We Teach We Learn » 21st century skills

The Future of Productivity

Chris Wondra — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:57:35 +0000

The Future: Where “winging it” becomes best practice

Michael Fullan

Chris Wondra — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 17:26:43 +0000

You cannot have students as continuous learners and effective collaborators, without teachers having the same characteristics. — Michael Fullan Related posts: Teaching English language arts in a “flat” world. Burke, J. What is Differentiation? Related posts:

Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms.

Chris Wondra — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:18:00 +0000

An Annotation by Jeff Ayer

Will Richardson does a phenomenal job of laying out everything needed to both initiate and defend the use of blogs and wikis in the classroom. While I have already used a wiki within my classroom, this book provided the pedagogical reinforcement that I to some degree already could have used to defend such use in my classes.

Early in the book, Richardson states,

“It is less about blogs and wikis and podcasts than it is about the educators behind them who are using them so creatively to motivate students to learn more deeply and contribute what they know to the amazing body of knowledge that is the World Wide Web” (vii).

For one, teachers can use these technologies to engage students who are not easily engaged. This alone is exciting.

Richardson outlines three goals for his book.

First, “To give educators some context in terms of what these technologies mean for our society as well as for education.”
Second, he looks to “challenge and motivate teachers to think differently about their classrooms and the potentials of technologies discuss in terms of pedagogy and curriculum.”
Lastly, the book aims to “share enough of the ‘how to’ needed to get teachers started using these tools right away” (vii-viii).

Richardson later focuses on the importance of securing the use of these technologies, citing the importance of educators’ communicating with colleagues, administrators, students, and parents alike. These technologies also neatly concentrate student writing and reflections in a format that is user-friendly to both the instructor and the students, for both various types of assessment and for potential portfolio work (23).

Of course, as an English teacher, the publishing aspect is also exciting. My favorite line in the book was as follows:

“Writing stops; blogging continues. Writing is inside; blogging is outside. Writing is monologue; blogging is conversation. Writing is thesis; blogging is synthesis” (31).

Every English teacher stresses process, process, process. The use of a wiki or blog can reinforce this and then some! And of course, the highest level of teaching takes place, theoretically, in a student-centered classroom. These technologies allow for such realities, once developed within the classrooms culture.

Richardson cites,

“In using wikis, students are not only learning how to publish content; they are also learning how to develop and use all sorts of collaborative skills, negotiating with other to agree or correctness, meaning, relevance, and more. In essence, students begin to teach each other” (65).

Toward the end of the book, Richardson cites a number of “big shifts” in education that could occur using these technologies, including:

open content (not confined to textbooks that can quickly become outdated);
24/7 access to learning and to some degree, teachers; student collaboration;
teachers getting in on conversation instead of lecturing;
students’ knowing where rather than what, as in being able to access resources to find answers instead of regurgitating information;
moving from “interactiveless” readers to collaborative readers;
using the web as a notebook of sorts;
writing digitally rather than solely on paper;
focusing on the product of learning instead of the testing of learning; and
reinforcing “contribution, not completion, as the ultimate goal” (131-132).

Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

The next wave now: web 2.0.

Chris Wondra — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:29:07 +0000

An Annotation by Jeff Ayer

This article, geared mostly for administrators and superintendents, makes a great argument for using Web 2.0 technologies in the classroom and district webpage alike. Mills essentially works to convince on an admin level that it is time to get teachers on board with technologies that could become updated as they learn to use and implement them. Mills asserts,

“. . . the pace of Web 2.0 technologies can almost ensure another process or tool will be gaining notoriety and presence among our students as quickly as we gain an awareness and understanding of these established tools” (4).

That being said, Mills encourages educational leaders who “can and should play a major role in understanding and supporting Web 2.0 technologies” (4).

In particular, Mills makes clear the advantages, but also the way in which a superintendent or administrator must go about winning teachers over with these technologies.

“[S]uperintendents need to take the reins of the implementation. A great introduction in your district is to use the tools in your daily work” (5).

Mills lists blogs on the district web page, RSS feeds to the site in order to inform constituents and parents of school district updates, events, and news, and professional development opportunities that incorporate the given tools.

As Mills closes, he also identifies the importance of district policies needing updates as the technologies have changed.

“The top-down approach of the Web we grew up with now has been replaced with users who build information from the bottom up. With Web 2.0, the focus is not on software, but on practices such as sharing thoughts and information through self-publishing and harnessing the collective intelligence of all users to generate information and solve problems” (4).

Because of this shift, districts need to review policies on popular sites my MySpace, because the nature of these sites and who is using them has also changed.

“With presidential candidates now providing platform information via their MySpace pages, should allowances be made for access to these pages to use for discussion in the classroom?” (5).

Calling the incorporation of these technologies into the classroom “part of this likely revolution,” Mills makes clear that these technological advances are coming, with the public education system or without it.

Mills, L. B. (2007, December). The next wave now: web 2.0. Education digest: 4-5.

Wikis and literacy development.

Chris Wondra — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:16:53 +0000

An Annotation by Jeffery Ayer

McPherson focuses one the differences between wikis and blogs, the different types of wikis available (as of 2006), how reading levels of various wikis and electronic information should be considered by teachers, and inherent learning objectives involved when using wikis in the classroom.

First, McPherson clarifies that the overriding advantage of wikis over blogs is that a wiki

“permits visitors to add new information and, more important, edit previous authors’ submissions”

while a blog

“typically allows visitors to post responses to previous authors’ submissions – that is, visitors cannot go back and edit earlier blog submissions.”

In addition, there are two substantially different types of wiki pages, including public wikis, which are primarily created by anyone for just about any purpose, and then classroom-based wikis, which are created by teachers and students for various classroom purposes. McPherson lists a number of examples that a reader could actually visit online to see and experience the differences.

McPherson’s greatest point may be regarding reading levels. He strongly recommends checking a site’s readability before sending students to read its content. By running readability tests by copying and pasting a chunk of text into Microsoft Word, a teacher can quickly calculate a source’s readability.

He goes on to point out that using this technology often increases classroom motivation, so where a student might give up on something that is just above his/her reading level, with this approach, a student is more likely to “stick it out.” McPherson states,

“[C]omprehension of the wiki’s content is significantly compromised when students are faced with print ranked two or more grade levels above their own.”

McPherson closes with some important questions a teacher or librarian might ask to determine learning objectives with this technology. They include the following:

“What information literacy skills are unique to this format?;
Can this literacy be learned faster or more clearly with another technology?; and
“Is this a good use of my precious time on these computers?”

He also closes by sharing the importance of teachers’ responsibility to prepare students to determine qualitative, credible information. McPherson writes,

“students must be taught information literacy skills aimed at evaluating the credibility and authenticity of a wiki’s information.”

In particular, McPherson points out a helpful website in this vein at www.stenhouse.com/pdfs/8196ch09.pdf.

McPherson, K. (2006, October). Wikis and literacy development. Teacher librarian. Vol. 34, Iss. 1.

Mining the internet: a space for “writing without writing.”

Chris Wondra — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:13:04 +0000

An Annotation by Jeffery Ayer

This article really was by Emily Van Noy, the teacher who employed blogging in her classroom, and Kajder and Bull assisted in writing it. The focus was primarily on steps in setting up and using blogs in the classroom.

Van Noy states that journaling in class was dying, and she even gave up on it altogether, until the new technologies came forward, and thus resurrecting journaling through online communication.

Essentially, Van Noy emphasizes the importance of planning and setting up a blog for a class in predicting its effectiveness with students. From parent surveys to student technology permission slips, she covers all the pre-blogging steps thoroughly before cracking application. Another step emphasized setting up accounts and assigning usernames that are appropriate, protect identity, and also contain something that a student will likely remember later (forgotten usernames and passwords can quickly affect a blog’s potential).

Van Noy then highlights some uses, including reflection postings, student responses, and “sharing ideas and work within communities” (34).

She also pointed out the benefit of archiving options that some sites contain.

Lastly, Van Noy stresses the importance of spell check tools – something many sites do not include (or if they do, are difficult to locate).

Favorite line at the end:

“We are convinced that, as we continue to work with blogs in language arts, they will expand the possible ways in which we engage and lead student writers in the classroom” (35).

Kajder, S. and G. Bull with E. Van Noy. (2004, March). Mining the internet: a space for “writing without writing.” Learning and leading with technology. Vol. 31, No. 6: 32-35.

Online literacy and new literacy

Contributor — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 04:14:29 +0000

By Jeffery Ayer

Before I was introduced to wikis in April 2008, I never would have envisioned how much my teaching could use these new technologies. More importantly, my students could not be more ready to take their education to a new level that I sincerely hope will better connect them to the world and prepare them to participate in a digital world. The time is now, and while students have been hungry for this opportunity, the reinforcing research is thorough enough to justify using wikis,blogs, podcasts, Flickr, Moodle, and online writing technologies that I feel can significantly improve students’ writing, and perhaps more importantly, prepare them for digital citizenship.

This article is the 2nd in a series, based on action research I collected while studying for my M.Ed, explores the impact digital technology can have on how our students learn, and how we, as educators, can leverage that impact for the good of our students.

You can also read the rest of the series here at We Teach We Learn

1. Web 2.0: Pedagogical Evidence and Brain Research

3. Web 2.0 Technologies and Online Writing Tools (coming soon)

4. Online Security and Safety (coming soon)

Online literacy and new literacy

Another important line of literature focused on the importance of students both being exposed to concepts in and employing online literacy. In their article, “Information Literacy 2.0: Empowering Students Through Personal Engagement,” Brown and Bussert, who used the Web 2.0 technology Flickr in a learning community in Cairo, Egypt, point out that

“[c]ommon Web 2.0 applications such as blogs, wikis, and social bookmarking tools are ‘intrinsically user-centered and can be leveraged by Information Literacy (IL) instructors for a creative, student-centered teaching and learning environment” (Brown, Bussert, 2007).

And while some resources argued that simply exposing students to these technologies does not improve their online literacy, this article opposes that position, stating that the

“. . .fundamental hypothesis underlying the use of social software to teach key information literacy concepts is that student learning will increase due to personal engagement, use of preferred learning styles, and application to daily life” (Brown, Bussert, 2007).

These resources go on to detail ways in which exposure is important, and also how they can more specifically be applied as powerful classroom tools. But in this set, understanding how to use them is part of the education, according to authors like Luce-Kapler, who cites visual literacy using these mediums as yet another layer of important learning students get while utilizing new technologies.

Calling these new literacies “radical change,” which is also a portion of the author’s title, Luce-Kapler highlights three main forms of new literacies:

“(1) changing forms and formats such as new forms of graphics, new levels of synergy between text and pictures, nonlinear and nonsequential organizations and formats, and multiple layers of meaning and interactive formats;

(2) changing perspectives such as multiple points of view both visual and verbal and previously unheard voices, including youth; and

(3) changing boundaries such as dealing with previously forbidden or overlooked subjects and settings, new types of communities, characters portrayed in new and complex ways, and unresolved endings” (Luce-Kapler, 2007, p. 215).

And although Jakes doesn’t come right out and say it, his assertion that using wikis and Web 2.0 writing technologies also “promote[s] a lifetime of participation and contribution,” leading to what some writers described as digital citizenship. Students will be sharing ideas, debating, agreeing, asking questions, and leading discussions using these technologies, and through such collaborative efforts, they will also be challenging their own thinking while challenging the thinking of their peers as well.

Finally, it is one thing for students to know how to participate in social networking Web 2.0 technologies, and many are doing so rather comfortably, but do they really understand what they are doing? Do they understand the potential that exists beyond the social web as they move toward this “digital citizenship” that undoubtedly stands before them?

J. Salpeter’s article “Make Students Info Literate” focuses on what the author calls education’s most clear goal for the next century: “[H]ow to develop a new generation of knowledgeable digital citizens who can operate in the unregulated online world” (Salpeter, 2008, p. 25). She also makes emphatic mention of the NTCE’s adoption of new literacy goals and correlating definitions – an obvious eye-opener to any educators (especially English instructors) who are failing to pay attention. The authors I read seemed to predict the NCTE’s move, as Brown and Bussert already understood through their Flickr implementation back in 2004-05, defining information literacy as “the set of skills needed to find, retrieve, analyze, and use information” (Brown, Bussert, 2007).

Jakes’s most profound statement in his article, “New Literacies: Enrichment or Essential?” supports these claims, stating, “Our kids need to use the Web for learning in many ways, but we have to structure online learning so that it is true inquiry, supported by the requisite information literacy skills, so that students, when in need, have internalized a problem-solving approach to build answers to questions of importance.” In K. Bolan, M. Canada, and R. Cullin’s article “Web, Library, and Teen Services 2.0,” the authors go so far as to argue that

“[g]aming is one of the newer services that libraries are implementing that embraces library 2.0 beliefs. Contrary to what some may think, gaming is recognized as a literacy activity” (Bolan, Canada, Cullin, 2007, p. 42).

At this point, I can quickly see how information and online literacy is of great importance, and the NCTE obviously will be pushing all of us forward. For me, when I have historically looked at Wisconsin and national standards, the technology pieces are often those that are given the least attention, mostly because I know that although important, they will not be addressed on the test. But that is my motivation – not to teach to a test, but to prepare these students for digital citizenship.

One might argue that by not preparing them as such, they will be ill-equipped to fully function and contribute within our democracy, and further, with our international neighbors. By employing Web 2.0 technologies, I will already be assisting them in becoming more digitally literate – helping them to decipher quality resources from those that are potentially fraudulent. This always mattered to me, but now I will implement that concern by embedding that in my teaching.

In addition, as an English teacher who teaches a research paper and incorporates literary research with analysis papers, there are a number of opportunities for me to teach to these new literacies, and not to simply meet the “F” criteria in the Wisconsin State Standards. As for environmental aspects, I suspect that with these technologies will come new responsibilities for students as they are not working in their own corner of the room any longer; because a number of their contributions will be accessible to all students in my classes, they may feel more inclined to take care with the work they do, and more naturally become more conscious of the quality and compassion behind what they contribute. Jakes continually asked his title question: “Enrichment or Essential?” (Jakes, 2006). It will become my job to make online literacy essential, not simply an exercise in enrichment for my classes.

Home page image credit

Bolan, K., M. Canada, and R. Cullin (2007). Web, library, and teen services 2.0 Young adult library services, 5 (2), 40-43

Brown, N.E. and K Bussert. (2007). Information literacy 2.0: empowering students through personal engagement. Eric Document Reproduction Service : ED 500-136

Jakes, D. (2006). New literacies: enrichment or essential? Paper presented at TechForum in San Diego, California

Luce-Kapler, R. (2007). Radical Change and Wikis: Teaching New Literacies Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51 (3), 214-223 DOI: 10.1598/JAAL.51.3.2

Salpeter, J. (2008). Make students info literate. Technology & Learning, 25-28

The grades that vanished, and some other threats to students’ data. Gnatek, T.

Chris Wondra — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 03:53:14 +0000

Gnatek, T. (2005, August 3). The grades that vanished, and some other threats to students’ data. The New York Times. Retrieved from http//:www.nytimes.com.

An Annotation by Jeffery Ayer

This investigative article focuses almost wholly on the evils of the internet in schools, especially those that can in some way compromise the privacy of students, and not just changing grades, but identity theft and the like. In one portion of the story, Gnatek cites Will Richardson, author of Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms. He says of using Web 2.0 technologies in schools, “It’s an issue to balance the tools with keeping kids’ privacy safe.” In the same vein, Gnatek says that Richardson “encourages teachers to adopt blogs, wikis and other publishing tools as part of their curriculum, while acknowledging the risks inherent in posting information on the internet.” Particularly, Richardson recommends first names or the use of a pseudonym, and no divulgence of personal information whatsoever. Largely, this article asks for government officials and school officials alike to review current law and potentially update for the sake of maintaining the privacy of minors in an ever-changing digital world.

Web 2.0: Pedagogical Evidence and Brain Research

Chris Wondra — Fri, 28 May 2010 21:36:30 +0000

By Jeffery Ayer,

This article is the 1st in a series, based on action research I collected while studying for my M.Ed, explores the impact digital technology can have on how our students learn, and how we, as educators, can leverage that impact for the good of our students.

You can also read the rest of the series here at We Teach We Learn

2. Online Literacy and New Literacy

3. Web 2.0 Technologies and Online Writing Tools (coming soon)

4. Online Security and Safety (coming soon)

The Pedagogy and Politics of Technology in the classroom

Talking with just about any administrator about the importance of technology in a school, one will find him/her pointing to the computer labs available, the existence of a school webpage, and maybe to the SmartBoards the school has installed thus far (if lucky enough to afford them). But J.D. Bransford points out that technology’s existence is not guaranteeing anything at all to a mother who is about to enroll her child in the district’s high school. In an ever-increasingly politicized educational system, taxpayers are crying foul over every expenditure, especially on new and constantly changing technology.

Bransford combats these issues by stating, “Because many new technologies are interactive, it is now easier to create environments in which students can learn by doing, receive feedback, and continually refine their understanding and build new knowledge” (Bransford, 2000, p. 208). What’s particularly wonderful about these new technologies is that they are all free to access and use, especially when you are talking about educational purposes (my own wiki pages, because they are clearly of an educational nature, are free and one level above a basic page, meaning that I have more gigabyte space for backing up pages, and no advertisements whatsoever). And while I have to address how much access students have to internet services outside of school by using an early technology survey, I always allow sufficient time in class and extended deadlines for certain types of online work that allow students enough flexibility to participate successfully, even if they don’t have access to the web after school is out.

Motivation

A number of the sources in my research focus on how technology can help to drive motivation and keep students focused on real-world tasks using new real-world technologies, all the while giving them the opportunity to “perform and learn in far more complex ways than ever before” (Bransford, 2000, p. 215). And while Glasser doesn’t directly address new technologies in his somewhat archaic article from 1997 and 1998, he nicely massages any questioning administrator or parent into believing in the potential these technologies have on student motivation, mostly because they are intrinsically supportive of his belief in choice theory, where students take ownership and responsibility for their actions.

Web 2.0 collaboration and activity can easily meet the four psychological needs he cites in his article, “’Choice Theory’ and Student Success,” including “the need to belong, the need for power, the need for freedom, and the need for fun” (Glasser, 1997, p.17). And J. Willis’s article, “Preserve the Child in Every Learner,” shows just how important it is that students feel that they are an integral part of what is occurring in the classroom. Looking at the function of the amygdale and the brain chemical dopamine, Willis makes a clear brain-based assertion that dopamine in students’ brains is not as readily blocked when teaching strategies include “exploration and investigation activities, cooperative learning, allowing students to establish some of their own learning goals, student choice of subtopics to investigate, social collaboration, and physical activity connected to academic study” (Willis, 2007, p. 35).

Perhaps even more revealing in the literature is the fact that the barriers that have historically existed between student and teacher could be knocked down using such new technologies. Bransford argues that the use of these technologies in the classroom can actually redefine the roles of students and teachers alike, stating that “[o]ften both teachers and students are novices, and the creation of knowledge is a genuinely cooperative endeavor. Epistemological authority – teachers possessing knowledge and students receiving knowledge – is redefined, which in turn redefines social authority and personal responsibility” (Bransford, 2000, p. 227).

Glasser could not be more thrilled, stating that students have a “personal world” where only a select few are allowed to enter. If teachers move from bossing to leading, and these technologies can allow for exactly that, then “[w]e follow [teachers] because we believe they have our best interests at heart. In school, if [a student] senses that particular teachers are now caring, listening, encouraging, and laughing, he will begin to consider putting them into his quality world,” and the environment of that classroom can be truly special (Glasser, 1997, p. 18).

Willis’s brain-based research also reinforces the importance of a safe, stimulating, comfortable environment for quality learning to take place, stating that “when students are in a positive emotional state” and “when subjects express feelings of contentment and safety, a stimulating, but comfortable amount of challenge has a positive influence on the amygdala’s affective filter,” which in one study showed “students tested under these conditions show better working memory, improved verbal fluency, increased episodic memory for events, enhanced creative problem solving, focus, and higher order executive function and decision-making abilities” (Willis, 2007, p. 35).

When looking at my own instruction, there is no doubt that using Web 2.0 technologies allow for me to break down the barriers that exist between teachers and students, creating an online forum and digital environment that can quickly spread into the classroom, making a safe place to share ideas, writing, and other project-based learning I might involve in the curriculum. Two springs ago, I first experimented with employing a wiki page in my English 11 courses, and the feedback (in the form of surveys and in verbal communication) was phenomenal. Even in my summer school class, students with whom I had little or no connection were able to develop a relationship with me by using a website called shelfari.com, where we shared good books we have read in the past and were reading at that moment.

Exciting, to say the least. For me as an English instructor, considering the topics we cover in our reading of J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye alone, if students do not feel that I genuinely care about the trials and tribulations of teenagers, how can teaching such an important piece of literature really be effective? These technologies really do take the impact of my teaching Catcher to another level altogether. And finally, when considering assessment, it’s clear that my students perform better as a result of what is a more inviting, involving, caring environment using these new technologies,

Wiki, blog, or moodle? Fryer, W.

Chris Wondra — Thu, 27 May 2010 21:01:36 +0000

Fryer, W. (2006, October 6). Wiki, blog, or moodle? Retrieved June 9, 2008 from http://www.techlearning.com/blog/2006/10/wiki_blog_or_moodle.php.

An Annotation by Jeff Ayer

Fryer, in a blog posting, asks this important question: “Which Web 2.0 tool is appropriate for which educational task?” From there, the author breaks down the advantages and disadvantages of wikis, blogs, and Moodle, particularly pointing out that while blogs can keep a running tally of contributions, wikis can more easily be accessed to do more complex things, and collaboratively, whereas blogs are more individuated. Moodle poses as the best of both worlds, as it “offers the ability to host threaded discussions too…which can be comparatively more organized than a series of blog posts (especially on different blog sites) and reflect the contributions of different people more directly than a wiki can.” Essentially, “By using the latest release of Moodle, a teacher doesn’t have to decide between ‘blog or wiki.’” In any case, this article nicely places the three Web. 2.0 technologies beside one another for educators to consider. In a nutshell, blogs are great for individual work, wikis for group work and collaborative efforts, and Moodle for a little bit of both.