Donna's What the Blog Do We Know

Evolving transparency

2011-04-02T01:16:00.000-07:00

A truth window. This is an external wall (seen from the interior).

A recent personal incident and ongoing reform debates in my workplace, coupled with today's new definition of 'transparency,' prompted me to write this last CoTAIL blog post. Here's a relevant definition of transparency from Dan Bricklin's website:

"Today, to be transparent means that your are providing data in such a way that anybody with access can drill down on the data and ask unanticipated questions. They should be able to explore interrelationships that were not thought of by those that provide the data."

Data in the educational context may be different than data in the business world, yet the similarities are notable. Granted, teachers are not able to access leadership reports via the Internet as Bricklin discusses (although it is possible), and we do receive 'minutes' of some meetings via email, however, it's still apparent that no matter the report or the number of reports disseminated, data can still be manipulated in the sense that humans can select information to report and are automatically biased in their reporting, despite any appeals to transparency. And, of course when confronted, any number of interpretations of the original data can be made to suit the purpose, or even to perhaps the less ethical side, to self-serve. Warren Bennis, Daniel Goleman, James O’Toole and Patricia Biederman have published three essays pertaining the topic of transparency in a world where where it's become more difficult than ever to hide things. In the five summary points stand out, the second suggests that those coming forth with 'unpleasant truths' be praised. Point four suggests we'd all be best to welcome counterarguments but leaders especially need to check on their partiality and be willing to listen to dissent. Bennis, Goleman and O'Toole in Transparency: How Leaders Create a Culture of Candor say that leaders need to embrace the flow of information via candor and honesty and forgo the fear of the 'truth will out.' 'Reward the principled contrarians.' And, regarding other perspectives, it's the feminine touch that wins out according to 'Speaking Truth to Power: The Role of the Executive' by Jennifer Pittman:

"While not typical traits for our leaders, “feminine” virtues of humility, inclusion, vulnerability, service to others, and respect for people, are characteristic of truly great leaders."

It's the concept of 'truth' that we're both drawn to and yet fear. It seems apparent to me that the fundamental definition of 'transparency' involves knowing the truth by being in touch with one's feelings to the extent of being able to empathize and introspect and thus understand the feelings of others. The action one takes then stems from this vulnerable, yet sincere position—and perhaps is more likely to be a 'right action.' In studying the Human Sciences in the Theory of Knowledge, we learn about Verstehen—this very approach involving empathy and introspection that human scientists use in their attempts to study and make conclusions about human behaviors within their respective fields. Isn't this what we're all doing as educators at virtually every interaction we have with colleagues and with students? We should be especially good at this given the daily practice we have. Yet, even when the truth does surface through the mess of thoughts, we're caught up with attempting to do what we think is right within the context of the situation—softening the truth or often times—avoiding it. Best to tell the person what s/he wants to hear, or what might be 'politically-correct' to say. Telling the truth is a two-edged sword alright. Leo Bottary seemed to be inspired by Bennis' words on transparency and came up with some key points on 'speaking truth to power effectively.' Among them: 1) That bad news coming from the leader is better than no news, and that 2) trust in self and in one's leadership prevail.

Shouldn't F2F interchanges be the primary way to show one's transparency? After all, look what's missed without looking at the slightest muscle twitches on someone's face, or seeing the honesty in someone's eyes. This may be true in one-to-one interactions, or with manageable groups of people. But with the constraints of time and in other contexts, the use of blogs, wikis and social networks can then be seen as solutions to some of these challenges. Will Richardson's weblog on 'Transparency = Leadership" and the extensive blog comments offer diverse insight into what leaders need to be doing to be in step with today's forms of practicing transparency. Richardson's whole point is for educators of all sorts to:

"Build a learning network online, and make your learning as transparent as possible for those around you."

There are assumptions to consider here, but the one being that we educators are immersed in the digital world today, despite our position as 'digital immigrants' over our students' position as 'digital natives,' there's no real excuse as to why we all shouldn't be on board with professional social networking. Given our school's move to new assessment, grading and reporting, wouldn't professional blogs, run by our respective school leaders provide the line of thinking, the rationale and justifications for decisions, the research links to peruse, links to other schools having similar discussions, comments and questions for teachers and even board members to ask in that transparent mode that such a communication offers? The different points of view would be welcomed instead of feared. Here's one among many of the pertinent comments from Richardson's post:

"I would say that the two most important principles for leaders in education today are (1) encouraging and facilitating innovation at all levels of the system and (2) fomenting clear and honest communication among all stakeholders in the educational process (teachers, parents, students, administrators, support staff, et cetera)." Chris Johnson

There's also the need for peer review to keep the writing professional. But the nice thing about blogs, for example, is this peer review is built in. Certainly, a professional would want to carefully formulate ideas, state findings, make observations, and provide accuracy with research knowing such writing and research is open to public scrutiny (especially in the case of a high school faculty).

In any regard, today's digital world seems to be bringing transparency to the forefront in new ways never before considered. And this can either be problematic or advantageous for those, like leaders, whose transparency or lack thereof drives the wheel of change. Ending on a more Utopian note, is it possible that the combined transparency of both the old, traditional F2F and new technologies today would lead to a fundamental change in human nature such that we might develop less fear of telling the truth? Or, even with a more metaphysical consideration, we have to prepare ourselves for the day we can actually come to read each others' minds! Ponder this. If babies can do it, Ray Kurzweil predicts so can we! We may be destined to tell the truth after all! But, if nothing else, at least we can rely on Shakespeare's prediction in reference to transparency: 'The truth WILL out.'

Working with Wiktionary (Project 5 Evaluation)

2011-03-26T02:43:00.002-07:00

After searching around for online possibilities as to how my Gr. 12 EAL students could develop their usage of the most commonly-used academic words (AWL) in English, and after a relatively quick consult with Jeff Utecht, my CoETAIL instructor, we agreed that the students should try the real-world wiki I came across: Simple English Wiktionary, which featured the AWL words. After Jeff and I looked over the many links and possibilities for practice and editing, I decided to have my students undertake editing the Simple Wiktionary for about 80-120 mins. per week.

I have to say that I wasn't too far off the plan I started with. If I consider the Essential Qs:

1) Can academic vocabulary learning and acquisition be fun?
2) Does the use of technology help to motivate and improve the second language (L2) vocabulary acquisition process?

For the first one, I'd say maybe my definition of fun is somewhat distinct from my Gr. 12s' definition of fun, however, according to student comments, some did in fact find the experience to be 'fun.' (See student comments below.)

As for the second essential Q, I'd say that the experience working on the wiki was motivating for some—those who were already comfortable with technology found the set up on the Wiktionary somewhat intuitive and could essentially figure out for themselves how to write (or copy) the code to make the edits. There's even a place on the Simple English Wiktionary called the 'Sandbox' where newcomers can practice working with the required editing codes. We started out there, but apparently didn't spend enough practice time there, according to one of the editors. But there's a second part to this Q—improve the acquisition process. I'd say the time it spent learning to properly edit (and even then we still continued to make errors and frustrate the editors) detracted from the potentially speedy acquisition. Because it took so long to edit, the students ending up working with fewer words than planned, which thus limited the overall acquisition process.

On the positive side, the students performed admirably on their quiz assessment that followed the editing and practice of each set of 5 AWL vocabulary on the Wiktionary. Most scored between 90-100% consistently. For the assessment itself, the students are expected to answer a question, similar to the initial practice questions the EAL teachers created for students to establish a context, and their response needs to demonstrate their understanding and correct usage of the word in a similar context. After working with 10 AWL words, here's what my students had to say about the experience. And we did 'assume good faith' that the students would make a valid attempt at doing the right thing:

The good:
"The good thing about [Wiktionary] is I learned the words [and] shared with other people."
"It was more interesting to use the computer [Internet] to put things [down] for everyone to see."
"I paid more attention to making sentences and grammar... and it was easier to know the word... because we had to know all the things about the word... better than making vocabulary cards."
"I didn't [have to] try hard to memorize [because] I memorized while searching and writing my own sentences."
"It's good to check with the teacher first to check grammar."
"I love to learn how to use new technology."

The bad:
"I was sad when someone deleted my work after I tried my best. I felt denied."
"It was the same thing over and over again—need something more creative."
"It was easier for a computer nerd."
"There was an unknown person controlling the editing."
"It only worked if you liked [doing it]."
"There needs to be more options of what to put on the page."
"I don't like when they keep removing my things."

Here's what was initially planned:

Find a picture that (obviously) illustrates the meaning of the word in context and post it.
Post a copy of the word family.
Create an original sentence that reflects personal experience using the work in the correct context.
Locate a practice exercise using the word and include the link on Google.docs for others to use. Somehow provide evidence of having completed the exercise.
Using Bloom's Digital Taxonomy: 'analyzing,' try mind-mapping or 'creating,' after 4-5 words, try a photo story or a comic creation.

Here's what actually happened:

Find a picture... Initially it was relatively easy to figure out how to use Wikimedia Commons and find pictures that corresponded to the word meaning. But in practice, the Wiktionary editors did not like the pictures the students would find, and would end up removing them by the next time we opened the Wiktionary. Here, the 'assume good faith' seemed to break down. In 'talking' with the editor, we were told that the pictures were too abstract or inappropriate. We ended up abandoning the picture search after a few times of this (and as a result affecting the 'visual literacy' segment of this project).
Post a copy of the word family: this worked OK as long as the students didn't mix up 'word family' with 'related words' and 'forms of the word' found on the Wiktionary. Sorting this out, and revisiting the errors did at least have the students 'rethink' these word distinctions.
Create an original sentence... This seemed to be the best strategy, as long as the students paid attention to which definition they were writing the sentence to (or posting a corresponding definition to the the wiki if needed), and as long as I checked the grammar before the sentence was posted. Otherwise, it was just more work for the Wiktionary editor to clean up afterward.
Locate a practice exercise... I found several links at 'English Corner' that seemed to work well for AWL word practice.
Mind-mapping: In the end, the Wiktionary editors seemed to accept the mind maps the students tried. I found bubbl.us to work fairly effectively. The students could take screen shots of the mind maps they created and eventually learned how to upload them to Wikimedia Commons prior to posting them to an AWL on the Wiktionary. Here's a sample on Wiktionary.
We had a chance to add synonyms, antonyms and in some cases where it worked, to put up pronunciation keys. Here's another sample showing the pronunciation key edit, which also shows some of the history of the editing.

I was able to manage overseeing all of the edits to some degree using my RSS feed through NetVibes. (Although the editors would often beat me to it...) After adding the words the students were working on, their edits would come in automatically. I would then go into the 'history' found on any page of the Wiktionary and see exactly what was done. This made it easy to hold students accountable for their work. It also allowed me to let them assess themselves when it came to grading them for the work that was done. There's also a 'My Watchlist' in the Wiktionary where specific word edits can be monitored. The students completed this Scoring Guide after setting up 5 AWL words. I verified their assessment after a relatively quick look at their work.

Overall, the students had lots of practice thinking about the word definitions, the parts of speech, forms of the word and different usages. We have yet to reach the 30 word goal by the end of the semester and for the remaining words, I'm now leaving the Wiktionary approach an optional strategy. I'm glad we took the risk. Despite moments of frustration and disappointment seeing their work disappear and despite the 'assumed good faith,' we started with, we did end up with lots of collaboration and dialogue about how to use these AWL words that more than likely would have never happened otherwise. So, we'll assume good faith here and return to one of the essential Qs we started out with: Does the use of technology help to motivate and improve the second language (L2) vocabulary acquisition process?

The 11th Year

2011-01-18T21:51:00.001-08:00

We're beginning our 11th year in the 21st c. now and as an educator of '21st c. learning,' I'm wondering where we stand in terms of meeting any of the 21st c. goals or 21st c. standards we're on about, like the ISB21 T.A.I.L. Standard s and Benchmarks, for example. But it's not just local, it's global (or 'glocal' as some like to call it). The 21st c. learner and everything else out there coined 'the 21st c.....' is the latest slogan suggesting we'll stay lost in the previous c. (or possibly further back) if we don't get on board—it appears it's where we need to be as educators (and every other successful person on the planet for that matter). Ironically, we're already IN the 21st c.—it's not a matter of getting there anymore. Given the fast pace of growth in modern times, isn't 11 years a lot of time to be spending to get somewhere? Here are some relevant places that taut the ideals of education of the 21st c. or even pose threats should we ignore acquiring and using its corresponding skills: Educational Origami, and this comparison between the old and new centuries is particularly idealistic one. The highlighted bits in 'New Research Shows...' suggest there's a definitional problem operating—not with the definition of 21st c., but of '21st c. skills,' and that this underlies the lack of embracing the new. In the video: 'Educational Change Challenge,' we're practically threatened by the claims made regarding the gap between 'us' [the old] and 'them' [they young]: "Are we preparing students for our age or for theirs?" the narrator queries. Or, how about '21 Things That Will Become Obsolete in Education by 2020 by Shelley Blake-Plock? I have to admit that I get taken in by such claims, but at the same time many of them, like the look of parent-teacher conferences, which are likely to disappear in place of 'virtual communication opportunities,'' were actually more appealing. How about #13 though?

13. Organization of Educational Services by Grade
Education over the next ten years will become more individualized, leaving the bulk of grade-based learning in the past. Students will form peer groups by interest and these interest groups will petition for specialized learning. The structure of K-12 will be fundamentally altered.

Now this to me seems a lot more dramatic of a change. But, need I really 'worry' about such a change? Or, Technology in the Classroom: Myths & Oppo r tunities by Alan N ovember inspires us teachers to see these changes as a relatively seamless process. I'm just starting up my Theory of Knowledge (ToK) course and we watched 'Shift Happens' to be reminded of the phenomenal pace of knowledge growth in all areas, of course with special emphasis placed on technology-related developments. My students commented on how the 21st c. pace is all they know and that there's nothing really shocking to them about it. It's us adults who seem to worry about how to ably cope with the future.

So then how DO we prepare to prepare our students to solve problems that don't yet exist on the planet? What about old-fashioned Professional Development (PD)? If the educational system itself is heading for a complete turn-around, then perhaps such is the case with PD. 'Why America's schools fail: Ineffective Professional Development' outlines most of the problems I've experienced with dead-in-the water PD—lack of time, passion, lack of professional learning communities. I've been involved in countless PD programs over the years, including conducting them myself. In fact, conducting PD workshops is a good way to evaluate their effectiveness. But despite the best PD programs, it's the sustainability factor, the 'I'm-going-to-do-this-in-my-school' factor, the 'I'm- getting-my-administrator-on-board' factor that makes all the difference. (Of course the COETAIL cohorts run by Jeff Utecht is certainly one PD program up for recognition—personal testimony as justification!) I'd venture to say that the more earth-shaking the change, as the #13 described above, the more factors in ones' favor the better to see evidence of reform. Using students as leaders is one such unique approach: 'Students as professional developers. Here's an upcoming conference with a networking partnership strand. We need something like these new PD approaches. We need to prepare teachers for the 'control shift.' We push educators into the 21st c. NOW. Isn't 11 years long enough? We need something systemic. We need commitment from more than just a small number. We need the PD to be embedded in our everyday world. We need administrative support—even Board support. Mentoring? Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)? These all sound feasible, but not unless we really want to do this—and I mean 'we' collectively. It'll take all of the constituents—admin included—to get into the 21st c. before the next decade ends—or before we end up going backwards!

Course 5 Project

2011-01-01T06:37:00.000-08:00

Analysis:
(One of the most commonly-used academic vocabulary in English)
analyzed, analyzer, analyzers, analyzes, analyzing, analysis, analyst, analysts, analytic, analytical, analytically

Why would anyone want to analyze this jellied candle?

Now it's time to bring together some of the knowledge and understandings gained from the previous COETAIL courses and apply it to a 'real world' experience in the classroom. I'd like to revamp an existing vocabulary learning project in my EAP (English for Academic Purposes) 12 class. This group of EAL students are the least proficient English learners in the high school. Most of the group is generally Japanese and most of these (usually 90%) will be returning to Japan for college or university. The implications are that these students are sometimes weary of their English learning attempts, as they still have not achieved a passing score in reading/ vocabulary or writing. Further, the closer they get to returning to their home countries, the less motivated some are to improve their skills. Counter to this, however, there's a subset of students who view this last semester of language learning as their last-ditch attempt to get as far as they can in English. I have these two groups in mind when I set out their last semester tasks and try and individualize their experience as much as possible. I believe a focus on vocabulary benefits all in the group and find myself challenged to improve their vocabulary via innovative teaching as well as learning strategies. This is where Web 2.0 comes in and where the following NETS-T standard is targeted:

2. Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments
Teachers design, develop, and evaluate authentic learning experiences and assessments incorporating contemporary tools and resources to maximize content learning in context and to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes identified in the NETS•S. Teachers:
a. design or adapt relevant learning experiences that incorporate digital tools and resources to promote student learning and creativity

Here's a UBD (Understanding by Design) look at this revamped vocabulary learning unit:

Stage 1 – Desired Results

Established Goal
EAP 12 learners to leave ISB in June having acquired more English academic vocabulary than their current level at the start of the semester.

Understanding(s)
Students will understand that learning strategies, including metacognitive strategies, can enhance long-term memory in acquiring vocabulary. What is anticipated is that students will need to explore the different learning strategies, on somewhat of a trial and error basis using Web 2.0 activities, to see what's most effective for each as a learner.

Essential Question(s)
Can academic vocabulary learning and acquisition be fun?
Does the use of technology help to motivate and improve the second language (L2) vocabulary acquisition process?

Know & Be Able to Do
Over the course of their last semester, the Gr. 12 EALs will acquire (which means actively use in speaking and/or writing) at least 30 new most-commonly used academic English vocabulary.

Stage 2 – Assessment Evidence

Performance Task(s)
• Do a pre-assessment. Looking at Academic Vocabulary Lists (Coxhead), students will identify words that they do not know how yet to use and will work to acquire these vocabulary over the semester.
• Practice the meaning and usage of a particular word via a glossary on Google.docs & a wiki for reference. (A particular context in the form of a question is teacher-generated.) This is where the use of different strategies and different online activities come into play. Here are possibilities:

Find a picture that (obviously) illustrates the meaning of the word in context and post it.
Post a copy of the word family.
Create an original sentence that reflects personal experience using the work in the correct context.
Locate a practice exercise using the word and include the link on Google.docs for others to use. Somehow provide evidence of having completed the exercise.
Using Bloom's Digital Taxonomy: 'analyzing,' try mind-mapping or 'creating,' after 4-5 words, try a photo story or a comic creation.

• After 5 entries have been completed, student takes a 'quiz' on the vocabulary word in the same context, using a new set of questions (teacher-generated again)
• When the unit is completed, have a 'public' presentation (maybe a digital story), or other creation, like a rap/ interview/ talk-show and subsequently post on SlideShare. The final assessment demonstrates acquisition (spoken and/ or written).
• Some type of self-assessment to discern to what extent each student actually acquired the vocabulary.

Stage 3 – Learning Plan

• Ensure that students' prior knowledge of the vocabulary can be utilized to more deeply understand a particular word and its usage.
• Ensure students remain interested in the project—invite them to add, revise activity.
• Allow students to evaluate their work and its implications
• Ensure activities are personalized to the different needs, interests, and abilities.

This is the plan. Now comes the implementation. Vocabulary practice and quiz questions, as well as the glossary itself to be set up on Google.docs. The glossary needs to link to a Wiki. Sites need to be identified to practice the vocabulary and to complete the glossary requirements. All to be posted and made available on Panthernet.

Managing Everything

2010-12-06T00:04:00.000-08:00

This?

Or, this?

In this week's blog post, we're to consider the essential question: What are ways to manage the use of laptops in a classroom environment? However, first I see it's important to consider the assumption in the question: that we have (or should have or will have) laptops to manage in the classroom. What underlies the assumption is that having laptops will improve student learning, given that our administration is celebrating the accomplishments of the grade 6 program and looking ahead to where ISB is going with the laptop plan. Jeff Utecht, our IT Coordinator, announced ISB's plan just recently at a faculty meeting: "9th and 10th graders getting their MacBook Pros in 2012-2013 and the 11th and 12th graders the following year." So, ready or not, here we come...

So, instead of answering the essential question itself, since I'd have defer to the experts themselves who have already incorporated laptops into student learning, I'll make no claims on 'how to manage' anything in this post. But I do want to consider managing that and 'everything else' and especially consider the underlying assumption that laptop use will improve student learning. In 'Blending Computers into the Classroom,' for example, an experimental program in the US is going on to see if we can discern such a difference in a digital over a traditional classroom. 'Blended learning' as it's called is being researched in the 4th grade whereby two hours per day are being devoted to 'laptop' instruction. The Department of Education (New York) is planning on spending $30 million over the next three years to reach 400 schools:

"Yet there is little hard evidence that the movement will have any lasting effect. There's been a lot of experimentation in the past with technology that hasn't produced a lot of learning gains," said Robin Lake, associate director of the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington, who has been studying the DOE's efforts."

Nevertheless, as these decision-makers know, you don't know unless you try. They're relying on an Israeli-based vendor, Time to Know Inc. that is supplying ready-made 'blended learning' curriculums and are boasting of a trial program in Texas where verifiable improvement has already manifested. Ideas on how to differentiate and meet the needs of a range of students apparently is part of the program. Sounds convincing. And given that we're forging ahead, we need to get our hands on such programs fast. I'd say we don't want to waste time and money figuring out details about how to do good daily lessons using the laptops, or sorry to say admin, figuring out what the newly-written ISB tech standards mean and how to apply them to daily lessons and actual teaching.

But, let's also consider that there's more to student learning and achievement gains than adding laptops, good programs and even teacher training. I just read 'How to get good grades' in the recent Economist. What first struck me was the chart: 'Class, not mass' that shows Finland and Singapore, in particular, significantly ahead of the US in education spending and student performance. We at ISB tend to emulate education programs in the US in particular, so for us to be forging ahead with a country showing mediocre standings like those of US schools is a bit scary. So what else is going on to maintain high standards, if not technology? Teachers. Remember us?

"Countries where schools have already attained a higher standard should become pickier in choosing teachers. Another study by McKinsey in 2007 concluded that making teaching a high-status profession was what boosted standards.... When it comes to getting the very best grades, it seems that teacher still knows best."

What's interesting here, is that we at ISB make claims to 'best teachers.' We're told 'we're the best in the world,' so maybe this variable is already taken care of? But do we have enough numbers of 'the best'? This might be something we'll come to find out soon enough with the laptop plan underway.

What else? Well, I say we need to take a closer look at what's going on in Korean and Finnish schools. How about this for a title: 'World's best classrooms are light on technology.' This got my attention. The old standard chalk board reigns in these classrooms, with old PCs stuck in the back of the room—with overhead projectors being celebrated as something to take with you if you got stuck on an island and had to bring the most important item to teach with (I guess the island would have electricity!). Old-fashioned lessons, with full engagement of students without digital distractors are found. What is also found is longer studying hours and old-fashioned values for learning—in S. Korea anyway. In Finland "kids have one less year of schooling than their American counterparts, do less homework, and rarely take standardized tests." So, what gives? It's back to the teacher making the difference. It's probably back to teacher training at university I'd venture to say as well. Further in 'Brilliance in a box,' "[m]ore importantly, perhaps, school systems in Singapore, Finland and Korea recruit 100 percent of their teacher from the top one-third of the academic cohort, according to a 2010 McKinsey & Co. report in 'Closing the Gap.' One 5th grade US teacher claims that what her perfect classroom would look like is not gadgets, but another skilled teacher in the room!

So, let's see if there's a bottom line here. If we do have top teachers at ISB, at least for the most part, and we do have money and means to invest in proper, achievement-tested tech programs, and we are willing to admit that coming up with tech standards will not necessarily determine what teachers do to improve student learning, then just maybe we can make claims to being on par with the best schools in the world—even with the techy-rich environment. Will 'blended learning' help or hinder student performance at this caliber? We know we're going to forge ahead and give it a try regardless!

Subject-centered not Student-centered?

2010-11-27T23:36:00.000-08:00

A few years back, I was attending a workshop on incorporating creativity into teaching and I passed by a display of books recommended by the workshop leader. I was drawn to one title in particular: The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher's Life by Parker J. Palmer. It made me wonder what 'courage' meant in the context of teaching. I paged through it and decided to buy it on the spot. To this day, I still ponder what this fully means, but in at least one area that Palmer discusses, I believe I have tested my courage to teach. One chapter was devoted to being a 'subject-centered' teacher. This I grabbed onto immediately, because I had just begun teaching ToK and realized that 'subject-centered' is how I wanted to be approaching this vast knowledge area. Simply put, in 'subject-centered' teaching, you put the subject in the center and everyone is involved in the learning process. Everyone interacts with everyone else and this continuous interaction, no matter the 'knower,' is what leads everyone to better comprehend the subject. Anything can go into the center—it could be a concept, or it could be a unit aim—but regardless, everyone gains from what others discover/ uncover. It's a dynamic process and inevitably leads to a deeper understanding of whatever is undertaken. The courage to teach then seems to involve the teacher's willingness to be a co-learner rather than the possessor of knowledge who imparts what s/he knows onto the learner. I suppose courage comes in when control of the learning process is out of the teacher's hands—the courage to let it go and see where it ends up. Doesn't this sound like where we need to be going with student learning in today's technology-rich classroom?

Now 'subject-centered' contrasts both 'teacher-centered' and 'student-centered' learning. I was reminded that the ideal tech-driven classrooms today needs to be 'student-centered,' when I watched: Edutopia, about a model school in Key Largo, Florida. Principal Ammette Martimson celebrated the student-centeredness of all their programs and validated this by their high achievement. Whether there's a cause-effect relationship operating is always the debatable question found in claims tied to education. But at least it's suggested that there's a strong correlation to be found between student-centeredness and student achievement. This is where Palmer and I would disagree with Principal Martimson. Take a look at the chart above from Palmer's book that I embellished a bit to fit my ToK class. This co-learning framework is where I think we need to be going with Web 2.0 systems in place in our classrooms, rather than needs-based 'student-centered.' But before I go further, I do need to research what educators means by 'student-centered.' Geraldine O'Neill and Tim McMahon in "Student-Centered Learning: What Does It Mean...?" claim that people have different interpretations of student-centered, one being that it contrasts 'teacher-centered/ content-oriented' with 'student-centered/ learning oriented.' So, maybe this argument does boil down to one of semantics rather than involving a basic conceptual difference. Appealing to language limitations, however, sounds like a way to avoid looking a the fundamental difference. In any regard, it still bothers me to think that what drives the lesson are the needs of the students rather than the subject to be learned.

Principal Martimson further believes in teaching to student learning styles, i.e., more student-centeredness. "Brain research says... 'tailor to learning styles.'" But let's be realistic. Can anyone ever really teach to each individual's learning style, one, and two there's research that contradicts the value of learning styles. 'Do learning styles exists' by Hugh Lafferty and Keith Burley questions the very existence of learning styles:

We will see that Learning Styles do not exist because
· The forecast is wrong.
· That is not how the brain works.

We will see that Learning Styles are a 'bad' idea, because
· Matching the teaching to the learning does not work
· Learning styles are not measurable
· Changing teaching styles is not 'doable'
· Knowing your learning style does not make you a better learner.
But
· Knowing a student's learni. ng style does make the teachers better.

I do think many of us have made the leap away from 'teacher-centered' and rallied to the 'student-centered' approach in recent years, but could moving from 'student' to 'subject' be one of those paradigm shifts on the horizon as we Web 2.0-rich environments dominate our classrooms?

To apply these understandings, I'll speak to my experiences working in 'subject' vs.' 'student-centered' contexts. I find the courage to engage in subject-centeredness when I walk into a ToK class, but somehow I still revert to 'student-centered' when working with EAL students. (Am I losing courage here?) Do special needs determine a more 'student-centered' approach? What goes into the center when walking into an EAL lesson? I've tried putting 'theme' in the middle, and have had some success with all of us interacting with the theme, but the real 'centeredness' doesn't seem to work until I add the Web 2.0 ingredient. Last semester I watched the students in my English Language Workshop (ELW) class come to understand 'teen depression' through a three-week networking project on the novel Speak, by Laurie Halse Anderson. I definitely felt as though I was learning about teen depression by interacting with subject with the students, yet at the same time, I had to hand-hold the less-proficient learners in order for them to make gains in language and thus with the understandings of the content. Was I being 'student-centered'? 'Teacher-centered'? Uncentered? It seems the subtle yet powerful distinction between 'subject' and 'student' goes back to the role of teacher—the student-centered has the teacher as the facilitator, and thus as an 'outsider,' whereas with the subject placed in the center, the teacher becomes part of the unfolding of knowledge. With this underlying assumption established, I'd have to return to my original argument—this is where Web 2.0 dominated classrooms must head.

Referring again to the constructivist approach in my previous blog, it seems that 'subject-centered' (or one definition of 'student-centered') is more in line with this approach. So, it's complex once again. When Palmer wrote The Courage to Teach, Web 2.0 wasn't yet a concept. Could it be that wherever we head with the revolutionary classrooms today and in the future, that the teacher as a knower, instead of a facilitator in the subject-centered approach will allow all of us to better learners? There's much to consider: the courage and teaching style of the teacher, the needs of the learner, the subject at hand and the type and amount of technology available and incorporated into the learning. Maybe the student, the teacher and the subject all get time in the center, depending... and we have to find the courage to determine when, and all discover the illusive secret that knows to which Robert Frost alludes.

Grading for Learning & ISB21 Standards

2010-11-19T19:05:00.000-08:00

About 4 years ago, I attended a workshop by Ken O'Connor held at Rumrudee International School. I have to admit that I'm pretty jaded when it comes to attending educational workshops after so many years of teaching—but I do look for new ideas and celebrate when I come across them. This particular workshop, however, I found to be revolutionary. It's the first time I found myself really questioning the deepest values held as educators—what is the learning that we are really grading? I couldn't believe I was asking myself this question! I couldn't believe I was really wondering if I was grading what kids were learning! Now, four years later, I'm more comfortable with these questions, although I find myself continuously asking them whenever I set up a lesson. I'm asking if the content I want the students to learn matches the standard(s) that's been defined. Of course, the assumption is that the standards have been defined. The scary part is that when I went into the descriptions of the curricula I work with, I found a variety of detailed categories and descriptors, aims and objectives and outcomes and illustrative examples, but no explicit performance standards.

So, essentially, I made up my own! It's not as bad as it sounds. I am an educated educator and have written enough curricula in my educational life, so felt (feel) competent in doing creating the performance standards I was essentially expecting my students to do. But, I should not be working in a vacuum. I should have a team of colleagues working with me on this. But given the constraints of varied philosophies, time, problems with the curriculum platform at ISB (i.e., Rubicon) and abandonment of it, I was forced to forge ahead on my own. In one course, I came up with two performance standards and set up formative and summative assessments to match within short order. I eliminated all the extraneous assignments from my gradebook. I accounted for what Ken O'Connor calls the 'halo effect,' i.e. grading the student based on his good (or bad) behaviors and not on his/ her demonstration of the standards, which today at ISB is known as the HAL grade. Now, connect to NETS-S and ISB's: ISB21 Technology and Information Literacy Standards. In looking these over, I'm back to the same considerations and questions I started with coming out of the O'Connor workshop. Here's a sample of the language of what students should be able to do by the end of grade 12:

Identifies independently the inquiry focus, data and information requirements and a range of information sources based on appropriateness to the task and reliability (e.g. recognizes the value of print materials, subject experts and online communities and coaches to complement searched information).

What I ask myself in regard to this language and in regard to how to grade for learning are three things: 1) where does the 'benchmark' end and the 'standard' begin; and 2) am I grading to the benchmark, or to the standard, and once that's determined, 3) how would I assess it in terms of a summative assessment so that I can grade it and determine student learning? I'm then led to another set questions: is this standard tacked onto the rest in my curriculum? Are the other 6 benchmarks/ standards also tacked on, or are these to be divided up among the other departments/ grades to be 'shared'? And if this is the case, who gets what standard?In ISB's past, similar benchmarks/ standards have been defined and attempts were made to embed them into existing core curricula: social studies, English, the sciences, mathematics. The IT coordinators of the time made decisions as to where which standard would best fit. For example, I was teaching English 10 at the time and I was responsible for teaching and assessing certain word-processing skills, specifically within something like a Works Cited page in the Gr 10 Research Paper. We were also tasked with searching for credible sources on the Internet, given that the paper called for researched information. I also supported EAL students in Modern World History at the time. We worked with the following chart to discern what technology skill fit with which outcome. This provided input to the coordinators to figure out a type of scope & sequence across the divisions:

You can see that resources were combined with technology, which demoted the value of 'technology'—so technology was sort of like an add-on. In some ways, at the time, this made sense, given the technology available to us. I know there exists a 'final product' developed by the IT coordinators at the time, but ironically, it's not electronic. I'm sure it's stored in a binder on a shelf somewhere--maybe even on mine, if I were to search for it. For awhile, we were sort of 'held accountable' for assessing/ grading the standards that were identified, but over time and with change in admin and changes to curriculum, etc., 'things fall apart.'

I have to say, fundamentally, it makes sense to do a curriculum analysis to see where the new benchmarks/ standards best fit across divisions and across curricula. And, some sort of 'built-in' place for change. Change not only of the benchmarks/ standards, but change as to where they should be learned/ assessed. These questions on assessment come from ISTE's site: 'Lesson Plan for Implementing NETS-S Template':

Assessment (What will students do or produce to illustrate their learning? What can students do to generate new knowledge? How will you assess how students are progressing (formative assessment)? How will you assess what they produce or do? Who will be the audience for a digital product or presentation? How will you differentiate products/outcomes?)

Maybe these can help, but this is all quite messy, which is ultimately good, if chaos does lead to order. However, returning to the original argument—given our current state here at ISB—our need to establish academic-based benchmarks/ standards so as to be grading for learning, are we putting the cart before the horse, to be expecting a grading (if we are expecting a grading) of the new benchmarks/ standards before we really know as a school what learning we're grading? Maybe the cart needs to come before the horse, and Web 2.0 skills can show us how it's all done!

Reverse instruction

2010-11-12T21:26:00.000-08:00

I'm certainly certainly one to acknowledge the trends in education—the ones that we're challenged to try out to see if they advance student learning and understanding. So, Michael B. Horn, who apparently coined the term, 'reverse instruction' at the recent NAIS A nn ual Conference seems to have stirred up educators et al. who keep seeking the ideal approach to teaching and delivering instruction. Just giving reverse instruction a brief read reminded me of the principles set forth by Madeline Hunter over 20 years ago and whose lesson planning strategies I quickly found with a google search. First are establishing the objectives and standards, followed by the lesson itself: the 'Anticipatory Set' (AS) where the teacher 'hooks' the learner with an interesting start to the lesson, and then...

Teaching: Input

The teacher provides the information needed for students to gain the knowledge or skill through lecture, film, tape, video, pictures, etc.

Teaching: Modeling
Once the material has been presented, the teacher uses it to show students examples of what is expected as an end product of their work. The critical aspects are explained through labeling, categorizing, comparing, etc. Students are taken to the application level (problem-solving, comparison, summarizing, etc.).

These and the rest of the model: checking for understanding, guided and independent practice and 'closure' were drilled into teachers' heads back in the 80s/90s. These were the 10 commandments of good teaching.

Now this bedrock is about to be challenged. It appears that we can simply bypass the AS and 'input' altogether with reverse instruction. It's hard to say whether 'modeling' is also to be abandoned, since the 'problem-solving' might also precede the actual lesson. Or, maybe this where the lesson actually begins? Scary stuff.

There are many assumptions at play with 'reverse instruction': 1) that the content and understanding it can be found somewhere online; 2) that the teacher has set up such instruction online; and 3) an underlying assumption that the content of a given lesson exists online and can be accessed by students prior to the actual lesson. Is this approach in line with the constructivist approach?

Effective teaching connects isolated ideas and information with global concepts and themes.... Students need time to process 'how' as well as 'what' they've learned.... Experiential learning is most effective.... Teaching must be multifaceted to allow students to express preferences... Teaching that heavily emphasizes rote learning does not promote spatial, experienced learning and can inhibit understanding.

Not that everyone's bought into the constructivist approach, and certainly in the high school at ISB, some are not even following the standard Madeline Hunter model for that matter. But it is interesting to consider just where reverse instruction fits in. It does seem as though we are at a crossroads in education, given Web 2.0 access. We can no longer sit comfortably drilling facts into students and assessing them on their memories of these facts believing that this is learning. When students nowadays can access facts within seconds, how can we realistically believe that spending time with our students discussing that which can be researched within seconds is what we should be doing? Is this at the expense lost learning? But where to facts end and the rest of the content begin?

I like the revolutionary thinking that reverse instruction seems to suggest, but like all claims, we need to consider counter arguments before jumping onto the bandwagon. So, is this a complete reversal or a judicious one? The other day after our last COETAIL session, I was sitting at my desk watching my ToK students work in groups wondering if I should've had them 'research' the text and do the 'online' activity at home instead of using class time to do the research. But within minutes of suggesting the students divide up the reading with their partners, and after they had a quick look at the link I provided on a philosopher's game involving the arts, I was convinced that I had done the right thing. There was a buzz in the room as students collaborated on what was art, and on which criteria could best be used to determine what art was. Although I could've set up some sort of forum or chat ahead on Panthernet and then spent the lesson discussing the content researched instead, this live F2F interaction at the initial stage of researching the content was what was so precious and vibrant. So, this was not reverse instruction—nor was it the standard Madeline Hunter lesson either. Yes, I did do an AS to start the lesson, and yes I did spend 5 mins. or so with 'input' but I bypassed modeling, checking for understanding and guided practice and went right to independent practice. At least it was experiential learning, so a constructivist would be satisfied. But, was it a good lesson? I have a sense that it was. (I certainly know when I bomb a lesson!) The only way to tell is to find out from the students if they moved away from 'what' and were able to get at the 'how' from that lesson.

It does seems that we all need to do a serious reassessment of where we stand with teaching, because if we don't, we may have 'reverse learning' instead of reverse instruction!

A Happy Follow-up

2010-10-12T05:11:00.000-07:00

I presented the Happiness Presentation I talked about in my previous posts to my two Theory of Knowledge (ToK) classes for the real test. Was it really 'zen'? They praised it!! Here are the highlights of the comments: the word 'simple' came up repeatedly. They loved the simplicity, especially contrasted to my usual density of information on one slide. One student said:

"I like the minimalist design... doesn't hit the eye with information bomb."

More positives included: "time to think & digest more deeply;" the use of 'real-life,' relevant, personal anecdotes/ examples" seemed to be the number one thing that students found "captivating." That they could connect to what I was presenting seemed to make all the difference:

"I could connect to real life."

Others liked the "flow," the "clarity," the "pace," and so many said they enjoyed the presentation. Before I let all of this go to my head, I have to give credit to the 'novelty' factor. I talk about 'novelty' as one of the types of happiness even! It is novel to see such a different type of presentation. But I know why they enjoyed the presentation. It was because I was in the moment. I was story-telling. I felt their connection. It flowed because I loved what I was talking about and they knew it—and I believe this is what made all the difference.

On the 'suggestions for improvement' side, a couple of students thought the font needed to be more professional-looking. One thought I needed to vary the color/ theme per slide. I agree with this and if given a need to revise it, and given the time, I'd look around at different backgrounds that match up with the concepts. One wanted more dynamism in the actual Keynote slides—could be s/he enjoys the transitions. Funny that one students thought the yellow-orange color was "too warm," but another in the same class thought "the color reminds me of happiness!" One person suggested putting a summary slide at the end that shows all the types of happiness on one slide. I think this is a good idea. I wouldn't have to have a cluttered slide like the original, but one showing the different types together, maybe without any other visuals.

So, they liked it—the bottom line—and the real test. If it passes the 'high-school student test,' then it definitely passes! I made it to (Presentation) Zen Pl.!

Course 3 Project Reflection

2010-10-10T01:01:00.000-07:00

It didn't take me long to determine where to go with my visual literacy understandings. My Theory of Knowledge (ToK) students and I are about to embark on a trip to ToK Examiner's Land. This is a distant location and requires serious considerations of what to pack—the critical supplies that will be needed to stand up to the Examiners when they meet the students. The Examiners in this cas will be meeting the students through via carefully-crafted essays. The Examiners will judge the students as worthy or not of passing into their land. Without the proper carry-ons and critical equipment, all could be lost at sea. Unpacking, analyzing supplies and creating a special designer bag are required.

We might consider climbing the mountain with the proper equipment. If we meet that challenge, we might set to go to the more distant Examiner's Land. We'll look closely at our supplies first to ensure that they pass inspection. We'll ensure success with proper rest, the right shoes to remain on track, a good GPS so we don't get lost, water to keep us hydrated, a support group just in case we get into trouble, and good communication with our authorities.

To get to the more literal understanding here, my Course 3 Project will allow me and my students to do this essay as prescribed by IB. Once I played with the packing/ climbing a mountain metaphor, I could quickly scribble down the corresponding graphics. I have this all on paper right now, and with the Course Project description, I was able to add the detail I'll need to design a set of graphics, pictures and flow charts to correspond to the metaphor. Actually, the IB examiners do use the packing metaphor for what they call 'unpacking' the Prescribed Titles (questions) the students have to undertake. I just extended it a bit further. Here's the set from this year—a quick overview of these will show how 'unpacking' is essential!

I foresee a chunk of time being needed to design the visuals for this undertaking, however, the argument that I have to take time to set up the unit anyway is a convincing one. Also, it is more fun in some ways... I may as well follow what science does say is an enhanced way to learn—by using visuals—and give it a try. And, the best way to evaluate the project, once again, will be to ask the students. But there will be another way to verify success this time—to see which students make it to Examiner's Land and back!

Metaphor, Visual Literacy & When to go digital

2010-10-09T07:18:00.000-07:00

Recently, we've studied the impact of metaphor in the Language unit in my Theory of Knowledge (ToK) class. I used to teach English 10 and remember the challenge of getting 10th graders to first, find a metaphor in a piece of writing (usually poetry) and then, the biggest challenge, to get them to understand its figurative meaning, which often was the key to theme. In ToK, we consider ambiguity as a means to getting the mind to a deeper point of understanding via making an unusual comparison. We consider how it can in fact enhance meaning and understanding, however, because of interpretation and possible problems with denotation and lack of background information, at the same time the use of metaphor can be problematic to meaning and understanding. I've noticed a great leap from the gr. 10 mind to the mind of a senior in high school who now can more readily grasp the deeper meaning and analyze how the process of metaphor actually works. (Ironically, the metaphor above was created by a 9th grade student. He compares the Buddhist cycle of birth and death to that of the water cycle! He includes a detailed explanation of each bit of the drawing and describes accurate comparisons between the two concepts.)

I asked my ToK students to show their understandings of the different metaphors up for discussion, in small groups, to come up with a visual that would reveal the meaning of the metaphors to others. I instructed them to draw something simple with few words, using only paper and pencil. We took up the following:

1) Metaphor for explaining & understanding
2) Metaphor for challenging orthdoxy
3) Metaphors in the IB Diploma Program: e.g. the Big Bang
4) Metaphor for conditioning thought and action

Have a look at the various renditions the students came up with. Can one visual be classified as a 'Digital Story' (assuming it's digital that is)? Consider 'Communications in the human body' (drawing below) under the 'Explaining & understanding' category. Nothing need more be presented about its meaning than the picture and the label to get the meaning, assuming one has had exposure to the concepts depicted in the drawing.

With the aide of a presenter, can the other examples like the 'The Great Leap Forward (in Chinese)' under 'IB metaphors' and 'The Selfish Gene' under 'Challenging orthodoxy' become 'zen presentations'? If I had known about: Punch, Personal, Unexpected, Novel and Challenging, I could have instructed them at the start to incorporate these concepts into the mini-presentations of their metaphor visuals to the class. When they did actually present the visuals, most wanted to come up to the front of the class and use the document camera to display their creations. Some had actually prepared a few written notes for support. In all cases, their was a 'flow' that was evident as they presented what they had created. And in all cases, we could understand the deeper meaning intended by their metaphor. But, can I count these as 'digital' if only the document camera is being used?

An amazing understanding was made in this study that the use of metaphor is pervasive and 'universal.' We naturally slip metaphor into everyday speech as well as the most formal spoken language or written documents. Consider Martin Luth er King's Speech: "I Have a Dream" as one of the greatest examples of extended metaphors that could move a whole nation into a new paradigm of governance. Here's a classic excerpt:

"In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men - yes, black men as well as white men - would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked 'insufficient funds.'"

What a way to affect the African-Americans and other supporters by comparing the action of the government to that of renigging on a money promise! Lots of possibilities here for both digital storytelling and presentation.

In researching for this post, I came across Educ ational Origami and followed the link to traditional and digital practice. What an amazing find! What educator could argue that it's too difficult to change a discussion style or presentation practice given this set of ideas? On the other hand, it's also daunting. Yes, we do spend time developing traditional-style lessons as it stands now and what's the difference if we switch to spending the time on digital? But 'balance' is the key concept here. At what point is the investment not worth the return. (Can't seem to escape from the use of metaphor myself...) And when/ how do students learn best? To use a now familiar metaphor (that I've used in a previous posts) on the pendulum swinging to the far left, i.e., Web 2.0 (the far right being standard traditional practices), I still argue that we have to remain balanced. It's not everything that has to change. Didn't our instructor, Jeff, say himself how he used paper and pencil in setting out the ideas initially for his Ted Talks presentation? That fact that he could have gone immediately into Keynote to plan out ideas there says a lot for the need to judge when traditional over digital might be the better call. And traditional may in fact work best all the way through to the end of the lesson or project. Although the metaphor designs my ToK students came up with were simple, simplicity here worked well with paper and paper only—through to the end. (Apart from using the digital camera to show the drawing to the class!)

So, I guess my argument here is the need to make a judgment call when lesson-planning. It could be that we also allow students to choose. I'm thinking about this very thing at the moment as the choice on how to deliver the ToK Oral Presentation for the Internal Assessment can be done traditionally or digitally. And, of course, there's always the balanced combination...

A Happy Presentation

2010-10-06T01:28:00.000-07:00

As a continuation from my previous blog, 'How to make complex, simple,' I decided to give it a real test and see what I could apple fromGarr Reynolds, Presentation Zen, book. I took one of my 'complex' slides from a lesson on 'Happiness' in my Emotion unit of the Theory of Knowledge (ToK) class. Above is the original slide I've been using for some time now. At a glance it appears a bit dense, but it has worked for me in the past by using a 'screen shade' on Smartboard, and going over each part of the concept one a time. Since Jeff Utecht, our COETAIL instructor, tasked us with doing either a 'zen presentation' or a 'digital story,' I took a look over my slides and when I came to the 'Happiness' slide, I knew this was the one to play with. For one thing, it's among my all-time favorite topics and for another, in essence, it really is a presentation to the class, rather than a lesson. Whenever I use the slide, it's not a matter of 'what do you think' kind of interaction with the students, it's more the 'stand and delivering' of information.

I thought that what might work to start off is Shakespeare's Bassanio from The Merchant of Venice, asking whether what he's about to do will bring him pleasure or happiness. I realize that sometimes I get too quickly into the explanation of the types of happiness, and that I forget about Bassanio. And he's what sets the stage really. So, he starts off.

From there, I could easily set out the two underlying assumptions: baseline levels of happiness appear to be genetic and that we all naturally seek to find happiness. Then for the types/ levels of happiness I selected to move from fleeting to enduring types. Daniel Goleman's Destructive Emotions and Paul Ekman's work on emotion were two important sources in the development of the chart. Jeff suggested the use of a meaningful-type transitions in Keynote as a way to show how the different levels deepen in sustainability and fulfillment, and I was able to find one among the array of novel transitions available.

I ended with the Chinese proverb that simply sums up the movement from fleeting to enduring types of happiness.

Apart from the transitions, and after reading over Presentation Zen, I grabbed onto 'simple' and 'story-telling' as two important concepts. Thus, the theme I chose was 'simple' and the colors matched the feeling of 'happiness'—muted hues of yellow. I made sure there were few words on each slide—the essence of the type. I wrote a few notes for each slide and even printed them out before 'presenting' to the COETAIL participants, but I realized later that I just needed to get into 'the flow' and tell a story about each concept. I knew the basics by heart, but could, in the moment, decide what the audience might respond to. Thus, I felt comfortable relaying a couple of relevant anecdotes, which I hope made the presentation more meaningful.

I'll be giving the presentation a real try next week in ToK. Then, I'll be telling my students this tale of moving from complex to simple, and will ask them to evaluate the 'zen' approach. In turn, given that they're about to embark on presenting themselves for their internal assessment, maybe we will have all learned something about visual literacy.

Happiness

View more presentations from Donna52.

http://bit.ly/dlExHP

How to make complex, simple

2010-10-01T06:28:00.000-07:00

"There are a lot of slides, may be too many. It’s sometimes difficult to keep up especially when they are complicated. I like visuals but there’s too much information sometimes."

"I would like simple diagrams or to make my own diagrams so it is my own understanding."

"The slides don’t help to reinforce my learning. They confuse me sometimes. We sometimes don’t have enough time to look at them and think about them. If they were more direct with only one or two points that would help me know what I need to know or supported by notes so I can write on them."

Yes, the words of my own students in response to the L4L question I had a colleague ask of them at a recent ToK classroom visit: "Do the slides I use in class help or hinder learning.?" Here's one of the slides I made that I rely on regularly—'Justified True Belief' or JTB. Here are two others I use periodically on the 'Three Types of Knowledge' and 'Inductivism.'

After looking these over with the 'zen' eye, and after perusing some of the ideas in Garr Reynolds, Presentation Zen, I wonder why I've not applied my lived-by motto of 'less is more' to these slides! Somehow, I have an easier time living 'less is more' outside of the workplace! Or, maybe I say it but I don't really live by it to the extent I thought I did! So, now's my chance to rectify this. I'm being called to the plate—by my students and by my COETAIL instructor, Jeff Utecht!

"Sometimes, we're presented with so much visual and auditory stimulation in such a short time that we end up understanding very little and remembering even less." (Reynolds, p, 110)

Now, this is a scary thought. To think that I actually love creating these slides. To think that I can spend 30 mins. to an hour on any one of these. To think that I go back to keep adding more. To think that I think I have to get every last bit of the concept on the slide. So, the idea that I could make 3-4 slides to the 1 slide is the breakthrough I see. I realize now, that although I'm not doing a 'stand & deliver' presentation, but rather an explanation of a concept in an IB class, there's still application to be made here. I can still fix the problem that my students are describing above. (Of course I did get some positive comments about my slides helping them, but it's those negative comments that speak much louder and get our attention. It worked here!)

Time to rethink how to approach JTB (as well as the others, but one at a time first). The first thing that stands out is to take each concept within the concept apart: 1) Justification(s); 2) True; 3) Belief. I've already made these distinctions, but all the one slide—I even use a screen shade to teach each bit at a time. I'll gear up next for a look at how to make these three parts more visually appealing and hopefully more understandable. It's already time-consuming to create the slides, so at least I won't have the time adjustment. It will instead be a new design concept. And, I do like the idea of running it by the students (or even asking them for help along the way this time...)

'COETAIL' Teaching?

2010-09-13T05:59:00.000-07:00

The first idea that comes to mind is a feeling of confidence that I might be able to pull off a genuinely successful lesson (or even a project) trying something completely new in
the Web 2.0 world. That I might be as comfortable with these technologies as the students are in their everyday world further validates this feeling.

Last semester, I actually tried out the Final Project I described for Course 1. When I first wrote it all down, I thought it was definitely too ambitious for me and that the return would not be worth the investment. But then after deciding to give it a go, I was pleasantly surprised to read the students' final reflections in the end. Here are Shin's, Jan's and Kaho's blog posts—their reflections on the Speak Project. We basically all stretched ourselves. Once I got started thinking about how teens could connect with others and communicate about teen depression, the Web 2.0 ideas came fast and furious. Every student had to comment on a professional blog. The kids who were able to get communications back from these professionals on teen depression were amazed. They felt a real sense of accomplishment, and so did I. Here's a look at the final presentation two students put together and posted to SlideShare. I liked feeling that after all these years of teaching—kind of a booster shot in the arm.

What seems to sustain for me (and at the moment for the students), are the blogs. When I asked my Theory of Knowledge, gr. 11s last semester about the use of the blogs, one girl wrote back something like: "It's our world." This really hit me. It's as if I had somehow breached a communication gap. Maybe I'm embellishing here, but I have to say, I'm still amazed today at the level of depth and critical analysis that can result in a blog post, even without it being graded. It's that 'publicness' that seems to make the difference. They're writing well despite our help.

So, I'm left wondering this year about the need to pursue formalized teaching of blog writing. The NETS-T we looked at during the last two courses help keep me on course. It's not just a matter of looking for something motivating to do in the classroom, but it's a matter of integrating these new-found interests into the curriculum so we can ensure that this new form of literacy—reading and writing with web links (blog reading and writing in particular)—is effective.

Under Standard 2: Design and develop digital-age learning experiences:

"a. design or adapt relevant learning experiences that incorporate digital tools and resources to promote student learning and creativity"

Here it seems to point to our responsibility to further analyze what blog writing entails and add it to the standard 'text typ es' as a tool to promote student learning. We've got much to add to the curriculum, when you start really applying NETS-T, but it's relatively easy when we have the Web 2.0 world to work with. Found these in the blink of an eye:

"How to write great blog content"

"How to write a blo g post"
"How to write a gr eat blog post in just 15 minutes"
"How to write effective blog posts"
and this looks like a read find: "Digital Writing, Digital Teaching"

Meanwhile, we can carry on with reading and writing on the Internet and use the experiences to help all of us know what to do. Saw this week's assignment from 'Visual Literacy and the Classroom' read that reminds us of our charge:

"... if students are to successfully meet the demands of new literacy, they must be able to navigate and communicate through evolving mediums..."

Web Power

2010-05-29T08:38:00.001-07:00

Where does the power of the Web lie? Are we preparing students for Web power?

I'd like to take up connectivism as it pertains to the writing process relative to these questions. After looking over a few readings prior to this post (Will Richardso n's post on 'Connective Writing' was a good source), after completing two COTAIL Projects—most recently on Fair Use Policy and Practice, and after having spent the last five weeks having my advanced English as an Additional Language (EAL) students complete a Web 2.0 research and blog writing project, I'm convinced that web/ blog writing, especially for the second language (L2) learner, is a distinct genre and one that requires some explicit instruction.

It's the idea of 'live' writing that Richardson refers to. It's not that writers can't stop in the middle of writing for fear the idea can't be saved, but it's more the concept that the 'great unknown' audience is out there and can be connected to within the time it takes to click onto a link. And that great unknown holds the writer accountable for meaningful ideas to be shared and for meaningful ideas to be conveyed clearly. Richardson goes on to ask:

Are their certain skills or nuances around “flowwriting” for live audiences that we need to teach and nurture? Certain “rules” or norms for use?

So, I like this 'flowwriting.' It reminds me of 'stream of consciousness' writing that any high school student learns about in high school English literature (one prime example being the Holden character in Catcher in the Rye, by J. D. Salinger). But is flowwriting capturing that 'interior monologue of thought and feeling' in the same way? Or is there an inherent process going on inside the mind as the writer writes. As I metacognize writing this post, I do feel a sense of exposing my interior monologue, but maybe it's the level of coherence that differs. In the stream of consciousness, you can let your style wander and not worry too much about coherence or even whether the reader can follow along, but here, I am concerned with the reader following my line of thinking. But in either case, whether you expect a writer to use stream of consciousness as a particular style say in a pastiche, or you expect the writer to produce a blog in class, both require identification of text type (this 'Basic Text Types' has been adapted for use in the K-12 EAL department put together), appropriate vocabulary, verb tense, sentence structure and other language features.

Let's have a closer look at the text types here and see where blog writing might fit.

Is it more 'Diary/ reflection'?How about 'Exposition'?'Discussion'?'Persuasion'?
More 'Multiple texts'?

The 'multiple texts' text type is a safe guess at this point, but a more extensive analysis is required (and beyond the scope of this post and beyond the descriptions in these charts). But I am inclined to have a closer look at what constitutes the text type of blog writing and to make this explicit to my L2 students. And, as it goes without saying, most often, these explicit descriptions work well for all students to work with. Given that students are blogging in the elementary school, are assumptions made that students automatically know how to write a blog? And, in the high school, wouldn't it be to everyone's advantage to prepare students to write their blogs well as they enter college and the workplace where blog writing abounds?

Recently, I asked for student feedback in my Theory of Knowledge (ToK) class (#14) regarding the value of their blog posts for understanding the knowledge issues we've studied. One student responded that of course it's of value:

It's preparation for my world of writing and communication.

Then when I sat to write this post, I made the connection (connectivism?) that there's a bigger picture here. One that points to the 'ole 'scope and sequence' in curriculum writing, whereby we collaborate between schools and determine what needs to be taught where so that we are preparing students for the type of communicating they are doing and will be doing (unless blog writing is a mere fad). In 'Kids Don't Try This at Home...' by Jennifer Brown Banks, Franky Branckaute, one commenter, has an interesting idea:

Not every ‘writer’ is a great ‘blogger’ and not every ‘blogger’ is a great author.

But every blogger has the potential to be a great author. And in reading through the rest of the comments, I agree that the distinction seems more to be between being great at something vs. just being able to do something, as well as recognizing the distinction between formal and informal blog writing.

So, given our ISB standards, we choose the 'great' standard for most everything, which supports the argument for incorporating blog writing into language arts/ language curriculum somewhere and making its text type explicit so we can work to assess it.

And in asking where the power of the Web lies? I'd say it lies at the heart of our ability to effectively communicate in writing.

Whose responsibility is it to teach students to be safe online?

2010-05-15T23:51:00.001-07:00

Well, this Q obviously seems to point to 2 main constituents: parents & educators. In terms of educators, without the backing of a more powerful force, like a government, educators may fall short of being able to enforce whatever policies are set out in schools (even interna-
tional schools). It seems like 'teaching students to be safe online' also involves a set of policies that would drive the curriculum. In the States, this may be a little easier given the laws being written probably even as I write this blog post. I found these US cyber bullying state laws and policies that seem to be the result of the barn door being closed after the horse has left.

But, maybe that's how these laws and policies have to be manifested. I also found this law in Th ailand that will require user tracking in Internet cafes. Although a double-edged sword hinting at violation of freedom at the expense of security, this seems to be the crux of the solution, if we are in agreement with the underlying assumption that local and government laws are fundamental to policies for educational institutions.

My husband and I recently had dinner with a friend from the States who plans to pursue a degree in Internet Law. Being a digital native he's fascinated by the unseen growing demand to figure out jurisprudence for the new web world we're in. He believes he'll be entering an ultra-dynamic world whereby laws will be written, revised and rewritten according to the new crimes that manifest with the new online developments, like cyberbullying issue that Facebook is currently grappling with.

And, we members of society, are found to be in agreement with another fundamental in ethics as part of the Ethical Domains I described in my previous post: that of not harming others (Domain 1). To further the point, 'the harming of innocents' is even worse. So, as various stories unravel, we learn of victims (especially young ones) of 'crimes' like cyberbullying, like the Palo Alto student who was victim of a hate group. Or, rather I would say members of society are in agreement with not harming others, again, until it crosses the line of freedom of speech (which BTW is under 'fairness/ rights' in Domain 2). Interesting article in the Tech Herald about Facebook's attempt to appease those in an uproar over the hate group incident, yet others who fear their freedom of speech is further eroding. It's a battle over these two fundamental values, and according to the J. Haidt research, it's more of a battle among liberals who tend to hold these domains as more important than conservatives. Try taking the 'Moral Foundations Questionnaire' at YourMorals.org to see how you fair with these two domains.

Despite the counterclaims out there about our freedom being further jeopardized by yet another law or policy, it seems to me that it's more a matter of getting the new law/policy in and the old ones out, rather than just adding new ones. I'm hoping that more young people entering Internet Law like our dinner friend will be able to keep pace with the needs as they arise, and maybe be able to find that balance between freedom and security. Then, maybe we educators can also find the proper balance.

Do we as a global society need to rethink copyright laws? What's our role as educators in copyright usage in schools?

2010-05-07T07:23:00.001-07:00

Do we as a global society need to rethink copyright laws? What's our role as educators in copyright usage in schools?

I'd say my initial response to the first essential question here is a no-brainer. Given that we already have so many dilemmas from 'owners' and consumers using digital technologies, we can't remain complacent and accept the 'laws' that are out there. The two examples of young people being exploited by web-posted photos: Allison Stokke, high school athlete and 'virgin', Allison Chang illustrate the problem. What's funny about these laws is that they seem antiquated. In the Ted Talks VDO on 'How creativity is being strangled by the law,' Larry Lessig eloquently points out that we're not using our collective 'common sense' when it comes to what's 'right and wrong' with copyright laws given the changing times. Are people, especially young people, the 'read-write culture' just wanting to express their creativity out of a love of what they're doing as an objective, rather than seeking commercial gain? I love the Bush & Blaire remix in Lessig's talk!
How can democratic societies guarantee freedom at the same time guaranteeing security and fairness in the Web 2.0 world? It seems as if we're moving in the right direction with the creative commons licensing, whereby informed people make informed choices before making the final click on an upload.

I'm reminded here of the 5 Ethical Domains described by Jonathan Haidt, Moral Psychologist at the University of Virginia in his book: The H appin ess Hypoth esis, whereby he sets out 5 universal ethical domains that seemed to be shared by humans across cultures. I made the diagram seen on this post for my Theory of Knowledge class based on these domains, since we grapple with ethical questions tied to various facets of life. 'Fairness' fits the second domain and respect for authority fits the fourth domain. Given that Haidt's research suggests that fairness is a fundamental value held by all (although political liberals hold fairness as more dear than respect for authority) and given that typically adolescents challenge the authority domain, this digital clash becomes more understandable. The youth want to rebel no matter what, and given the restrictions held by copyright laws, there's lots to get their teeth into. All seek fairness. Who would ever argue against the premise that fairness is an important value? Liberals tend to lead revolutions, so maybe the more liberal-minded will help bridge this generation gap before we educators lose more connections with young people.

And, as far as our role as educators?
We need to look for ways to embrace the younger generation, rather than widen the generation gap. There's a new definition of literacy or an extension of the literacy we've been used to, i.e. digital literacy, that we have to acknowledge. As Lessig says:

It's how our kids understand access to this culture... how they think--what they are & their relationship to themselves

So, it's that delicate balance and our responsibility as educators to achieve it with today's students. We want to avoid the 'growing extremism' that is resulting from the 'extremism' on copyright laws that lawyers must love getting their teeth into. Does the 'private solution' that Lessig talks about involve us? It does to the extent that even at a school level, we can make agreements among our inhouse experts as to acceptable use (specifically the Acceptable Use Policy like the High School one recently developed). I'd say we do still need to ensure that its' a 'practical set of guidelines' and if we need to revise it along the way to ensure that it is, that we consider it a dynamic policy, rather than a set one.

I'm a firm believer of teaching critical thinking skills and the use of reason as a fundamental key to whatever other policy or manual or set of dictates we come up with. In the end, kids have to make their own decisions. And if they believe that we truly want them to, they'll rise to the occasion. Gone are the days where we have the exclusive right to be teachers. We're all teachers in this day and age in the classroom and if we as teachers don't already know that, our students do!

When and where should we be teaching students about their digital footprint?

2010-04-30T19:01:00.000-07:00

Through Will Richardson's 'Rethinking how students learn' recent blog post, I found the new book: 21st Century Skills, Bellanca & Brandt (eds.) and perused bits of the book. It seems to me that as Web 2.0 technologies become more integrated into our everyday lives and thus make their way into our classroom, we'll be able to answer the Q of when & where to teach students about their digital footprint. The digital map we looked at in class the other day was informative in the sense that I viewed myself as being 'innocent' and protected and essentially being free of the 'digital footprint.' Then I found I actually had one from a short blog I started last year. It appears that the authors of 2st Century Skills are going to lead us into reform as we educators come to understand that we have to go there. Here are some considerations from the 'Preface': '... determining how these new demands fit in relation to existing curriculum [and]... finding ways they can be taught along with content, and then managing the complex process of implementation.'

So it appears as if we've come full circle. I remember 10 years ago, education was headed toward 'integration.' Here at ISB, the tech coordinator of the time spent all of his time designing an integrated curriculum, had us on teams to provide input and presented it to the core content-area teachers—a lengthy, complex set of outcomes and aims connected to those of the content-areas. There was even a scope & sequence to go with it. We (I was teaching English 10 at the time) attempted to do it all: In English we were charged with ensuring students had word processing basics and how to properly do a Works Cited page. We were given these bits because the grade 10s had to do a major research project and it seemed like a no-brainer to integrate them into the English department. But, over time, things changed. The tech coordinator moved on and his initiative went south after he left. We managed to get by by then assuming that the HS students somehow had the necessary technology knowledge and skills. This assumption was faulty as inevitably we'd get a certain number of students in our classes who didn't have this skill or that, or know this or that, and then we had to figure out how to bring him/her up to speed. Most often, I would just call upon any of my 'techies' in any one class to do that for me whenever the time allowed—messy, but it worked.

Now, it seems like this curriculum integration might be on its way back. Maybe at the time, the fruit wasn't quite ripe enough to fall off the tree. Maybe now the fruit has ripened and we'll be collectively ready to accept integration and share what needs to be shared. We have the tech teams here we need to work up a new plan. We teachers are coming to realize change is afoot. The students are already there as digital natives. Given Web 2.0, there's collaboration available to figure out what goes where. I'd say we can figure out when and where (& how) to teach students about their digital footprint along with everything else. And, what's also suggested in 21 Century Skills is that teachers be learners & learners be teachers. So we have a lot to draw upon.

Is there such a thing as privacy online?

2010-04-24T22:15:00.000-07:00

As an educator, I know I need to take this Q to heart, but as a 'digital immigrant' and someone who believes I can remain anonymous online--the fallacy--it's not going to happen to me comes into play. I didn't find any 'digital footprint' when I searched for myself on google or even on the Technorati site we were asked to try in the last F2F class. But in telling my husband about the search for my hidden identity, he suggested trying the search engine Bing. Couldn't believe it what I saw it--but there I was with an entry I made back in 1994 in an old TESL forum I used to be active on: Responding to ESL. I had completely forgotten about my participation in that forum, which now that I recall, I was particularly active on. The other I found, beside the predictable Facebook one (whose link I'm not including here b/c there's no reason to go there) was more of a brief 'claim to fame' (and a plug here for the read) as it's a blurb that's out of the Educating for Global Citizenship book by Boyd Roberts, IBO Projects Director, in which I was published: 'Students as Facilitators of Discussions.'

So, I guess I'm convinced that I, along with anyone else online, am 'out there.' Not that I have anything to fear, but is fear the question here? Yes, and no. We democratic citizens of nations and of the of the world believe that we're also entitled to privacy as an inherent right. One link I found on this week's reading: 'Beware the Internet could own your future' was 'The future of privacy and the web,' which points out the growing concerns among academics of the blur between public and private, given the current Internet usage. But then there's the other side of the coin that considers that times they are a-changin' and that we're on the brink of a paradigm shift regarding public v. private. I found another link on Facebook's: Mark Zuckerberg's move to make Facebook content public, despite his previous assurances of privacy on the site: 'Facebook's Zuckerberg Says...' Interesting read as the posters at the end of the article were grappling with whether even George Orwell is right in that the powers that be are in control and attempting to exploit (this found on Ho Nam's post):

"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment… It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug into your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live – did live, from habit that became instinct – in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and except in darkness, every movement scrutinized (Orwell, 1984, 6-7)"

Or whether we are in fact heading into a new paradigm whereby we are just ready for a new definition of privacy. Here's Nam's Q: "Powerful companies such as Facebook and Google can be agents of change. Will they use their power to continue to increase power (and profit) or to serve their users and strive toward a better society?"

It seems to me that we're (we Internet users) are in the process of creating the new paradigm even as I write another post to this blog with all of these links I've added. Will Ho Name find his name on my blog? Would he care, or might he feel honored that I've quoted his very words here for others to read? Or, might he feel some sort of 'violation' to his privacy. (Hard to imagine the latter, given that he did post his link as well...)

It also seems to me that we have to take the 'good' with the 'bad' here. Another poster's comments by Mona Namura on the same site reminds us as educators of the need to employ our critical thinking in regards to this issue. And, which in turn, reminds us to bring to our students' attention, the same thing. So, we come around full circle to the need to begin educating our students at the youngest age possible of the implications of their actions on the Internet. I don't claim to know how to do this with young students, but I know others out there are already doing it (things are moving in place at our school as I write this... #4 of the NETS applies here:

4. Promote and Model Digital Citizenship and Responsibility
Teachers understand local and global societal issues and responsibilities in an evolving digital culture and exhibit legal and ethical behavior in their professional practices. Teachers:
a. advocate, model, and teach safe, legal, and ethical use of digital information and technology, including respect for copyright, intellectual property, and the appropriate documentation of sources
b. address the diverse needs of all learners by using learner-centered strategies and providing equitable access to appropriate digital tools and resources
c. promote and model digital etiquette and responsible social interactions related to the use of technology and information
d. develop and model cultural understanding and global awareness by engaging with colleagues and students of other cultures digital-age communication and collaboration tools

So that last post by Normura disparaging education and favoring the solution to promote critical thinking on the Internet is hopefully not true if we (and other schools) begin making these aims practical. I'm sure we'll learn more about how to do this in Course 2!

Final Project Reflection

2010-03-20T23:59:00.001-07:00

Setting up learning projects is like taking multiple diversions off the main path of a long hike up to a high mountain. At each signpost, you're compelled to stop and proceed down another (sometimes more challenging) path, then back to the main path. At any particular juncture, you might come across a captivating scene, which leads to further diversion. You might stop to take a photo, to better remember the scene. You might hear exotic birds or see strange plants or insects—and again another preoccupation ensues. You finally pull yourself away from the sight and make it back onto the main path. Along the way, and usually at a time when you find yourself scrambling up a slippery slope, you might come F2F with a fascinating person that you have to stop and talk to. Time slips away and the sky darkens, but you're not where you're supposed to be yet. You hurry along—only to find yet another signpost—a critical one as you're told to expect during the expedition. You proceed along one last side path—you recognize the value of this stop—you wouldn't feel fulfilled without having had this experience. You hurry back. You see the top as it starts to rain. You're tired, but driven to finish. You lift your foot up onto the final boulder ahead. The sky clears. The horizon offers the most spectacular view you have yet to see. Satisfaction ensues...

I might have got carried away with the trek analogy, but I do feel a need to divert and capture all the details to ensure that the project might work. I have learned that no matter the amount of planning and thinking that might go into a project, you have to be willing to abandon something, modify something, add something. You have have the students with you at every step and listen to their voices—their suggestions, their criticisms. You have to be willing to take risks, if you expect the students to. When working with English Language Learners (ELLs), you're tasked with two sets of outcomes: one the content, and two, the language. Have a look at the K-12 ESL Standards we've set out for ourselves as K-12 ESL teachers! How one captures the most salient outcomes for any particular task and really be able to measure growth is certainly one of the diversions to follow that hopefully leads to somewhere—i.e., the development of the second language (L2) proficiency. How to manipulate the tasks and the content within them to be authentic and meaningful is fundamental to any project? To ensure that students remain motivated and can employ learning strategies so that they forget that L2 learning is difficult as the 'adult' learners they are in high school? This hopefully happens when students are using technologies that have become commonplace to them and in which they feel comfortable already. It's amazing that now kids can talk with real experts via social networking and the myriad sites out there that would allow young people into a professional domain.

Presentation can also take on a new meaning. Presentations can be made public and posted on sites for others to peruse—like that of VoiceThread. This public product requires excellence be sought. Pride is associated with the product as it is public. Motivation again plays a role, and motivation is the key to good L2 success for ELLs.

Apart from all of this, all of the good things we educators want are at play in an online project such as this: the 'Six Facets of Understanding' that Wiggins and McTighe set out in Understanding by Design takes on with an applied meaning. Who could argue with 'self-knowledge,' certainly the highest of all learning and understanding. Let's hope that this Speak Project does offer students what it aims to do in terms of attaining a deeper understanding of collaboration and action, that ELLs are further developing their language discourse and proficiency, and let's further hope that this long trek up this mountain ends up with the same clear sky and fantastic views hoped for. But, if their are setbacks, falls along the way, the risk-taking has a value of its own, and I'm usually willing to go for it regardless.

Edutopia?

2010-03-12T21:24:00.000-08:00

I love language. This is a perfect word that describes what techies believe and describe as that perfect world where we as educators can finally learn to connect with our students and keep them endlessly motivated to learn. First off, I'd like to say that we have to remember that we're still human, no matter how far we go with technology and that the nature of being human is to be motivated to learn. So, fundamentally, we have the capability, and that no matter what seems to be apparent boredom in our classrooms, the desire to learn is still there. What we teachers seem be doing and what we're afraid might become more of an SOP is that students will become even less enchanted than they sometimes are in the classroom if we stay frozen in the 'Doing old things in old ways' or even 'Doing old things in new ways,' and instead the claims are that we need to move to 'Doing new things in new ways,' as described in 'Shaping Tech in the Classroom,' by Marc Prensky. I do agree with Prensky when he brings to mind the difficulty with teachers adapting to change—we 'digital immigrants,' but to consider a counterpoint, the younger educators—'the digital natives' are bringing the immigrants along. This process has consistently happened in the past and is safe to generalize to the future regarding technology reform.

We're listening to Dean Shareski, from Saskatchewan, Canada. He believes we (the ones in this type of course) are the ones who are making the change. I agree, but young people do have the drive and energy by nature, so let's consider that it's not just us, but it's us and them together. It's more like the critical mass factor—if we collectively believe we need a reform to match up with the new paradigm we seem to entering—more like beyond Web 2.0.

Implications are huge for all educators. How does all of this look and play out in the daily lesson? We seem to be heading to 1-1 starting in grade 6 here at ISB as Jeff has explained in his 'Next Phase...' post. But after looking at a more seamless integration of the digital world with our own physiologies—'Gesture-based Computing (2-3 years down the road) as described in the 2010 Horizon Report, are we sure we're heading in the right direction with purchasing more hardware? Are we sure we want to work on integrating what the kids claim they want: emailing and instant messaging 24-7? Are we swinging the pendulum too far to the left to try and keep up with it all--or where are we on the pendulum swing? At what point or is there a point where we can reach and balance and achieve 'edutopia'? It seems like educators today just need to be willing to take major tech leaps and have the kids go along with us. And as the 'Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project' concludes, we're the need seems to be to move away from the adult as the authority (which is fine with me) to: "The most successful examples we have seen of youth media programs are those based on kids’ own passionate interests and allowing plenty of unstructured time for kids to tinker and explore without being dominated by direct instruction." So are we prepared to move to this new education paradigm with aims of preparing students for the world beyond the work world? I definitely have more questions than answers here!

Project Sketch

2010-03-06T00:16:00.000-08:00

My ESL students (Gr. 9-11 'advanced' proficiency level) are reading Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson. We've just started reading, but I see possibilities for setting up a PLN as described in this week's reading in Chap. 4 of 'Reinventing Project-Based Learning.' The focus of the story is the need for kids who experience trauma to be able to speak out and express themselves to someone they can trust. My students, who represent quite a variety of different cultural backgrounds, could use their blogs to first explore who they might trust (as this value varies from culture to culture) and who to go to for their own problems/issues—both within their own families, among their friends—f2f or online from their social networks, before branching out to other professionals at school or within the community. (Have a look at my ESL classes that have just set up their blogs. The 'What if?' post sets up for the reader the what the main character, Melinda, goes through in her experience.)

At the next level of involvement, would be a f2f meeting with their counselors (this could be set up in groups according to the counselor who is assigned to a particular part of the alphabet in the high school), to interview and get ideas on how young people can communicate about a trauma in their own lives (or that of a friend's), what community members are available in or outside the school. They'd be required to ask their counselors to send them a list contacts via email.

Next would be communicating with a professional in the community—asking for advice/ information on how to best deal with emotional trauma/problems, information on when to go outside their immediate comfort zone to ask for help as well as where to find professionals of different languages to communicate with. In class, we'd practice the text type for this type of writing and post these first on the blog for practice—they'd have a look as to what others are writing and I could look them over and give feedback before officially posting. Next, once communications start coming in, we'd gather the data and set up a database on google.docs, whereby the data could be entered as it comes in—a dynamic database—and one which might actually be used by the students who may be looking for contacts themselves.

For presentation of the data, in groups, using the data collected students could present a 'How to Manage Issues/Problems,' or we could generate some other possible topics, given the type of data that we have to work with. These presentations could be set up on Voicethread. ESLs do need practice and opportunity for rehearsal of their voices and Voicethread has worked well for this in the past. We also set up an ESL Ning last year, so another possibility is to reactivate the Ning and post all the work and presentations there.

This whole process isn't necessarily 'geeking out' whereby there's 'peer-based reciprocity,' rather it's more the 'qualities' discussed in Chap. 4 that include: constructing meaning, realistic, crossing disciplines, inquiring from experts, structuring learning so students learn from one another, reaching out to others and it would especially involve 'risk-taking' as ESLs are still grappling with both spoken and written proficiency. And, an added bonus for me is that I'm learning about the community (and how to better manage all of this) along with the students.

One last follow-up would be to invite Laurie Anderson, Speak author, to the Ning, with the possibility of further recognition for their efforts, if she were to 'publish' any of their presentations on her website.

I see this project involving a minimum of 15 classes. Rubrics would be used to evaluate each part of the project, including the writings and presentations. Past rubrics for online work could be revised and used as needed.

Regarding the NETS-T standards, this project addresses the following two standards specifically:
1. Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity: (b.) engage students in exploring real-world issues and solving authentic problems using digital tools and resources, and
3. Model Digital-Age Work and Learning: (b.) collaborate with students, peers, parents, and community members using digital tools and resources to support student success and innovation.

My thoughts (changing)?

2010-02-27T06:59:00.000-08:00

What has struck me as most interesting among the various readings we've encountered has been the theory of 'connectivism.' (I know if a red line appears under a word in a spell check where the word IS spelled correctly, that we've now added a new word to the language. We'll see if it's here to stay...) In, 'A Learning Theory for the Digital Age,' December 12, 2004, by George Siemens, preceding the argument that the new theory (and paradigm?) of connectivism, were the learning theories put forth by behaviorists, cognitivists and construtionists. A convincing set of explanations (including chaos theory and even the butterfly effect) and examples then followed that support why we as educators need to now ensure that our students (and ourselves as well) are exposed to situations whereby we can recognize the patterns that exist 'out there'—that knowledge does not reside solely in that internal realm as believed by constructivists and that we need to rely on others' knowledge as well as knowledge that resides in organizations and non-human entities. (But what of 'belief' being a necessary part of knowledge?) I'm willing to go with this for the sake of being open-minded, but given that my job is to teach students to be 'healthy skeptics,' I need to practice what I preach. Yes, it makes sense to recognize patterns to develop understanding (but as I read this, understanding is not as necessary as the gathering of knowledge from as many places as possible.) But let's acknowledge at this point that we do not have machines that have awareness and can believe, at least not yet as we know, and that given we're not machines, if we talk of 'knowledge' many would argue that knowledge does require an ability to believe as part of its core definition. 'Can a Machine Know?' by ISB alumnus, Paul Heath, has more to say on this.

So, yes, working with Web 2.0 technologies as evidenced in the examples from 'hanging out' to 'messing around' does support learning via connectivism. What bothers me is that we're led to believe that we have finally arrived at the 'truth' behind learning. Here's an underlying assumption stated in the article: "Realizing that complete knowledge cannot exist in the mind of one person requires a different approach to creating an overview of the situation." But have we come to 'realize' this? Have we arrived at understanding the human potential to be able to make this bold claim and then act on it? Is it possible that since young people are so caught up with messing around and to some who transcend and find their careers via messing around that we're convinced that this is it? That we've finally arrived at how knowledge is attained by humans? I'd say we need to temper our passions a bit and realize that we're dealing with human science studies and that generalizations made from these are highly tentative at best. Perhaps we are on the verge of a new learning paradigm. Perhaps we are finally able to step outside our existing learning paradigms and gain perspective and understanding about learning, especially given our new understandings in the realm of quantum mechanics and neuroscience, but as with all such paradigm shifts, we have to realize that it's not a matter of abandoning existing theories, it's a matter of transcending and including learning theories. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Let's acknowledge that the hallmark of science is that nothing is 'proven' and that current understandings only lead to newer understandings. There are still some valid approaches to learning that have proven themselves worthy. (And the 'celebration' of 2nd-hand knowledge—knowledge by authority) has been around since Plato!) Not everyone will move from messing around to geeking out. And, we do have to consider that there's still a majority of underprivileged young people who do not have access to the luxuries required to even 'hang out.'

On a less philosophical note, I always liked Bloom's Taxonomy in the past and the new version with the tech skills assigned is especially interesting. (Although I wonder why 'synthesis' has been 'synthesized'/ eliminated!) ('Bloom's Taxonomy Blooms Digitally') I have my students blogging right now about their recent exposure to new concepts we've been discussing in class, and I admit that they're both evaluating & creating as they go along (and synthesizing). I'd like to think that the time they spend blogging encompasses the higher order thinking skills we're after. (It feels that way as I write this blog as well!) So I'm glad to see 'Tech & Learning' values the new taxonomy and validates the hours we spend setting up and writing these as worthwhile thinking (and learning). So, yes I am acknowledging that learning is taking place via a form of 'connectivism'—after all I did say I was open-minded. And, I've always been one to look for something new to bring to learning.

What I hope to get out of the course

2010-02-19T21:37:00.000-08:00

I'd like to be able to become more 'fluent' with the 'Web 2.0' technologies out there that both fit 'my style' as well as my needs. And, I am qualifying this somewhat b/c given everything that's 'out there,' I have to be able to manage what works or what I can imagine might work for me in my situation later on. And, I am willing to take risks, because often with the first exposure in this environment, it's just me playing around with something without an audience. The challenge comes in when you finally decide to try whatever it is out in the classroom. Then a disclaimer at the start of class is in order just in case all fails... (Here's one I came across today, however, that's got instant application: tag galaxy. Fun, quick, useful!)

Otherwise, although it sounds cliche, I'd like to be able to use the technologies to keep students motivated to learn. From the readings this week, it's apparent that we have to do something to keep up with how quickly young people nowadays can process multiple bits of information. Actually, we teachers have become pretty good at it, too. But the implications for delivering content is what I'd be keen to look more into. I can tell when students are intrigued by new content—something they've not contemplated or come across before, but we're no longer the only trusted authority for knowledge. So I'd like to be able to manage the other 'authorities.' I'd like to be able to keep my f2f with my students no matter what, but use the technologies judiciously to enhance the interactions. So far I've played around with forums/ blogs/ wikis, etc. but learning how to use which one when is what I'd like to become more comfortable with. How can be build these new uses into the curriculum so that they are mainstays? Blogging, for example. Is this here to stay and if so, what are the implications for teaching writing?

I'd like to have us explore ways to have students be involved with selecting technologies that they feel would support their learning. What about the use of cell phones in the classroom, for example? Since we don't have 1-1 computer use yet, what are other ways to effectively engage kids without computers necessarily—using their prized possessions?

One last thing comes to mind, here—time. The learning curve is great for some of these, I've learned. Time management ideas, like RSS, are what I'd be interested in learning more about. I'm certain hearing from others how they go about managing all the demands will be helpful. And, managing time for students also applies...

What I hope to get out of this course? How to handle the future of learning!

TESOL Web 2 Intro

2009-03-24T12:01:00.000-07:00

Hi—I’m Donna from Nonthaburi, Thailand, HS teacher (ToK & ESL) at Inter’l School Bangkok. I’m in my 19th year there already! Came to this workshop today to hone in some of my newly-found skills on Web 2.0. In fact, presenting a demo on Thursday on using a Ning for HS ELL students.

Web 2.0 seems to be a generic term for new capabilities on the web, like social networking—Facebook, Ning, Wiki and interactive programs like Second Life. New options for word processing documents like sharing on Google Docs, RSS feeds whereby you select to create nd participate in various blogs, etc., using camera, storing/ using photos, VDO in new ways.

Advantages: new angles at old ideas—like developing reading/ writing skills for students. Better/ faster communications, both social and academic.

Disadvantages: One big one is time. Time seems to disappear when in front of the box. You’re engaged, but sometimes at the expense of f2f interactions with real people!

Qs—how to be an efficient user. Shortcuts to take to accomplish things.

This course; PLNs; Clarence et al

2009-01-30T19:30:00.000-08:00

Your thoughts on Personal Learning Networks
Finding information online: How do we address truth and bias in the classroom?

What I hope to get out of this course:
I need to be pushed into implementing 'connectivity' where I think it's going to fit best. And, part of this is determining when, where and what I want to implement. So, what I hope to find out is the 'when,' 'where' and 'what.' I'm never keen being a beginner at something, so the other goal is becoming 'fluent' to some extent with some of the basics like blogs, wikis and RSS feeds.

PLNs+ Clarence
I see a huge pendulum swing happening here. We educators by nature endlessly seek the 'best yet' approach for SL (student learning). Now we're coming to understand the extent to which young people interact in the virtual world, beyond game playing and other self-interest activities online (although, philosophically, everything we do is out of self-interest). It's intuitive that those fluent with IT tools within PLNs can find anything they want on the Internet, they just have to have some kind guide (maybe the teacher!) to give them a few guideposts along the way, e.g. iGoogle, Delicious, so they can expedite the process. We're the ones who seem to be charged with finding these tools and of course figuring out how to use them ourselves first. But once we 'give it to 'em' then they (HS students that is) are generally willing to take the necessary risks. Some personalities are more reticent, but given their peers' (which we don't want to refer to as 'peer pressure') interest, they do become involved.

Clarence is willing to take the risks to get himself & his students fluent. Of course, we know we have to be willing to do this, too. To let things be messy and be willing to make mistakes, or not to have things go according to plan. I do not subscribe to the 'student centered' approach, however. A couple of years ago, a friend recommended a book entitled: The Courage to Teach by Parker Palmer. There Parker describes the 'subject-centered' approach, whereby all are involved in the learning once the subjec to explore is put center stage. By virtue of doing this, we collectively interact with the subject as well as with one another involved. I have adopted this approach in my teaching and have discovered a way to give up the control I was used to. I was willing to admit that we're all 'researchers' here and that we all have to listen to one another in order to get to the 'truth.'

Thanks, Clarence, for the wealth of info/ links you shared in your talk!

Back to 'truth' and 'bias.' It's interesting that all of the readings we've had for the course so far have been biased toward undertaking PLNs for the sake of not losing students to boredom or leaving them behind in this age of info if we maintain a strictly traditional approach with textbooks and stand and deliver. Connotative words like 'enrage' suggest that an an emotional level, some of our students might be seething when they want into such traditional classrooms. Back to the pendulum swing here. Let's not go overboard and throw out the baby with the bathwater. I happen to like hard copies and books for certain purposes, despite environmental issues. Sorry, Kerry. I happen to like talking to students f2f in my class and having them do the same. We are lucky to be in this international setting and have students that are very gloabally aware, little ethnocentrism is evident. We can use these resources. I want to keep these as long as I'm a teacher.

Having said this, I do value what can be done on PLNs. I've already worked with colleagues (Andrew Cohen and Karen Rosenbaum) to successfully implement a Ning for our ESL classes last semester. We witnessed the increased motivation, excitement and risk-taking that accompanies this type of PLN, and of course the important by-product we were after was improved proficiency in speaking and writing. Given that the assignments we posted were leveled and comprehensible, the amount of input they were exposed to and that they wanted to do automatically increased their proficiency, accoring to research in the field. But the limitations have to be acknowledged: problems with the network, difficulties with getting elaboration in speaking (again the need for f2f) and those personalities that just didn't like it.

So, back to 'truth' and 'bias.' Exposure to mulitple sources seems to be the only way to break this down. That and having people develop their critical thinking abilities to scutinize everything they're exposed to. We can teach these skills, and we can encourage students AND ourselves to move outside the 'bubble' of confirmation bias that we naturally find ourselves. Somehow we need to assure ourselves that we must be right about our own beliefs.

I'm using something called the 3s Guide to Evaluating Knowledge Claims and will attach it. I'm using it right now, but I love the bit where students have to ask themselves about their own beliefs, biases and attitudes regarding the topic—this is the self-referral I'm after that I believe will develop the critical thinking they will continue to need in this rapidly changing word.

First blog made

2009-01-23T23:01:00.000-08:00

Never started a blog before, so just playing around here...