Sticking with my G.A.M.E. Plan

This week we are supposed to describe the progress we have made on our G.A.M.E. plan.  If you look at the picture below, you will see the progress I have made.  On Friday morning, my wife and I had a beautiful baby boy whom we named Kasen.  Came into the world a whopping 9 lbs. 1 oz. and 22 inches long, making it a stressful delivery (are any not?).  However, all are doing well now and we are settling in nicely.

Between him and my two-year-old daughter, Aubree, we have had our hands pretty full since we first submitted our G.A.M.E. plan.  Therefore, in terms of progress there has been none, so this post will contain more about what I need to do rather than what has been done.  Without further ado, let us look at the ISTE (2008) standards I have chosen and discuss how to move forward.

Standard 1c) “Promote student reflection using collaborative tools to reveal and clarify students’ conceptual understanding and thinking, planning, and creative processes” (ISTE, 2008).

Action Plan: The only way to learn about how to teach collaboration is to collaborate myself.  As I am not currently teaching, this poses a small problem.  The solution is to become a part of an online community.  As Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) explain, the web is exceptional resource for teacher collaboration.  To reach my goal of learning how to incorporate collaborative technology in my classroom, I am going to have to branch out and find (or start) an online community that is focused on that.  My goal is to find at least one online community that I can participate in and contribute to with the goal of learning how to better incorporate collaborative technologies into our classrooms.   I will also be looking for other resources such as blogs, current articles, and YouTube videos on the topic. I am going to avoid printed books, as they seem to date themselves quickly with the speed at which technology is moving.

Additional Info/Monitoring:  As I find resources and groups to help me achieve my goal I need to have a place to compile my findings for further research and ease of use.  Originally, I was thinking that a word document would suffice.  However, I am now thinking that would be selfish as my findings would only be for my eyes.  I am now thinking of using a form of Google Docs (now Google Drive) that I can make public and link to my blog or teaching website.  This would allow others to view and modify what I have found, which fits the spirit of collaboration I am looking for in the first place.  

Standard 2b) “Develop technology-enriched learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities and become active participants in setting their own educational goals, managing their own learning, and assessing their own progress” (ISTE, 2008).

Action Plan:  As I look at this standard, the first thing that pops into my mind is how closely it relates to the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) that we have looked at through this week’s resources.  Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer (2009) discus the benefits of UDL when they explain: “the more flexible the teaching strategies, materials, and assessments you use in a classroom, the more accessible they will be to the diverse needs and preferences of all the students” (p 117).  (For more information on UDL check out http://www.cast.org/udl)  In my opinion, UDL mimics the goals of Standard 2b, in that it is encouraging flexibility in how students learn and what they use to demonstrate that learning, and flexibility translates into more student autonomy over time.

In terms of resources, I am still going to look for online resources where teachers demonstrate this flexibility within their classes.  Much like the first standard I am looking at (1c), I will also be looking for online communities, blogs, articles, and videos demonstrating just that.  However, I will now be searching through the lens of UDL.

Additional Info/Monitoring:  I would like to create an online “diary” of my applications using a blog.  In this way, I will keep track of what I am doing while encouraging input and support from a global community. Additionally, I will create a living document, like the one described in the first standard, where I can keep track of and share the resources I find. 

Resources:

Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

ISTE (2008). NETS-T. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers

 

Pitler, H., Hubbel, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Denver, CO: McREL.

Creating a G.A.M.E. Plan

This week we began deciding our own GAME plan based on Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer’s (2009) advice on becoming self-directed learners when it comes to technology integration in our classrooms.  To begin this process we were asked to look at the International Society for Technology in Education’s(ISTE) standards for educators which are known as the NETS-T (ISTE, 2008).  From these we were asked to reflect upon our teaching and skills and select two indicators which we could use some strengthening and confidence.  Below I have listed my chosen two and created a basic GAME plan for each. 

1c) “Promote student reflection using collaborative tools to reveal and clarify students’ conceptual understanding and thinking, planning, and creative processes” (ISTE, 2008).

Goals – The key part to this indicator is the “using collaborative tools.”  Now, using them just for the sake of using them does not do anything but waste valuable class time.  However, using them with the purposes described within this indicator can greatly increase student learning and engagement.  I already have a list of software tools that I have seen used for collaborative efforts among students, both within and across classrooms.  However, I would like to know more about the actual structure of lessons incorporating these tools.  For example, I know blogs are a good tool to use for student collaboration and I have seen how we use them in our class, but thinking about actually implementing that with my students with limited access to crowded computer labs is another story. 

Action – What I will be looking for in terms of information are more detailed descriptions of the way other teachers have implemented this.  Rather than the examples we often get through our class resources which basically explain what the technology is and how it helped students learn, I would like to see lesson plans describing things like how students were grouped, how often they posted, and how they were graded.  One resource I will look for is teacher blogs and descriptions of what they did.  I believe this may have to be outside of the realm of published papers as there are often too many criteria in published work for the amount of detail I desire.  Another resource is going to be finding other teachers, or communities of teachers, who are already implementing such skills.

Monitor – In order to monitor my progress, I will keep a log of any resources I find.  These resources will include people, and communities of people.  I will also be on track if I start actually developing my own lessons based on my research and work towards implementation.  Through this, I will be able to pick up patterns of what successful implementation looks like. 

Evaluation – Ideally, I will know if I succeeded after I have successfully implemented a lesson or two using collaborative technology within my own class.  However, with no current classroom and a new baby boy coming in the next 48 hours, this is going to be put on hold for a little while.  Instead, I will have to determine whether I feel ready to implement the lesson as opposed to actually doing it.  In terms of a learning community, this may mean giving advice rather than just taking it after researching online.  It will also mean that I have a solid document I have created based on my research that has all of the best practices I have discovered that is ready to go when I am in a position to implement this with students.

 2b) “Develop technology-enriched learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities and become active participants in setting their own educational goals, managing their own learning, and assessing their own progress” (ISTE, 2008).

Goals – Like the last one, this indicator also has many different facets.  The part I would like to focus on is the piece on students pursuing “their individual curiosities.”  Now, success in that means having them set goals, manage their learning, and assessing their progress, thereby requiring the rest if the indicator.  However, I just want to focus initially on how to design projects that target the core content while allowing for student’s personal taste to be part of their work in terms of topic and delivery.  My goals here are very similar to the goals with the other standard above, and I actually believe that they can be learned together, especially when thinking about a learning community.

Action – My action plan is essentially the same as the previous indicator.  One key difference would be the added benefit of finding a learning community focused on biology, or at least science, so I could see specifically what type of lessons they are doing.  This would also allow for more overlap in content and resources. 

Monitor – My plan for monitoring is also very similar to standard 1c.  One note I would add is that this indicator seems as if it would be easier to work into with projects I have already designed, offering more freedom and presentation options as students advance and I feel more comfortable with the flexibility.  A journal of my implementation would be beneficial, as it will allow me to reflect on the pro and cons of my lesson planning decisions which I can build upon in the future.

Evaluate – All of my sentiments from the first indicator are shared here as well.  However, this standard seems easier to work into slowly as opposed to requiring everything to be in place.  I will know when I am meeting my goals when I am able to pass on information and advice to others based on my experiences.  On issue with each of these standards is that you can never truly master them, rather you can just keep getting better at how you do them.

Resources:

Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

ISTE (2008). NETS-T. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers

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.