grabe

Was, might be, WHY

ISTE is working on a revision of Standards for Students. A draft is available online and you are invited to provide comments.

I must admit I am neither pro nor con when it comes to standards. To me, standards are vague and lack the specificity of examples and expected frequency that actually matter when it comes to implementation. What qualifies as an experience meeting some expectation and how frequently are students to have such experiences.

As a potential consumer of these standards (assume I shape educational experiences for future educators and want to do the right thing in focusing this preparation), here is what would be helpful to me:

What has changed – this is the what was and what might be? I have considered making this an assignment for the students I work with – here is a copy of the existing standards and here is a copy of the proposed standards, what has changed?
Why are these changes justified? I cannot help asking this question. I came to my interest in educational technology as an educational psychologist and educational researcher. I want to know why changes are made. Are these “trending topics” or is there research support for these topics? Just tell me what citations I should read. I want to offer these sources to the potential instructional designers I work with.

Who is influential in reducing bullying?

I have had the opportunity to investigate cyberbullying in middle schools through a grad student, Brett Holfeld (now PhD), who had an interest in the topic. Moving past description was an issue for those interested in the problem. Most of the recommendations given for dealing with the issue was speculation without much in the way of documentation. One of the general recommendations I remember was to prevent bullying behavior from being “normalized”. This roughly translated as understanding that such behavior is actually not acceptable (or normal). Schools attempted to make it clear that aggressive online behavior directed at peers was unacceptable. It sounds obvious, but it is more difficult than it might seem to actually convey this message in a way that convinces others “the flaws are in the perpetrators and not the victims” (my way of understanding).

Those of us in educational technology might suggest that educators encourage students to create public service announcements taking a stand against bullying. A recent study now seems to suggest that similar approaches work especially if featuring “social referents”. Messages from some students are more influential than messages from others.

The research (Paluck, Shepard & Aronow) is available online as a “prepublication”.

Participatory content

One of the ways I (an old academic) think about technology is as a tool for implementing great ideas that have been around for some time but would be impractical without the advantages offered by the new tool. If I have a way to identify new opportunities (which are not really new), this is it. If old folks are credited for wisdom, this how I think it works.

I am a fan of digital content (ebooks and online content) because the format allows manipulation and not just consumption. While I do argue that it is personal cognitive behavior that makes any learning experience productive (minds on rather than hands on), the integration of tools and tasks with content is about the best we can do to encourage such productive personal behavior in others.

I refer you to a recent blog post explaining the highlighting/annotation potential of Newsela as an example. This is a commercial example of the type of idea I have been exploring and you may have tried without considering the learning benefits. For example, you may highlight and annotate what you read in Kindle books. Now, add a social component to such activities and you may really have something. A discussion (teacher or author led or not) can spring up as learners react to the content they encounter. Challenge the author, ask a question, add an example – use the opportunity provided by the technology to make an encounter with ideas more active.

(also see a previous post)

Politics in the classroom – are we avoiding an engagement opportunity?

When it comes to engaging students, perhaps we are afraid of the obvious. Topics that are contentious and charged engaged us all. We have strong opinions and when allowed to express them we need little encouragement to comment and argue for what we believe. We make efforts to learn more without prodding. Gun control, equity issues, political candidates, climate change, health care, abortion, etc. are topics that attract attention and generate engagement. The level of engagement may reach the level that make us uncomfortable personally and may bring scrutiny from others (parents, administrators) when we share our position and logic. It is just frustrating that educators are asked to make dull topics interesting but are expected to avoid interests that already exist. These issues are huge in the decisions adults make and despite all of the rhetoric about preparing students for their futures, we avoid encouraging the development of skills for making personal decisions about such topics.

I am a fan of Newsela because the service attempts to offer “news” to students at multiple reading levels. This Newsela post comments on the issue of politics in the classroom and references a new book coming out of the Univ of Wisconsin on the topic. Also take a look at this related piece from NPR. I am really tempted to get the book noted in the NPR piece, but the $30+ price for Kindle book kind of violates my personal fair price guideline.

A realistic look at teaching coding skills in K-12

A week or so ago I generated a post questioning the value of an “hour of code”. I was attempting to point out that meaningful commitment to “computational thinking” required much more and those interested should focus on assuring high schools offer a programming course before worrying about whether elementary and middle school students are exposed to rudimentary forms of coding. To me, there is not much value of generating interest without the opportunity to actually become involved.

The U.S. News and World Report recently provided an article that provides some data and details on programming instruction. If you are an administrator or educator interested in this issue, this article explains the reality I think needs to be understood.

Sharing and collecting Google photos

Google allows the creation of a shared photo album within Google Photos. Here is a quick tutorial. Imagine a situation in which individuals visit the zoo and want to combine their best images into a collaborative album.

Step 1 – Someone needs to create the shared album. If this is you, here is what you do.

From your Google photos account, select the + icon

A drop down menu should appear and share album will be one of the options

Step 2 – make your initial contributions

You Photos collection will open and you can then select the images you want to add to the collaborative album. You should then select create (upper right-hand corner).

Step 3 – enter name for the shared album

Enter a title for the shared album and then select the three dot icon

Step 4 – Share and generate link

When the three dot icon is selected a dialog box appears with an address for the shared collection. You could provide this address to others if all you want to do is share your selections.

Step 5 – Return to your photos home page and select shared albums

This may seem a little strange, but the next step is to return to your photos home. From this location, access your shared album(s).

Step 6 – Select album you want designated for group contributions

Select the shared album you intend to be used for shared contributions.

You should now see a slider to allow others to contribute images (not just view what you have shared).

Send the link to others

Step 7 – Others connect with the link provided

At this point, your work is done and it is time for your collaborators. When someone uses the link you provided, they must first sign in.

They then join to add photos.

An icon should now appear allowing the selection of photos from their Google Photos.

My issues with “hour of code”

I wrote a couple of tweets this morning critical of the “hour of code”. In doing so, I violated a personal rule. Twitter is a poor tool for explanation or deep thinking so it is best to avoid it if you want to communicate effectively.

I am not against programming and have benefitted greatly because I had the background necessary to develop the software necessary to do my research.

Here is a way to understand what I think is wrong with educator interest in the “hour of code”.

Take elementary or middle school “STEM” initiatives as an example. The concern being addressed is that younger students and certain categories of students do not see themselves in STEM careers. As a consequence, they do not take the coursework necessary to prepare for STEM majors at the college level or do not take secondary preparatory courses seriously enough should they enroll. Many STEM activities attempt to change such perspectives. Such activities might be described as “teasers” intended to create interest and a sense of personal relevance.

Here is what is different with programming. Many K-12 districts do not offer programming courses and most states do not recognize programming courses that are available as satisfying a science or math requirement. The “hour of code” is a tease without the opportunity for follow through.

We have considerable experience evaluating limited programming experience (from the wave of interest in LOGO). What the research suggests is that most limited experiences develop little expertise and little evidence of transfer (some now would label this as computational thinking).

So, if you (administrators or teachers) are really interested in the value of programming start with what matters. Does your institution offer a programming course? Does your state “count” the credits earned from taking such a course?

An hour of code might matter if it generated enthusiasm for what could come next.

My content resources for coding and computational thinking

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31