EdTech Avenue

FANTASTIC short blogposting about skills vs tools – FANTASTIC graphic there, too!
http://www.techlearning.com/blogs/26916

Presenters are using a student response system first to poll the audience.  This is engaging the audience and keeping attention focused while also transfering content information.  Hmmm… what we should be doing in our classrooms?  Yes!!  Resources and more information at http://conferenceconnection2009.edublogs.org/.

These are NETS (standards) for Teachers.  Refer to the ISTE website for more information. These standards are broken into 4 stages in the rubric scale: Beginning > Developing > Proficient > Transformative.

Standard 1: Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity; Performance Indicator A: promote, support and model creative and innovative thinking and inventiveness.  In this example, a teacher is at this beginning level of this standard and show us a tool that will move them to the developing level.

Showing Blabberize – where you can take a photo of the person or animal (or anything), set where the mouth is, and make it “talk” with your voice!

Standard 2: Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments; Performance Indicator C: customize and personalize learning activities to address students’ diverse learning styles, working strategies, and abilities using digital tools and resources. Teacher at the developing stage can move to the Proficient stage (facilitate learning, use specific strategies).

Showing their blog at edublogs.org, tour of WordPress blog.

Standard 4: Promote and Model Digital Citizenship and Responsibility; Performance Indicator B: address the diverse needs of all learners by using learner-centered strategies providing equitable access to appropriate digital tools and resources.

Showing the free tool “voki” (available from their website above).  Chose a character (or import a picture) and background, give it a voice by text-to-voice, record using a microphone, call in, or upload an mp3. Kids can communicate what they know very quickly and easily.

Standard 3: Model Digital-Age Work and Learning; Performance Indicator A: demonstrate fluency in technology systems and the transfer of current knowledge to new technologies and situations. Teacher moving from beginning to developing stage (plan, manage and facilitate).

Showing Wikispaces for Educators.

The are going WAY too fast.

Standard 5: Engage in Professional Growth and Leadership; Performance Indicator D: contribute to the effectiveness, vitality, and self-renewal of the teaching profession and of their school and community. Teacher can move from developing stage to proficient (actively contribute, sharing promising practices).

Showing Elluminate. One online virtual classroom, discussion board, whiteboard, document sharing, audio/video, and more. Free for up to three people at a time. We can extend our community and our learning.

Back to Standard 3: Model Digital-Age Work and Learning; Performance Indicator B: collaborate with students, peers, parents, and community members using digital tools and resources to support student success and innovation.

Move from beginning stage… Edublogs are good for beginning stage. Add Blabberize to that, making it interactive, and you are moving to the developing stage. Add to that the voki element, allowing for even more customization and creativity moves to the proficient stage. Blabberize is not as interactive – voki allows for comments on the element while Blabberize has to be embedded in a comment-friendly place. Move to transformative by putting that all into an Elluminate classroom with kids collaborating together across time and space, even just showing one classroom’s work to another.

They are talking now about the “Awareness Scale.”  I’m not sure from this if it’s something that is available through ISTE on the rubric scale or if it’s something they’ve come up with.  It is being described as where to start with teachers who are not yet in the “active” phase of the standards put forth by ISTE.  These are discussions that should be happening with teachers who are not yet even to the beginning stages of integrating technology in a meaningful way.  There is a good slide in their preso that shows this scale as it compares to the NETS scale.  The presenter is willing to answer questions via email, available on the link above.

ISTE has developed a new “Seal of Alignment” for those programs who are validated by ISTE.  These can “meet” or “support” specific standards.  They examine the quality and treatment of those programs and the rigor they put into it.  Not just the product but how it is implemented is assessed.  “Quality and Alignment Assurance”

Adobe Curriculum:  Includes instructor and student materials for their product including worksheets, presentations and an assessment piece.

IC3 (Internet and Computing Core Certification): Global standard certification program that measures digital and computing literacy.  Launched in 2002.  Currently updating for the new NETS.  Certification Resources include assessments, approved courseware and practice tests.  Schools using this as test-out options, course placement, final exams, and professional development.

eMINTS (enhancing Missouri’s Instructional Networked Teaching Strategies): A professional development resource center for schools and districts, adapting to meet local needs where necessary.  Bernie Dodge is a member of their advisory board, so they work at helping schools use webquests to meet standards.  They offer a full professional development series (2-year program).

School of Education at Johns Hopkins University: Offers an online program for a certificate in school administration and supervision, in partnership with ISTE.  This program meets fully the NETS-A standards.  They are preparing school administrators to be technology leaders.

How do you use a product and implement into your curriculum?  Learning.com rep speaking as an example being used in the Klein ISD.  Klein ISD rep speaking on use — Every student has a subscription to EasyTech from Learning.com.  This is classified as a textbook.  Fully aligned to the standards.  They developed a scope and sequence as an integral component of core content instruction (this is what we do at BT, not separating tech out).  EasyTech Lessons are then assigned for skill development.  Activities are assigned for application of skill and tied to learning objected of the core curriculum.  Technology grade is added to the report card to let parents know how they are doing in the technology mastery of skills.  Read about this program in the latest edition Learning & Leading with Technology (included in the NECC welcome bag, June/July issue, page 12).  Schools who subscribe to Learning.com’s EasyTech will now be able to share content across the system.

PBS TeacherLine: Capstone Certificate Program for teachers, aligned with NETS-T.  Year-long online professional development for teachers who are familiar with technology integration in the classroom.

Thinkfinity.org:  Tens of thousands of free resources to educators, students, and parents.  Also free professional development for how to “effectively integrate Thinkfinity online resources to enhance curriculum instruction.”  Integration Framework: Who uses the resource?  What stratgeies are going to be used – cooperative learning? discovery approach?  What classroom configuration will work best to employ this activity?  What does this activity look like for students?  How will you know if the activity is successful?  (Webinar in July on the Integration Framework.)

Research Study

We need to have a better awareness on how to educate on cyberbullying.  Graduate students in counseling and education came together in this project.  Cyberbullying “refers to bullying via electronic communications tools.”

Seven Types

1. Flaming
2. Harassment
3. Denigration
4. Cyberstalking
5. Impersonation or Masquerading
6. Outing or Trickery
7. Exclusion

Trends
Age: increases in elementary years, peaks in middle school, declines in high school
Gender: girls more likely to be online and cyberbully

Broadband Data Improvement Act in 2008 included Title II “Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act.”

Phase I: Adapted previous survey by Li (2006, 2007).  More than half were aware of someone being cyberbullied most were not reported to an adult.  Slightly more boys than girls were both bullies and being bullied, most happened outside of school, over half were not reported, and situations typically happened on average about 4 times.

Phase II:  Focus Groups to further inform survey data, explore the student views and experiences to collect information to use in creating scenarios.  Found commonalities and put in three categories – Reactions, Knowledge, and Coping.  Results said most cyberbullying would take place between the student and someone they know, and most were due to a misunderstanding.  The most common answer for who they would talk to about it was the school counselor, also stating that they felt more adults need to be educated about cyberbullying.

Phase III: Virtual Scenarios fully “acted out” using avatars in Second Life, based on phases I and II: (1) Gossip Goes Virtual and (2) Mark Visits the School Counselor.  Students watched the scenarios and offered feedback.

Recommendations for parents: understand what it is, educate children, be aware, be involved.

Resources:

• CyberSmart Curriculum
• NetSmartz
• iSafe

Showing video of Second Life Scenario, “Mark Visits the School Counselor.”

Q&A
Second Life was used for the video scenarios to link the technology and counseling worlds, this seemed the easiest place to do this in a place that is away from the true counseling and reporting of cyberbullying in person to make it more comfortable for students.

More scenarios are hoped to be added later.

The scripting process for the video scenario used words from students in the focus group sessions. They reviewed feedback from the focus groups and used data and phrasing spoken by the students to create the scenario.

Focus Groups were recorded using digital audio and transcribed later.

MovieTeacher46.com has a list of movies where bullying takes place to use as a discussion starter.

Lisa Whitaker has a school board member that wants them to run on Linux.  Any thoughts? 

The school board member writes:

I have been looking into Linux and think we could do some travelling carts for pretty cheap. Or if not carts we could have some computers in the classroom. Linux runs well on old computers (Windows 98 or the Mac equivalent), which could be pretty cheap to get our hands on from places that are upgrading, and then you can run all sorts of free programs – word processing, etc. If you put Wine on the computer, it will emulate Windows and you can run many (not all) old software CDs. That would allow teachers to do keyboarding and art and math facts, etc. on the computers.  There is a guy on my work listserv who runs his whole law office using Linux, free software, and internet-based programs.

It might be something to look into for the future. Do you know much about Linux, or have you heard of any schools using it? We probably couldn’t do podcasts and things, but it might be a solution for the younger grades, which could free up tech room space for the older grades.

This post was requested by Lisa Whitaker.  Please see below and join the conversation!

I heard recently that not all features on Smartboards work with a Mac but I can’t find anything so far that shows me that.

Our librarian passed this onto me: http://www.edugeek.net/forums/hardware/14847-any-school-using-interwrite-pads-bluetooth.html

I found this free Promethean viewer at Promethean Planet. You have to register but that is free as well: http://www.prometheanplanet.com/server.php?show=nav.15853&ua_siteLoginRequired=1

Anyone using Moodle? Just found out our high school is, and wanting to bring down to younger levels. We are feeders into our high school, and strive to have our kids ready for the task. Not knowing how to set up a moodle server. anyone else???

It’s been a LONG time since my last post, and for that, I apologize. A summer I thought would be spent relaxing by the pool and tweaking my blog for the archdiocese tech coordinators was not so much that. Instead, I managed to just barely make it through NECC and spent much time on the couch suffering the effects of morning sickness!

But like many of you, I am now back to work full-force and itching to get blogging again! I have yet to fix my form-mailer to collect data from the archdiocese tech coordinators, but I am hoping that while I was “out” some new plug-ins came “in” and that will help that form to be up and running very soon.

What’s Ahead
The big scurry this fall for most of us is getting ready for Learnia, Harcourt’s answer to standardized testing online. Blessed Trinity was part of the pilot program last year, and apparently we were one of the few schools for whom the testing went well. I hope this can be a forum for some of us to share ideas about what works and what doesn’t, and how to prepare your network, teachers and students for the testing.

I’m finally starting to get caught up after installing some new (refurb) PCs that came in during workshop week!

Another issue for me this year will be researching, encouraging, and attempting to find funding for a Student Information System. Many on our staff (including I) have spent many hours dealing with data issues in the last four weeks. It seems we duplicate our work three or four times these days for all the different changes that come about, which is quite a bit of time when students are still registering on the first day of school! I hope we can reduce that workload with an integrated system soon. I will be looking to my colleagues for advice!

My laptop battery ran out during the session, so I waited to post until I had transcribed all my notes. 

There were no presenter resources for this session, but as I was waiting for the session to start, Jessica Pater approached me from the Georgia Tech Research Institute.  This program publishes grant and funding resources once a month (?) at http://http://www.f3program.org.  You can contact her at Jessica.Pater@gtri.gatech.edu for more information.

My notes on the session follow:

Keys to Great Grants

• Integrated program elements
• Aligned components (what’s going on in your district, city, state? how will the funding support this?)
• High quality and continuous improvement, professional development, evaluation
• Tied to high standards
• Innovation
• Coordination of resources
• Program ties to local needs
• Buy-in

Volunteer to be a grant reader to see what happens on the other side of the door.

People who have money are looking for strategic people to give it to.  How can I showcase my work in a different way than others?

We often think about buying “stuff” but funders need to see demonstration of that stuff being supported by professional development and continuous improvement after the funding is complete.

You only have to earn the last grant, not be the first and best.

Evaluation process is key – no one will give money if there is no proof of it making a difference.  Evaluate EVERY component, not just pieces.  For every piece that is left out, your place on the list will drop.

You’re not going to get a grant to do what you’re already supposed to be doing.  It must be an innovative program.  This might be slightly different in private schools where funding is not necessarily supported by the operating budget as it is in public schools.

Motivate funders with programs they will want to talk about and promote, something they will be proud to fund.  Remind them of the tax write-off.

Community data such as a survey of computers and internet in homes will give sample information for the digital divide in your community.  Library usage patterns are also helpful.  These will show how the proposal can contribute to the economic stability of the community.

Questions Reviewers Ask When Reviewing Proposals

1. Does the proposal tie into the school’s overall plan?
   –team effort, support within the school
2. How will technology be used?
   –team’s vision for how technology will be USED to improve student learning
3. Will the proposal impact student learning?
   –team’s plan to improve student learning BEYOND THE NORM
4. How will desired outcomes be developed?
   –describe SPECIFIC indicators, how curriculum development might change; must be measurable and tied to standards
5. Does this initiative have the potential to be replicated or ourtreached to a larger community?
   –be prepared with a way to do this!
   –how it might have a more far-reaching impact
6. Does the proposal tap creativity in tapping other resources already available in the community?
   –library, women’s shelter, tutoring program
   –must be INNOVATIVE
7. Is the budget clearly defined?
   –make a case why private funding should be used
   –funders will not support what should be already supported by the school, district, state or federal government
8. Who will benefit from this initiative?
   –be very clear about this
   –it’s ALWAYS about the kids!
9. How well does this proposal replicate what the grant funder is looking for?
   –how well do you know the funder, know the corporation/organization funding the grant?  learn about them and their goals and make it work to your benefit; make it personal
10. How committed are you?
    –they want to see your passion in this proposal
    –they want to be your PARTNER

A Grantwriter Should Be A:

• Gambler: taking chances that what you produce will hit a jackpot somewhere
• Masochist: resubmitting proposals after being rejected over and over again
• Diplomat: standing by quietly supportive, encouraging the grant team to “re-think” and “re-work” the proposal over and over again
• Squirrel: savign every article about grants and every scrap of paper on which notes are written just in case they might be useful someday
• Inventor: always seeking news ways to solve the age-old problem of fundraising
• Rhinoceros: be tough so rejections “bounce off your hide”
• Magician: crafting a proposal that appears to meet EVERY requirement of the RFP and just what the funder asks for
• Butcher: always cutting the proposal making it more and more concise and to the point; give a copy to someone unrelated to your work to get an objective viewpoint – can they understand what you want?
• Financial Wizard: stretching every dollar, doing more with less and garnering matching funds from every imaginable source
• Night Owl: requiring little sleep to work non-stop to meet numerous deadlines – NEVER miss one!  Pad your schedule by 2 weeks to avoid missing deadlines.
• Party Animal: always prepared to celebrate receiving a grant

**Do NOT change formatting to fit your needs – failure to comply with formatting and other requirements put forth by the grantee could disqualify your proposal.

**Don’t even START before being able to draw a line between what you’re doing and what students will be able to do.

Persistence pays off!

Share websites not already on www.cpsb.org/scripts/abshire/grants.asp

www.schoolgrants.org
–Bring Home the Bacon listserve ($30)
–Index of Sample Proposals

www.quinlan.com

www.eschoolnews.org/erc/funding

Session Resources: Mia Murphy presentation

Problem: How to assess

Sylvia Martinez – Generation YES
Looking for authentic assessment of kids being center of technology called “Tech YES.” Assessment is always the tail that wags the dog. Student guides the process (peer assessment), they use criteria that matches the ISTE NETS standards. Talks about sharing, writing, creativity and project-based collaboration skills. Students should be using real technology for a real purpose – personally meaningful. Authentic assessment is hard, takes time and teacher focus. Working in a number of states. There is only one way to perform assessment. Each school and grade may be different.

“The test means it’s over.” Technology literacy should open the doors, not indicate you are done.

Mia Murphy – NC Dept. of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention
Mia Murphy presentation

Kate Kemker – Florida Dept. of Education
Built their own Florida assessment – outsourse with separate company. Years ago created inventory for teachers with performance-based assessment. Skills performed are scored as the test progresses. Worked with researchers to get standards. Broke into six sections similar to NETS, came up with performance indicators to track proficiency in those areas. Survey to make sure others agreed on the important issues. Pilot allowed for feedback from various teachers with different researchers (design and focus groups). Also involved the teacher’s union. Implemented, aligned with their professional development plans. Teachers could do the assessment at their leisure, taking different sections at different times if they wanted. Then teachers can take their results into building their professional development.

Student Tool for Technology Literacy then developed that mirrored the same process using NETS. Framework has five sections: essential operational skills, missed, missed, independent learning, independent ethical issues.

Discussion is Open

How do we know we’ve reached the point where students are technologically literacy?

Why is it important that we do this?

The process needs to start with professional development.

If we don’t get students on board with what we are doing with technology, in appropriate and instructive ways, we won’t move forward. Some teachers may need to follow after students.

Florida Digital Educator Program teaches teachers how to perform tasks we want them to use in their classrooms – not just Word, PowerPoint, etc. Two-day program is more inclusive and means more to teachers when they return to their classrooms. Everyone needs to be using same vocabulary and have the same access.

NC has a state-wide assessment for 8th graders.

Silly to assess the proficiency instead of the literacy, and if we assess the tools we are also missing the point.

Why are we assessing something that is not being funded?

We have to first define what exactly we want the outcomes to be — media literacy? technology literacy? information literacy? What are these?

Kids have the technology proficiency, we need to take them further.

Drilling is not the only way to teach low-performance students.

We start with assessment and it drives classroom practice.

NCLB has very little about technology literacy. ETAN (EdTech Action Network) is here at the conference – get involved – we can change the direction with our voices.

Technology can not be the barrier to students achieving.

Are there technology literacies for lower than 8th grade? NC is moving it back from 8th grade progressively.

Could digital portfolios be used for assessment?

Some states mandate the same assessment and testing in every school, but others do not and leave it more open-ended.

Let the discussion continue…