Teaching Students Online Ethics

My old district here in Washington has the same mentality as the middle age Catholic Church . . . block any thing or idea that they do not understand. This means that Wifi is too much of a security threat and that at least 50% of the known websites are blocked. Students and parents do have to fill out an Acceptable Use Policy like the one described by Armstrong (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011). I actually even know several students who have lost privileges for playing online games that I would deem relatively harmless. The year I started teaching there, they finally relaxed the restrictions for teachers, opening up YouTube and similar sites. Last year they even gave educators access to Facebook and other social networking sites, which I believe is a step in the right direction.

As far as plagiarism goes, there is a school policy related to students copying assignments and turning them in as their own work. The copy center requires you to check a box stating you have permission to use whatever you are copying, but it just becomes second nature to check the box without thinking about it. Along those lines, it has been interesting looking through the ethical issues described by Ribble (2008) and others in this week’s resources. It is a good gut check for me as a teacher as I have often prided myself at my ability to “adapt” (aka copy and rework) worksheets and projects I find online. I am also one who could easily have a hundred uncited pictures in a PowerPoint. Armstrong (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) points out how important it is for us to model ethical use of online information, something I will consider next time a set out to create a new project or presentation.

Looking back at my district’s policies regarding online security I have to say that I match Johnson’s (Point/Counterpoint, 2008) views about our controlling student’s online access. We all see a disconnect between what students can do at school vs. at home. I believe we are doing student’s a disservice by believing that if we keep them “safe” at school then we are good to go. Almost as if we are washing our hands of whatever might happen outside these buildings during these hours. However, if we are truly educating the next generation we need to take some accountability by teaching them skills that will go home with them. I believe this means showing them respect by opening up the internet, combined with a strong effort to educate them on how to become outstanding Digital Citizens. My district has not only over-blocked access to the web (and technology in general), but also cut programs and funding for technology-based education. This means that classroom teachers must step up to the plate to advocate for training in such areas and greater trust in students to handle more online freedom.

 Resources:
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2012). Safe and ethical practices. [Course Media]. Supporting information literacy and online inquiry in the classroom. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Point/Counterpoint. (2008, September). Should we establish national web filtering guidelines? Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(2), 8–9.

Ribble, M. (2008, December). Passport to digital citizenship: Journey toward appropriate technology use at school and at home. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(4), 14–17.

REAL Review of the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus

This is a review of the webpage Help Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus (at http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus).  The goal of the video is to show educators and students a way of determining whether a website can really be trusted in terms of content for research. I used Allan November's acronym R-E-A-L to analyze the components and content of the website in order to demonstrate how to go about doing this on your own.

This video can also be found at http://youtu.be/QrXdpGLO-dQ
 
This was my first time using ActivePresenter (http://atomisystems.com/activepresenter/) but it went pretty smoothly.  The built in video editing software is not too shabby.  I would recommend it to anyone looking to try out Screencasting

I encourage you to try out your own review of any other site, but here is a list of great examples that are fun to check out even if you don't feel like you are in an educational mindset right now.  Google any of these phrases and they will be the first links:

RYT Hospital Dwayne Medical Center
MartinLutherKing.org
The British Stick Insect Foundation
Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie
Britain for Americans
Computer Tan
Save the Rennets

21st Century Fluency

A while back, we spent some time looking into 21^st Century Skills.  While many organizations have come up with lists of skills today’s kids will need to succeed, the foremost organization is probably the Partnership for 21^st Century Skills (www.p21.org).  This week we have been discussing not a new set of skills but an offshoot of the skill sets described by P21.  One of their four Student Outcomes is titled “Information, Media, and Technology Skills” and includes literacy within each subset.  I would place this week’s topic of 21^st Century Fluency within their broader category.

Coiro (2003) argues that there are key differences between fluency in standard text versus that of digital text we will find on the internet.  Among a list of differences, Coiro shows: “that Internet texts are often constructed with inconsistent features, pass through few editing processes, represent an infinite amount of links to related information, and are often designed to sell, deceive, or persuade young readers” (p 32).  These differences lend themselves towards a new set of skills students must have in order to find useful, valid, and accurate information in an ever more cluttered online environment.

So what are the specific skills that go along with 21^st Century fluency? After reading several lists this week I believe it boils down to two key ideas.  The first I will call Searching, and the second I will call Evaluating.  We discussed “Searching” a bit last week as we looked at how to maximize queries using search engines.  In addition to the physical search, fluency here also includes an understanding in how websites are designed and organized as well as how to maneuver in and around a site.  In terms of teaching, this is no easy task.  Whereas written books generally adhere to a set protocol, online texts have much fuzzier boundaries and much more artistic license.  This means that we cannot simply show students one way of doing it and be done; instead, it is a constant game of “click-and-go-seek” which takes time and practice.

The second aspect is what I will call “Evaluating.”  This is what we must teach students to do once they have found a site that they believe has good information.  This is a hard thing to learn, let alone teach, especially when so many sources online are intentionally inaccurate and biased.  Every expert has their own way of going through a website to determine its validity and accuracy.  For example, Philips (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) recommends using the “ABC’s of Evaluation” where A = Author, B = Bias, C = Content, D = Dates, and E = Editor.  Working through this list could help students determine how trustworthy the site and information on it are.   I personally like November’s (2008) Get REAL acronym better.  In this, R = Read the URL, E = Examine the content, A = Ask about the author and owner, and L = Look at the links.  This is a little harder to remember for students, but open ended enough to work for whatever website you are dealing with.

In any case, 21^st Century Fluency is going to be an uphill battle.  As students are raised with more and more web access they seem to take the information they find at face value without looking much further into what it is they are reading.  Perhaps it is the “get it now” mentality that makes them accept the first links summary on Google as fact.  No matter, we must be adamant about teaching both Searching and Evaluating skills within our classrooms, despite our content area.  Furthermore, we need to get parents educated and on board with such skills so that they can work with their kids too.  This is not a skill set that one teacher can teach for an hour a week and think it will stick.  These skills need to be built in across the content and both in and out of school if we are to succeed in making the next generation digitally fluent.

Try Out Your Evaluation Skills On These Sites:

1) Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus

2) Computer Tan

3) RYT Hospital Dwayne Medical Center

Resources:

Coiro, J. L . (2003). Rethinking comprehension strategies to better prepare students for critically evaluating content on the Internet. New England Reading Association Journal, 39(2), 29–34.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). A teacher’s perspective: Evaluating information online [Course Media]. Supporting information literacy and online inquiry in the classroom. Baltimore, MD: Author.

November, A. (2008). Web literacy for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Partnership for 21^st Century Skills (2012). Framework for 21^st century learning.  Retrieved from http://p21.org/overview

Learning to Search

I have always considered myself to be reasonably advanced in my ability to peruse the internet.  I have also enjoyed showing students how to do so when needed.  However, the concept of explicitly teaching students how to use things like search engines has never really occurred to me.  I have simply tried to build in opportunities to show students how, and only if I think they need help.  This week, Alan November (2008) convinced me that: “It is essential that we teach our children the discipline of making meaning from a very complex and constantly shifting global warehouse of information and communication” (p. 6).  Though all of our resources had good ideas, November did the best job of describing practical applications for our classrooms, and ourselves.

Though many of the techniques described in our resources were elementary, there were also many good suggestions.  Many of the search techniques I have already figured out, but the activities described for students would be great for showing them why we must be cautious when clicking on search results.  As I searched for three resources this week I attempted to employ several of the techniques described in our resources. 

For the project I am having students do, each student will be selecting their own organism to research its place within the levels of biological organization.  To make things interesting, I am not allowing any overlap of species, meaning that students will be researching more than 160 total species.  In order to aid them in this endeavor, I thought I would find several databases that they can use to select and begin their research.

I began my search on good old Google.  I decided to first employ basic Boolean operators as described in Eagleton & Dobler (2007, pp. 61-62). Working through various combinations of +’s and –‘s I eventually found a great animal database created by Sea World (http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/animal-bytes/).  This I bookmarked using Diigo (www.Diigo.com) which I to be the most useful bookmarking program for me, even if it is not as good for sharing my sites with others.  I liked the ability to highlight and take notes as well as the quick features of the Diigolet Toolbar App.  I also like that I can add my own descriptions and tags for quick searching within My Library later.

Next, I tried to use November’s (2008) suggestion of searching “extensions” using Alta Vista’s (www.altavista.com) host: command.  My success was somewhat limited and may reflect a change in the search engines “host” feature over the years since the book was published.  About 80% of my search results had the correct host extensions (I was searching for .edu domains) but they also seemed to search for the word “host” literally.  When combined with the term “animal” this meant I got a lot of hits about parasites (which I do find interesting :-).   In the end, I decided to try removing  the command “Host” and try just searching “.edu” in a normal Boolean search.  This yielded several good sights, including one nugget called the Animal Diversity Web (http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/index.html).

To play devil’s advocate I decided to find my last one by just going to Google and typing a search like a student probably would.  I clicked the first link (like they would) and found another animal database (http://www.kidsbiology.com/animals-for-children.php?animal=Star-Nosed%20Mole) that is for younger kids and does not have all that detailed of information, but would work for brainstorming and as a launch point for further research.

In the end, I discovered several ways to refine my everyday searches.  More importantly, I have found some great resources, and reasons, to use in my own classrooms to get my students to be more advanced Web surfers.  I agree with all of the authors this week that these are skills that we must teach students before setting them free on the web. 

In Diigo, I created a public list of these three sites.  In order to do so, I had to install the Diigo toolbar (kind of annoying) but it would be good for me to use with students.  Here is the link: http://www.diigo.com/list/hiscitech/animal-databases

Resources:

Eagleton, M. B., & Dobler, E. (2007). Reading the web: Strategies for Internet inquiry. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

November, A. (2008). Web literacy for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Begining at the End: Reflections on Learning

As I look at the past seven weeks in this course, I realize I have come a long way, technologically speaking.  I am walking away with a quiver that has many more technological arrows: VoiceThread, Lucid Chart, and Jay Cut to name a few.  At the same time, I have discovered new ways to use all of those “old technologies” in new ways.  For example, I have learned how to take PowerPoint off the screen at the front of the class and place into the hands of the students, allowing them to direct their own learning.  Beyond the tools themselves, I have learned about the theories behind their application.  For the first time in my career, I actually understand the accepted learning theories of the day enough to apply those findings to my classroom in a way that is transforming my teaching.  In the following blog, I would like to discuss several of these revelations and explain how they will affect my classroom.

After studying each learning theory in depth, I believe that there is not one clear winner.  By this, I mean that each learning theory, from Behaviorism to Connectivism, has pieces that are essential to any modern classroom.  To expand further, I do not believe a teacher can be successful by relying on just one of these theories.  If I only used Behaviorism in my classroom, I believe students would not only be missing valuable learning, but they would rebel at a structure that does not match everyday life.  On the opposite side of the spectrum, I do not believe a classroom can run strictly on Social Constructionism, as there is a time and a place for working on something alone.  Therefore, I see my own classroom as cycling through all of the learning theories we have discussed, as they all have value at different times.

That being said, if I had to choose the one that I rely on the most, it would have to be Constructionism proper.  Although I do not believe you can run a class using only this theory, I see great power in building upon your own knowledge in a way specific to you.  I believe there is a lot of power in creating a “tangible” finished product that you can be proud of and share with others.  This is reflected in my decision to integrate technology that allows students the ability to create and share their work.  It has also been beneficial to understand the learning theory behind various pieces of technology as this seems to make the tools purpose clearer to me, and therefore, my students.
 

This has created a paradigm shift in my instructional practice.  I have always felt that technology integration is essential in a modern classroom.  However, I let the technology dictate the learning strategy and guide instruction.  I now realize that this could be akin to a hammer guiding a carpenter; it just does not make sense.  My new plan is to select the learning strategy that will give my students the best chance at learning the information.  I will then determine what the best piece of technology is and how it should be used to target that strategy.

As previously mentioned, I feel as if I have a lot more technological tools to work with.  This is not only in breadth but also in depth.  In other words, I not only learned about new software, but also how to use the ones I already relied on in different, much deeper, ways.  One type of technological tool I would like to implement into my classroom has to do with concept mapping.  I have often used concept maps on paper.  However, this always has me in the driver’s seat and students simply filling out a worksheet.  I have now seen the power of software like Lucid Chart and Spider Scribe and can see how students could benefit from creating their graphic organizers.  I am also interested in the concept mapping presentation program Prezi and cannot wait to put it into the hands of my students.

 

A second set of technology I would like to get my students into is that of video creation.  Looking at websites like YouTube, this seems to be a trend that is not going away.  In terms of actual implementation, I think that the first step is to create some stop animation films using digital cameras.  In this way, students can think more about what they are doing while creating their artifact.  It will also give us a chance to get our feet wet with online editing software like Jay Cut before moving into actual footage.  I believe this type of technology not only increases engagement, but increases learning.

This all sounds great on paper, but how am I actually going to start getting all of this into my classroom?  I have come up with two long-term goals to help me with both the pedagogical and technological aspects of changing my teaching.  The first has to do with Marzano’s Nine Researched-based instructional strategies.  If the research is correct, and these strategies really do show as much growth as they claim, then they should be prevalent in my classroom.  However, as we have been warned, no one should try to implement all of them at once, as we will get overwhelmed and gain no mastery.  Therefore, I have chosen two of the strategies to focus on in my teaching: 1) Identifying similarities and differences and 2) Creating non-linguistic representations.  My first long-term goal will be to be intentional about implementing at least one of these every week during the next year.  This also means researching new ways and new technology that allows me to incorporate them into my classroom.

 

A second long-term goal has to do more directly with technology.  During the next year, I will implement technology at least once a week.  In defining the technology tool, I would like to make it clear that this does not mean I use PowerPoint in front of the class.  This means that the technology is used as a learning tool in the hands of the students.  If this goal matches with the previous goal then I believe that is even better. 

By posting these two goals on the wall in my classroom, I plan to follow through with them not just because I said I would, but because I feel that they will actually make a difference in my teaching and my student’s learning.  I also feel that their integration into my weekly planning will reinforce the learning theories and learning strategies that we have looked at over these past few weeks.  In addition, I hope that their implementation will allow me to add even more technological tools to my already expanded repertoire.  Now I guess it is time to stop writing about it and go do it!

Of the Nine, I'll Start With Two

This week we looked back at the nine clusters of instructional strategies that Marzano (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) has identified as those that have the largest impact on students learning.  Pickering (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) is clear about the point that we should only select one or two of these strategies to focus on in a year so that we may gain mastery rather than get overwhelmed.  Accordingly, I have chosen two instructional strategies that I think will be valuable to my teaching and my students.  Both of these happen to come from this week’s learning and they are: 1) Identifying similarities and differences and 2) Creating nonlinguistic representations.

According to Marzano’s meta-analysis (as discussed in Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) effectively using the instructional strategy “Identifying similarities and differences” leads to a percentile gain of forty-five.  If these numbers are accurate, and it truly has a percentile gain eleven points higher than the next, it is hard not to work on this strategy first.  This instructional strategy lends itself towards science as so much of what we do is comparing and classifying.  In terms of implementation, it will be a little different for each particular approach I use, but Pickering (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011b) makes a few clear suggestions.  Essentially, she says we should work from the teacher modeling the strategy to completely independent practice.  Of course, this would follow a continuum where students do more and more on their own as they get more comfortable doing so.  Pickering is also clear that the use of graphic representations greatly increases the success of implementation.  She also stresses the fact that we must vary our approach, not just use one method every time.

What does this actually look like in the classroom?  That will depend on the specific application.  However, let me discuss several piece of technology that I believe will help make this strategy successful.  According to Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) when students identify similarities and differences: “They make new connections, experience fresh insights, and correct misconceptions” (p. 167).  They also believe that technology is an essential instructional element to make this process more accessible to both the students and the teacher.  The main technological resource mentioned by Pitler et al. (2007) is Microsoft Word.  Though somewhat rudimentary, in terms of tech, it is quick and easy for a teacher to create templates and charts that aid students in comparing and classifying things.  One downfall to this is that this usually means students are using pencil and paper to complete the organization.  In science, one of the most powerful pieces of technology for identifying similarities and differences is Microsoft Excel.  We often have data that can be easily compared in Excel.  Best of all, it is only a few quick clicks until you have a graphic representation of the data you are working with. 

Probably the most useful in terms of implementation is the use of organizing and brainstorming software.  Now, Pitler et al. (2007) hype up a program called Inspiration (or Kidspiration for the younger grades).  However, my district does not have a licensed purchased and I do not believe it is worth the money with free options available.   For example, programs like Lucid Chart (www.lucidchart.com) would be great for creating Venn Diagrams and other organizational charts.  Even programs like PowerPoint lend themselves towards the easy creation of comparison and classification templates, which students could manipulate. 

Generally, this instructional strategy seems to fit best with Cognitive learning theory.  According to Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011c) cognitive learning theory is really a collective of theories describing how the brain processes and stores information.  Having students identify similarities and differences fits closely with this definition.  At the same time, certain activities involving this strategy could have students creating their own classifications and organizational charts.  This would start working more into constructionist learning theory.

The second learning strategy I will discuss (more briefly), is how to use nonlinguistic representations.  I believe that the same ideas from the last strategy will apply in terms of implementation; that is working from teacher modeling to independent practice.  Pickering (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) was a big fan of this strategy, describing it as a way to help students learn what to do inside of their heads.  The reason I am choosing nonlinguistic representations is that I like the technologies that can be used to support it. 

Pitler et al. (2007) devote more examples to this strategy than almost any of the others.  There are the more obvious word processing and spreadsheet applications, but it is here I want to go a little deeper than those do.  For one, the idea of time-lapse photography seems like a powerful tool for a science class.  Pitler et al. discuss them in terms of digital microscopes; however, it could be done with any camera.  Along the same lines would be stop-motion pictures.  The most common example is claymation, but I am thinking about other applications like mitosis cutouts and other processes.  The next logical phase is full video which I have seen used very powerfully in the recent months.  All of this requires a little bit more hardware and software, but with a few baby steps, I think I could get stop-motion movies going if I use some online editing software like Jay Cut (http://jaycut.com). 

However I end up implementing nonlinguistic representation, it is going to have students creating an artifact, and most likely in groups.  This ties into constructionism and social constructionism learning theories.  It would also not be hard to build this into problem or project based learning.  Now, I guess it is time to get planning!

Resources:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011a). Instructional strategies, part one [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011b). Instructional strategies, part two [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011c). Cognitive Learning Theories [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.