The 2023 SPARCC (Stark/Portage Area Computer Consortium) EdTech Conference was held at the Stark County Educational Service Center in North Canton, OH on July 18, 2023. Being relatively new to EdTech (I started August 1st in 2022 at Lake Center Christian School) I approached the conference with an open mind and with the following objectives:
- Learn how to better leverage specific digital tools we currently use or are adjacent to what we use at LCCS
- Gather intel on additional tools that could be implemented
- Expand my knowledge of AI and wade into the discussion of when, how, and why it could/should be integrated into education
- Meet other EdTech professionals to expand my support community with possible opportunities for collaboration
With these objectives in mind, I attended six distinct sessions. As to be expected, the sessions varied widely in usefulness for my particular background, current situation, experience, and curiosity.
Simplify Your Life with the Chrome Web Store, led by Matthew Mays
At LCCS we are predominantly a Google oriented school, with Chromebooks forming the corpus of our 1:1 program. A large part of my role is not only maintaining and troubleshooting devices, but also managing Google Admin and assisting faculty when they may need a new tool for their classroom. There are already a variety of Google extensions installed in our Chromebook deployment, but I attended this session to find out what else we could easily use to meet student, faculty, and staff needs. The presentation comprised of a brief overview of what Google extensions are and how to install and manage them, followed by spending a few minutes on several of Matthew’s favorite extensions.
Right from the beginning I found myself learning a way to simplify my life, as the presenter utilized bit.ly to create the link to his Google Presentation. For those as unfamiliar with the tool as myself, bit.ly is itself an extension that can be used to generate custom links and QR codes. This way, rather than sharing a very long Google Presentation link, you can create a much shorter link that is more easily shared, as long as it is preceded by the bit.ly format. Already my mind started to race with ideas of creating “websites” built out of random pages, media, and apps, simply linked through a central bit.ly hub. If every URL could be customized, then central domains and specific web development platforms may not be as necessary as I once thought. While teachers utilize Canvas and Clever to share links with students, I can envision our faculty and staff using bit.ly to share links with each other or parents.
The most exciting extension discussed was a tutorial creator called iorad. The extension enables you to screen record and it tracks each click and step you take. Once the recording is completed, it generates a step-by-step document with screenshots included! This extension stood out to me because one of my primary functions is also creating guides and processes for staff and students in both video and written formats. For video guides I have been using loom, but all my written guides (with screenshots) were all created manually, through a tedious process. Iorad is definitely an extension I am eager to implement, as I continue to build out our school’s documentation knowledgebase.
TabCloud is another extension that I could see myself frequently using. It enables a way to save your browser tab session as a group, and then open it again later. Currently my Chrome browser is set to open whichever tabs were open before the browser was closed, which will likely continue to be my default. But I would use TabCloud if there are certain types of projects or administration tasks that require a set of tabs open to streamline workflows. For example, if I’m working on a student login issue, I will want tabs open for our inventory system, Google Admin, Azure, and our SIS, so I could simply select the group name and it will open up all the tabs I need to resolve this issue. Currently I have these tabs bookmarked, but my bookmarks have overflowed the bookmark bar and this could be a more agile and robust solution.
Generative AI for Educators, led by Matthew Mays
As to be expected, AI is a hot-button topic right now, especially within education as teachers and administrations are scrambling to determine if, when, how, and why it could/should be used. This was the first of two AI related sessions I attended. There were at least six separate sessions on AI during the conference (out of forty-two total). The issue of AI is still ongoing and I was curious to see what I could glean to bring back to the discussion at LCCS on use-cases and a formal policy. At the core, Generative AI or GAI is a function of AI to generate, or create new content based on prompts. The clearer the prompt and inclusion of specific objectives, the more accurate and useful the generated content will be.
One of the key points made was that everything AI generates should not be blindly followed, but must be passed through a human filter first. AI has been shown to create wildly inaccurate content, and as such when used the resulting content needs to be closely reviewed and possibly edited before becoming a final product. Jumping off of this point, clear expectations should be laid out and modeled for students. This goes beyond a formal AUP on AI within schools, but more broadly, educators should utilize AI within the classroom to demonstrate and train students on the fallacies and best use cases for the tool. If we expect students to use AI tools responsibly and behave as upstanding digital citizens, then educators need to model that first. Students see, and then do. They will likely already be using AI outside of the classroom in the wild spaces of the internet, unrestricted to do as they please. The only way to corral the “Wild West” nature of AI as it stampedes the marketplace is to use it in the right ways, at the right times, to improve and enhance learning. Once students see how it can be leveraged at the right times, it becomes less of a threat to educational integrity.
An aspect of the session was a participatory time in which the attendees were requested to join a Jamboard and answer a prompt. I had never participated in a Jamboard and without any additional explanation the whole process was jarring. I was dropped straight into a new tool without guidance. Overcoming a new tool is not that difficult of a challenge for me, but the prompt itself put me out of my element. We were given one minute to answer this prompt: “List all the ways in which a student may show what they know that would get the support of teachers.” I instantly became completely paralyzed. I could not comprehend what was actually being asked at that moment, partially because I was still attempting to adjust to a new tool but most likely because I am not a teacher there was something inhibitive about the prompt. I felt as if I was missing knowledge somewhere due to never taking education classes past Education 101 in college. As I read the question over and over, the presenter closed the prompt before I was able to wrap my mind around it. When I saw the results, I continued to be puzzled. They were all short answers, but I was unable to connect the dots between the answers and the original prompt. The answers included a number of activities, such as doing an interactive lab, elevator pitch, creating a GoogleSlide presentation, creating a podcast, creating a video, making an edible book project and many more. From the answers I had a gist of what was being asked, but if I never saw the answers I probably could have spent a significant amount of time pondering the question before properly comprehending what was actually being asked. The part of the prompt that threw me off was the phrasing “that would get the support of the teachers.” If that part was left off, I could have understood it at the moment, but what does “get the support of the teachers” mean? Is this common educational lingo? My experience gives me pause for the role of EdTech in the classroom, how many students are also put on edge when introduced to new tools?
In regards to AI, it is critical for educators to be adaptable to the changes coming with the onslaught of AI. In addition to modeling proper use of AI for students, educators are encouraged to change their assignments to multiple modalities, to side-step and remove the issue of plagiarism from the equation. Teachers can create projects and activities with multiple parts that are too complex for AI to link and connect in a cohesive manner. Humans were made to form connections, both in relationships but also in-between what we are learning and past experiences. An example may be that AI cannot write reflections, as it never had those experiences. Another way in which educators and administrators can tackle the issue of students leaning on AI to do their work, is to require assignments to be completed within a tool such as GoogleDocs. GoogleDocs has a feature that shows the revision history, whereby those with adequate permissions can see how the project developed over time. If a large chunk is deposited all at once, then there is a certainty that the student copied it from somewhere else, whereas if a document progresses gradually over time, then it is likely original work.
These were helpful tips, but the most difficult aspect of utilizing AI at LCCS will be how to do it while being immersed within a biblical worldview. This deserves a complete article (possibly book) on it alone, but this session helped reveal some of the unique issues we will have as a Christian institution. We aim to teach all subjects from a biblical worldview from the ground up, meaning that we start with what should be conveyed related to faith and growing in Christ, and center the subject matter around that. Based on my limited experience with AI, it is unable to (and will be unable to) view content from a specific faith perspective. AI is incapable of believing in something, and has no soul or real-world experiences upon which to frame a faith worldview. Thus when prompted to create a lesson, if that lesson needs to be created in a way that brings students closer to Jesus, AI will not generate a concrete lesson. An educator might use AI tools to generate the content and then work in a biblical worldview after the fact, but that is reductive and counter-productive to the primary aim of raising up students as agents in God’s Kingdom (for more on this primary aim see my inaugural post on Beyond Biblical Integration). I believe Christian educators will be able to make use of AI tools to aid in generating portions of their lessons, project guidelines, assessments and evaluations, but we will not be able to leverage it as fully as those in non-Christian institutions. It will require more intentionality, careful and creative thought, and self-awareness to integrate AI into Christian classrooms.
Creative Backbone: Promote Learning, Not a Tool, led by Matt Winters
In my dive into EdTech I’ve been exploring the ways technology should be integrated into classrooms. A common theme I’ve discovered across the literature as I’ve waded in is to always emphasize the actual learning taking place, and not the specific tool. I attended this session in hopes that it would cover ways to stay oriented on the learning process and not be consumed by the multitude of tools available. The first part of the presentation did not disappoint. It reinforced the idea that creativity is the backbone of learning. Classrooms should not be oriented around the assessment and evaluation process, but on students creating both with digital tools and with their hands, into physical objects. This echoes the sentiment of Uncommon Learning, which emphasized that students should create digital artifacts that solve real-world problems (for more see my post on Uncommon Learning).
Winters elaborated further on the concept of creativity. Education often puts students in boxes and requires specific answers instead of letting students respond from a variety of perspectives and creative outlets. To break out of the cycle, we need to let students be creative. Their creativity does not need to be measured either, and does not matter if it is considered “good.” The point is to be creative. Creativity will be messy, it will involve failure, but students need to learn that failure is a necessary part of the creative process. For further learning on how critical creativity is, it was recommended to look into the work of Sir Ken Robinson and his book Out of Our Minds (that is definitely going on my list). And how does one channel their creativity? Through curiosity. Curiosity if followed can lead to a passion. But when educators simply state “follow your passion,” many become overwhelmed and are unable to choose a path.
The second half of the session delved into specific ways Winters has applied these principles of creativity into his classroom. Unfortunately, none of these resonated with me. If I were a student in his classroom, these would be some of the most difficult and stressful activities I would ever do, and I am doubtful if they would have increased my learning. Take for example his activity entitled “Am I Being Transparent?” It involves writing a few paragraphs on a topic of choice that was covered in class, then layering a transparency over your device and drawing associated materials that illustrate the writing with markers in the white space around the digital writing. Being forced to be creative both in writing and in drawing within the same class period would have been overwhelming for me as a student. After completing the reflective writing I would have been frozen staring at the drawing guidelines, reading and rereading the instructions with hopes that some inspiration would bite me. The class period would likely end and I would be left holding a blank transparency. With no drawing on it. Perhaps this is the type of assignment that was needed to foster that sort of creative thinking in me, but even as an adult I am uncertain if I could sufficiently complete it now. It is also possible that I would have failed the first time on this assignment, but if it were regularly recurring then I may have been able to overcome my challenges on subsequent opportunities, once I entered that mode of learning. I am also cognizant of the fact that I prefer writing to other modes of production and creativity and I am not the target audience – I am not a K-12 student in 2023. I learned in a different era (2003-2009 for 7th-12th), with techniques now considered less beneficial for the current time. I was the type of student who would rather write a 5-page paper than create a poster. I completely agreed with the overall approach Matt Winters outlined, but could not see myself utilizing the specific means of implementing the approach into the classroom. I am also not a teacher, though I consider it from time to time, but I left the session feeling completely out of my element and disillusioned about ever considering the notion. If these are the types of creative assignments teachers need to innovate to engage students at this time, then teaching is not the path for me.
My primary issue is that Winters discussed how students need to be creative, and that the path should not rely on the tool, but in the specific applications he outlined the activities had too constrictive parameters that would limit the creativity of students and he over-emphasized the use of the specific activity to insert opportunities for creativity into the classroom. At the core, is not a specific activity simply another tool? This circles us back to the core issue of focusing on tools, and not on the actual learning taking place. Instead, I tend to lean towards A.J. Juliani’s work, who advocates for letting the students design the activity themselves as a step of the creative and learning process. Juliani’s approach would remove the crippling anxiety I would have had during Winters’ activities and instead empower me to own my work and show my learning in a way that best suited me. Recall that bit at the beginning about not keeping students in boxes? The example activities had a constrictive framework and series of steps that puts students in boxes. Additionally, what could have made the session stronger is if the presentation included the ways the learning outcomes improved for the students who participated in those activities, but as that was left out, it is unclear to me how beneficial those examples would actually be as the information given seemed to contradict the original premise of creativity as the backbone.
Empowering and Creating Student Legacy with Electronic Portfolios, led by Garth Holman
I was interested in this session because the topic of digital badges was on my mind. The day before the conference I had an impromptu conversation with the assistant elementary principal on how we might use digital badges or a sort of electronic experience point system as incentives for students, but were unsure how to accomplish this on a widespread level. The assistant principal had some success with grades 5-6, but at the younger levels there are a number of hurdles we will need to solve before we can adapt a schoolwide model. Unfortunately, Holman did not discuss digital badges in any aspect. However, the way in which he has integrated electronic portfolios into his classroom over the past 20 years was eye-opening.
Holman is all about a Google tool called My Maps. My Maps is a very broad and simple tool. At the core it allows you to create and customize maps, built on the layers of GoogleMaps. That’s it. But in the hands of an educator? An educator guiding and fostering the creativity of a classroom? My Maps becomes a powerful tool as a body of work for a student. A body of work that can span their education from 6th through 12th grade. Students in Holman’s class use My Maps to annotate and create reflections on their learning. They create pins for places discussed in class, draw nation boundaries, arrows connecting various places or ideas, and can write paragraph summaries inside each pin to help them process and reflect on their learning. These are all preserved in layers, which can be overlaid all at once or individually selected, demonstrating a learning path over time.
Holman also shows the students how to create personal learning websites, in which My Maps can be embedded, in addition to a wide variety of other projects, such as videos, podcasts, art designs, whatever a student can think of! Every single assignment that a student completes is “turned in” by being added to their own website. That website then grows and evolves with the student not just in that class, but becomes a haven of knowledge until graduation. Then the student leaves the school with a complete electronic portfolio, chronicling their journey, built with their own hands, in their own unique, creative way. No two websites are the same, although some of the content will be similar due to the nature of classroom education. Taking this concept further, Holman demonstrated that My Maps content can be exported and then added into Google Earth as layers there. This way a student can literally circumvent the globe in layers documenting their learning journey. Obviously the tool of My Maps is most directly applicable in social studies classes, but Holman hinted at other subjects also utilizing it. Ultimately, all the content can be added to a student website, which is the real portfolio.
This session was so refreshing, I felt engaged and saw how students were actually taking ownership over their learning! Finally ideas and theories of learning that were in the literature that I was investing in came to life. I could see in practical terms how a student can own their learning. The creativity was unhinged. Students were making. And there was an actual product to showcase who they are and what they learned. Compare my reaction to this session to that of the previous one. My mindset flipped back. Could I possibly be a teacher if this is how students unleashed their learning journey through creativity? (It’s not about the tool, but the mindset and the environment that enable these stories).
Engage Your Students with an Infinite, Digital Whiteboard, led by Matthew Citron
I approached this session curious to learn if there was a better tool out there than the Whiteboard app on our ViewSonic Viewboards at LCCS. Citron utilizes a tool called Conceptboard, which is a dynamic whiteboard application. Though created and intended for use in business for concept design and collaboration, Conceptboard is versatile and can be adapted for many purposes. I envisaged a digital whiteboard that literally went on infinitely, so that educators could have their entire class lessons in a continuous stream for the whole year. While Conceptboard does not quite live up to that image, it essentially abides by that concept in practicality.
Citron does all of his teaching within Conceptboard. It can have objects loaded into it (pdfs, videos, powerpoints, etc), which can be dragged around with the touch of a finger. The whiteboard can be zoomed in to 800%, and you can also draw and highlight anything there. The real advantage is that it can be saved at the end of the class period and resumed right where you left off the next day. Some of the limiting factors are the amount of objects that can be embedded, and there is a finite actual size to the background. But if you run out of space, you can start a new whiteboard and continue on, so in practice it is essentially infinite for teaching purposes. At the beginning of each period students are allowed to copy the Conceptboard to their own screens, and then they can take notes around all the media objects embedded in the presentation. This can later be imported into GoogleDrive for reference!
After seeing Conceptboard in action, I believe it may be a better alternative to ViewSonic’s Whiteboard, as the space on the Whiteboard app can be quite limiting for teachers. However, Citron noted that it works so well for students because they have touchscreen devices at his school. With the non-touch screen variety of Chromebooks, I will have to test the functionality on the student side to see if it is a viable tool for LCCS. I especially can see the value for students who may want to organize notes, ideas, and thoughts throughout a wide space and not necessarily sequentially, in the limited fashion that lined notebooks or GoogleDocs provide.
Teacher’s AIde: Add a SPARCC to Your Pedagogy with AI, led by Christie Thompson
To be honest, I have very little to say about this session. I was hoping to learn how AI tools can augment pedagogy, that is to change the way teaching and learning actually occurs. To change the methods and thought processes and perhaps use AI to turn the classroom into a Socratic dialogue. Instead, I was presented with a series of generic AI tools that simply take shortcuts in traditional teaching styles. For example, if you need a lesson on the American Revolution, plug in a prompt and the AI will generate it for you. Some of the tools can even generate a complete presentation. Of course the educator must still edit and refine what is generated, but all AI is doing in this instance is speeding up the same old cycle of creating a presentation for class, walking students through the slides, and then giving them a quiz at the end of the week. A quiz that can also be generated with AI. An observer of this lesson would come away with the impression that AI is just a glorified search bot, that instead of finding the sources for you, will now summarize and compile and package them in a (somewhat) meaningful way.
While I have no doubt that most are using AI in this way, and may be perfectly valid to be used in this way (that’s a discussion for another time), what I am really looking for are innovative ways to completely overhaul the classroom experience for the students by using AI tools. The primary issue is that the entire presentation revolved around a focus on the tool itself, without addressing the framework in which to use it. If you start your presentation by jumping into the tool without the ideas and concepts behind why it was needed in the first place, then you have already lost me.
Final Comments
In conclusion, I felt that it was worthwhile to attend this conference. I achieved my first three goals to some degree, learned more about how AI should (or should not) be used, and was introduced to some new tools that may aid in the learning journey at LCCS. However, I completely failed at my fourth objective. Outside of two of the presenters, whom I briefly exchanged a few words and a question with, I did not engage or interact with anyone for the whole day. Part of this is due to my nature as an introvert, and my struggle with social anxiety. Simply approaching strangers and engaging in conversation is unnatural to me. But I have been to other conferences where that was not the case. Where relationships were formed in the midst of presentations and sessions. Or in-between sessions.
How have I been able to network at conferences for history, archaeology, historical preservation, and even Salesforce in the past but not at SPARRC? Where I have succeeded before was in formal, designated times and spaces for networking. I thrive on intention and purpose, but starting conversations without a shared focus becomes insurmountable. There were no designated networking activities at SPARRC. A sort of “coffee hour” to break up the morning and/or afternoon sessions could have met this need. Some conferences have poster presentations for students or junior professionals to showcase their work without needing to develop and lead an entire session, and these are often the times where natural, organic networking occurs. I also noticed a prevailing attitude that most attendees were educators simply looking to fulfill some sort of professional development credit. At the end of each session we were given a code for a certificate. I have yet to complete the process of acquiring certificates, as that was not the purpose of my day. Rather, one day of learning has given me quite a bit to process, ponder, and pursue within the realm of EdTech. In sharing my session summaries and reflections, the knowledge has already formed an impression on my mind and opened up new doorways to investigate, and is that not what life-long learning is all about? Digital objects and pieces of paper are not required to validate my learning journey.
I’d love to hear if you were there and what your takeaways were as well!