So I found myself frustrated last week.

I spent the afternoon with a group of teachers who had explored Project Based Learning this year through a variety of formats. As we reflected on what worked, what didn’t, and what we’d like to see changed, one of the teachers made a comment along the lines of, “Our division is a top-down division.” He further commented that what’s fair isn’t always equal. I sensed that he was frustrated, and I know several other teachers and administrators around the division feel the same way. I can’t really disagree with him. As a division we have mandated a focus on math and writing this year as priorities for schools – based on data from AFL and our division writing assessments. PLC’s were to be formed around these 2 areas as much as possible, and professional learning is to connect to these division and school-wide focuses as well. So yes, in many respects, the division is mandating the work that people are doing.

Being cognizant that people are feeling this way, I try to provide people choices within some of the constraints they are working in. For example, later that day I was doing a short presentation to a staff about the writing trait of “Organization”. As part of my presentation, I was sharing links to various websites where they could access graphic organizers to use with their students. The request was made that instead of just providing them with links, couldn’t I just provide them a package with the graphic organizers they should be using? I was baffled slightly when I heard this…here I thought I was being helpful by providing them with different choices – when in reality some of them just want to be told what to do. 

I guess really these situations are emblematic of our classrooms, aren’t they? Some of our students want to forge ahead, figure things out on their own and  not be constrained by the expectations of teachers/administrators/curriculum. Others want to be told just what to do – give me the assignment and show me how to do it.

So my question is – how do we deal with this dichotomy on a school division level? How much autonomy should schools and teachers have? How much direction should be given??

Should our schools be left to set their own goals and determine their own professional learning entirely? Or should there be some input from a division level? Where is the balance…and how do we manage it??

I’ll be very honest…my initial reason for taking this course was entirely motivated by a desire to NOT have to drive during the winter months to Regina for classes. That I could sit in the comforts of my home and participate was a huge incentive, so much so, that I overlooked my insecurities about participating in a course focused on technology. As I recall in my first blog post, I acknowledged that I was not a techno newbie entirely, but certainly had plenty of room to grow. I think I’ve certainly done that.

In terms of course structure – I enjoyed having different guest speakers every week. It was great to be exposed to a variety of perspectives and issues regarding education and technology. While some guest speakers appealed to me more than others, I was always able to find something to connect to – even those presentations that got a little technical on me!! More important, however, was the dialogue among participants that emerged from many of our presentations. It was great to connect with so many people and hear how our struggles/challenges/successes were often similar, but in many cases also different. I enjoyed hearing what initiatives were happening in other divisions, and being privy to exemplars of wonderful ways to integrate technology into our classrooms. The power of the network has certainly been impressed upon me.

In addition to enjoying great conversation with fellow classmates and our instructors, the next best part of the course, for me, was reading other participant’s blogs. So often I would find posts that echoed my own thinking and ideas…which was affirming, but in other instances I would be challenged to think differently or more broadly about issues. My own blogging began with trepidation, and admittedly, I’ve yet to become a prolific blogger. I found I often preferred to read blogs and respond than write my own. What is so interesting to me, though, is that recently I’ve actually had the urge to blog…seriously. I would have never thought it possible, but as I’ve been heavily involved in some professional learning lately, I found that I wanted to write some posts – not necessarily because I had a huge desire to share with others, but more importantly to consolidate my own learning. I am dumbfounded by my density at times; I know how important “writing to learn” is…and yet, it has taken me until semester’s end to recognize the potential of my blog to serve as a tool for that powerful metacognitive strategy. It’s a struggle some days, I tell you.

One of the more challenging aspects of the course for myself was definitely the class collaborative wiki. I felt from the beginning that I didn’t have much to contribute as I lacked the expertise and/or knowledge to do so. As many of the tools we explored were entirely new to me, I wasn’t sure how to share useful information on them. Also, it became quickly apparent to me that much of the software/tools I am more familiar with were not open source -which while still useful, lose some of their appeal when subscription fees are attached.

As I’ve blogged on my digital project earlier, as well as reflected on it during our last session, I’ll not say much more except that I am hopeful I find a way to engage teachers in online, collaborative professional learning. While I’ve chosen a format that I think is useful for now, I’m cognizant that it will undoubtedly change and develop over time, ideally in the hands of teachers. The nature of my job is such that I know I will continue, indeed be required, to find ways to use technology both in my work with teachers, and also with students. That I could authentically connect this project to my current work was of huge benefit also.

Perhaps one of my greatest understandings I’m taking away from this course is the type of learner I am…or perhaps was. I always perceived myself to be a motivated, self-directed learner. Surprisingly, I found out that I struggled with the openess and flexibility available to me in the course.

When I initially discovered we wouldn’t have to write a formal paper, I was ecstatic…but about half way through the course…I was wishing that is exactly what I would have to do! It would be much easier – find a topic, research it, and write a paper – or two! Having the freedom to choose a digital project, thinking and rethinking what might be useful and manageable, was challenging. I was wishing that I was sitting in a classroom, being told exactly what to do and how to do it. How lazy!! But, I guess I’m from the generation of “sit and get” – so that is what is comfortable for me. The blogging, digital project, collaborative wiki – it allowed me such freedom that I wasn’t sure how to manage it at times.

I couldn’t help but think of our students, and how in our zest to provide them with authentic learning opportunities through avenues like project based learning or inquiry, they sometimes find it difficult to make that shift to being a self-directed learner. I recall having students say to me, “Can’t you just tell us what we need to do??” and my response to them was usually, “God forbid you’d have to think!”…and yet, here I was, wishing that someone would tell me what to do. I’ve come to realize my hypocrisy, and am more sensitive now to the reticence of our students to participate in learning activities that are outside their comfort zone.

The hallmark of true learning, of course, is that it moves beyond our current context and we apply it to a new situation. Well, I’m happy to say I’m now using google docs to manage my ball team. I’d have never thought of it before this class – and while I’m no expert – it is meeting our needs and helping us manage things in a more efficient manner than via email all the time. Who knew??

So I’ve been having a boo at all the great work many of you are doing with your students through your digital projects, and it really makes me miss a classroom environment! Fortunately, I recently got a Mac that I get to play with while I work with teachers and students from Lindale School through a pilot project that Dean Shareski organized. I haven’t had much time to dabble just yet, but I’m certainly excited to get engaged with some of the tools available on the Mac. That Garageband alone may steer me to my true dream of becoming a rock star yet!! LOL…

I realized that I haven’t reflected on my digital project at all to this point, and while we will be sharing them shortly, I became acutely aware of the difference between what many of you are doing and what I’m working towards.

For most of you – you’ve had the kids engaged and involved, working with the tools we’ve been learning about in this class – experimenting, becoming frustrated, having some success and experimenting some more no doubt.

My project is very static at this point, and has the potential to remain very static unless my intended audience truly buys into it’s purpose and engages with it. As I listened to D’arcy Norman and Brian Lamb’s discussion of repositories again recently, it occurred to me that I was possibly creating the very same thing – and I’m not sure I really want to!!

Without describing my project in it’s entirety, suffice it to say that my goal is to create the following:

• first and foremost, a collaborative workspace where our Grade 1 ELA teachers can discuss best practice, assessment and instruction.
• a place where they take control of their own learning – creating spaces of inquiry where they can work with their colleagues to work towards improved student learning
• a space to house resources (documents and multi-media) – downloadable and modifiable for teachers
• a space to house model lessons, exemplary student work and resources that will support student learning

Because some of the documents being housed in this space were created with Sask. Learning and we are not yet sure about copyright issues, I need to keep them private at this time, so I am using our division Forum site. While I am grateful that it will mean the documents remain private – I am concerned about the ease of collaboration. I think a wiki would have likely been a better avenue, but for now this is what I will work with. (The whole privacy issue is also something I’m struggling with, but I’ll save that for another post!)

My greatest fear, though, is that teachers won’t take the initiative to collaborate. And I’m not sure how to deal with that. I’m hoping that if I even get a handful of teachers who buy in, perhaps there will be a snowball effect. Of course I could subscribe to the old adage “You can lead a horse to water…” – but that feels like a bit of a cop out. Having said that, I know that unless I find something useful, I won’t subscribe to it – so this space needs to be user friendly and purposeful.

Time will tell….

I was just reading Ewan McIntosh’s post about Finland, and his discussion about why they seem to be so ahead of the game with regards to education. While I haven’t read about Finland extensively myself, it’s no secret that they are world leaders when it comes to education. Ewan brings to light some key points -namely the flexibility that students and teachers have, and the trust that is placed with them, using a particular Helsinki secondary school as an example.

Some points that particularly stuck with me were:

As I read through these points, I was reminded of some of the comments Stephen Downes made during his session with us around the network approach to learning, and the idea that what counts as “good” varies from person to person. He discussed how the wisdom of networks is people doing things their own way, rather than trying to come to aggregation of ideas. It seems to me this is somewhat the approach taken by students and teachers in this school. No two timetables are the same…isn’t that an interesting concept?

And students of different ages may be in different classes? Another interesting concept. Under our current structures having students in multi-grade settings usually poses a huge challenge for teachers, although I know from my experience there is great potential in them. As always, curriculum, timetabling, physical environment, etc. seem to hamper efforts at innovation. And yet, this Helsinki secondary has clearly tackled some of these issues, with apparent success.

I think one of the most telling points made, though, was the following:

Again, not a new concept, but one that really scares us as educators. I loved the question Stephen posed to us when he started his presentation, “How do you teach when you no longer have power over the students?”. I would love to throw that out to a group of educators and see what kind of discussion ensues. I think it needs to happen, sooner than later. 

Just came across an exciting post in Leadertalk, about a school that is working towards developing student learning expectations (SLE’s) – with the intention of encouraging school reform. They have developed 5 key areas:

STUDENT LEARNING EXPECTATIONS - What a student should know and be able to do when they graduate from 8th grade. (based on NETS)

1. St Elisabeth students will apply creativity and innovation to the development of new perspectives as they interpret and remix previous knowledge and pursue new learning.

2. St. Elisabeth students will be effective communicators who practice 21^st century literacy skills, model digital citizenship, and global collaboration.

3. St Elisabeth Students will demonstrate effective research and information fluency by developing original conclusions, re-evaluating and interpreting their assumptions, and assessing the reliability and validity of their sources.

      4. St. Elisabeth students will apply high level critical thinking skills, effective problem-solving strategies, and content specific   methods of data interpretation when exploring curriculum content.

      5. St. Elisabeth students will demonstrate behavior reflective of our faith and the Six Pillars of Character in all aspects of their school work and in interactions with their peers, teachers and the global community.

As I read through them, I couldn’t help but notice the similarities to our CELs, which I think should be the driving force of our curriculum. This school seems to be on the right path to creating environments for students to engage in authentic learning experiences, as the author, Barbara Barreda also mentioned how they have been discussing topics like 21st century literacy, moving beyond textbooks, classroom as studio, etc. Some really innovative thinking going on…and I’m anxious to see how things go on for them.

Somewhat disconcerting, though, was the very first comment she received to her post. This individual, who chose to remain anonymous, immediately found fault with their five key areas because of the lack of reference to what kids actually have to “know”. I’ve inserted it here because I think it is indicative of the mindset of many…

“What a student should know and be able to do….” Funny, but I don’t see any evidence of actual required knowledge — in the traditional sense of knowledge — in any of these five expectations. The goals you’ve outlined are excellent habits of mind and personal characteristics, but they ignore the “what a student should know” aspect of school.

School improvement will remain a unattainable goal until administrators and school boards are willing to tackle the curriculum question specifically: What, exactly, do we want our students to learn? Ignoring this important component of education is foolhardy.

Still stuck on the content…how will we ever move beyond it??

I recently watched “Stupid in America“, a documentary which basically questions why American students performed so poorly compared to Belgian counterparts – and quite readily points the finger at teachers. It’s a bit scary, in many ways – as I think there were some gross generalizations, but I must say I was intrigued by the discussion on teacher competence and the power of the unions. The fact that New York District and several other states didn’t seem to want to open their doors to the public (granted, the media isn’t exactly Joe Public) rings alarms for me. I thought the comment by the teacher from one of the charter schools was really telling when she stated, “I’m a good teacher. I don’t need tenure to protect me. I need to get rid of tenure to protect kids.”

I’d have to say in some respects, I agree with her. While controversial, I think it’s safe to say that anyone involved in the education system could identify teachers who simply shouldn’t have been in the profession – for a myriad of reasons. And so in many ways, I think transparency and accountability are not all bad.

But how do we decide who is and isn’t competent? Is student achievement our sole marker? Should it be? And who makes those decisions? And what happens if someone isn’t competent? Do we simply close the school, as is the case in the U.S.A.? Fire the headmaster, or teacher, as was my experience overseas in England? Is more money to schools the answer?

While I don’t think any of these are a suitable response, I also think it’s equally irresponsible to have NO response in situations where teacher competence comes into question. It’s not fair to kids. I am very intrigued to see the Competence Code that our STF is developing. Right now, especially after amalgamations, teacher competency issues are falling on the shoulders of our administrators. As a former administrator, I can say this is not a comfortable place to be. Hopefully this competence code will offer a framework that will encourage teachers to be reflective practitioners, as opposed to posturing on the defense, and help to support administrators with the task of teacher supervision.

Teaching is complex; students are diverse. There are no silver bullets, certainly, but I think one of the first steps we need to make is to be upfront about what we’re doing in our classrooms, in our schools, in our divisions…is it really meeting the needs of our kids? If it’s not, we better be open to at least having the conversations about what IS best for our kids.

Dean Shareski shared this article with everyone in our division just last week. In light of our discussion last night about Media Awareness, I thought I’d share it…

“How Dangerous is the Internet for  Children?”

Essentially, the author David Pogue points out that despite what is portrayed on the media, there is really very little threat to most kids who are online. I must admit, as a fan of the Law & Order t.v. shows, I figured online predators must be a dime a dozen…but apparently not!! Imagine, television not reflecting reality…:)

I’m totally of the camp that we need to teach our kids how to use the tool…rather than simply ban them from it. I chuckled when I thought about the mother who dove across the room trying to stop her child from seeing pornography, as opposed to Pogue’s reaction. Cripes, most of our prime time television is inappropriate for kids – but you don’t see people banning Grey’s Anatomy and Nip/Tuck, do you?

I was reminded me of a discussion I had with a tour guide while I in Amsterdam a few years ago. Obviously renowned for it’s liberal practices with sex, drugs, and alcohol, I asked him what impact such freedoms had on adolescents?

I expected, that given that amount of freedom, alcoholism, teen pregnancy and drug addiction could be pandemic for them, so was shocked when he indicated quite the opposite.

Really, though, it makes sense. The more taboo a topic/issue is, the more adolescents want to engage with it. In Amsterdam – nothing is taboo – so these things we often make a big deal of is just not really an issue for them.

While I’m not advocating teenagers engaging in any of these behaviours, at the same time, I think it’s foolish to bury one’s head in the sand and pretend it’s not happening. So just as we educate teens about the dangers of drinking, drugs, and unprotected sex – we better do the same about internet safety. Seems pretty simple to me.

Dean Shareski recently shared with our EC&I 831 class his personal journey into becoming “connected”. Having worked with Dean for almost two years now, I have been privy to many of his “connections” – as he’s constantly forwarding us links to blogs and information he comes across that is pertinent to our work. We’ve had skype conversations with Ewan McIntosh, and I’d heard of many of our guest speakers (Clarence Fisher, Darren Kuropatwa, etc.) prior to this class as Dean is constantly sharing their work with us. Dean is very passionate about his work, and he is eager to pass on the contagiousness.

 Having said that, he is very cognizant that Web 2.0 is not everyone’s passion, and so he’s often taken the approach that people need to have valid reasons for engaging with the myriad of tools available. I felt he reiterated this again last night when he gave us “5 Big Ideas”, the first of which stuck with me the most – “Get Personal and Selfish”.

This really hit home for me, as I’ve been feeling like I need to start using all these great tools we’ve been learning about in this class IMMEDIATELY. In fact, I’ve been quite guilt-ridden over our class collaborative wiki, as I’ve been very tentative to add information, as I’m unsure whether I have enough ”expertise” to really be sharing, let alone adding a topic myself. Silly, but true.  

So when Dean mentioned this big idea, that we can’t get caught up in tying things to classroom applications right away,  a light bulb kind of went off for me. I realized that I don’t need to pressure myself to incorporate EVERY tool we talk about into my work, nor do I need to be an EXPERT in any of these areas. As with anything, my needs will drive what I really begin to engage with – which will ensure it’s meaningful and useful. Right now Twitter isn’t useful to me, and I don’t see how I’d use Animoto, YET…even keeping up with my blog is still a challenge (although I must admit I find myself reading alot more). However, Moviemaker has been extremely useful as I recently developed a Guided Reading video as requested by our teachers. I’m hoping to use Adobe Connect early next week with some teachers to have a short information session on Writing Benchmarks instead of them driving to use our polycom. I’ve also dabbled with Camtasia to put together a screencast to share with our teachers around Writing Benchmarks.  

I realize that while only certain tools will be useful to me at certain points in time, the exposure to the range we’ve discussed is imperative, as are the networks we are creating to discuss the use of these tools. It’s great to be able to see and hear about what’s worked for people, the successes and challenges they’ve faced, etc.

So…I’m going to continue to get personal and stay selfish… 

So I’ve spent the better part of this evening getting myself subscribed to Flickr & Del.icio.us…trying to figure out how these tools are going to impact me – as a learner and as an educator.

The power of Del.ici.ous seems pretty straightforward in it’s primary purpose of housing bookmarks online…that in and of itself will make my life easier. But I can see how accessing networks of others bookmarks is also extremely powerful. I  went immediately to Dean’s and Alec’s accounts and added them to my network…and felt a bit odd about it at first. I feel as though I’m a bit of a creeper…which is really stupid considering the purpose of the tool, but I wasn’t really sure where else to start! I guess as I continue to engage with social bookmarking I’ll sort it out. So far I’ve added people that I personally know, or know of from colleagues…but I am curious - how do I build a network that will best meet my needs? I’m not sure it makes sense to just arbitrarily add people because I know them….? I used the search engine a couple of times, but didn’t come up with a whole lot…perhaps my keywords were not specific enough.

The one thing I do need to become more adept at is adding tags…I always forget!!

In terms of classroom application – again – I can see the power of students and teachers organizing and housing useful links and sites in one location. I can’t help but think of the higher order thinking skills that students need just to provide useful tags…let alone the opportunities inherent for collaboration when they can access and share resources. As with anything, though, using the tool needs to be meaningful…not just for the sake of using it. As Richard Schwier reminded us, we’ve seen many “panaceas” in schools over the years – everything from filmstrips to the internet. Simply having the technology or the tools doesn’t guarantee improved learning…

I cannot believe the timeliness of our session tonight with Sharon Peters. Her discussion on Digital Literacies is exactly the discussion I’ve was having with my Grade 1 teachers this afternoon. It is discussion that everyone needs to participate in -all teachers (whether ELA or not), administrators, parents, community at large, and last but certainly not least, our students. The media rich world we’re living in requires a shift in our understanding of “literacy”, which while not an entirely new concept - does have implications for our practice in our classrooms. 

Earlier this fall, we rolled out to our Grade 1 teachers a set of rubrics and common assessments for ELA – which basically houses the entire curriculum in 6 pages. Teachers report on every strand, every term. One of the major purposes of the project was to compact the curriculum and make it more teacher friendly, but another major purpose was to encourage teachers to begin focusing instruction in all 6 strands (reading, writing, listening, speaking, representing, and viewing). While the strands have been in provincial curriculum for several years, I think it’s a fair assumption to make that they have not been given equal weighting in the classroom. Reading and writing are considered the most critical strands by pretty much all parties involved.

So how do we move ourselves towards this understanding that engaging students in all strands, and multiple literacies, is important and necessary work?

The project is a start, to be sure.

One teacher commented how one of her students struggled with reading, but was far exceeding expectations in the viewing strand. She acknowledged how empowering it was to be able to share that information with parents during interviews, where traditionally, she would have typically had less positive news if she’d only focused on reading and writing. No doubt that student also felt empowered.

I could share a myriad of positive feedback that came from today’s session…which is wonderful to have. But, there is still concern about the validity of focusing equally on all 6 strands. These teachers want the research. Where is the proof that focusing on all 6 strands will lead to improved student learning? Why should they give up what they’ve always done? Is this just anothere bandwagon that we’re jumping on?

One of the suggestions that came from today’s session was to develop an information video for parents about the 6 strands, which could be played at PTI’s. I’m going to start working on it right away – because the message does need to be spread.

Our kids need to critically view, listen, read, represent, speak and write. Our teachers need to provide them authentic, contextualized opportunities to do so. 

This group of teachers is working hard to figure out how to do that. It’s not easy work. But they’re mucking about, talking, questioning, experimenting, but most importantly, reflecting…and I think that is what is most critical – whether we’re implementing new technology, new instructional strategies, or a new definition of “literacy”.