Creating A PLN Curation Checklist

This week’s assignment tasked us (with partners – Jody Beesley-Lazarski, and Alissa Blackburn) to explore curation and then create a curation checklist with members of our assigned PLNs. “Content curation is the process of sorting through the vast amounts of content on the web and presenting it in a meaningful and organized way around a specific theme” (Kanter, 2011). Kanter suggested a three-tiered approach – Seek, Sense, and Share (2011).
Initially, I experienced resistance to this task. Left to my own devices, the task seemed suited for a librarian more than an educator. However, the Internet is broad and vast. The sheer amount of information can overwhelm. An experience in a Twitter chat created a turning point. I noticed all links shared during the chat were laser-focused on the topic. Reflecting on resources provided by professors, I noticed they-too were specific items necessary for a given lesson. “Leaving digitally based information to languish in personal electronic filing drawers amid a jumble of unrelated information and with no plans for its survival guarantees its disappearance” (Ogburn, 2010). And the a-ha moment became visible and clear.
Working collaboratively with my PLN partners was intriguing and stimulating. We chose to decide how we would use our checklist first. Our common thread was high school; but, we each came from different content areas. Once we decided on Digital Media in the ELA and Theater classrooms as our goal, the rest assembled quickly. We built our checklist using Google Docs enabling the chat and comments to share information. We also used Facebook messages to share and debate use of text, quotes and the way the information would appear on the page. Our rowboat followed a collective azimuth. Three oars were constantly in the water.
Our biggest challenges were working through three different time zones, our different vantage points and varied personal demands beyond this class. The greatest benefit was seeing this assignment through the eyes of my partners. At times, we each were coxswain, providing guidance and direction. We each allowed another to guide and rowed hard to validate their vision. The outcome would be different if any of us were removed and another classmate inserted. Exploring the projects of other groups did not make me feel our product is more or less viable. We arrived at our destination that works for those in this boat.
We learned from one another creating a combined whole. “To prepare the next generation of scholars, the knowledge and skills for managing data should become part of an education process that includes opportunities for students to contribute to the creation and the preservation of research in their fields” (Ogburn, 2010, p. 244). I have no doubt our implementation of this checklist will prove successful in the next phase of this project.

References:

Kanter, B. (2011, Oct 4). Content curation primer. (Web log comment). Retrieved
October 4, 2014, from http://www.bethkanter.org/content-curation-101/

Ogburn, J. L. (2010). The imperative for data curation. Portal : Libraries and the Academy, 10(2), 241-246. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/216178815?accountid=9649

Advertisements

Internet Safety

“With great power comes an even greater responsibility”, said Voltaire as quoted by Beuchot & Miger (1829). If you google the sentence I just used, you will find many taking credit for these words. Some on the Internet project that Stan Lee wrote these words for Uncle Ben to share with young Peter Parker in Spiderman, Amazing Fantasy, 1962. Voltaire may have even taken a variation from scripture as a similar quote appears in Luke 12:48 “To those who much is given, much is required.” The quote is powerful and for this example sheds light on two facets of Internet Safety. Teaching students by modeling proper Internet use and stewardship demands that we as educators set the tone. The accessibility of both vetted and unvetted information allows students to do things I only dreamed about as a teenager.

Part of the problem is the challenge of the medium. Do children really understand the complexity and possible danger? Zheng addresses similar issues that children simply do not comprehend the concerns as the child sees only a screen and is disconnected from the potential pitfalls (2009). Furthermore, Zheng expressed that CIPA and the current in-school approaches (filtering, banning access) does not necessarily guarantee wise student choice and in fact may make the problem worse (2009). The common thread between both articles seems to point to positive encouragement, behaviors, education, modeling and mentorship on the part of adults in the lives of students.

Exploring Internet safety also requires educators recognize patterns of use. Wang, Luo, Gao & Kong indicate correlations to sleep and hostility issues and problems with interpersonal skills by those students whose families and adults are less involved in setting limits and encouraging real-time social interactions (2012). As we develop our Internet Safety programs educators should seek teachable moments to encourage students to implement good Internet habits both in their research and entertainment.

Please visit my Internet Safety Guide HERE.

References:

Beuchot, Adrien. J. Q. and Miger, Pierre.-A.-M. (1829). Œuvres de Paris, Lefèvre. Retrieved from http://archive.org/details/uvresdevoltaire27migegoog

Wang, Ligang, Luo, Jing, Gao, Wenbin, and Kong, Jie. (2012). The effect of Internet use on adolescents’ lifestyles: A national survey, Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2007-2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.007.

Zheng, Yan. (2009) Differences in high school and college students’ basic knowledge and perceived education of Internet safety: Do high school students really benefit from the Children’s Internet Protection Act?, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30 (3), 209-217, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.10.007.

Zheng, Yan. (2009). Limited knowledge and limited resources: Children’s and adolescents’ understanding of the Internet, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(2), 103-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.10.012

 

Relative Advantages of Hypermedia in the Classroom

Please enjoy a change as my blog visits a video format.

Text Version of Script:

References:

Clara, M., & Barbera, E. (2013). Learning online: massive open online courses (MOOCs), connectivism, and cultural psychology. Distance Education, 34, 1, 129-136.

Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Schuh, J. (2008). Information comparisons in example-based hypermedia environments: Supporting learners with processing prompts and an interactive comparison tool. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(1), 73-92. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9068-z

Liestøl, G. (2006). Dynamics of convergence & divergence in digital media & learning. World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006, 2006(1), 2902–2909.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon – the Strategic Planning Resource for Education Professionals, 9, 5, 1-6.

Roblyer, M.D. and Doerling, A.H. (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: a theory for the digital age. 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.ingedewaard.net/papers/connectivism/2005_siemens_ALearningTheoryForTheDigitalAge.pdf

Wessels, P. L., & Steenkamp, L. P. (2009). Generation Y students: Appropriate learning styles and teaching approaches in the economic and management sciences faculty. South African Journal Of Higher Education, 23(5), 1039-1058.

 

Instructional Software Project

Instructional Software Project

The link attached is to the Instructional Software Project as part of this week’s assignment. Were it not a mandated cross-post to this blog, it would not be included. This week was not a “productive struggle”. To write a reflection on this week’s processes is too soon and more than what should be said hits the screen. This lesson will need to stand on its own for a bit and I will attempt to revisit this experience at a later date.

Acceptable Use Policies

As this assignment began, this author viewed Acceptable Use Policies as the high school Internet variant of trampoline disclaimers. “AUPs outline what students are allowed to do with technology” (Ahn, Bivona, & DiScala, 2011, p. 4). Truly the obvious could be handled with the Golden Rule. However, is that enough? Are there requirements for a school’s AUP? Barring the Federal and State requirements not necessarily pertinent in a boarding school environment, a well-written AUP needs to contain the school’s purpose for providing the network, ethical use and restraint, delineation of privilege, Netiquette, examples of how inappropriate use is defined, how/when to report issues, system requirements, warranty (think trampoline here), expectation of privacy, and security/vandalism.

It is necessary to pause for a moment and qualify the schools and their AUPs listed in this post. Independent schools are not required to post E-Rate or CIPA, The Children’s Internet Protection Act, information. “The e-rate or ‘education rate’ program is part of a set of universal service initiatives targeted at low income subscribers, high cost areas, rural health care providers, schools and libraries mandated by Congress in the 1996 Telecommunications Act with the intent to bridge the gaps in telecommunications, technology and Internet access between rich and poor communities in the US” (Jayakar, 2004, p. 37). This US government program helps to bridge the digital divide. However, funds are tied to CIPA. An eligible school must certify that blocks and devices are in place in the network to prevent a child from accessing pornography. Thus, many AUPs for public schools address this focal point as funding for their Internet depends upon compliance. Since the vast majority of boarding schools are tuition and endowment funded, and not eligible for the E-Rate federal funds, their services are not E-Rate or CIPA compliant.

AUPs provide an envelope within which students can access and utilize technology at a given institution. This outline or envelope is necessary in today’s litigious educational landscape. One of the most detailed in envelope description was The Forman School, a 9-12 boarding school in Litchfield, CT. The focus of this school is students who learn differently. The only students who do not have a learning difference are children of faculty. As my former employer, it is pleasing to see the depth of information offered to both parent and student. The system information was clear. Forman even addresses device use and forbids their use as hotspots to provide wi-fi outside the Forman network. What is missing however, is the reason and purpose for the school to offer access in the first place – at no point is collaboration, research, communication within or to educational institutions nor the unique ability to access resources broached. “Education is a future-facing activity” (Facer & Sandford, 2010, p. 74). Stating the purpose elevates all involved and sets sights on the mission rather than the rules.

Wasatch Academy offers a learning center and attracts students who learn differently, though that population is not their sole focus. It is a 9-12 boarding school in Mount Pleasant, Utah. Wasatch Academy’s AUP again focuses on the privilege of Internet use. There is no mention of the true purpose of having Internet in an educational setting. There is mention that use should align with “the purposes, goals and policies of Wasatch Academy.” The statement continues spelling out what one cannot do and what one cannot hold the school accountable for. Again, the trampoline disclaimer comes to mind.

St. Johnsbury Academy in St. Johnsbury, VT is a 9-12 boarding and day school. It is a rigorous school with a diverse population. The AUP starts by addressing positive uses for their network in support of the mission of teaching and research. The leading paragraph continues by addressing excellence, sharing, innovation and communication. But that paragraph ends quickly and moves to address the myriad of disclaimers the school deems necessary in a modern environment. Again, the stress is that the network access is a privilege not a right, privacy is not an expectation and the school has ultimate authority. Device use is at the discretion of the individual classroom teachers and forbidden outside specific educational uses. Although the AUP starts in a positive fashion, it quickly follows the two previous AUPs into trampoline land.

Salisbury School is also a 9-12 boarding school located geographically close to Forman. Salisbury is renowned for its academic rigor. Their AUP reflects a forward thinking mindset. Although quite detailed as well, Salisbury School’s AUP starts with a positive explanation of purpose. It quickly moves to explain the Internet and use is a privilege and not a right. “Within a few years, access to the Internet may be perceived by the public as a basic resource for both educators and learners” (Flowers, 2010, p. 363). Additionally, the Salisbury School identifies the Headmaster and the Academic Technology Director as having final decisions with regard to privacy and privilege. Flowers also cautions that actions such as this “with or without just cause may be considered an infringement on individual privacy” (2010, p. 363). Strategic use of expanding paragraphs leaves the primary focus on the purpose and who is in charge on the Salisbury School’s AUP. This creative approach makes one feel forward thinkers who wanted to leave a positive impression designed the AUP. It contains the essential elements listed above and leaves space for device development and future network growth. The expectations are clear and the envelope sealed.

Ahn, Bivona, and Scala seem to target what makes a powerful AUP. Placing literacy skills ahead of computing in the AUP language by drafting a path to promote said literacy one creates a horse of a different color. This new policy “highlights information literacy development and allows room to value student uses of social media. Students who create and share school video projects on YouTube are developing media creation, communication and lifelong learning skills” (2011, p. 5). The rise in social media, the change in student access as the school is no longer the Internet gatekeeper and Web 2.0 tools demand that we keep pace. AUPs cannot be so restrictive that creative opportunities are lost as we are afraid to deal with them. The challenge seems to be an ever changing and growing envelope. Challenge accepted.

References:

Ahn, J., Bivona, L. K., & DiScala, J. (2011). Social media access in K-12 schools: Intractable policy controversies in an evolving world. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1), 1–10. doi:10.1002/meet.2011.14504801044

Facer, K. R., & Sandford R., (2010). The next 25 years?: Future scenarios and future directions for education and technology. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 74-93.

Flowers, B. C. (2000). Analyses of acceptable use policies regarding the Internet in selected K-12 schools. Journal Of Research On Computing In Education, 32(3), 351.

Jayakar, K. P. (January 01, 2004). Reforming the e-rate. Info – the Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunications, 6, 1, 37-51.

Vision Statement

Technology-infused education no longer passes as unique. It weaves through our daily lives in ways we never imagined and will impact on our educational systems and our students in ways we have yet to discover. Students with mobile devices have computing power at their fingertips equivalent to modern desktop computers of only a few years ago. Just as good educators constantly strive to reinvent methods for exciting students to learn, those same educators cannot ignore the connectivity these students have today.

Connected students have a wealth of information at their fingertips. The classroom of today is not four-walled. “Students’ learning increasingly takes place across various information technologies, external of traditional classrooms” (Dunaway, 2011, p. 675). The teacher becomes a guide and the student owns his or her singular quest for knowledge. Educators are not the sole conduit for information, and as such, must recognize that students still need a shepherd to guide them in their respective quests. Unconnected students will need a shepherd as well. They will need to connect on school-owned devices to insure they have the opportunity to explore the global opportunities not accessible in their own homes.

Educators must explore technologies and weave lessons that are technology-rich. Whether it is in the students’ quest for finding answers to driving questions affecting the world they inhabit or the teacher managing his/her classroom data, computers and devices make the job richer. Teachers should demonstrate restraint as new software and hardware emerges. Newer is not always better. As stated by Roblyer and Doerling (2013), “The past has shown that teachers must be careful, analytical consumers of technological innovation, looking to what has worked in the past to guide their decisions and measure their expectations in the present” (p.10).

Data from students becomes accessible instantaneously and can help the teacher design remedial and scaffolding instruction on one end and can help drive enrichment on the other. This power allows parental involvement and inclusion in the process. iNACOL identifies this area as a top Federal Policy issue. It demands that educators address and retrain how data is collected to insure it “includes multiple measures at multiple points in the year, including formative, embedded, performance-based and validating ‘summative’ assessments with testing windows through the year” (2013, p. 3). Stakeholders can then make informed decisions at all junctures rather than waiting for End Of Course results.

Professional development must be moved from lecturing teachers to educating them on how to use technology in their content area. “You may have the best computer, the most sophisticated curriculum software, and the fastest Internet connection…but if that teacher does not know how to use any of that, its not going to improve education” (Rivero, 1999, p. 54). The Harkness Table refined student-centered learning in boarding schools from the moment it was implemented. It is a proven method that still works today in all settings. Now, with Bring Your Own Device and/or class sets of iPads incorporated into the mix, we can impact education and move from one blackboard or whiteboard to lessons where all students hold the chalk.

References:

Dunaway, M. (2011). Connectivism: Learning theory and pedagogical practice for networked information landscape. Reference Services Review, 39(4), 675-684. Doi:10.1108/00907321111186686

International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL). (2013). Fast facts about online learning. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/iNACOL_FastFacts_Feb2013.pdf

Rivero, V. (April, 1999). Top state edtech leaders talk about data-driven decision making. Coverage, 52-54.

Roblyer, M.D. and Doerling, A.H. (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.