Recently, I have been working on a program for the senior school and it is interesting to reflect on this. The first point of reflection is the “why” question. Why do we want to incorperate technology into the program, and this isn’t just a technology program it is actually about any form of change.

I believe that this is directed from 5 different sets of stakeholders who will influence to greater of lesser extent the change in schools. Each brings with them a bias and a unique perspective to the process of change. For some the change is on a macro level and for others on a micro scale.

They are:

• The government, school district or legislative body over seeing the school
• The school board
• The community
• the teaching staff
• the students

Arching above all, is the legislative body responcible for education. These have a huge influence and often as not, they set direction for  education. They can provide clarity and purpose, focus and support.

Unfortuantely, these are usually political appointments and while often done with best of intents, are reactionary, popularist and frequently uninformed. Am I being harsh? Yes, perhaps I am but realistically, politicians are making decisions from their lofty view point which is poles apart from the perspective of the classroom teacher or the young learner in the classroom. Most politicians and administrators at a senior level have never been in a classroom or if they have it was years prior and in a 19th Century paradigm. We only need to look at well intentioned but nightmarish programmes like NCLB or national standards which have failed in so many countries to see this.

School boards provide the financial control for the school. They help shape direction of the school. They make appointments, approve projects and ally shape the environment of learning.

Usually, containing elected members of the community, they are meant to be the peoples voice, and indeed many are. But like politicans, the experience of most board members is harkening back to their own school days. Many will see the integration of Technology as important and will feel that more computers is a good thing, but the mechanics in a classroom? The oneof the things that oncerns me about school boards is the tendency for them to attract crusaders. Those on a mission to become elected, to bring in their agenda or ideas, to right percieved wrongs. How often do we see a very limited selection of nominees for school boards, and those who do nominate themselves having an often worthy agenda but with a limited perspective or holistic overview?

The communities influence is often a quieter one, the average parent who does not have time to be a board member as they are working to put food on the table. And as such does not have a great deal of influence except in the carpark as they talk amongst themselves or when they vote with their feet.

Parents want their children to succeed. They want them to be engaged and motivated and enjoying school. They too are influenced by their own educational experiences and this often temers their view of what happens in the classroom. The classic “it  worked for me and look how I turned out.” comments. If the only mode of education you have experienced is teacher centric, chalk and talk, rote learning; the dynamic, flexible and sometimes seemlingly chaotic world of students centric differentitated learning can be disconcerting. So the community to brings in its bias.

Teachers are the catalysts of change. Like a chemical reaction depended on a catalyst you can bring the reagents together, foster an optimal environment, but without the catalyst the reaction is painfully slow often to the point of being immeasurably tiny. Add the catalyst and the reaction proceeds at pace.

In a chemical reaction, the catalyst is often not used up or effected. In the classroom, teachers are always effected and to frequently are changed or just worn out. So we must have a supply of new catalysts – this places an onus of responcibility on pre-service educators.

The quietest of voices and alas the least influencial of stakeholders is the students themselves. Those on whom we are bestowing our educational wisdom, our hope and future, have the least say in direction. This is a hard balance to make how much influence should a student have on their learning? They can lack the wisdom (wisdom = Knowledge + experience) to be able to plot a learning course. They are often living in the now rather than considering the future. They struggle to scaffold and conceptualise why we proceed as we do in the classroom.

BUT does this mean they should not have an input, they should not be involved in shaping the direction of their learning? No they are vital, we must have their buy in, but unfortunately we can actually and do survive with out this.

So where does this leave us?

The shape of any program or change within a school is shaped by the degree of influence of these 5 stakeholders.  For collaborative, sustainable change to occur the expectations of all the groups must be considered and balanced.

Change is  influenced by the expectations and drivers of each of these groups. Sustainable change will see the expectations of each group considered, valued and balanced. The overall goals and objectives are derived from this.

Accessing recreational sites during classes and while at work is an issue facing employers [3] and schools alike. The cost, in dollar terms, can be huge and in lost productivity, is significant. Various strategies are employed to manage this but these are often ineffective, draconian or dictatorial. How can we manage this issue better?

The digital world we live in provides us with ample opportunities to work any where and conversely play anywhere. We often see our students sitting in the corridors, on the edge of wireless connectivity, web surfing during their break times, lunch hours and before and after school. The ubiquitous connectivity that modern devices presents us means that essentially we are online anytime. This is both a blessing and a curse.

Recent articles in ITNEWS[2] and the New Zealand Herald [1] have highlighted the cost that universal connectivity can bring to industry. IT News reported that as much as 40% of the companies bandwidth is used for non business related web activity.[2] The New Zealand Herald reported that this level of activity cost the New Zealand economy 2.7 million dollars a day.[1] At work, unlike school such activities can have huge repercussions for the work including dismissal [4].

As teachers, we must prepare our students for the world they live in now, but also for the world beyond the walls and boundaries of our institutions. This includes when it is appropriate to surf and when it is not.

The Digital Citizen [5] has an understanding of when and where it is appropriate to use the internet and online resources for recreational purposes. They know what time it is!

As teachers and administrators, we can help to develop and scaffold the self management skills and attitudes of our digital citizens. These will stand them well in the wider world beyond our gates. We do this, not by having restrictions, rather by gradually removing them; by encouraging an ethical approach to the use of technologies rather than applying draconian measures.

So how can we educate our students? Is it appropriate to unleash unfettered internet access on Middle School students? The answer is no. Students, particularly those in the middle years live in the now. They are in a period of great change, growth and are often experimenting and pushing boundaries. Here we need to provide guidelines and restrictions as they are often morally and ethically immature.

But as the students enter into the Senior School, it is appropriate to shift the focus of control from the teachers to the students. This is not to say “its all open, of you go” rather it is appropriate to gradually release the controls and shift the onus of responsibility on to the students.

We need to have clearly established guidelines for what is and is not acceptable, and we also need to be able to justify why these are not acceptable. For some aspects this is easy. For example surfing pornography is unacceptable for a number of reasons ranging from the legal to the ethical and moral aspects of it being an industry founded on abuse, portraying an unrealistic and inappropriate view of relationships and sex.

But what about facebook, myspace and other social networking sites? These are not fundamentally unethical. Often schools will block these sites as they are potentially opportunities for cyberbullying. But this strategy will not stop them being used for this rather it drives the practice underground and after school.

A better and more constructive approach to social networking sites (and other recreational sites) is to set clear guidelines for their use and make them available. Informing the students that the use of computers in class is strictly for educational purposes and other activities are detracting from their learning, sets the foundations for this. Informing them, Senior Students, that they can in their own time (before and after school, interval and lunch) access social networking/recreational sites, as long as their behaviour is appropriate and acceptable, brings the use of these sites from the realm of proxy tunnels and hidden activity and into the open. Student surfing and accessing social networking sites during learning time are suitably dealt with, while appropriate use in their own time is rewarded by continued access.

This style of approach prepares students for a world where the consequences of inappropriate activity are far more severe and potentially far reaching. We, as educators facilitate appropriate behaviours and chastise those that fail to reach these. The students who use technologies that bypass our restrictions are obviously accessing sites that are deemed unacceptable and inappropriate, rather than just trying to access their social networks or email.

The traditional approach of blocking just drives the behaviours underground and away from school environments. These approaches, blocking and banning do reduce the incidents at school but are hardly a holistic approach. Where as a partnership, based on trust and understanding, supported by the six facets of digital citizenship [5] makes the use of these site open, manageable and transparent. Students develop the skills and attitudes that will stand them in good stead beyond our gates, in the world of employment and further education.

References:

1. Hart. Steve, Saturday Jul 19, 2008 Slackers hurting net result http://www.nzherald.co.nz/employment/news/article.cfm?c_id=11&objectid=10522283
2. Williams Ian, Feb 11, 2009 IT Managers losing control of the network http://www.itnews.com.au/News/136844,it-managers-losing-control-of-the-network.aspx

3. staff writer 11 September 2007 facebooks costs businesses dear http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6989100.stm

4. staff writer Saturday, 25 April 2009 ‘Ill’ worker fired over Facebook http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8018329.stm

5. Churches, Andrew. The Digital Citizen. http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/The+Digital+Citizen

One of the best tools for the visual learner is a mind map. This learning tool is not covered by the software for schools package but fortunately for us there are some excellent alternatives that are reasonably priced (Many are open source and free). Here is a selection that are worth considering:

• C-Map – http://cmap.ihmc.us/conceptmap.html this is a favourite of mine. Its free, powerful, easy to use. I highly recommend this. It is also available in an assortment of flavours – Windows, Mac and Linux
• Freemind – http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page This is, I believe, one of the standards for open source mind mapping. Great straight forwarded well suited to a variety of ages. It is also available in an assortment of flavours – Windows, Mac and Linux.
• Mind Jet  Mind manager – http://www.mindjet.com/ This is a professional standard powerhouse of a tool, but its not free. The lead version (mind manager is windows with Mind manager 7 available for mac and windows.
• Inspiration and kidspiration – http://www.inspiration.com/ this is a standard for education.  Available in Windows and Mac its good but I find it clunky. This is a purchased tool and its not that cheap.
• Compendium – http://compendium.open.ac.uk/software.html - This si a free mind mapping and brain storming tools created by the Open University in the UK. It also has an excellent argument mapping tool/template as well. This is another favourite of mine. Also available in all three major flavours – Windows, Linux and Mac.

Resources:

I have put together some notes and ideas for mind mapping and tied these into Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy.

http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/blooms%2C+learning+styles+and+thinking+organisers

Starter Sheets – Mindmieister – this is a web based mind mapping tool – http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Starter+Sheets

This is a 3D mind mapping tool that has recently appeared – it has a free student addition. I haven’t had a chance to look at it, so I can pass comments. http://www.topicscape.com/student-edition.php?display=5

This is a directory of mind mapping tools – looks at web based options as well – http://www.c4lpt.co.uk/Directory/Tools/mind.html

The process of getting here has been quite long, but I had yesterday (saturday) to recuperate in Memphis. We went out last night to BB Kings house of Blues and had 4 hours of brilliant blues.  ZDA the princess of Beale st was the star act. (Thanks to Lee and his iPhone for the Photo)

We got over to Cherry County today and had out initial briefing with the district superintendent. This was insightful and fun. Its great to see an administrator with passion and care & concern for the education of the students.

We had a look around the elementry & secondary schools. The Elementery school is new (opened this year) and each student has a desk (no suprises there) but the desktop has a clear glass panel and underneath this is a 17in monitor, a pull out draw for a keyboard and mouse and a Mac Mini.  THIS IS EVERY STUDENT FROM K-4, beyond that they have laptops.

This is exciting, they have a traditional appropriate size and height desk with which to learn in a traditional paradigm and incorperated into this is a powerful and user friendly computer. Not one or two computers but one for every student.

A major part of our focus is project based learning. Building problem solving,  supported and facilitated by technology, into a a K-12 curriculum. This is a cool project and exciting.

I can’t wait to start.

This tool is an attempt to analyse the structure of examinations and tests and look at the balance between higher order thinking skills (HOTS) and lower order thinking skills (LOTS). Many examinations have a large influence on lower order thinking skills like remembering and understanding and a low emphasis on higher order thinking processes of analysis, evaluation and creativity.

The process in using this tool is as follows;

• work through the questions and add the mark value for each question to the appropriate column
• total each column and then total the mark value in each category (Taxonomic level)
• Calculate the percentage of the test which is based at each taxonomic level.

I don’t believe there are no right or wrong values or weightings. However, we know that higher order thinking skills and processes are preferable to lower order thinking skills like fact recall or simple repetition of definitions.

Here is the assessment analysis tool as a pdf – blooms-and-assessment

I would appreciate comments and feedback.

Today we had a presentation looking at Formative assessment (more on this) but one of the aspects of this presentation that I liked was a model for feedback. The model is ranked from weak feedback to strong feedback and the students will get the most benefit from strong feedback as part of their formative assessments.

Here is the model (Nyquist 2003)

What I like about this is its straight forward, simple and quite common sense (though the use of abbreviations does give it a superficial feeling of complexity).

1. The weakest form of feedback is just knowledge of their results, where our students are told this is your marks.
2. The next level is where not only do they get the results but also the correct answers. This could be analogous to handing back exam papers and reading out teh correct answers.
3. Next is explaining why they answers are correct or incorrect.  This is Knowledge of correct results and explanation.  Again if we look at the analogy of handing back examination papers this is:

• here is your exam
• here are the correct answers
• here is why they are correct

4. At a stronger level is KCR+e (the last point) plus specific actions to reduce the gap between your exam answers and the correct answers. With the exam analogy it would be  “revise the following topics, areas concepts with particular attention to……”

5. The final stage is as above with an activity to reinforce learning or correct inaccuracies.

However…..

While I like this model and I can see the benefits of it, and they are clear. The application maybe a different issue. I suspect that for the majority of teachers, the biggest constrain they will face is not willingness rather it is TIME.

I believe if we are going to implement (and we should) timely and effective, personalised and relevant feedback we must also address the pressing issues of time and its compounding factors of class size and curriculum. If you have a class of 25 students how much time do you have to provide timely and effective feedback. If you look at the average class being 50 minutes long, the time available to provide timely feedback is limited. here are some possible classrooms activities and timings with out feedback.

Classroom Activities

• Students arrive in class, and set up  – 5 minutes
• Teacher introduces class focus and details objectives/outcomes – 5 minutes
• Administration (roll/roster etc) – 5 minutes
• Starts lessons, scaffolds topic/content etc 15 minutes
• Summaries and concludes, reflects on task, packs up 5 minutes

If the teacher is providing 1:1 feedback they have 15 minutes to talk to each student. That’s 30 seconds per student.

We have to consider what we are doing in the classroom. I do not believe that we can ignore providing feedback, its is one of the most effective tools we have in our teaching toolbox. So what can we look at changing to facilitate and enable this tool? What about…

• reducing curriculum content
• decreasing class size
• increasing class time (this is stealing from Peter to pay for Paul)

These would help but are going to be limited by financial considerations

Reading:

http://www.slideshare.net/harvey_mellar/dylan-wiliam-1374277

(this is not the presentation we saw but is almost identical)

As classroom teachers we have a set of processes we use to keep ourselves and our students safe.

1. We keep our conversations appropriate. You can not divorce yourself from your students lives but you do keep a respectful distance.
2. We avoid meeting students in private, one to one settings that could be mis-interpreted.  We protect ourselves by keeping doors open and having other staff around help.
3. We keep contact limited to school times and events.
4. We keep our communications open and keep a paper trail.

But social networks have alter this. We now have a medium that is 24/7; a medium that easily flows from public to private and back again; a medium that encourages informal communications.

So what are the guidelines for teachers regarding the use of social networks with their students. I think we apply the same sorts of rules to social networks as we apply to F2F contacts.

1. Keep your conversations on a professional level. Keep your language in a more formal mode, try to avoid txt language that could potentially be mis-interpreted. Do not comment or post on students accounts or posts that are not education related.
2. Maintain professional boundaries. Students and teachers alike use social networks to socialise, this is after all what they are for. Keep your distance, do not enter in to conversations that would be inappropriate at school online. Keep seperate their personal/social lives and yours. Don’t enter into their private conversations or chats.
3. Keep you conversations public (analogue with do not have private, behind closed doors 1 to 1 meetings with students). Where possible keep your conversations in the public arena. However, some times it is unavoidable, but keep these appropriate.
4. Keep your HoD’s syndicate leaders, managers or principals informed. Venture into social networks but keep it transparent and open. Let people know what you are doing, why you are doing, what your outcomes and objectives will be etc. I have always invited my principals and Heads of Faculty to join any of these networks, wikis etc.
5. Keep a paper trail. Protect yourself by making sure you always have a full and complete paper trail. Should a concern be raised your best defence is a complete record.

These are my starting points, this is not a final statement or a complete outline just a thought or two on teacher guidelines for social networks.

What do we need to add to this?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10578306

While I might have suspicions that the article was given priority because of the profile of the school. The article does highlight a number of points for me:

1. There is a general lack of understanding of “digital citizenship” and the students were unaware about how easy it is to track such comments.
2. There is a grey area between home and school that the children’s commissioner highlighted. Parents also need education and support on digital citizenship.
3. Schools, private or not, need to be educating students in digital citizenship from an early age.
4. There is little formal structure or consistent approach to digital citizenship across the schools and through out the curriculum.

Social networks are growing rapidly. Social networks are so accessable, straightforward and easy that students often continue their conversations from the real world into the virtual environments of social networks and back again. The difference is that their spoken conversations (and they undoubtably had similar conversations) do not occur in a permanent medium. The conversations are disappointing, spiteful and unacceptable whether spoken or chatted. Students often feed on each other words escalating such discussions to the levels we see here.

The Herald questions whether the school had a right to act and discipline the students. From my perspective they had to on several grounds.

1. The comments involved members of their community in a manner that was potentially dangerous. We have seen here in New Zealand and overseas too many (and one is too many) cases where such bullying has resutled in students killing and harming themselves. Had they not acted they would have been vilified.
2. Unfortunately, many parents are unaware. They would not know how to monitor their child’s internet activity or an awareness of the potential risks.
3. Schools will deal with such activities with a degree of fairness and consistency that parents may not be able to with their emotional involvement and protective aspect. Schools do in many cases have a better understanding of the seriousness of such activities.

I am not trying to demean parents, I am one myself and I know that I do wear rose colour glasses, on some occassions, when dealing with my children. Many parents do not have the experience or knowledge of such technologies.  Such offences need consistent and appropriate responces for they are serious.

So what do we need to do

Firstly, we need to educate all three sets of stakeholders in this situation the

• Students
• Parents
• Teachers

The education must be balanced, blanket banning of access and draconian rules will not achieve a lasting outcome. We want our students to be ethical and moral users of these tools. They must understand the positive and negative aspects. It is too easy to focus only on the risks and ignore the huge potential that access provides. (See Digital Citizen AUA)

Rules without reason will develop frustration rather than understanding.

We must teach a suitable ethical approach to all students. This ethical approach and the responcibilites that go with it must be suitable for the students developmental age. We must accept that, many if not all, students will experiment and push boundaries whether this is access to unacceptable materials like pornography or inappropriate behaviour and actions etc. This is normal. Students must be dealt with appropriately when this occurs, a level and fair responce which clearly highlights why it is unacceptable; and with concequences that suit the action rather than reflect the emotional state of the people involved.

Teachers, are a huge influence on their pupils, they must model an ethical approach to use of technologies. Essentially they must model values. Parents to must model an ethical approach too.

Students to must act responcibly and act when they see inappropriate activity. Every social network has the facility to report abuse. The students should consider what they are reading and how they would feel if such comments or actions were directed at them. If they feel uncomfortable they should report this rather than ignoring or avoiding it.

I am a firm believer in the Grandma rule, which I suggest to my students is a measure of suitablility of content.

If you would not show it to your grand mother its not suitable content.

At home and at school I would recommend the I³ approach to student internet use.

• Interested – parents and teachers should be interested in the students use of these technologies
• Informed – parents and teachers should be informed of the benefits and risks of these technologies
• In view – computers should be in view, not hidden in bedrooms, darkened corridors or secreted in corners

Well done Dio for acting swiftly, well done for taking measured action, for being consistent and timely.

and finally if I was to quote Dean Shareski

Source: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3557/3352272716_a42d75c0f5.jpg?v=0

The text reads as follows:

“  Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They are not fond of rules. And the have no respect for the status quo. You can praise them, disagree with them, quote them, disbelieve them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can not do is ignore them. Because they change things. They invent. They imagine. They heal. They Explore. They Create. They Inspire. They push the human race forward. Maybe they have to be crazy. How else can you stare at an empty canvas and see a work of art? Or sit in silence and hear a song that’s never been written? Or gaze at a red planet and see a laboratory on wheels? We make tools for these kinds of people. While some see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do. Think Different. ”

This came from an advertisement from Apple in the 1990’s. Here is the youtube video clip. Its worth watching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvn_Ied9t4M

I like it, but I wonder would these ones fit in at school. The crazy ones? I wonder.

Part of the process has been discussing with then the “code of ethics”, the six facets of the digital citizen and taking there feedback on it. For the students it was an opportunity to have input into a code of practice that we will expect them to apply next year.

The feedback and questions from the students was poignant. It was amazing how much (and in a few cases how little) they understood, the difference between the Year 11 (15 year old) and Year 13 (17-18 year old) students came through in the depth of questions the students asked. They impressed me.

But it was clear that there is a need for these discussions, there is a need to look at what people are doing on the web, to look at the broad impacts that our connected world is having. To discuss the ethical approach to:

• communication
• bullying
• social responcibility
• pornography
• validity of information
• relationships
• predators

and the concequences of these.

Here is the final product as an acceptable use document or as a set of ethical guidelines. (Thanks you to the people who commented and suggested and to the students for their input)

1. Respect Yourself. I will show respect for myself through my actions. I will select online names that are appropriate, I will consider the information and images that I post online. I will consider what personal information about my life, experiences, experimentation or relationships I post. I will not be obscene.

2. Protect Yourself. I will ensure that the information, images and materials I post online will not put me at risk. I will not publish my personal details, contact details or a schedule of my activities. I will report any attacks or inappropriate behaviour directed at me. I will protect passwords, accounts and resources.

3. Respect Others. I will show respect to others. I will not use electronic mediums to flame, bully, harass or stalk other people. I will show respect for other people in my choice of websites, I will not visit sites that are degrading, pornographic, racist or inappropriate. I will not abuse my rights of access and I will not enter other people’s private spaces or areas.

4. Protect Others. I will protect others by reporting abuse, not forwarding inappropriate materials or communications; and not visiting sites that are degrading, pornographic, racist or inappropriate.

5. Respect Intellectual property. I will request permission to use resources. I will suitably cite any and all use of websites, books, media etc. I will validate information. I will use and abide by the fair use rules.

6. Protect Intellectual Property. I will request to use the software and media others produce. I will use free and open source alternatives rather than pirating software. I will purchase, license and register all software. I will purchase my music and media, and refrain from distributing these in a manner that violates their licenses. I will act with integrity.