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.
CONVENERS:
This year's conveners are:
Darren Kuropatwa is currently Department Head of Mathematics at
Daniel Collegiate Institute in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. He is known
internationally for his ability to weave the use of online social tools
meaningfully and concretely into his pedagogical practice and for
"child safe" blogging practices. He has more than 20 years experience
in both formal and informal education and 13 years experience in team
building and leadership training. Darren has been facilitating
workshops for educators in groups of 4 to 300 for the last 10 years.
Darren's professional blog is called A Difference (http://adifference.blogspot.com). He will convene Classroom 2.0.
Sheryl Nusbaum-Beach, a 20-year educator, has been a classroom
teacher, charter school principal, district administrator, and digital
learning consultant. She currently serves as an adjunct faculty member
teaching graduate and undergraduate preservice teachers at The College
of William and Mary (Virginia, USA), where she is also completing her
doctorate in educational planning, policy and leadership. In addition,
Sheryl is co-leading a statewide 21st Century Skills initiative in the
state of Alabama, funded by a major grant from the Microsoft Partners
in Learning program. Sheryl blogs at (http://21stcenturylearning.typepad.com/blog/). She will convene Preconference Discussions and Personal Learning Networks.
Wesley Fryer is an educator, author, digital storyteller and
change agent. With respect to school change, he describes himself as a
"catalyst for creative educational engagement." His blog, “Moving at
the Speed of Creativity” was selected as the 2006 “Best Learning Theory
Blog” by eSchoolnews and Discovery Education. He is the Director of
Education Advocacy (PK-20) for AT&T in the state of Oklahoma. Wes
blogs at (http://www.speedofcreativity.org). Wes will convene New Tools.
Lani Ritter Hall currently contracts as an instructional
designer for online professional development for Ohio teachers and
online student courses with eTech Ohio. She is a National Board
Certified Teacher who served in many capacities during her 35 years as
a classroom and resource teacher in Ohio and Canada. Lani blogs at (http://possibilitiesabound.blogspot.com). Lani will convene Obstacles to Opportunities.
QUESTIONS?
If you have any questions about any part of this, email one of us:
» Darren Kuropatwa: dkuropatwa {at} gmail {dot} com
» Sheryl Nusbaum-Beach: snbeach {at} cox {dot} net
» Lani Ritter Hall: lanihall {at} alltel {dot} net
» Wesley Fryer: wesfryer {at} pobox {dot} com
Please duplicate this post and distribute it far and wide across the
blogosphere. Feel free to republish it on your own blog (actually, we'd
really like people to do that ;-) ) or link back to this post
(published simultaneously on all our blogs).
Teaching 7th graders is a treat. Really. (Stop laughing, it’s true.)
They are bright eyed and bushy tailed creatures open to new ideas. It’s
the “Gee wiz, Mrs. Brownstone, that’s cool.” state they are in that
makes them such a joy. How is it then, that when they get down into the academic work, there are some among that
group who are at risk of failing? I’ve become interested in a psychology professor Carol Dweck. (I’ve ordered her book on Amazon–Mindset: The New Psychology of Success.) In a recent article about her work Marina Krakovsky wrote:
Students for whom performance is paramount want to look smart even if it means not learning a thing in the process. For them, each task is a challenge to their self-image, and each setback becomes a personal threat. So they pursue only activities at which they’re sure to shine—and avoid the sorts of experiences necessary to grow and flourish in any endeavor. Students with learning goals, on the other hand, take necessary risks and don’t worry about failure because each mistake becomes a chance to learn. Dweck’s insight launched a new field of educational psychology—achievement goal theory. STANFORD Magazine: March/April 2007 > Features > Mind-set Research
What does it take to change their mindset to be goal oriented? And to be able to try to reach that goal? I have been having a frustrating time with one of my 7th grade classes. It seems that there are around half who are able to engage in inquiry learning and sustain their interest in learning when they leave the classroom and work unassisted at home. The other half are not working well in the classroom in small groups and rarely do much quality work at home. Friday I asked the students if they thought that there were some students in the school who were just plain “smart” that they were born with a gift and everything comes easy to them. Many hands went up.
Dweck explains. People with performance goals, she reasoned, think
intelligence is fixed from birth. People with learning goals have a
growth mind-set about intelligence, believing it can be developed.
(Among themselves, psychologists call the growth mind-set an
I have begun giving cues that are about putting in more effort, and trying harder. It sounds so strange to say that because I have unlearned that lingo. In my school (BSGE) we try to make our comments to the students grounded in the specifics of their work. We make a positive statement about what is working, what is going well, with reference to something specific they did. Then, we make one statement that starts something like this: “To reach a higher level of achievement you need to do X.” “X” is never “try harder”; it is always a very specific action they need to take on their next project.
The most dramatic proof comes from a recent study by Dweck and Lisa
Sorich Blackwell of low-achieving seventh graders. All students
participated in sessions on study skills, the brain and the like; in
addition, one group attended a neutral session on memory while the
other learned that intelligence, like a muscle, grows stronger through
exercise. Training students to adopt a growth mind-set about
intelligence had a catalytic effect on motivation and math grades;
students in the control group showed no improvement despite all the
other interventions.
“Study skills and
learning skills are inert until they’re powered by an active
ingredient,” Dweck explains. Students may know how to study, but
won’t want to if they believe their efforts are futile. “If
you target that belief, you can see more benefit than you have any
For the past few years I have been educating students, teachers, administrators and parents about the “realities” of online social networks (Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, etc). For the past few years, I have been wrong. Well, somewhat wrong, anyway. At the encouragement of law enforcement, the media, and other responsible adults, I have feared for the safety of the young women I educate. I was concerned that the details they were sharing online put them at risk for predation and victimization. My main concern was never really their physical safety, as that was such a minute possibility. I was mainly concerned about their futures, their college admissions, their job opportunities, but mainly, the possible humiliation they faced by the wrong people viewing their profiles. In that way, I was right.
Last week, before Congress, the four foremost experts in the country testified to the reality of online youth victimization. Every law enforcement person I’ve heard, and most educators I’ve heard have been wrong. The truth, according to the experts: 1) teens who post information online are no more likely to be victims of sex crimes than those who don’t 2) of all the statuatory rape in the U.S. last year, 7% of victims met the perpetrators online, the rest offline 3) parent education does not work.
There are many more important facts pointed out, so watch the hour and twenty minute testimony. It is the most important professional development I have had in the last few years. I can’t recommend it any more strongly. Original video here, transcript here, or YouTube video below. A post to follow will be on what type of education we need to do for/with our students. Your suggestions would be much appreciated.
“was created to help address the critical nationwide shortage of administrators who can effectively facilitate the implementation of technology in schools and school districts. CASTLE is widely recognized as the nation’s leading authority on the technology needs of K-12 school leaders.”
They go on to descripe,
“CASTLE’s School Technology Leadership graduate certificate program is the only academic curriculum in the country that comprehensively covers ISTE’s National Educational Technology Standards for Administrators (NETS-A). The graduate certificate program has been found by the American Institutes for Research to have positive, statistically significant impacts on participants’ school technology leadership knowledge, skills, and abilities and has been acclaimed for its innovative incorporation of technology into its coursework.”
CASTLE has also created LeaderTalk, a blog from School Administrators, for School Administrators. This has quickly become my must read of the day.
I want to personally thank Scott McLeod for all he has done to bring the relationship between technology and leadership to the forefront.
This seems to be the beginning of what I was looking for during my first post on leaders and technology.
The district just north south of where I live and just south north of where I work is going to begin offering e-mail accounts to many of its students if a vote goes well at a board meeting tomorrow night. That's not a super big deal. What is is the reason why they're considering it:
The district’s Technology Advisory committee members recommended the accounts so that students in middle and high schools could “communicate and collaborate locally and globally, and participate in and contribute to learning communities through e-mail,” according to a report detailing the e-mail account plan.
Under the plan, students could create school-related online journals and blogs, design Web pages, work on projects in teacher-created Internet spaces and produce podcasts.
Turns out my first ever scholarly publication, an article on book clubs and preservice teachers that I co-wrote with my friend and teacher Cindy, is available for free online for a short time. She taught me to write for journals; I'm teaching her to blog. I think I came out ahead in the deal.
After reading Seeing No Progress, Some Schools Drop Laptops in the New York Times on May 4th, I decided to use it as a discussion piece with my technology classes. I teach in a K-12 girls school in New York City with a 1:1 laptop program in grades 8-12. I wanted the students to respond to the article using their own experiences as students in a laptop school. A colleague at another school, Bill Campbell, suggested I record this discussion. The audio below is 1 class of my 9th grade answering a series of questions from me. As you will hear, I did not suggest any particular answers, but asked them to speak freely.
If you wish to use this audio, please let me know. Since it is a broadcast of a school class, I would like to let me school know where it is being used. Contact me at arvind [at] 21apples.org.
In this podcast, I begin by trying to explain a trend I'm noticing in my own blogging practice. Then I move into a discussion of being "in the zone" in a creative sense, emphasizing my work with the CSUWP's Advanced Institute on Technology and Teacher Inquiry, and wrap up with some thoughts, and not very articulate ones at that, on how I'd like to see more ways for blogs to represent or honor visual text. Oddly enough, I was listening to this week's Teachers Teaching Teachers and I heard Paul Allison mentioning his desire to see blogs with more visual and audio components. Here's to synchronicity.
Ben shares a frustrating experience he's having with a collaborative partnership torn asunder by parental concerns in a different state. Lots to think about here, amidst the perceived parental overreaction, but I'm particularly interested in the comments from students on their collaborative wiki about the issue. They're frustrated -- but are communicating, too, the value of their learning via wiki. One comment in particular struck me as very astute:
Seriously, I never even got a chance to talk to them, and
do you know why? Because I was working and learning and writing! What
does that tell you! That tells you that by them not being on here they
are being deprived of something they could have learned from. I just
hope whoever the parent is that called that attorney something
knows how much they have affected. And that they have deprived an entire class of kids of some of the learning they needed!
Another student is a bit more practical about the situation:
. . . we can still use wikimail and make our own wikispace.
Hmm. After school wiki work?
Ben concludes his post with several excellent questions for moving forward:
The question I kept thinking about after reading this e-mail is,
“Who failed?” Was it the teacher who didn’t set up enough rules and
guidelines for the students that were written down? Was it the parent
who failed to work with the teacher and understand the nature of the
collaboration? Or, was it the students who couldn’t grasp the public
nature of the internet?
Because of one or a combination of these factors, these students are
being shut out of an avenue for self expression and learning. What can
we do so that this doesn’t happen to us?
Head on over to his place and share your thoughts.
The New York Times article Seeing No Progress, Some Schools Drop Laptops has been getting a lot of attention in the EdTech blogosphere. I have been using the article as a discussion starter with students. Both sections of my 9th grade tech class, and the one 8th grade section I teach have had lively discussions on the article.
We started by identifying the main reasons cited for dropping laptop programs: cost, bad behavior using the laptops, technical support difficulties, and no proven educational benefit.
Then students were asked to critique the rationale reported on in the article. Most students argued that there were many holes in the arguments. Mainly they used their own experiences as students in a 1:1 laptop school to counter the reasoning. The one that seemed to frustrate them most was the lack of proven educational benefits. Almost every student said the laptop has helped them in their student lives, and had testimony as backup.
The students could actually barely finish reading the short article because they were so incensed by the writing. They immediately wanted to counter each sentence they came upon. Afterwards, they explained that their urgency was because they were afraid we would listen to The Times and get rid of our laptop program.
I am an ed tech evangelist much of the time, but when I think about it, it is rarely to/for students. It is for teachers, for administrators and for parents. It was quite a breath of fresh air to hear students voicing why they want laptops in their school.
One student: “They make it seem like walls are crashing down in laptop schools. Why don’t they come see our school to see how well it can work? I think we use laptops perfectly.”
In related news, this week we interview Lorrie Jackson from the Laptop Institute on 21st Century Learning. Tune in to EdTechTalk.com to listen to the episode.
Kevin's poetry -- and frankly, his ability to consistently crank out such creatively elegant stuff -- impresses me. Here's my favorite bit of his most recent poem:
So here I am, now, turning her into a poem
and then pushing her out the door of my mind on a raft of words
into your ear, dear reader, dear listener,
hoping only that she finds anchor in some friendly port
on the other side of the world.
Good poems make me want to try to write good poems. And that's how it's supposed to be.
Does it happen to anyone else who's been blogging for a time that no post makes it through one's own self-filter, either out of concern for relevancy or job security or just plain fear? Or is it just me?
