Well, we did it earlier this year and most folks asked us to put on a 2009 edition, so we’re doing it again.
You are invited to attend the Learning 2.0: A Colorado Conversation Conference (2009 Edition).
What is Learning 2.0: A Colorado Conversation?
Learning 2.0: A Colorado Conversation is a one day conference/meetup for teachers, administrators, students, school board members, parents and anyone who is interested in education. It will be held on Saturday, February 21st, 2009, from 9:00 am until 3:00 pm at Heritage High School in Littleton, Colorado, USA (different location than last year - here’s a map). We assume most folks will be from Colorado, but everyone is welcome to attend, and we are working on some ideas for virtual participation.
Education is conversation. Conversation creates change.
The future of education does not exist in the isolated world of theory and abstract conference sessions. Instead, it exists in conversations. It exists in creating a robust learning network that is ever-expanding and
just-in-time. Learning 2.0 is not the beginning of this conversation. It is merely a stopping point, a time to talk about the visible difference that we all seek.
We read. We reflect. We write. We share. We learn.
Come join us for a day of conversation about learning and technology.You can learn much more about the conference on the wiki, including information about registering. Here are some highlights:
We’re still working on the details so this will be updated before the conference. Also, this may expand if we have more folks register than we are anticipating.
You must register so that we know how many folks to expect and so that we can have enough lunches available. (Who says there’s no such thing as a free lunch?)
Cost
Free, baby. And lunch is included, thanks to the generous support of Littleton Public Schools and St. Vrain Valley Public Schools.
Wireless
BYOL (that would be Bring Your Own Laptop) - we’ll have wireless access to the Internet (filtered) - we may test our capacity to handle density of machines, but hopefully things will go swimmingly. If not, we have wired machines in various places you can access.
We’re having a student panel discussion during lunch. Here’s your chance to submit some questions for them to consider.
Invite Others
We strongly encourage you to invite other folks from your school, district, neighborhood, or learning network to attend as well. It would be great if everyone could bring at least one person with them that is perhaps new to this conversation. Bring a student along, too. (Just remember to register.)
Buried in the comments of Barbara’s latest post (an excellent think-piece about different blogging styles) is a fine statement that sums up quite nicely why I ever bother to put fingers to keyboard or pen to paper:
I want to write better than I do: lean and lush, deep and real, sitting down with a bunch of frayed threads of clashing colors and see if I can weave them into something beyond myself.
UPDATE: In the comments below, Mike advocates for free versions of desktop software. I am completely in favor of those options for students and schools. I also like free and open source software for digital infrastructure. (Both the software packages I mention in the podcast are free and open source tools.) The “free” I’m talking about here is quite different. Forgive the poor title choice.
In today’s podcast, I talk a little bit about my reaction to a Twitter conversation from yesterday about free tools and why I’m not necessarily in favor of them, at least for what I believe are basic educational needs. We’ve got to support our schools and our classrooms and our educators and our students, but not on the backs and whims of third-party kindness. As always, I’m interested in your thoughts as I continue to develop my own.
Today, Karl Fisch posted a message on his blog inviting members of his PLN (Personal Learning Network) to join Team Shift Happens and contribute however much possible to Kiva. Kiva is different than other charities in that it is a micro-lending website. People, like you and I, can loan money ($25 and up) directly to individual entrepeneurs in the developing world.
On Karl’s suggestion, I’ve donated $25 to an entrepreneur and I also purchased two $25 gift certificates that I have emailed to two members of my PLN. I’m asking them to do the same as I did:
Join Team Shift Happens (click on Community and search keyword, “shift”)
Choose the entrepreneur to whom they will loan the value of the gift certificate.
Then consider doing the same thing I did - purchase two $25 gift certificates and email them to two members of their PLN with the same request to “pay it forward.”
Make a $25 loan yourself, or
Do what I did; make a $25 loan, then purchase two $25 gift certificates and email them to folks you know and ask them to do the same, and/or
I’ve been honored to pay it forward as I received one of Karl’s original certificates and have been sharing gift certificates with others. I also made an investment on my own, following in Karl’s footsteps. I learned a great deal as I made my way through Kiva’s site, learning more about the specifics of micro-finance and peering into another part of the world. It’s been a treat to continue the chain, and to make someone’s day by sending along a gift that I know will be a useful one.
I wonder if you might want to send such a gift, too.
Join Team Shift Happens. Make someone’s day - e-mail them a Kiva gift certificate, and ask them to keep paying it forward, to make someone else’s day, too. Lots of folks win. Better yet, as loans are repaid, this can be a gift that, literally, keeps on giving.
I am sitting in the lobby of my hotel in San Antonio, waiting for the shuttle to take me back to the airport. For the first time since I arrived here, I am sitting at a full keyboard to write instead of frantically thumbing words into my iPhone keyboard. Here in the lobby, I have free wifi access, something that just wasn’t an option for me at the NCTE Convention.
I enjoyed very much having the opportunity to share work that we’ve been able to do with students in my district, as well as talking about the possibilities and logistics of tools like uStream, Mogulus, Twitter, Plurk and many others. The value of these particular tools, of course, is in modeling and demonstrating possibilities. We have so many options available to us, in theory, and we need to know what the barriers are to access so that we can begin to, or continue to, knock those down.
The Tech-On-The-Go kiosks, brainchildren of Kylene Beers and the product of a great deal of hard work by Sara Kajder and others, were a window for the conference attendees into the world of the shift that Karl and Anne and others talked so eloquently about in sessions all over the conference. Well done, y’all.
These kiosks, too, were windows into the conference for friends and colleagues and network connections of mine via our uStream and Chatterous sessions, opportunities to mix the friends that were here with the friends who were not, at least physically.
But it was just a taste, a frustratingly flighty, teeny tiny taste, of what it should have been. It should have been that we were able to make those connections in sessions and hallways, bringing in colleagues to share and think with as we learned together in conference presentations and conversations. (And, for $13 a day, I could have done so, although paying extra for what should be a piece of the puzzle for everyone rubs me the wrong way.)
I think NCTE is in a wonderfully frustrating place at the moment, looking at its almost 100 years of work and thinking very seriously and strategically about what is next, and how teaching and learning is changing and has always been changing. They are embracing the shift, as Karl has said, and it’s time for them to continue the push that they made this week.
Many of us within the organization (and plenty of folks who aren’t yet members) are willing, interested, and able to help with some of the geeky bits, as the legions of volunteers in the tech kiosks and several of the presenters in the sessions demonstrated. But it’ll take some support from the organization to make that happen.
One thing I hope next year’s organizers are already thinking about is how to provide meaningful wifi access to conference attendees so that we can not just see the possibilities in sessions and at kiosks, but can begin to practice with them in sessions and hallways. My computer, my favorite learning tool these days, sat unused in my bag as I relied upon my telephone and its connections to the outside world to bridge the gulf between myself and my learning networks who, although not all physically present, were here with me, and continue to provide me with questions and support and kind words and pushback. Through that connection and my networks, my NCTE conference, while physically situated in downtown San Antonio, reached literally around the world and all across the country.
More and more, I rely on those networks and those connections to help me do my learning and work. As I argue that we need to provide this connectivity in our schools and classrooms, I would also argue that we need that connectivity here, when teachers gather to learn and to work together to improve the learning we facilitate with our students. Shift happens, but we can and should be helping it along.
Kathleen Blake Yancey, president of NCTE, gave perhaps my favorite presentation of the conference, a stunning mix of image and speech, of thinking about teaching and thinking about technology, specifically the technologies of composition. (I hope that it is soon in video form so that I can share it with you. She has said she has interest in producing such a video, and you need to see what she did and what she said about composition here in the early days of the 21st Century. I’ll share if it makes it online.) Just before she closed, she reminded us all that, “If you are writing for the screen, you are writing for the network.” NCTE gets the shift, has defined it, and is beginning to talk about it in a thoughtful way. I am eager to see how the organization can take the talk of shifts and begin to model through actions what it says is the case.
Won’t that be an impressive thing?
I have enjoyed my time at the convention, connecting with colleagues old and new, and helping them to connect with the wider world of possibilities. I have faith in language and in language arts teachers, in the power of the written and spoken word and all the other ways we have to create, compose and share, and I know good things are coming. I also know, though, that time is short. Let us all be renewed and restored and get back to work. There’s plenty for all of us to do.
Good morning from the 2008 NCTE Annual Convention. I arrived yesterday and got the lay of the land while visiting with old friends, many of them at the NWP Annual Meeting, which occurs concurrently. (Too much good stuff crammed together, if you ask me.) Today, I’ll be doing a couple of sessions and hoping to attend several more. In my continuing quest to find the better, real time collaborative tools for convention or conference chatter, I’ve decided to try using Chatterous for this one.
I’ve created a group in Chatterous called “NCTE 2008″ that I’ll be using to share information on the ground from the conference. I’d love to chat with you there, either if you’re attending or if you have an interest in what’s shaking here. If you are attending, you might consider trying to connect with friends via the chat room, too. (It’s okay to type lots there, is all I’m saying. I’m sure you’ll think of several good things to say or do in the space that I’ve not considered.) I like Chatterous because it plays nicely with mobile devices, which is a must for this event. If you’re interested in seeing my notes, or chatting with others, I’d encourage you to join the room. If you haven’t an account, you’ll need to create one.
Selfishly, I’m hoping some folks will share session notes from events and presentations that I cannot attend.
I hope this is useful. If not, there’s always the mobile version of Cover It Live to try at the next conference. Or, for that matter, tomorrow. I’m here all weekend.
I’ve stewed and pondered and argued, for quite some time now about the “rules” or guidelines for what folks should do in regards to online networks. Specifically, I bristle whenever someone writes about how others should act or behave or post or not post or whatever. I don’t know that there’s one code of behavior that specifically works across contexts and cultures and all the other separations and connections between you and me. It’s complicated, at best. Dave, in a recent post, describes it this way:
If you are in a community you are, in some way, responsible to that community, in a network you are responsible to yourself and the rules that govern you are those set forth by our society as laws.
I think Dave makes a useful distinction in that I am responsible to a community, but in a network relationship or environment, I am responsible to myself. I find that people tend to feel “guilt” or “worry” or concern when they choose to act in a way that is useful to them but does not reflect the rules or culture of someone else. While I understand those feelings and sometimes have them myself, I’ve come to think that most of them are wasted energy, often, but not always, devolving into distraction.
In my network relationships or environments, it’s not useful for me to act as others would prefer I act; it’s preferable to act in a way that maximizes the value I receive from those networks. I find that there’s great value, both to me and to others, when I act in such a way.
Now, that doesn’t mean that there’s value in me being a jerk, or in treating others poorly (which is, I guess, also being a jerk), but it does mean that my concern for the feelings of others should probably end right around the time I figure out what I need to either do or understand. The value to others in a network relationship, at least as I’ve experienced it, comes from the ability to follow my process or to improve upon it to meet a slightly different set of needs. (Or, perhaps, there’s an aesthetic value to some of this, too, that I’m not getting at here.)
Over time, I’ve come to call this basic guideline that governs my behavior “selfish selflessness.” Or “selfless selfishness.” I get stuck on which word should come first there, but, basically, it seems that whenever I act in a way that focuses on my needs first, it ends ultimately more useful to others than it would’ve if I was thinking first of others and then myself. That’s a bit quite contradictory, but the older I get, the more I notice that the truly interesting bits of the world and of myself are the contradictory ones.
I enjoy and gain value from following folks who are doing interested things, and who find beauty and passion and anger and whatever from the world in which they regularly engage. I’m quite content to follow along behind someone blazing a trail of their own understanding. I think others are, too. There’s certainly a place for considering one’s audience, but when it comes to network behavior, I find value in considering myself first, audience second. (There’s another conversation lurking in this paragraph about the difference between writing for self and writing for others, but I’ll save that for later.)
Dave has launched a much more formal exploration of community responsibility. I’m looking forward to his continued exploration, as well as the continuation of my own limited explorations. I think his dichotomy of responsibility for communities and networks is worthy of much more thinking. I guess, if anything, I’d call this idea of selfish selflessness (certainly, there’s a better term), my own network responsibility guideline.
Below is a VoiceThread that contains some of the questions that I think are worth talking about from the presentation. Feel free to join in the conversation - I welcome your feedback and other thoughts.
Tonight, as I picked up a mostly sleeping little girl from a car seat and hefted her into the crook of my right arm, balancing the bag of toys and clothes in my other hand, I realized that Teagan just isn’t a baby anymore.
This is a rather absurd observation, in the sense that she will turn 17 months tomorrow, and she has not technically been a “baby” for a while now. She walks. Mutters a bit. Follows instructions (sometimes). Laughs. Chews her food. Plays tricks. Dances. Has a unique personality. She is a little person, and has been for some time.
But today, I could just feel the difference. Not sure why, or why today, but it was, and is, the case. She’s bigger, and a wee bit more difficult to carry. She’s not a baby.
And every day, she’ll get just a little bit harder to carry. I’ve experienced this with my older daughter, but not with Teagan. It’s both wonderful and dreadful. And not at all easier than the first time this happened to me. I can’t begin to fathom what it’ll be like when I won’t be able to twirl either of them around, listening and watching for giggles and laughter.
While I wouldn’t trade it for anything, parenting definitely brings with it some bittersweet moments.
I’m working with some high school students this week on a research assignment for their Wired 9 course, a class on digital literacy and responsibility. As a part of that work, I’m helping them to generate some good research questions that they can explore and dig in to. Since I thought the topics might be of interest to folks who aren’t in the class, and since I also know that you have plenty of excellent questions, I thought I’d seek a little help while also create a resource for others doing similar work. I wonder if you might be willing to contribute a resource or a question or two. I’m certain that the 9th graders that I will be working with will thank you in advance.
I thank you, too.
(If you’re not comfortable using VoiceThread, feel free to leave a comment, question or link to a resource in the comments of this post, and I’ll be happy to transfer it to the VoiceThread, which I’ll be sharing with the students.)
The conversation I did last week with Teachers Teaching Teachers is now up as a podcast. Plenty of great information about some interesting summer professional development. You should listen. After some gentle nudges in the chat room, I’ll be talking more about CyberCamp at a NECC Unplugged session at 3:30pm on Tuesday in the NECC Blogger’s Cafe. I’ll make sure there’s a stream and will share the link when I know what it is.
I guess the biggest frustration to me regarding the “Oh no - we didn’t realize the policy and now we’re certain that ISTE’s out to get independent media and citizen journalists and quash the edupunks and destroy any chance of education reform ever in the history of forever!” hysteria over ISTE’s NECC audio/video policy is that so many of my colleagues, people whom I respect and value, are probably going to end today or start next week thinking that this conversation and its tone was/is/shall forever be a fine example of the power of blogs and new media to make change. And that would be wrong.
The problem I have with seeing this as a victory is that the bloggers in this one come out looking like a cross between Chicken Little and Tony Soprano. And that’s not a good thing. In the past 24 hours, I’ve read misstatements, threats, assumptions, and lazy research. “I’m taking my ball and going home” lines, too. From educators. Attempting to solve a problem. It’s disappointing. A rational, responsible, and patient tone would have been much better than some most of what I’ve seen and read in regards to this issue.
I’ll be the first to say that I’m pleased to see the policy changed, albeit temporarily. It was an old rule that didn’t fit the current media landscape. ISTE, I hope, would be the first to say that. And I’m pleased that so many bloggers felt compelled to address the issue. But I’d like to think that some more patient and questioning language might have been used in the “investigation.” Questions inviting dialogue, perhaps, rather than assumptions and anger. I felt like we were headed up the mountain to the monster’s castle, pitchforks and torches in hand.
We’d never let our students get away with this type of conclusion jumping and invective. And so, we shouldn’t be happy about the methods, but we should be pleased about the outcome. I hope the folks who make it to the table in future conversations on this and other matters of policy and disagreement are those who approach with patience and kindness, checking their assumptions at the door. And I hope that, if I’m ever guilty of such poor choices in language and attitude, that you’ll be quick to call me on it.
My goal here is not so much to place blame - but to suggest that perhaps we could all do better. I know I’ve been guilty of getting excited and forgetting to do a gutcheck in the past. Let’s all try not to do that. There are too many rules and policies and issues and problems and situations that need changing and will require our best work.
I’ll be talking about CyberCamp on Teachers Teaching Teachers tonight at 7pm Mountain Time as a piece of a show about summer professional development. I’ve invited all the CyberCampers, too, so I hope to include them in the conversation. I hope you can join us, too.
Today’s podcast is a short reflection on my learning experiences today, as well as some seriously first draft thinking about information and knowledge. As always, I hope the conversation continues.
The more I work as a professional developer and teacher of teachers, the more I am resolved that I will do my best to never create a resource for one situation that cannot be useful in another. There are too few of me and too many needs in my district to do otherwise.
I think, though, the careful consideration of audience and purpose that I engage in before creating a resource is a valuable one for all readers, writers, and creators. Perhaps there’s value, in a connective writing class, in spending some time on rhetorical analysis, specifically in the vein of thinking about multi-purposed work.
This isn’t a new statement for me to make, either here or in my classroom(s), as I’ve always operated under the assumption that the best writing happens when writers consider their audience and their purpose for writing, allowing them to determine the focus they should take in a particular piece. This idea (often called the rhetorical triangle, with each of the points defined slightly differently by the person(s) doing the defining) can and should be expanded to include all kinds of composition and writing, not just print texts. This leads me to the teaching point that I would want to include in my connective writing work:
As much as possible, all texts should have a life outside of the classroom.
This “extra-curricular life” can take multiple forms, and won’t make sense for all types of writing and creation, but I strongly believe that we should never create something that will die after a teacher has blessed or cursed it with a grade. I’ve always believed that, but the more I learn, the less I’m willing to suggest that such multi-purposed work should only happen at the end of a course, after all the practice work is completed. Project-based learning, too, embodies this philosophy, as projects should have a life outside of the classroom.
What does “extracurricular life,” or multi-purposed work, look like in a professional learning experience for teachers? One way I attempted to create a multi-purpose-able resource in CyberCamp was through the series of Works in Progress (WiP) presentations that we asked every participant to do. As I explained at the beginning of CyberCamp:
One of the values of CyberCamp is sharing. Talking about what we’re up to is a good way to better understand our own work, and the act of sharing it with a group is useful, too, because it allows your fellow CyberCampers to help you out, be it through good questions, suggestions, or becoming an extra set of eyes and ears in the world seeking resources to help you with your project.
Because sharing is so essential, we’ve set up time here at CyberCamp for everyone to have a 20 minute block of time in which to share their work. Each day, we’ll ask two of you to share what you’re working on and then we’ll give ten minutes to the CyberCampers to give you some constructive feedback. We’ll be talking more about what “constructive feedback” looks at CyberCamp, but know that you’ll be getting help - not criticism.
Again, because sharing is so essential to what we do, we’ll be adding an extra level of sharing to your process. We’ll literally be sharing your Work in Progress conversation with the world and archiving your presentation here on the blog using a tool called Ustream. This will allow you to share your work with, and to learn from, the world. While that can be scary, trust us when we tell you that your work is important and worthy of being shared.
Not to toot our own horn (or whistle, to stick with the camp metaphor), but it seems to me that a twenty minute investment of class time here (thirty minutes if you leave time for some feedback) leads to an excellent archive/snapshot of a work in progress, a chance to get very specific feedback, and a permanent record of the event that is available for further scrutiny, reflection and commenting. Not bad, as far as multi-purposing goes. Add in the fact that these presentations also become resources for other people working on similar projects as well as models of our activity for future CyberCamp experiences, and we’ve got some handy multi-purpose resources.
Other examples of multi-purposing in CyberCamp include our project proposals as well as our blog. Pretty much, any well-written blog (as a whole, not each entry) is a fine example of multi-purposed writing. But perhaps that’s another post.
One of the struggles, of course, with trying to build multi-purpose resources, or to find ways to ask learners to do so, at least one that I worry/wonder about, is making sure that I’m never putting the needs of future learners or secondary audiences ahead of the learners who are the “primary” audience for a particular activity/event/experience. Let me try to say that better - we can sometimes create problems for our class when we try to create opportunities with “outsiders,” particularly if we’re forcing a connection that maybe isn’t organically or authentically there. Connections just for connections’ sake are bad ideas, maybe even educational malpractice. The trick becomes figuring out where those lines and boundaries are, and when to say no to kind invitations to meet/Skype/join up with others who may or may not be in a similar place, educationally speaking.
Another struggle, I suspect, is figuring out how to contextualize those creations in a way as to make them as useful as possible. I’m beginning to practically understand why so many higher ed folks talk about learning objects and repositories and a slew of related issues, and struggle with those things, too.
At the risk of getting a little too meta, I’m going to be talking through my history of thinking about linking, or conective writing, today during CyberCamp as a part of our series of “Works in Progress” conversations. I’m inviting you, if you’re interested, mostly to help me model how a backchannel and uStream conversation can be of value to a face to face group, but selfishly, too, because I’m always interested in how others are thinking about these ideas. So, if you’re willing and able, join us at around 11:30am MST for a short uStream presentation. All the details are on our wiki.
The following announcement comes via Darren. If you read this blog, chances are you've something to offer the conference, and I strongly encourage you to submit a proposal. At the very least, prepare to spend some time with the conference -- it's a great opportunity.
One of the best things about the conference is that it's not too late to engage with last year's event. You can visit the K12 Online Conference blog for all of last year's info and presentations as well as information on this year's event. I'm looking forward to it.
Of course, now I've got to figure out what to offer the event via my own proposal. Any thoughts?
Announcing the second annual "K12 Online" conference for teachers,
administrators and educators around the world interested in the use of
Web 2.0 tools in classrooms and professional practice! This year's
conference is scheduled to be held over two weeks, October 15-19 and
October 22-26 of 2007, and will include a preconference keynote during
the week of October 8. This years conference theme is "Playing with
Boundaries." A call for proposals is below.
OVERVIEW:
There will be four "conference strands"-- two each week. Two
presentations will be published in each strand each day, Monday -
Friday, so four new presentations will be available each day over the
course of the two-weeks. Each presentation will be given in any of a
variety of downloadable, web based formats and released via the
conference blog (www.k12onlineconference.org) and archived for posterity.
FOUR STRANDS:
Week 1
Strand A: Classroom 2.0
Leveraging the power of free online tools in an open, collaborative and
transparent atmosphere characterizes teaching and learning in the 21st
century. Teachers and students are contributing to the growing global
knowledge commons by publishing their work online. By sharing all
stages of their learning students are beginning to appreciate the value
of life long learning that inheres in work that is in "perpetual beta."
This strand will explore how teachers and students are playing with the
boundaries between instructors, learners and classrooms. Presentations
will also explore the practical pedagogical uses of online social tools
(Web 2.0) giving concrete examples of how teachers are using the tools
in their classes.
Strand B: New Tools
Focusing on free tools, what are the "nuts and bolts" of using
specific new social media and collaborative tools for learning? This
strand includes two parts. Basic training is "how to" information on
tool use in an educational setting, especially for newcomers. Advanced
training is for teachers interested in new tools for learning, looking
for advanced technology training, seeking ideas for mashing tools
together, and interested in web 2.0 assessment tools. As educators and
students of all ages push the boundaries of learning, what are the
specific steps for using new tools most effectively? Where "Classroom
2.0" presentations will focus on instructional uses and examples of web
2.0 tool use, "New Tools" presentations should focus on "nuts and
bolts" instructions for using tools. Five "basic" and five "advanced"
presentations will be included in this strand.
Week 2
Strand A: Professional Learning Networks
Research says that professional development is most effective when
it aims to create professional learning communities — places where
teachers learn and work together. Using Web 2.0 tools educators can
network with others around the globe extending traditional boundaries
of ongoing, learner centered professional development and support.
Presentations in this strand will include tips, ideas and resources on
how to orchestrate your own professional development online; concrete
examples of how the tools that support Professional Learning
Environments (PLEs) are being used; how to create a supportive,
reflective virtual learning community around school-based goals, and
trends toward teacher directed personal learning environments.
Strand B: Obstacles to Opportunities
Boundaries formalized by education in the “industrial age”
shouldn’t hinder educators as they seek to reform and transform their
classroom practice. Playing with boundaries in the areas of copyright,
digital discipline and ethics (e.g. cyberbullying), collaborating
globally (e.g. cultural differences, synchronous communication),
resistance to change (e.g. administration, teachers, students), school
culture (e.g. high stakes testing), time (e.g. in curriculum, teacher
day), lack of access to tools/computers, filtering, parental/district
concerns for online safety, control (e.g. teacher control of student
behavior/learning), solutions for IT collaboration and more --
unearthing opportunities from the obstacles rooted in those boundaries
-- is the focus of presentations in this strand.
CALL FOR PROPOSALS:
This call encourages all, experienced and novice, to submit proposals to present at this conference via this link.
Take this opportunity to share your successes, strategies, and tips in
“playing with boundaries” in one of the four strands as described
above.
Deadline for proposal submissions is June 18, 2007. You will be contacted no later than June 30, 2007 regarding your status.
Presentations may be delivered in any web-based medium that is
downloadable (including but not limited to podcasts, screencasts, slide
shows) and is due one week prior to the date it is published.
Please note that all presentations will be licensed Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported.
» specific ideas, tips, mini lessons centered on pedagogical use of web 2.0 tools
» overcoming institutional inertia and resistance
» aligning Web 2.0 and other projects to national standards
» getting your message across
» how web 2.0 can assist those with disabilities
» ePortfolios
» classroom 2.0 activities at the elementary level
» creating video for TeacherTube and YouTube
» google docs
» teacher/peer collaboration
KEYNOTES:
The first presentation in each strand will kick off with a keynote
by a well known educator who is distinguished and knowledgeable in the
context of their strand. Keynoters will be announced shortly.
