Web 2.0 is a term describing the current trend in the use of World Wide Web technology and web design that focuses on collaboration, creativity, and information sharing among users. Notable examples including blogs, wikis, podcasts, and  
Google Docs & Spreadsheets provide opportunities for students to engage in collaborative problem-solving, real-world decision-making, and self-directed learning.  
 
Unfortunately, Web 2.0 also represents the latest in a long line of technology “innovation” that produced an initial big splash at the outset yet generated very little return in terms of changing pedagogical practices in the classroom consistent with 21st Century teaching and learning. Recall the promises brought about by the introduction of multimedia authoring tools (e.g., PowerPoint), web page generators  
such as Filamentality, blogs, podcasts, and ,most recently, sophisticated handheld personal digital assistants (e.g., iPod Touch). Each one began with a vision tied to  
21st Century learning, yet, over time, was downgraded to fit the conventional teaching methodology (i.e., direct instruction) used in the classroom.  
 
The primary question for us to consider is why focus on Web 2.0 and related technologies when most classrooms are still encased in a Teach 1.0 paradigm characterized by lectures and/or teacher-led presentations, sequential learning  
materials, teacher-directed projects, and traditional assessment schemes? Maximizing the use of these advanced technology tools first requires a fundamental shift from Teach 1.0 to Teach 2.0 pedagogy.  
 
Teach 2.0 pedagogy is a term describing curriculum structures and instructional models that promote problem-based learning, real-world connections, and student inquiry such as Quadrant Learning, LoTi 4+ Implementation, Level 4 Depth of Knowledge, and 21st Century Skills. A summary of the major features of Teach 1.0 and 2.0 appears below:  
 
Teach 1.0 
Teacher-centered 
Direct Instruction 
Traditional Assessments 
Focus on Rote Learning 
Isolated Content 
Teacher-directed questions 
LoTi Range 0-3 
 
Teach 2.0 
Student-centered 
Inquiry-based Instruction 
Alternative Assessments 
Focus on Applied Learning 
21st Century Content/Themes 
Student-generated questions 
LoTi Range 4-6 
 
Promoting TEACH 2.0 pedagogy directly creates an efficient and effective environment for Web 2.0 tools to be used to their fullest extent. Consider the examples below:  
 
Skype  
 
In New Jersey, students conduct a field investigation of a local stream determining water quality through a variety of data collection strategies using handheld computers. To assist them with their analysis, students use Skype to interview a water  
quality expert without leaving their classroom. Because it is utilizing a computer for a completely free phone call, the call can be shared with more people by using speakers. Students complete the project by submitting their analysis of the local  
stream and recommendations to state department of water quality officials for follow- up action.  
 
Google Docs  
 
Classrooms in Florida and Texas conduct a debate about the upcoming Presidential Election. Each classroom presents their candidates’ position on various controversial issues using Google Docs. Students then critique each candidates position by  
adding their questions or comments to the original document that is shared between both classrooms. After reviewing each others’ comments, students prepare for a formal Presidential debate with both classrooms representing one of the political parties. The debate is then broadcasted via Skype to each classroom.  
 
Podcasts  
 
Students in a remote Minnesota middle school and one in urban Los Angeles collaborate together on a historical fiction project. Students from both campuses interview elderly citizens about their childhoods growing up in each area. The interviews are then converted to an MP3 file for distribution over the Internet to each classroom. The Minnesota middle school students use the podcasts from Los Angeles as the basis of their historical fiction product. The Los Angeles-based students do the same with the Minnesota podcasts. Final products are later shared with both classrooms.  
 
Wikis  
 
Students in Palo Alto, California use wikis to investigate political candidates. Each individual researches one aspect of a specific candidate (e.g., Student 1 focuses on Candidate 1's position on education and welfare, Student 2 addresses Candidate 1's position on the military and immigration, Student 3 investigates Candidate 1's position on health and senior citizens) These students were not in the same class period as each other, but added their research to a wiki on that candidate. Together they created one position paper on their candidate .What was interesting about their use of the wiki was when they discovered information about someone else's part in  
the information gathering phase. They got to discuss possible discrepancies through the tool of the wiki. Afterwards they used all of the facts in the collective paper to write individual persuasive papers convincing someone to either vote or not vote for that candidate.  
 
Exercising the instructional muscle embedded in Teach 2.0 pedagogy will only help to unfold the potential of Web 2.0 technology as well as increase student engagement and achievement in the classroom. Unfortunately, today’s digital natives use Web 2.0 resources at home as their own way of communicating, collaborating, and creating rather than in class. If we are to prevent Web 2.0 from becoming another “flash in the  
pan”, emphasis needs to be placed in professional development and 21st Century leadership the espouses the tenets of Teach 2.0.  

Posted by: Chris Moersch

In the past, I have used video clips in conference presentations to embellish a particular concept or perspective involving current instructional practices, school reform, or technology use in the classroom. One video clip depicts a U.S. History classroom learning environment where students are seated in rows, female students wearing butterfly-winged glasses and long skirts, male students with short crew cuts, and the teacher in a short sleeve white shirt and a skinny black tie asking questions from yesterday’s 16mm film presentation on Westward Migration. The video clip is then followed by the question: “What year was the classroom video clip created?”  
 
Most participant responses vary somewhere between 1955 to 1965. When queried about their responses, the over-whelming majority point to specific context clues such as the student’s clothing, the teacher’s tie, or the shape of the females’ glasses. In very few instances do participants notice the dominant instructional strategies in use during the mid-20th Century video: large group instruction, teacher-centered learning, sequential learning activities, and traditional forms of student assessment. In many respects, the blueprint for schooling used in the late 50’s and early 60’s resembles today’s classrooms with the one exception of the teacher workstation computer replacing the 16 mm projector. 
 
Why are instructional practices developed for Pre/Post Industrial Age students and institutionalized by the Baby Boomer generation still in vogue today? Its resiliency may be the product of a traditional and stable clientele (e.g., student population) and a tried and proven method of accomplishing the goal (i.e., raising test scores through direct instruction). However, in our zest to maintain the status quo, have we really considered the changes in both student demographics and the proliferation of available learning technologies that ultimately impact student achievement? 
 
A popular Teacher Tube video entitled, Did you Know…? exposes some telling trends with today’s students and the world we live in. 
 
• One in four workers have been at their current job less than one year. 
• Today’s learners will have between 10 and 14 jobs. 
• More than 70% of all 4 year olds have used a computer. 
• More than 230,000 new users sign up for My Space daily. 
• More than 50% of all students have created content on the Web. 
Have we considered the level of learning innovation that currently is available to students both inside the classroom and out of school? Let’s consider a few examples. 
 
Small Learning COmmunities 
 
To be honest, most students surpassed us years ago with full-scale implementation of this concept. The prime example is called My Space (www.myspace.com). A closer inspection of this online-learning community reveals students conducting collective inquiry (e.g., quizzes and opinion polls), discovering new artists and products (e.g., song releases and video commercials), creating content (e.g., movies, essays, cartoons), participating in opinion polls, discussing world events (e.g., political elections), taking action (e.g., boycotting non-eco-friendly products), and expanding their voice in the writing process through constant dialogue with one or more of their My Space contacts. 
 
Rigor and Relevance: 
 
According to Daggett (2005), Quadrant D in the Rigor & Relevance Framework requires students to think and work at the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (i.e., analysis, synthesis, evaluation) within a student-centered learning environment. The technology is already available to promote this type of learning. Online debates and discussion forums enable students to argue an issue that other students care deeply about. Websites such as ePals (www.epals.com) and Gaggle (www.gaggle.net) allow students to participate in asynchronous two-way collaborative projects across different content areas involving students from different cultures and even different languages. Online competitions available at eCybermission (www.ecybermission.org) and Thinkquest (www.thinkquest.org) provide an environment for students to hypothesize and design solutions to real-world problems and present them to a real-world audience online. 
 
Technology Access: 
 
Why worry about equipping students with classroom computers when the thoughtful conversation has not taken place about which tools serve the need of what is happening in that classroom. Will a high end mobile lab serve the needs of a grade level or a team if it is supported by the use of low end keyboarding tools or PDA’s that can be placed in every room? Would mini-labs in each classroom be the best use of monies for a specific grade level? 
 
Further schools often limit the use of technology by students when it does not fit their daily structure. Many students already possess a powerful computer in their pocket, coat, or purse. It is called a cell phone. When telling students to turn off their phones, is it always for the right reasons? I recognize the temptation to text message a friend during a lecture, but maybe schools should explore the possibilities of cell phone/PDA technology (e.g., iPhones, Windows Mobile device) to access the Internet, set-up two-way collaborations, and conduct video conferencing. Imagine the potential for one-to-one computer access in classrooms via new and improved cell phone/PDA technology. 
 
What role should traditional schools play when we consider exponential advances of technology to address the personal, social, and intellectual needs of the students? Will schools one day be replaced or transformed into bastions of social gatherings to address the personal and social needs while repurposing the use of online-learning communities to address the intellectual needs? This is not a 21st Century cry that the sky is falling, but rather a call to reconsider schooling or perhaps the need to adapt to the changing cultural and technological trends within our 21st Century society. Unfortunately, the major barriers to this type of learning continue to be the lack of professional development for educators to develop deep performance-based assessment activities related to their curriculum, the lack of student preparation to think rigorously, and the failure of some to recognize that not all students can consume information at the appropriate rate to keep up with traditional pacing guides. 
Ultimately teachers need to stay current with new tools, accept that they are preparing students for a future that is very different than 20 years ago, explore the skills that students will need to be successful in a more global economy, and look for opportunities to blend the curriculum that is expected with the skills that are needed. 
 
May the LoTi be with you Always! 
 
Chris Moersch 

Posted by: Chris Moersch

The 1985 hit song, The Search is Over by the musical group, Survivor, aptly describes my quest for an authentic 21st Century learning environment. My journey began years ago attending “21st Century Summits, observing technology integration-best practices classrooms, and visiting one-to-one laptop schools across the nation. In the majority of cases, the emphasis was on 21st Century technology, but not 21st Century learning. Though the technology including Google Earth, podcasting, learning management systems (e.g., Moodle, Blackboard), and sophisticated multimedia applications provided a clear pathway for students to demonstrate rigor and relevance beyond the core curriculum, the remnants of didactic instruction coupled with an exclusive focus on content mastery still dominated the learning environment. 
 
What precisely do we mean by 21st Century learning? According to the Partnership for the 21st Century (http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/), 21st Century learning comprises a series of skill sets, themes, and content that should serve as the foundation for planning, implementing, and evaluating curricula. 
 
While conducting a routine series of classroom walkthroughs at one of the LoTi Project Schools, I stumbled upon a mother lode of 21st Century learning. What I observed was engaged learning, student coursework adjusted according to student dominant learning modalities and multiple intelligences, technology used in a seamless fashion to support student complex thinking skills, small learning communities of students, and the teacher operating as a facilitator of learning rather than the disseminator of information. You, no doubt, guessed where I was during this 20-minute excursion into the future… A kindergarten classroom! 
A breakdown of this 21st Century learning environment parallels the critical attributes embedded in 21st Century Skills and Themes. 
 
21st Century Skills 
 
Information and Communication Skills 
Two of the eleven learning stations in this kindergarten classroom focused on students working in small learning communities creating mathematical patterns with a pod of computers. A third station used a computer connected to a large monitor to convey the daily learning station rotations and a student-friendly rubric to establish expectations for each station while a fourth station engaged students in a listening comprehension experience using a computer, CD, and a set of headphones. 
 
 
Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills 
In three additional learning stations, students worked collaboratively exchanging ideas with one another and collectively solving problems ranging from word recognition and sentence construction using manipulatives to generating hypotheses at their science station about the growth of their plant seedlings. 
 
 
Interpersonal and Self-Directional Skills 
In all of the learning stations, students were given scaffolded levels of autonomy depending on their individual and group readiness levels to explore, create, question, invent, and hypothesize concepts and processes based on specified guidelines and levels of expectation communicated daily to the students. 
 
21st Century Themes 
 
Global Awareness 
In one of the language stations, students were conducing ePals exchanges with another kindergarten classroom in Germany as a way of learning about other countries and cultures as well as improving their word recognition and sentence formation skills.  
 
The critical question is how or why do we allow students to move away from 21st Century learning and back to 19th Century pedagogy with its emphasis on didactic teaching, lower cognitive processing, and sequential learning activities as they matriculate through the intermediate, middle school, and high school levels of schooling? Many educational practitioners blame NCLB and high stakes testing as the culprits. But is it really the NCLB legislation or our own perceptions as the best way for students to retain short-term information. The long-term question facing all stakeholders is: Are we truly preparing students for their successful matriculation into a 21st Century society? If not, what steps are we taking to ensure that 21st Century Skills, Themes, and Content are being successfully integrated into the curriculum. Think about the following possibilities: 
 
* Use alternative assessment schemes such as 21st Century Performance Assessments to complement existing traditional measures of student assessment of content and process skills in the classroom 
* Embed 21st Century Performance Assessments into each grade level/content area pacing guide 
* Modify existing curriculum guides to incorporate 21st Century Skills and Themes 
* Create 21st Century tasks as differentiated anchor activities in the classroom 
* Use 21st Century Skills and Themes to develop model lesson plans aligned to the core content standards 
 
May the LoTi be with you Always! 
 
Chris Moersch 

Posted by: Chris Moersch

Research abounds that references the pivotal role that building administrators play in the educational change process. Successful implementation of any school-based innovation can be traced to the attitude and actions of the site-based leader. Whether the change involves the implementation of a new reading program, the creation of professional learning communities, or the introduction of a new way of conducting classroom walkthroughs, the behavior of the school building principal can bring either success or failure with any innovation. 
 
The LoTi Project School is by definition a school committed to improving student achievement, instructional practices, and technology implementation on campus. However, our experiences have shown that the level of success is directly related to the quality of leadership manifested by the campus' chief instructional officer. On campuses that have flourished as LoTi Project Schools, the building administrator has manifested a high degree of what I refer to as the 5 C's of instructional leadership: Cultivation, Courage, Creativity, Commitment, and Communication. Each of these attributes serves at the core of a successful LoTi Project School implementation. 
 
Cultivation 
How many times have you heard someone describe their educational leader (e.g., superintendent, principal, director) as a true visionary--someone who is able to envision a bold plan to improve student achievement, reinvigorate a dormant curriculum, or sustain 21st Century learning environments, yet is unable to execute on that vision? Though creating a vision for instructional change or renewal at the campus or district level is laudable, the inability to cultivate that vision for success into a viable plan of action can lead to staff discontent, apathy, and, worse yet, passive resistance to the entire change process. LoTi Project School principals who are able to cultivate a climate of change against perceived environmental barriers (e.g., NCLB, standardized tests, staff resistance) possess that intangible attribute of a true instructional leader that cannot be taught in a graduate course. 
 
Courage 
Courage represents the ability to "stand for principle" in the face of mounting pressure to find quick-fix solutions (e.g., extensive test prep exercises, over-reliance on drill and practice activities) for long-term problems. In schools today, no one can escape the inevitable "high-stakes" test given annually each spring to measure what students know in targeted grade levels and content areas. Possessing the ability to challenge conventional wisdom and focus on what research (as well as what your "gut instincts") tells you works best for students academically (e.g., higher order thinking, student engagement, authentic problem-solving, differentiated instruction, cooperative learning) defines the courage level of instructional leaders. Acting courageously simply means applying one's convictions to a problem or challenge regardless of outside pressures. Successful LoTi Project Schools are led by leaders with courage. 
 
Creativity 
Top-flight LoTi Project School administrators are able to exercise their creative instincts to find solutions to problems. Where others see barriers, they see opportunities. Think about those building administrators whom you have known personally, read about in a periodical, or viewed on a DVD who were able in a relatively short period of time to increase student attendance, reduce violence on campus, improve school climate for both staff and students, and raise test scores. Many of us have met these individuals and watched them as they steered their way through obstacles and against overwhelming odds as well as naysayers who said that it could not be done. These individuals are able to exercise their creativity with a large dosage of personal initiative to implement their vision for success. 
 
Commitment 
In the movie, The Patriot, Mel Gibson's character was reminded continually by his oldest son (played by Heath Ledger) to "stay the course" as it relates to the larger mission of defeating the British during the Revolutionary War rather than give up or focus energy on personal vendettas. Successful LoTi Project School principals are able to stay committed as it relates to the implementation of their action plans even when the popular decision would be to acquiesce to special interest groups on campus or stop the process entirely. During my graduate years as an aspiring administrator at San Diego State University, I will never forget a professor, Dr. Al Moreno, who often kidded us about the definition of leadership which was to "find which way the herd is going and get out in front." True leaders do not rely on Gallup Polls to do the right thing; they "just do it." 
 
Communication 
Effective communication is the cornerstone for an effective LoTi Project School implementation. Oftentimes, staff is unsure about the school's central mission when the level of communication from the principal is reduced to a weekly email or a brief speech during a faculty meeting or via the intercom. Quality communication extends beyond the spoken or printed word. At successful LoTi Project Schools, the building leader is able to translate his/her words into action and create a consensus among all key stakeholders as to the schoolÕs mission. Though the level of communication starts with the principal, it does not stop there. Quality communication involves all participants on campus and is best manifested in clusters of professional learning communities. 
 
The 5 C's of instructional leadership are central to the change process at a LoTi Project School. According to C.W. Joiner, "effective change requires skilled leadership that can integrate the soft human elements with hard business actions." (See reference below.) Successful LoTi Project Schools are lead by individuals who possess these qualities. 
 
May the LoTi be with you Always! 
 
Chris Moersch 

Posted by: Chris Moersch

LoTi was first conceptualized in 1994. The intent was to create a framework to aid district leadership in quantifying how technology was being used in the classroom beyond the initial euphoria brought about by the proliferation of PC's and Mac's into the classroom. To date, all 50 states and hundreds of thousands of educators have used the LoTi (Levels of Technology Implementation) Framework in one form or another (e.g., online assessment tool, school improvement model, professional development intervention, dissertation) to improve instructional uses of technology aligned to state standards. 
 
Thirteen years later, the question often surfaces: Is LoTi relevant today? To answer this question, one needs to consider the current state of the LoTi Framework itself as well as current curriculum models/initiatives being considered by school systems throughout the nation. 
 
Given the fact that we are no longer tracking student-to-computer ratios on a national scale, focusing on single application usage in the classroom, or finding creative ways of storing images on floppies, it doesn't make sense to dwell on the technology aspect of LoTi. Rather, it is critical that we focus on its better half--instruction and assessment. In many respects, LoTi might be better portrayed as "Levels of Teaching Innovation" or "Levels of Thinking Integration" because the foundation behind the LoTi Framework is grounded in powerful teaching and learning (e.g., learner-centered instruction) and higher level thinking processes. 
 
Recent dissertations using LoTi as the focus for their research corroborate this notion. Strategies for Sustainable Professional Development Programs to Promote Effective Pedagogical Use of Instructional Technology into Teaching, Comparison of Instructional Practices and Student Academic Achievement in New Hampshire, The Impact of Instructional Technology on Student Academic Achievement in Reading and Mathematics, and The Effect of the Principal's Leadership Style on the Level of Technology Implementation and Integration in PreK-12 Schools illustrate the dynamic nature behind the LoTi Framework beyond its original use as a technology assessment. 
 
The critical elements comprising the eight stages of the LoTi Framework (higher order thinking processes, authentic assessment measures, student engagement, global awareness, learner-centered pedagogy) are also revealed in the current wave of curriculum models/initiatives dominating the educational landscape. Each of these models/initiatives including Daggett's Rigor/Relevance, Webb's Depth of Knowledge, Marzano's Research-based Practices, and 21st Century Skills address one or more of the underpinnings of LoTi (Table 1). Taken collectively, they represent the entire LoTi Framework. 
 
The four quadrants comprising the Rigor/Relevance Framework (Quadrant A: Acquisition, Quadrant B: Application, Quadrant C: Assimilation, and Quadrant D:Adaptation) are based on two constructs: Knowledge and Application. Similar to the LoTi Framework, the Knowledge portion of the framework embeds the six levels of Bloom"s Taxonomy while the Application strand moves from isolated information gathering and problem solving at Quadrants A-B (e.g., LoTi Levels 1-3) to real world problem-solving and authentic learning (LoTi Levels 4-6) at Quadrants C-D. 
 
Webb's Depth of Knowledge consisting of Levels 1-4 was initially conceptualized to trace alignment between content standards and assessments. Depth of Knowledge represents a hierarchy based on complexity and sophistication of a concept or process. Similar to the LoTi Framework, the Depth of Knowledge levels begin at the lower levels involving knowledge that might be commonly known or acquired through conventional instruction at Levels 1-2 (LoTi Levels 1-2) while gradually moving to the higher levels highlighted by students analyzing and synthesizing complex processes with greater sophistication at Levels 3-4 (LoTi Levels 3-6). 
 
Marzano's Research-based Practices provides a compilation of instructional strategies and techniques that have shown to have the greatest impact on student achievement. These practices coincide with the LoTi Framework; meaning, certain practices can typically be introduced or reinforced at a targeted LoTi level. For example, the practice of the teacher providing cues, prompting student questions, and creating advanced organizers might be found at a LoTi 1 whereas students generating and testing hypotheses, providing non-linguistic representations of content and complex processes, and identifying similarities and differences are more common at a LoTi 3 and above. 
 
The current trend of articulating and infusing 21st Century Themes and Skills into classroom instruction mirrors the higher levels of LoTi-in-Action. According to the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 21st Century Skills consists of three domains:Information, Media, and Technology Skills; Learning and Innovation Skills; and Life and Career Skills; 21st Century Themes consists of four key areas: Global Awareness; Financial, Economic, Business, and Entrepreneurial Literacy; Civic Literacy; and Health Literacy. Classrooms implementing the tenets of 21st Century learning are, in fact, implementing the major "look-fors" of LoTi levels 4 and above (e.g., real-world problem-solving, global collabor-ation, self-directional learning). 
 
What is missing from each of these curriculum models/initiatives is a focus on the powerful role that learning technologies can assume in the implementation process. This situation creates two problems. The first problem is that since none of these models/initiatives individually address technology use in the classroom, it is not surprising that when the innovation is fully implemented technology is often missing from the equation. The second problem is more systemic; since technology is not modeled as part of the implementation process, educators as well as district and building administrators often perceive technology as a separated curriculum or initiative by itself, and therefore, not an integral part of the innovation's implementation. 
 
LoTi not only embraces the central features of each of these models/practices, but does so through the dynamic use of learning technologies to sustain the change effort using the available digital assets in the classroom. My earlier question asked, "Is LoTi still relevant today?" To this question, I respond with an unequivocal, "YES." 
 
May the LoTi be with you Always! 
 
Chris Moersch 

Posted by: Chris Moersch