I really want to do.  It's either go big or go home for me, and I feel it's about time that I figure out how to encourage and create meaningful change, because while we all learn from failure, ending with failure is not an option.

How Do We Move Toward a More Personalized PD Experience?

I love my job. Seriously. One of my favorite components of being a Technology Integrator is the professional development that I am able to provide teachers to help them with technology skills, integration, and innovative thinking. When a teacher comes back to me and tells me that s/he used something I taught them with kids, it makes me all eyes-lit-up, jump-up-and-down, arms-flapping-happy. I have the ability to affect so many more students' learning by providing their teachers with what they need to enhance their already awesome skill set.

Back in December, I presented at the TIES Conference in Minnesota, which is one of my other favorite parts of being a technology integrator. I was incredibly nervous because I was presenting for the first time alone. In trying to calm myself in the moments prior to beginning, I chatted my boss, Dave Gundlach, for support. He said, "Mandy, just go up there and do what you're good at. Teach." My stomach dropped. I was about to get up and talk at people for 50 minutes. That was never something I would have done with my students when I had a classroom. Although the session went fine, I felt like it was a massive fail because I realized that even though I love presenting and providing PD, there was a seriously high probability that I stunk at it.

In a total twist of ironic fate, my session at TIES was on providing personalized, cohesive PD for teachers in technology. I went over creating an entire curriculum of Google Apps for Education including skills practice, integration techniques, discussions, and professional readings in order to increase capacity in our teachers and make them the "experts" in Google. The Track, as we call it, has some elements of personalization in the way that it has scaffolded & tiered practice sets, choices in discussion prompts and pacing options. It can also be taken completely online through our Canvas LMS, or it is the teachers' choice to come to monthly sessions where myself and Matt Callahan go through the online modules face to face. While I am proud of the Track and the opportunities it provides for teachers who might not have otherwise taken on learning about Google, the class option we provide is still a traditional sit and get, and every other professional development that I provide is that way as well. My problem is that I know it, and I don't know what to do about it.

Before I even left the conference I began to research how to make PD more personalized and have come across an entire community who believes as I do (with special thanks to Jason Bretzmann and #personalizedPD which has been an amazing resource). I want to create PD that models the type of personalization we want to see in the classroom. This has been my first challenge. After all, teachers are not students. Adult learners are not the same as child learners, although many of the same ideas for personalization apply. I wanted teachers to have voice and choice in their professional development along with additional pacing options. I strongly believe that, especially in the case of technology learning, there needs to be both skills practice AND integration techniques, along with a study of growth mindset and how it relates to innovation. In putting all of this together, PD needs to be ongoing with additional embedded support versus a one-and-done model if we truly want to make sustainable changes to teaching and learning.

So, I need some innovative thinking help. I need some strategies for creating a more personalized professional development experience while still addressing different skill levels, different integration levels, different content areas, and providing specific follow up support. I would love to try and edCamp style session one day, but the sessions I need the most help with are targeted sessions where the teachers need to come out with information on a specific idea (like GAFE, for example). Any examples of professional development that went really well or conversation on personalized PD I would welcome with open arms. I am looking for my opportunity to do something different with my PD. My goal is for teachers to leave any session I provide with energy and enthusiasm to implement what they've learned with their students. After all, it IS all about student learning, but in this case, it starts with providing the PD that will make a difference.