This is the final piece of the series in eJewishPhilanthropy, Continuing Conversations on Leveraging Educational Technology to Advance Jewish Learning. The series is a project of Jewish Funders Network, the Jim Joseph Foundation, and the William Davidson Foundation. For an in-depth look at opportunities in Jewish Ed Tech and digital engagement, read Smart Money: Recommendations for an Educational Technology and Digital Engagement Investment Strategy.

In an age where everyone has ready access to what would have recently been considered to be a supercomputer, how can an industrial–age educational system adapt to an abundance of knowledge and tools?

We live in a time of a great abundance of knowledge, what technology thinker Clay Shirky termed a Cognitive Surplus. A student with an idea and readily available resources can create almost anything and reach a worldwide audience.

For example, students at my school, The Frisch School, were recently awarded first prize at an engineering conference attended by over a thousand people sponsored by the Center for Initiatives in Jewish Education. Using microprocessors, coding, and 3D printing, four sophomore girls designed a device for individuals with physical disabilities to communicate by blinking their eyes for a fraction of the cost of similar, commercially available assistive technologies.

Another student has created his own gaming studio, MidnightCoffeeInc, in which he has already published three retro-style games on Steam, the most popular gaming platform in the industry, and on the Android app store. He developed his games using graphic design software and drag and drop programs. His creative pursuits have received so much acclaim that he was chosen to present at the ISTE educational technology conference, the largest educational technology conference in North America with over 15,000 participants.

A recent alumnus who is now an electrical engineering student at The Cooper Union, created a fully operational version of the Enigma Machine, the electro-mechanical machine the Nazis used to create their “unbreakable” code in World War II. When I asked him if he would now design the program pathbreaking British computer scientist Alan Turing developed to crack the Enigma code, made famous by the film The Imitation Game, he looked at me quizzically and responded that anyone could write the program to crack this code nowadays even using a $35 Raspberry Pi microprocessor. Note, Alan Turing had to invent the first modern computer which filled an entire house in order to perform the calculations to crack the Enigma Code.

We have reached an age where everyone has ready access to what would have recently been considered to be a supercomputer. The smartphone, a device in the pockets of almost every teenager and adult, has millions of times more processing power than the combined power of all the computers used to power the Apollo moon landing mission in 1969.

The overarching question then becomes how can our current educational system designed using the factory model for the industrial age adapt to an an information age with such an abundance of knowledge and tools.

Addressing this question is the goal of the report commissioned by the Jim Joseph and William Davidson Foundation Smart Money: Recommendations for an Educational Technology and Digital Engagement Investment Strategy and the Continuing Conversations on Leveraging Educational Technology to Advance Jewish Learning blog series published on the Jewish Funders Network and eJewish Philanthropy.

In this series, educators have discussed how to adapt trends in educational technology to Jewish education like the Maker Movement in which individuals create using both hi-tech and low-tech tools and Augmented Reality, a trend made popular by the Pokemon Go game and now embedded into the latest iPhone. They have described how ubiquitous mobile technology can be used as a tool for creative and ingenious approaches to Jewish learning and skill development. The importance of proper teacher training to help teachers grapple with the brave new world of educational technology has been emphasized both from the perspective of a funder and a provider of professional development.

The promise of online learning as a means to create high quality Jewish educational instruction for any student, anywhere has been discussed as well as the need to think carefully and adhere to a protocol of tried and true recommendations before following every new technology trend. Developers have illustrated how they utilize research-based best practices to maximize the educational value of their videos and argued for the importance of supporting open source technology allowing future programmers to build on knowledge created by others.

Finally, a series of questions and strategies for impactful investing has been carefully presented to utilize in planning funding for our scale-up nation.

This is only the beginning of a continuing conversation between funders, developers, educators, parents, and students. A new online space is being planned to further this important discussion as funders and other stakeholders in Jewish education seek to find ways to fulfill the promise of the cognitive surplus facilitated by technology in order to enhance Jewish education for all.

Rabbi Tzvi Pittinsky is the Director of Educational Technology at The Frisch School, a Modern Orthodox Yeshiva High School in Paramus, NJ. In this capacity, he works with the faculty to integrate technology into every aspect of teaching and learning at Frisch.

Rabbi Pittinsky is also a professor for MOFET’s International Online Academy, an educational consultant for the Jewish Funders Network and a Smart Board Certified Teacher Trainer. He is an active blogger on topics related to the intersection of technology and Jewish education and an avid user of social media. You can read his blog at:http://techrav.blogspot.com and follow him on Twitter @techrav.

Rabbi Pittinsky leads professional development workshops throughout North America, Israel, and South Africa on a broad range of educational technology related topics and presents at various educational conferences, most recently at the The International Society for Technology in Education Conference (ISTE), the largest educational technology conference in the world and at The Jewish Funders Network Conference.

This is part 11 of the series in eJewishPhilanthropy, Continuing Conversations on Leveraging Educational Technology to Advance Jewish Learning. The series is a project of Jewish Funders Network, the Jim Joseph Foundation, and the William Davidson Foundation. For an in-depth look at opportunities in Jewish Ed Tech and digital engagement, read Smart Money: Recommendations for an Educational Technology and Digital Engagement Investment Strategy. Later this year, Jewish Funders Network will launch a new website to help advance the field of Jewish educational technology.

To understand and then appreciate technology’s role in our learning and our lives, we need to understand the essence of what technology is and what it allows us to do. When we move beyond brand names and the latest technical features we can see that technology is meant to allow us to increase our production, communication, and give us the ability to interface and interact with the world around us.

Image by Gregordy / WikiMedia Commons

There isn’t a single industry that exists today that doesn’t utilize the power of technology to increase or enhance its productivity, efficiency, or quality. Why then is education still discussing, and at times even struggling to validate, how technology can transform teaching, learning, and meaningful experiences in both?

Today, the word technology will evoke the images of iPads, laptops, and 4K displays, but I assure you that in its essence, and by definition, they are no more technological than the pencil and printing press before. To understand and then appreciate technology’s role in our learning and our lives, we need to understand the essence of what technology is and what it allows us to do. When we move beyond brand names and the latest technical features we can see that technology is meant to allow us to increase our production, communication, and give us the ability to interface and interact with the world around us.

Technology is becoming increasingly intelligent. Hotel rooms, refrigerators, even our coffee makers are not just automated but programmed to react and respond to best serve our needs, all while ensuring that the highest levels of efficiency and effectiveness are achieved. Our methods of communication, transportation, and service experiences, revolve around technological advances. Many of these new technologies didn’t exist even ten years ago and are still rapidly developing. You find technology creating an impact everywhere from hospitals, auto mechanics, airports, and even the grocery store. Technology has nearly changed every facet of industry, yet education still lags behind and technology is questioned. In 2017, we can still wonder about the ubiquitous nature of technology in education, and at the same time you would be hard pressed to find someone committed to a medical professional, mechanic, or contractor who opts out of using technology. Why is education different?

Access and availability are still a conversation because we have not yet addressed why technology is critical to successful teaching and learning. Technology’s impact on education isn’t going to be through the volume of technology present, but how it can shift and redefine the teaching and learning process. Technology is moving forward at a rapid pace in a direction that is mobile, handsfree, and voice responsive. We cannot view education in a different light and not provide students with the same tools that the real world interfaces with everyday. You might not (yet) have a smart lightbulb or Amazon’s Alexa but those days are numbered as companies incorporate these technologies into our everyday experiences whether we like it or not. 15 years ago you would be hard pressed to find a school that didn’t offer a keyboarding program. Today, while schools continue to invest hundreds or thousands into keyboarding, technology companies are spending millions to make them obsolete. Education needs to be on the edge of what technology is relevant now, not to jump on the trending bandwagon but be aware of how best to prepare our students for the year 2030 when they begin their professional journeys.

The Future of Educational Technology is Mobile, Creative, and Adaptive

Mobile technology allows us to experience the world around us. It directly impacts our ability to survey, compile, and engage with people, places, and things. So how does this interface with education? Well it depends on your definition of education, and what learning and develop you value. If you value memorization, fill in the blank, note taking, and lecture listening skills, then the purpose and value of technology will be very different than if one values creativity, complex nonlinear problem solving, critical thinking, reflection, and collaboration. Education should and must move beyond the 19th century model. The real world doesn’t function this way. While students must master the skill of memorization, documentation, and written communication, those must be components of a larger and more meaningful learning experience. With this in mind we can then look at technology as a tool to connect with others and capture experiences. Only then will technology use becomes authentic and access to it becomes more than justified but a requirement. At this point technology becomes a catalyst to help students acquire skills beyond memorization and essay writing, that will prepare students for the workforce of the future.

The World Economic Forum lists skills such as creativity, critical thinking, and emotional intelligence as top ranking skills that will be prerequisites for success in the workplace of tomorrow:

Image from: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-10-skills-you-need-to-thrive-in-the-fourth-industrial-revolution

Yet today’s educational framework, especially one void of technology, seems to assume that these skills are either not important or will be mastered at some later date. When we consider expert projections like the one above, coupled with technology’s saturation in all areas of our life, then the lack of access and availability of technology at school will seem out of place. Technology should be as ubiquitous in education as it has become in the rest of our lives.

To better understand this approach to technology’s role in learning, let’s discuss the learning experience of a 1st grader in science. Students can fill out worksheets, watch a video, and draw a picture. They can also take all of their research and learning that they encounter including their own videos and drawings, and develop a two minute film to present their understanding. This learning product not only demonstrates their understanding of the topic, but, more importantly, it does so in a medium that is portable, shareable and beneficial to others. We must have an honest conversation when looking at the value in student work beyond knowledge assessment. Can students develop final products that others can learn and benefit from? To achieve that level of learning, students can no longer produce generic fill in the blank learning to indicate understanding of classroom content and its application. They need to actively create something to be shared with others.

This level of ubiquity and integration allows students to view technology as a tool to reach new heights as they discover creative and ingenious approaches in their learning and skill development. To achieve this requires all stakeholders to be involved in the education process including educators, parents, and students. Each stakeholder must look at their role in understanding how technology allows for the access of information, how to synthesize and reconstruct knowledge, and most important of all, who and how they can share their understanding and final product of learning beyond the teacher’s grade book. The success of the above rides on ensuring like any component of a school’s success, that all stakeholders are part of the development, launch, and commitment to sustainable growth.

Stakeholders Need To Know Their Role In Technology Use and Integration

School Leadership and Faculty

Schools must invest in technology in a way that is in line with their mission and vision, rather than having technology define them, or worse contradict them. Do you want technology to promote mobile and active learning around campus? Do you want the walls of your classrooms to disappear? Do you want students to be actively engaged in developing creative solutions to represent their learning through music, drama, and media reach projects? If the answer is yes, then a laptop would not be your solution. The best device to fit your institutional mission would be a tablet with a detachable keyboard. Whether its iPad or Android the point is that these questions should drive the technology, not solely based on cost of purchase and maintenance, or ease of I.T. management.

Parents

Parents need to partner with schools and be supported by them as well. The term lifelong learner must extend to the parent body. Parents must understand that for students and schools to embrace change, parents too must be open to change and growth. This will show not just schools, but our children that the parent body is commitment to learning and discovering new things. How familiar are you are with technology? Do you need training? Do you need a Q&A, FAQ, or link to resources? If technology comes home with students, it is critical that parents are informed and aware of what the technology is capable of doing. Remember, a pencil is technology, but parents don’t have to worry about their pencils connecting to the internet.

Students

I believe that students have the most critical role of in the education process, since it is they who will validate and reveal what methods, tools, and strategies will empower them to achieve their highest potential. It goes beyond how are they are supported and trained, but rather how they are listened to, and sought out for their input and advice on what will help them love learning and desire to work hard. If we want full buy-in, we need to not just hold students accountable to our expectations, but support them in a way that technology use and learning at large is intrinsically motivating. Students in a successful technology infused learning environment should be able to answer the following question regardless of age or ability. What are ways you can demonstrate (show) your understanding of what you are learning? When we reach this level of thoughtfulness that goes beyond “technology use,” we are truly preparing students for the future where technology is not an option, but simply part of learning and life.

Ubiquity, access, and availability of technology tools and resources are vital for students to be prepared for a future that does not yet exist. They need to be introduced to technology as part of their educational growth and development, so that they will see them as tools that will meet their professional success and needs. If we are successful in this, then technology use will be authentic and fulfill its purpose of supporting our students and children in becoming inquisitive, independent, and inspired lifelong learners.

Michael Cohen, The Tech Rabbi is a designer and technologist turned educator. He is an Apple Distinguished Educator and Google Certified Trainer who advocates, speaks, writes, and facilitates workshops on creativity and innovation. He works with schools on a local and national level to help them develop a creative mindset to influence and and empower individuals in becoming confident and passionate problem solvers. Michael shares his story of creativity and innovation through social media, and conferences such as Apple Education Events, EdTechTeacher Summits, iPadpalooza, ISTE, and SXSWEdu. He is the host of the “Educated By Design” Audio Experience Postcast where he features experts who share how they ideate, plan, and implement creative solutions to solving complex problems.

Michael currently lives in Los Angeles with his wife and four children, and is still an avid skateboarder.

This is part 10 of the series in eJewishPhilanthropy, Continuing Conversations on Leveraging Educational Technology to Advance Jewish Learning. The series is a project of Jewish Funders Network, the Jim Joseph Foundation, and the William Davidson Foundation. For an in-depth look at opportunities in Jewish Ed Tech and digital engagement, read Smart Money: Recommendations for an Educational Technology and Digital Engagement Investment Strategy. Later this year, Jewish Funders Network will launch a new website to help advance the field of Jewish educational technology.

Developing the Jewish EdTech ecosystem requires an agile investment approach. The optimal framework for this is an application of the Lean start–up methodology, oftenreferred to in the social sector as the Lean Impact Methodology.

Our previous article discussed the importance of an ecosystem; let’s take a closer look at the strategies and tools needed for creating a specifically Jewish EdTech ecosystem. It begins with asking the right questions…

In this post, we’ll look at the benefits of an agile investment approach to the Jewish EdTech space. We’ll also consider the limitations of traditional accelerator programs for niche sectors, and investigate how to tweak the approach for Jewish EdTech in particular. The post will conclude with a working hypothesis expressing the author’s vision for a reinvigorated Jewish education environment.

Applying intuition scientifically

Developing the Jewish EdTech ecosystem requires an agile investment approach. The optimal framework for this is an application of the Lean start-up methodology, often referred to in the social sector as the Lean Impact Methodology. The approach is intuitive and rigorous. Just as a scientist sets hypotheses and tests them experimentally, the Lean Impact innovator will set a hypothesis with three potential outcomes: validated (yes), invalidated (no) or unclear (maybe) results. If tests show that the hypothesis is supported by evidence, the innovator has reason to scale up the operation. If tests show the hypothesis to be false, the innovator should revise the hypothesis. Unclear results call for revised tests. This way, testing enables the innovator to make step-by-step evidence-based decisions.

Interactive Whiteboards by PolyVision

The Lean Impact methodology is not a magic formula for finding optimum solutions. The answers will only be as good as the questions, a topic addressed in an earlier article in this series. The learning process proceeds by asking questions (“hypothesis generation”), effectively testing the hypothesis, and then extracting meaningful lessons from the conclusions. Successfully following this approach requires agility, flexibility, and humility.

How does this fit into the broader impact objective

The lean impact model described above is the best way to accelerate innovation in the sector. Once effective solutions are identified the next step is to catalyze these innovations by supporting scale-up efforts. And finally, those initiatives which prove impactful and scalable require support to achieve sustainability. Currently, the bottleneck is innovation, and it is for this reason that we’re focused on accelerating innovation.

For funders who are uncomfortable with the risks associated with innovation and experimentation there is still room to meaningfully contribute. This can be achieved by supporting knowledge management and best practices about effective solutions. And also by actively participating in mobilization of resources for scaling and sustaining successful innovations.

Finding solutions that work

Traditional accelerator models are well understood, particularly in the technology sector where they have been refined over decades. There are by now clearly defined benchmarks for impact investing in terms of what constitutes an outcome and how to achieve outcomes.

However, the rigorous selection processes that make incubator models so powerful creates a blind spot for niche sectors such as Jewish EdTech. In a robust ecosystem, innovation can be driven successfully by developing more accelerators in conjunction with impact funds. However, such extremely selective winnowing practices depend on an adequate supply of innovators, opportunities and funding to produce successful entrepreneurial ventures. The model is effective in major commercial sectors, but seldom works in smaller sectors, such as education.

Advancement in the impact investment sector has enabled more accurate filters to select investments and to better monitor real impact. However, the model’s stringency can also be a limitation. The model assumes that optimizing the selection process is the path to success, which is only true when there are adequate candidates to select from. In niche markets, optimizing selection will often produce zero opportunities that meet the required criteria. Understanding this “market failure” is fundamental to building solutions for the “real world” rather than “ideal world”.

Experience has taught us that for-profit companies often have the skills but not the incentives to address social problems and not-for-profits have the desire to address social problems but lack a business model for operational effectiveness. This realization led us to develop a hybrid methodology, which acknowledges both the limits of the market and the social imperative of addressing those problems.

Impact–ful Investing

By shifting the emphasis from the traditional testing standards – whether or not you have a viable business model – to an emphasis on can you get the job done, we are able to target the most appropriate revenue models that support the best solutions, regardless of whether they are not-for-profit or for-profit enterprises. Many problems can only be served through social funding, since a viable market will never exist; but the methodology at least ensures these solutions will be optimal in terms of impact.

The methodology seeks to answer different questions as potential solutions emerge:

• Which innovations work
• How can effective solutions be scaled-up
• What is the optimal funding structure to maximize impact potential of effective scalable solutions

We’ve looked at how to construct an approach that asks the right questions in order to find effective solutions. What would this look like in practice?

We can use the methodology to create an ecosystem heat map that maps out what our ecosystem contains and what is missing, providing a broad overview that enables data-driven decision making at an ecosystem level.

Then we develop a heat map of the ecosystem maturity, with green, orange and red indicating decreasing levels of maturity in that order. The example below has zoomed in on the Day Schools segment:

Green = most mature | Orange = medium level of maturity | Red = least mature

Data driven insights will emerge from the heat map, such as:

• If we create content for school-age children will we bottleneck in implementation?
• How can we develop the “implementation” vertical in Grades 3-9 where we have better content already available?
• How would our funding strategy need to change to achieve this?

Having identified “Implementation” as a constraint in our example, we can further drill down into focus areas to identify opportunities to promote effective change:

We’ve developed a theoretical model to illustrate how the process would be applied to the Jewish EdTech Ecosystem. Of course, the following analysis is not an actual assessment of the ecosystem, but simply serves to demonstrate the methodology in practice.

Building knowledge for the ecosystem

We start with an overview of the ecosystem:

Putting a program in action

We can extract valuable action points from the report, Smart Money: Recommendations for an Educational Technology and Digital Engagement Investment Strategy

The report recommends eight “Best Bet Investing Strategies”:

1. Invest in collaboration among the best of existing Jewish EdTech producers
2. Partner with companies and organizations already active in the EdTech space
3. Invest limited funds in pooled EdTech investment funds
4. Track and commission EdTech products that emerge from the general EdTech space for the Jewish audience
5. Invest significant grants in developing new content using “Big/Proven Talent” and general EdTech companies
6. Invest with smaller innovation grants and in field building
7. Invest in crossover opportunities
8. Infrastructure

The Jewish EdTech ecosystem should follow a lean start-up approach to building the ecosystem. This entails an agile, relatively quick cycle of (1) testing a hypothesis, (2) learning from early results and (3) implementing solutions based on these findings. The hypotheses would be aligned to the learning agenda as mandated by the funding group.

As a first step in generating an ecosystem heat map, in the coming months we’ll be launching a centralized product and service index to inform and empower this methodology.

Our recommended investment approach includes prioritizing the following four recommendations:

• Partner with companies and organizations already active in the EdTech space Invest in collaboration among the best of existing Jewish EdTech producers
• Commission EdTech products that emerge from the general EdTech space for the Jewish audience
• Invest limited funds in pooled EdTech investment funds
• Invest with smaller innovation grants and in field building

Jarred Myers manages an Innovation Portfolio for a Private Family Foundation, using venture philanthropy and mission investing tools, he focusses on technology driven solutions for education and employment. Nicky Newfield is the Founder and Executive Director of Jewish Interactive and is a trustee of the Glatt Charitable Foundation.

This is part 8 of the series in eJewishPhilanthropy, Continuing Conversations on Leveraging Educational Technology to Advance Jewish Learning. The series is a project of Jewish Funders Network, the Jim Joseph Foundation, and the William Davidson Foundation. For an in-depth look at opportunities in Jewish Ed Tech and digital engagement, read Smart Money: Recommendations for an Educational Technology and Digital Engagement Investment Strategy. Later this year, Jewish Funders Network will launch a new website to help advance the field of Jewish educational technology.

Since this is media, how can you know that you’re really having an impact? What proof do you have that video can build Jewish identity or literacy?‘

BimBam (formerly G-dcast) is a Jewish media studio. Our creative team has worked on over 300 short videos and apps, and we have big league experience from Apple, Pixar, The New York Times, etc.

Usually, people find us through our work – they don’t ask us too many creative questions beyond, “Can I do a part in a video?” That’s because they or their kids already love the programs, and it’s easy to see our track record. Our Judaism 101 and early childhood education videos have clear and easily shared metrics – high viewership numbers, great audience retention curves and accurate aim at the demographics we’re targeting.

What we do get asked routinely is, “Since this is media, how can you know that you’re really having an impact? What proof do you have that video can build Jewish identity or literacy?”

Great questions. What I want to offer is a perspective that we’ve found to be true: well-designed Jewish media programs that are informed by best practices from secular educational media are as effective as their peers. PBS Kids shows (e.g., Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood, Peg + Cat, Sid the Science Guy), Sesame Workshop programs, and Reading Rainbow have been studied for decades by leading researchers using sample sets comprised of thousands of children and their parents. Interactive educational programs in the app marketplaces are, to some extent, being put under the lens while in development or afterwards.

Funders are advised to read this research – which they will find fascinating not only as evidence supporting certain types of programming but also as former children themselves. Research-based shows are studied for proof of literacy building, numeracy support and social emotional development. They are tested in both formal controlled settings and informally, in homes.

There are protocols, well-established, to choosing groups of respondents to study and there are protocols for discovering not only learning changes but also affect and engagement. For instance, guided by Stanford PhD researchers who work routinely on PBS properties, we tested early Shaboom scripts on eight 3, 4, and 5 year old children – two boys and two girls of each age – in their homes, beside their parents. It did not matter that they all lived in the Bay Area, something that we’d thought would be a factor. We got all of the information we needed to learn from these 12 children in order to improve our pilot episode, through asking establishing questions, observing measures of engagement during viewing (such as toe tapping, pointing at the screen and looking at a parent), and answering questions post-viewing. This formative evaluation allowed us to improve our pilot script – for instance, we added more Hebrew vocabulary words, increased the use of musical chants and changed the name of the show based on feedback we observed and heard from children in this phase.

After producing a finished animated pilot, we did another round of testing, conducted entirely blind to us by Ph.D. researchers who watched the program with dyads of parents and children, and then conducted play testing afterwards to measure what social skills children had developed through viewing the shows. (Children performed little actions with dolls to demonstrate welcoming guests, for instance.) This summative evaluation showed that in fact children were learning social skills and assimilating Hebrew vocabulary for those actions.

We were fortunate to receive a large grant from the Peleh Fund which made it possible for us to bake this crucial, but costly, round of evaluation into our development of Shaboom. But it is unrealistic to expect that any small Jewish nonprofit will produce comparable research on their evaluation budgets, or that funders commissioning Jewish work from secular shops will know how to conduct such research. We learned a lot from our experience on Shaboom, enough that we can – to a great extent – cobble together our own in house studies with our own staff. However, this comes at great cost to staff productivity in a small (5-person) organization – capacity that could be improved either through a major evaluation grant or a full time staff person focused on learning measurement.

Given substantial communal buy-in, I recommend going bigger: establishing a center for Jewish media research staffed with Ph.D. media and learning science researchers who are trained to do this sort of work and dedicated to it, full time. This would show serious intent to invest in effective, high quality media work by the funder community, and would up the game of all of us media producers substantially by having partners for evaluation.

Such an investment might be a pipe dream. No matter: I believe that we have the research that we need from existing educational media companies. The community of funders should hold Jewish media producers accountable to these studies – and show their fluency in them – rather than asking for original research. Playtesting, and viewer testing, are serious endeavors and cannot be thrown together in the “free time” of scrappy small studios or independent artists.

When you work with a well-versed studio or artist, you will find that they are familiar with this research and can tell you, without hesitation, that it builds Jewish identity and interest in practices – from baking challah to singing brachot to trying out bikur cholim. At BimBam we have evidence that our programs and apps have produced these effects – but we also went into the work confident, because we followed research best practices.

So, familiarize yourselves with the research. Browse the archives of the Joan Ganz Cooney Center, of Commonsense Research, the Fred Rogers Center, the Pew Research Center, the American Psychological Association – read up on the work at the university centers doing work in this area (Annenberg at UPenn, the Children’s Digital Media Center at UCLA, Center on Media and Human Development at Northwestern, Learning Sciences and Technology Design at Stanford, Technology, Innovation, and Education Program at Harvard, etc.), and consider picking up some journals that publish new studies on media education research. If you’re really interested in this space, you’ll find them fascinating – and helpful as you partner with Jewish media producers.

Sarah Lefton is the founder and Director of BimBam, formerly G-dcast. She began working in interactive media in the last millenium, at NYU’s Interactive Telecommunications Program (ITP). She went on to produce projects for The New York Times on the Web, the Village Voice, Princess Cruises and several children’s toy brands. Her social media “Save Jericho” project for NutsOnline.com garnered national news attention.

Taking an abrupt turn for the less corporate, Sarah joined Northern California’s independent Jewish summer camp, Camp Tawonga, as their Marketing Director for four years, learning about Jewish outreach and wilderness. Inspired by its Yosemite location, she designed the infamous YO SEMITE tee shirt, and launched her first Jewish entrepreneurial project: Jewish Fashion Conspiracy. Sarah is a past President of San Francisco’s pluralist Mission Minyan, and board member of the San Francisco JCC.

Sarah is a recipient of the 2012 Pomegranate Prize for exceptional young Jewish educators. She was named one of the Forward 50 most influential Jews of 2009, and is a recipient of the Joshua Venture Group fellowship for Jewish social entrepreneurs.

This is part 4 of the series in eJewishPhilanthropy, Continuing Conversations on Leveraging Educational Technology to Advance Jewish Learning. The series is a project of Jewish Funders Network, the Jim Joseph Foundation, and the William Davidson Foundation. For an in-depth look at opportunities in Jewish Ed Tech and digital engagement, read Smart Money: Recommendations for an Educational Technology and Digital Engagement Investment Strategy. Later this year, Jewish Funders Network will launch a new website to help advance the field of Jewish educational technology.

There are many professions that require practitioners to participate in ongoing professional development, and rightfully so. After all, for example, we would not want a patient to be treated by an oncologist using 15 year old technologies. Similarly, we should expect our teachers to approach their students with the latest knowledge of learning theories, best practices, and relevant technologies. Yet, professional development is often under-funded and uninspired in our schools.

This reality begs the question: Why is professional development not sufficiently valued in many segments of the world of education? We can surmise that the people responsible for teacher development are often disappointed by the results of these efforts. It is not uncommon for teachers returning from a PD workshop to maintain their previous methods of instruction, even while feigning to adopt new technologies. Principals, supervisors, school board members, and even teachers often fail to see the clear connection between professional development and student achievement.

“Don’t let the tail wag the dog, select and integrate tech tools that solve your most important problems.” – Matt Heinz, President of Heinz Marketing
“calculator” (CC BY 2.0) by ansik

What is needed is sustained and intensive professional development that takes place in the service of a core vision, not simply around technology for its own sake.

Is there a connection between the professional development of teachers and student achievement? Guskey and Yoon address this question in an excellent article entitled “What Works in Professional Development” (Phi Delta Kappan, March 2009) that presents a meta-analysis on research studies relating to the effectiveness of professional development for teachers. They found that the factors shared in effective PD were:

~Common Characteristics that Promote Student Achievement – All studies showed that a positive relationship between professional development and student learning occurred in workshops or summer institutes that:

1. focused on research-based instructional practice,
2. involved active learning experiences for participants, and
3. provided teachers with opportunities to adapt the practices to their unique classroom situations.

~Potential Involvement of Outside Experts – “Professional development that bring improvements in student learning can be gained through the involvement of outside experts. While school based programs focused on training teacher technology integrators within the school might also have value, the research would suggest that consultation with outside experts would also aid in such efforts.”

~Structured and Sustained Time Commitments with Follow–up – Virtually all of the studies showed that programs leading to positive improvements in student learning included significant time commitments with considerable amounts of structured and sustained follow-up after the main professional development activity.

~Adaptation to a Specific Context – The most effective professional development came not from direct implementation of a particular set of best practices, but from the adaptation of varied practices to specific content, process, and context elements.

The authors pointed out that “no improvement effort has ever succeeded in the absence of thoughtfully planned and well implemented professional development.”

“Teach like Google exists.” – Alice Keeler
Source: https://pixabay.com/p-485611/

The importance of professional development is currently more relevant than ever in the education world. Student learning has transformed with the development and accessibility of the internet. It can also be greatly enriched through the proper use of online tools. Already in 2010, the U. S. Department of Education concluded: “As online learning becomes an increasingly important part of our educational system, it creates both the need for educators who are skilled in online instruction and the demand for greater knowledge of the most effective practices.”

How can we ensure that PD in EdTech is achieving its goals?

I discovered some highlights in Nik Peachey’s “12 Tips for Training Older Teachers to Use Technology.” Three of my favorites were that PD in EdTech has to:

• Solve Classroom Problems
• Do things that can’t be done any other way
• Make their lives easier; provide step by step guides.

In my experience in presenting JETS workshops, I have discovered three types of participants:

1. Good to go: Early Implementers:

After I demonstrate a tool, this group is already implementing, creating samples, asking questions that apply to their learning environment and focusing on specific and predicted challenges to implementation. There is no doubt they will successfully implement this tool with minimal feedback, and they will troubleshoot on their own or seek support quickly. It is not uncommon for me to hear from principals after a PD session with their teachers informing me (often with a sense of astonishment) that some of their teachers have already begun to implement the tools and methods that they learned in their classroom instruction. For example: “The evening training was very useful. We already have several teachers using lino boards in the classroom!”

2. Hold My Hand: Medium Implementers:

These participants carefully consider the pros and cons of the tools, and need to weigh in with the facilitator in both the theory and its practical implementation. If both the dialogue and the experimentation process are met with positive results, there is a high chance of successful implementation. These teachers will be more likely to implement if there is someone who seeks them out and assists them to ensure successful application. It is always gratifying to see when this type of learner puts the pieces together: “I’m finally seeing ways to honor the text and use technology at the same time.”

3. Not a Chance: Late to Never Implementers:

Resistance is the key word for these educators. Due to a variety of factors (age, fear, habit, prefer to work alone), these participants will spend the majority of the workshop discussing the challenges. A small percentage, with lots of hand holding, will dare to create in a group setting, but there are very small chances that their students will ever hold an iPad or device to use the tool. However, some are eventually willing to try and succeed. One such participant gave me the following advice: “Scaffolding a bit more for “dinosaur” learners like myself.” This person has become a strong advocate for the use of EdTech in her school.

How to turn Category 3 into Category 2, and Category 2 into Category 1 implementers?

I’ve explored a variety of options, and the more you use, the more successful you will be. Consider some of these:

Administrators need to have a plan. What are the EdTech goals this year and how will they be implemented? What are the reasons for promoting these particular tools?
Which measures will be taken to ensure that all teachers are on board? How clear are teachers about the school’s goals? How can teachers add to that conversation?

The school administration needs to provide a lot of support.

How can teachers feel supported?

This can be done by arranging for someone to turn to for troubleshooting and experimentation; either a teacher peer with EdTech experience or by setting meetings with an EdTech director at the school.

Schools should also engage in frequent discussion about the efficacies, as well as the ins and outs of tool usage through school communication, staff meetings, peer mentoring, online communication and the like.

Systems should be put in place to promote feedback among peers and the administration about tool implementation. Schools should consider who is monitoring the implementation, set standards of usage and follow-up, and analyze how teachers are progressing towards those goals.

Care should be taken to validate teachers’ efficacy as educators. Category 3 teachers can and should be excellent teachers; promote their skills as pedagogues and promote how EdTech can enhance that pedagogical approach even further.

“w7 – Picasso goals” (CC BY 2.0) by Sweet Dreamz Design

During professional development days, EdTech experimentation should be explored. Schools can also encourage trial and error and provide peer and administrative support in and out of the school setting. However, PD sessions should be catered to the needs of Category 1, 2, and 3 teachers, and resist whole group sessions that combines all the teachers together. These teachers’ needs and attitudes are very different and PD times should address them at their own level, in their own groups. As a Category 1 educator once mentioned regarding her PD time at her school, “I was in the same room as a colleague who didn’t know how to turn on her iPad.”

The focus of PD time and peer mentoring should be on the practicality of the use of current pedagogies, online tools and methodologies that creatively maximize student engagement, foster social and collaborative learning, and assist educators to adapt tools to their particular needs.

In line with Guskey and Yoon’s findings, I have found that continued support is a very important ingredient in effective EdTech training programs. In particular, in my experience, our professional whatsapp group, our online EdTech Support Center, supplemental webinars, personalized consultation and teacher mentoring (online or face to face) have been invaluable for teachers to go from theory to practice, and from technophobes to implementers.

Discovering and Reaching New Horizons

If PD in EdTech is going to be taken seriously, then serious approaches need to be offered to teachers. Teachers need to feel the need for it, be given the space and time to try it, and have sufficient support to feel successful and empowered.

Source: Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=21206694

The good thing about changing PD in EdTech is that once support measures are implemented, it will work like balloons in the movie ‘Up!’ – each empowered teacher will add their string to the shifting realm of education until both students and educators are flying toward previously unseen horizons.

Smadar Goldstein, the founder of JETS, has presented PD workshops on integrating educational technology and related methodologies in Jewish studies instruction to more than 900 educators in nine countries. [email protected].

Four years ago, Effective Strategies for Educating and Engaging Jewish Teens was released, a report that brought to the fore promising models and practical ways for communities to engage teens in Jewish experiences that enrich their lives and help them grow. On the heels of the report, national and local funders representing ten communities took action, coming together to study the findings, commission additional groundbreaking reports, and to design responsive local teen engagement initiatives. Ultimately, the group evolved into a robust community: the Jewish Teen Education and Engagement Funder Collaborative.

The Funder Collaborative is an innovative philanthropic experiment – a network of funders working together to develop, fund, support and grow new teen initiatives that draw on the collective strength of local organizations. Co-funded by the Jim Joseph Foundation, the community-based initiatives are multi-faceted approaches designed to reverse the trend of teens opting out of Jewish life in their high school years. Members have become valuable peer resources, each of whom are at different points in their initiative process.

Concurrent to the community-based education and engagement initiatives, the Funder Collaborative embarked on a process of enhanced research into teen Jewish engagement, learning and education. Outcomes for experiential and immersive Jewish education, as well as other research, informs our view of programming toward the whole teen. With a commitment to openness and transparency, the Funder Collaborative shares its hard-won lessons with others to increase knowledge and tools which may advance the entire field of Jewish teen education and engagement.

Today marks the launch of a new website designed to become a vital resource for anyone seeking to benefit from these lessons, models and research: teenfundercollaborative.com. Here we will share highlights of the work in each of our communities, as well as the deep research and rigorous evaluation that helps shape our efforts. We will also house detailed model documentation on specific initiatives exploring the structures, partnerships, risks, and more that have led to successes and “fail forward” moments for learning.

Learnings from the Funder Collaborative

While we are excited to share these resources, we also recognize we don’t hold all the answers to the challenging and complex issues surrounding meaningful Jewish teen engagement. Yet together – as we learn from and build on the knowledge of those who been active in this space before us – we are charting a positive course forward, helping to amplify and expand upon the important work of others.

We hope, too, to make some new discoveries which contribute to the field. Already we are poised to share the early results of interventions and other evidence-based understandings of:

• the urgent need to address the whole teen, recognizing that teens often do not delineate between one’s Jewish and “secular” identity;
• the paradigm of relationship-based engagement that places the teen at the center where we contribute and respond to them, not vice versa;
• the critical role of developing the talented professionals and adult volunteers who engage teens and who advocate for supporting teens’ increased involvement in Jewish life and learning;
• local communities’ role in weaving and publicizing a tapestry of meaningful opportunities for teens;
• and the desire of teens to feel empowered to create experiences for themselves for their peers, and to grow through leadership and skill development.

Two new publications from Rosov Consulting also released today highlight key learnings and encouraging results from this new form of collaboration.

1.) INITIAL OUTCOMES ACROSS COMMUNITIES: First Fruits from the Jewish Teen Education and Engagement Funder Collaborative

The Funder Collaborative invests heavily in evaluation: each local initiative engages independent consultants and, importantly, a Cross-Community Evaluation enables us to analyze outcomes across communities and identify the most promising practices. The insights we glean can have wide-ranging implications for any community engaged in this work.

The CCE presents an honest and rich picture of early learnings of four of the initiatives, as well as the challenges of attempting to evaluate varied approaches, programs, partnerships and staffing structures. Results show we are beginning to “move the needle” in important ways.

Many communities attribute early programmatic successes to their participation in the collaborative and its steadfast commitment to knowledge-sharing. The evolution of the collaborative itself is central to creating an environment that fosters risk-taking, experimentation and ongoing reflection.

2) PREPARING TO DEEPEN ACTION: A Funder Collaborative Finds Its Way is the second installment in a series of case studies documenting the collaborative (the first released in 2015) and the result of 15 months of observations and interviews. It offers an informative and pragmatic examination for any organization considering the merits and challenges of such large-scale collaboration.

“Being part of something bigger than our community, to have the national support, intelligence and research and show that we are trying to change the conversation has helped me to justify and validate what we are doing.” – Local Funder

The Collaborative has evolved into a healthy mix of local and national funders and implementers who continue to come together to discuss, dissect and address shared areas of interest. In fact, this model of creating space for a Community of Practice across communities is echoed within many of the local initiatives, which themselves seed and nurture a thriving ecosystem of educators and youth-serving professionals to strengthen and sustain their models.

The Future of the Funder Collaborative

Now, around the country teens are benefiting from new and diverse models of meaningful learning and engagement that address the ‘whole teen’; communities employ better prepared and more well-trained and connected youth professionals; and there is a rising sense that teens themselves hold a special place on our communal agenda.

We invite you to be a part of this growth; to explore what we share; and to question, learn and experiment with us. Please be in touch ([email protected]) with your thoughts and feedback, and visit teenfundercollaborative.com to sign up for our quarterly newsletter.

Sara Allen is Director of the Jewish Teen Education and Engagement Funder Collaborative.

This blog appeared originally in eJewishPhilanthropy.com.