EdChat | My Island View

Archive for the ‘EdChat’ Category

What’s In A Name?

Posted in Administrator, EdChat, Education, Leadership, Ning, PLN, Reform, Social Media, Teacher, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking, Twitter on July 26, 2010| 20 Comments »

Since my blog is a personal reflection page, my personal experiences generally guide its content. My experience last evening took me to a conversation about the title of my Ning site The Educator’s PLN. It was a drawn-out discussion on the choice of the word “The” in the title of the name that I created for the site. It is based on that conversation that I feel a need to at least describe my thoughts and understanding on the topic of Personal Learning Networks that led me to choosing the Title of my Ning site. If you haven’t clicked off of this post yet, I am grateful, because I would have. I find it hard to believe that something this simple would get anyone upset, let alone me.

If my house were burning down and I yelled to a crowd of onlookers, “CALL 911” there are several things I would not want to hear coming back. “What’s the Magic word?” and “What do you mean by the word CALL?”are two questions that come to mind. Some people need to argue for the sake of argument and not in an effort to acquire a clearer understanding. This is a quality probably better suited for a lawyer than an educator, but that is an argument that I will not pursue.

The point that I believe that these individuals attempted to register with me, was that the word “THE” suggested that this was the only place one could go to be part of THE PLN. If anyone else has that feeling, then I really screwed up in my choice of Title. My personal understanding of what a PLN is, may best explain my choice of words.

The fact that this label of “PLN” is fairly new to some and also unknown to many educators lends to the confusion. That combined with the number of similar labels referring to the same or very similar concepts further confuses things. We start with Personal Learning Network and then Professional Learning Network. We have the Personal Learning Environment and the Personal Learning Community. There are a number of variations which interchange the words Professional and Personal.

To attempt to clear things up a little, let me explain my understanding of the concept and you may call it anything that suits your purpose. I clearly understood this concept from the time I left elementary school and learning became more complicated than it was in elementary school. I quickly adapted by surrounding myself with people who could explain things differently than they were presented in class. I personally selected the people I needed to help me along with my learning. I actually created a network of people I could go to for various things and they were not always academic. Since this network of people was constructed with my personal selections to help my personal needs for learning, I guess I could call this my personal learning network. It was unique to me and to my learning needs. It changed over the years as did my learning needs. This was not a personal learning network for other people. They needed to get their own. They could use some of my people for their network, but there was no exclusive ownership of sources. Now, with the advent of technology and the development of Social Media, I can extend my reach. I can grab sources globally. And even better there are several free Social media applications I can use for this purpose.

I used Email, Linkedin, FaceBook, MySpace, Twitter, Skype, and Delicious to connect with people and acquire sources. This network of people helped me learn by answering questions, passing along articles, websites, experts, podcasts, webcasts, online conferences. The best part is that it was all directed by my personal inquiries to meet my personal learning needs. This is also a flexible and adaptive network. It expands with new sources, information, concepts and tools. It works for me and that makes it personal. It will not work for every learner. The sources that I have chosen may not be the sources others would choose. They need to create their Personal Learning Network. There is NO “The PLN” if there were it would be “The LN”.

Now getting back to my Ning site, I had many questions from many individuals about sources. People wanted to create their Personal Learning Networks. They needed a little help getting started. They needed people to contact, how-to tutorials, groups of people with common interests. I knew how to do this, because that is how I learn. I created a site to help any educator who needed help developing his or her personal Learning Network. It gave them a means to do it. It is not the place to go for an instant PLN. It is a place for direction and sources. I needed to call it something, a name that would conveniently fit in a tweet. Hence, the name “The Educator’s PLN”, a singular educator and a singular personal network for learning. It neatly abbreviated to EDU PLN for tweeting purposes.

I want to be clear, I make no claim to ownership of anything about any PLN other than a Ning site that I created to help others develop their own Personal Learning Networks. I do take credit for my own PLN which consists of 2 Ning sites, 5 Linkedin Educational Groups, a Blog, a twitter account, a FaceBook account, a Skype account, a delicious account, an author stream account a Google reader account, Google mail, and probably a dozen other things as well. I am also the co-creator of #EDCHAT which has had a profound effect on my personal learning as an educator. That is my Personal Learning Network and not yours.

Now, I need to get back to my evening discussion. I imagine that a very good argument could be made to call The Old Man and The Sea, The Old Man and the Fish, but why? I named MY NING site The Educator’s PLN not because it is the place to end up, but one possible place to begin for those who do not know where to begin. If it is not for you, do not join. If you join and do not like it, follow the rule of two feet. Get up and leave. All I ask is that you let me call it what I called it.

If we keep arguing about the little stuff and not the ideas, it will take a long time to get from where we are to where we need to be in education. The idea of PLN’s is taking people from places of isolation to places of expanded thinking. We cannot keep saying no to everything without offering alternatives and expect things to change on their own. Rather than spend time arguing semantics, we need to address real issues. I promise to think more about Titles if I ever decide to create something that I believe will help others, because words are important.

The Educator’s PLN http://edupln.ning.com/

And now your comments, please.

Read Full Post »

REFORM vs. TRANSFORM

Posted in Administrator, EdChat, Education, ISTE, Leadership, PLN, Reform, Skills, Social Media, Teacher, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking, Twitter on July 10, 2010| 31 Comments »

For those of you who are unaware of what #Edchat is, it is a weekly discussion involving thousands of educators discussing a specific educational issue. The discussion takes place on Twitter with two sessions, each discussing a different pre-selected topic. A common bond of an interest in education is only one of several bonds common to a majority of participants. Most chatters are technology literate or at least Twitter literate in order to participate. One may also assume that their participation indicates a common interest in the specific topic being discussed. The majority of the group is teachers. Others involved would be administrators, educational consultants, educational vendors, parents, authors, and people who were interested in the topic that was being discussed on social media channels in preparation for the Chat.

The many factors of commonality among the participants often foster agreement as to solutions for the problems being discussed. That does not mean that the solutions are weak or less warranted, only that they are recognized and agreed to by many of the participants. Educators, being who they are, often challenge these ideas to test their worth during the chat. It would seem the profession attracts those who love playing the “Devil’s Advocate”. This agreement on solutions among participants has labeled Edchat among some as an “echo chamber”. Unfortunately, labels sometimes cast doubt over what are very sound ideas as people place the emphasis on the label rather than the idea.

Changing education reform from discussion to action was the topic of last week’s #Edchat. It was one of the most active chats we have had since we began #Edchat. It was obvious that another interest common to #Edchat participants is the belief that there is a need for education reform and a need for educators to have some say in how that will happen. The resulting Blog posts during the week provided some answers to a growing frustration with things either not happening fast enough or not happening at all. People put forward some strategies for action.

The whole idea of connectiveness among educators for collaboration is still new to many. Again, labels seem to get in the way of progress. Twitter is connecting tens of thousands of educators around the world. They are successfully exchanging ideas and collaborating around the clock and over every time zone. Tens of thousands of educators collaborating sounds great until we consider the fact that there are millions of educators out there. Even if 200,000 educators were connected and collaborating, it is still a minority. There is a stigma attached to the technology label among some educators. There is a huge stigma attached to Twitter a s a legitimate form of collaboration or conveyance of ideas. The approach to Social Media and technology in general by educational institutions go a long way in discouraging participation in any collaboration amongst educators.

Technology is still viewed as something separate from education. People are still debating its place in education. They are still debating whether or not it promotes learning. There are some who insist on discussing if technology can ever take the place of the teacher. There are some who demand more research must take place before we can accept technology in education. All of this stalls any forward movement to change.

If we accept that “Ubiquitous” means omnipresent: being present everywhere at once, it would certainly apply to our everyday lives in regard to technology. It has affected most of what we do or come in contact with. Our health, transportation, entertainment, manufacturing, communication, appliances, and leisure time have all been infused with technology. We never debated it. We never questioned it. We never researched it. Except for a Will Smith and a Robin Williams movie of fiction, we never really questioned whether technology would replace people. Yet, in education, these questions are debated all of the time. ENOUGH ALREADY!

Technology is only a tool. It is the Platform that our children must use to earn a livelihood. Our children need to have skills that use the technologies that are ubiquitous in our society and the world. Educators do not need to teach technology, but they need technology to teach. Yes, one can be a great teacher without using technology, but what good does that do for a child who must use those learned skills in a society where technology is ubiquitous? A teacher providing the skills without technology is providing an incomplete set of skills for what today’s children need. It will be up to that child to fill in the blanks in his/her education. That child will need to pick up technology skills on his own. He will need to correlate the acquired skills from that teacher into a technology rich environment, which the teacher failed to do, in order to succeed.

There is no longer a debate to be had on whether or not educators should employ technology as a tool. It is already ubiquitous in our culture. It is here to stay. It is developing and moving forward. Our education system is not keeping up with that change. Our children are either on that train prepared to move forward or waving bye-bye at the station. Relevance is now key to our educators, because it is key to our children. There is now a new literacy required to use technology successfully. How many of our educators are lacking in that literacy? How many educators are now illiterate?

There are so many problems to address in education that it is always a challenge as to where to begin. My suggestion is to stop creating impediments by debating the need for something which is ubiquitous in our society and will only be more evident in the culture of our children. We need to encourage the smart use of technology. We need to teach and develop the smart use of technology with professional development. We need our administrators and teachers to model the smart use of technology. We need to provide exposure, education, and participation of parents in the smart use of technology.

We need to understand that teaching writing with an Underwood typewriter and erasable bond paper is not the best way to teach today’s children to be writers. Let us not debate whether it could be done that way. Of course it could, but why would we do that? We as educators must be relevant and that is a day-to-day struggle. Educators can use technology to accomplish this. We need to educate the educators how they can maintain relevance.

Feel free to comment

Read Full Post »

#Edchat Revisited

Posted in Blog, EdChat, ISTE, Leadership, Reform, Social Media, Teacher, Teched, Thought Provoking, Twitter on June 23, 2010| 15 Comments »

When Shelly Terrell and I first discussed the idea that spawned #Edchat neither of us had any idea what it would become. It started as a place to begin, conduct and record some thought-provoking discussions about topics in education that we had an interest to discuss. We created the hashtag, #Edchat, selected a time, contacted Steve Anderson for techy help, and we were off and running. We started with a few people who followed us and we discussed topics on the fly.

We began to involve more and more people, and soon needed more of a structure. Steve developed our #Edchat Poll and we began to publicize the established day and time of the chat. It truly was a case of “If you build it, they will come”. It was that simple. We were not building on other models. We were not pioneers, but more like novices on Twitter. We were in new territory, but we knew that we needed to develop strategies for success. We added moderators as we grew, and we needed to archive the sessions to accommodate those who were not able to attend live. Being educators we constantly assessed, reflected, and modified.

The hashtag, #Edchat, soon grew beyond a hashtag for a discussion. It was now a place for educators to shout out their ideas for education to an audience far beyond the limitations of their personal followers. Anyone following the #Edchat hashtag would receive those tweets. Additionally,we needed to create an afternoon #Edchat to involve the global Time zones. There are now requests for a third chat to involve more time zones. The chats grew from fifty participants to well over a thousand for every session. During an #Edchat tweets come in at a rate of about one tweet every second. We had a need to create a Facebook page to accommodate more people. We also created a Wiki Page to act as a depository for the #Edchat Archives. It has grown far beyond that which we originally discussed almost a year ago.

Considering the size of the chat, and the speed at which ideas fly in, participants need a strategy to get anything from #Edchat. The first consideration is to select a platform to maximize the flow of information. I use TweetDeck others use Tweetgrid. The last thing one wants to use is the Twitter platform itself. I need three screens. One screen follows #Edchat. That screen rolls by quickly with everyone’s #Edchat tweets. The second screen is for my Mentions. Anyone directing a tweet directly to me appears on this screen. The third screen is my DM or Direct Message screen. This is for any followers sending me personal messages during the #Edchat. Others have their own strategies, but this is what works for me.

There is no way for anyone to follow every #Edchat tweet as they roll in at a rate of over 3,000 in an hour. My strategy is to look at this as a very big party. I can’t talk to everyone, but I can pick and choose a few folks to converse with. I start by posting a few provocative educational questions pertaining to the topic. Usually, two or three responses will roll in and we are off and running. More and more people join in as we go. There are many discussions like this going on simultaneously in an #Edchat. The only way to see it all is to review the Archives which are posted shortly after the #Edchat conclusion. The official length of an #Edchat is one hour, but many people hang in longer to continue.

The Live engagement during an #Edchat creates a great deal of energy. Participants are usually enthusiastic and driven in their contributions and responses. The lasting effect of #Edchat, however, does not happen until after the chat is over. Almost immediately educators who participated begin posting to their blogs those ideas that were generated and expanded during the chat. Even more posts appear during the week that follows with more reflection and deeper thought on the topic discussed.

Beyond the great subjects explored during the #Edchat there are a few other elements that I appreciate about this weekly event. The ideas are the center of the discussion. Members of the #Edchat discussions are students, parents, teachers, administrators, professors, authors, and some people just interested in the discussion. These participants leave their credentials at the door and discuss the topic with their ideas and contributions evaluated with equal weight within the discussion. The ideas stand on their own to be reflected upon and evaluated based solely on their own merit without regard to who contributed the initial thought. Contributors do not seem to be limited or discouraged by the 140 character limitations.

I know this has all been said before and written about in a number of Educational Journals, as well as many Blogs, but there is always someone who is just joining us or creating a Professional Learning Network. We are even highlighting #Edchat to educators by conducting a large group participation #Edchat at the upcoming ISTE10 Conference. Anyone having questions may contact me on Twitter @tomwhitby.You may want to join us on The Educator’s PLN Ning at http://www.edupln.com. Visit the #Edchat Page on FaceBook at http://bit.ly/aN71KJ. Check out the #Edchat Archives of all the previous #Edchat discussions at http://bit.ly/c6yowP.

Your comments about this post or #Edchat are most welcomed here.

Read Full Post »

Tech Org Reorg

Posted in Administrator, EdChat, Education, Interactive White Board, ISTE, IWB's, Leadership, PLN, Reform, Social Media, Teacher, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking, Truth on June 18, 2010| 9 Comments »

This post needs a bit of a disclaimer in the beginning. For several years I was a member of the Board of Directors of the New York State Association for Computers and Technologies in Education, NYSCATE an ISTE affiliate. Like many Educational Technology organizations its mission is to promote the use of technology in education. This organization is similar to many other State wide organizations of other states with the same basic purpose. The leaders of these organizations are volunteers, some paid, most unpaid. These are people who work hard for long hours in support of these organizations and the mission.

That being said, and this being my post, I am going to openly reflect on technology organization stuff. These are my reflections as an educator and a former director of an educational technology group. If it were a lesson, I would assess, reflect and then change things as needed to become more effective. Since I don’t lead any of these organizations, I guess I stop at reflection. I have no ability to change things.

Technology in Education has always been a sticky subject. It requires understanding, training, modeling and innovation in order to be successful in the system. Some districts have recognized this and have had great successes. It is still a lesson to be learned in many other places. The mission of the Educational Technology organizations however, goes beyond a few forward-thinking districts. That term “forward-thinking” itself implies that technology is the future in education and not the now. My question to start would be: If the purpose of Educational Technology Organizations is to achieve ubiquitous use of technology in education, how do we do a formative assessment of that mission? Technology is always evolving, but many of these organizations were formed in the 70’s and 80’s. After over 30 years of striving to promote Technology use in Education, how close are we to ubiquitous use. Yes, we are using more Tech than ever before, but many places are still debating its value in education. We may also be using more technology because there is so much more to use, which has little to do with the influence of these organizations.

“Top Down” and “Bottom up” are two of the ways Technology is adopted in schools. As a classroom teacher, I was always partial to bottom up stuff, because it came from other teachers who used it successfully with kids. Top down to me meant it was a product that an administrator was sold on, with limited knowledge of how it worked, or what was involved for the teacher to make it work. Mandates are rarely successful. My experience has taught me that people need to be lead and not directed. Leaders cannot demonstrate a product and overwhelm folks with bells and whistles and tell them that they will use it from now on. We lose the required understanding, training, modeling and innovation in order to be successful. If you doubt that, look at the Interactive Whiteboards placed in schools all over the country. What percentage of these expensive boards are being used as Video, or PowerPoint projectors.

Now we need to consider the leadership of these organizations, as well as, who participates in their conferences. Being a leader in any of these organizations requires a huge amount of time. Time to a teacher is not negotiable. The flexibility of time is more in the domain of the administrators. It stands to reason that it is easier to provide release time to an administrator than to a classroom teacher. Therefore, it stands to reason that more administrators than classroom teachers run these groups.

The perspective of the teachers in the organization is; “how do I get kids to use this technology to learn?” The Perspective of the Administrator is; “how do I get my teachers to use this Technology?” both of these perspectives must be considered, but it must be in balance. As Administrators monopolize the leadership, that balance seems to be lost. There is almost an elitist air about these organizations. Classroom teachers are the very people we need to attend these conferences. If you ask a classroom teacher if they would attend an ISTE Conference and you then explained what ISTE was, the response would be simple. “I don’t teach Technology, why would I attend that conference?” It is my observation that some of the leadership of these organizations shift focus. The focus shifts from the success of the mission to the success of running the group. To some that comes down to the success of the conference in attendance and buzz. Attendance is measurable, Buzz is not.

A goal should be to involve as many classroom teachers in the synergy that is evident at any of these conferences. It would be hoped that while they were pumped up with the conference high, they would advocate for tech with their fellow teachers. That would be “bottom up”. Who really attends these conferences anyway? I do not even know if that data is tracked. I do know from personal experience I saw a great many administrators repeatedly attending the conferences year after year. Not that anything is wrong with that, but if a majority of the attendees each year are the same administrators who deal with technology as part of their job, where does that leave the classroom teacher and the group’s mission? It should not be an elite club for technology administrators.

Before everyone starts to run to the comment box to blast me on the elite club comment consider this. If these organizations were not being perceived this way by a large group of educators, why are Tech camps springing up all over? Teachers have been filling the void. They are doing their own mini conferences. They are providing sessions on the Internet. They are involving educators in technology in greater and greater numbers. PLN’s for teachers are providing information and collaboration that these organizations have not provided to the classroom teacher.

Educators are striving everyday to be relevant. That is why Professional Learning Networks are expanding by the minute. When we talk about education Reform, relevance is a big part of it. We need relevant Educators. The same can be said of Educational Technology Organizations. They are needed and necessary. They need to focus on their mission and not their organization. If they put the mission first the organization will succeed. Again this is not an attack, but a reflection. If we cannot see where we are going wrong we cannot adjust to correct it.

Now you can run to the comment box and blast away!

Read Full Post »

Digital Pointers?

Posted in Administrator, EdChat, Education, Leadership, PLN, Reform, Teacher, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking on May 27, 2010| 14 Comments »

In an effort to simplify reasons for change not happening fast enough in regard to technology in education, we often point fingers at the obvious and go no further in our exploration of the problem. Assigning blame and not solutions is counterproductive. In as far as Technology not being used ubiquitously in schools, this certainly is the case. It is easy to point the finger at educators and say that they are not a welcoming audience for this 21st Century, way-of-the-world medium. It is true that educators make the final decision as to how involved they, or their students, will be in engaging technology in both teaching and learning. I would hope that these decisions are not made without some due consideration.

To say that educators refuse to accept or learn technology is too simple a statement and in most cases misleading. The argument that really gets me is that many educators are too old to get it. We need to replace the old guard with new blood. Educators by nature are sharing and nurturing individuals regardless of their age. Teaching and learning are central to everything they do. If educators are not embracing technology there must be reasons. If we can identify the reasons, and address them, we may take a major step in the right direction to improve education. Yes, I did say improve. At this point in time, the deficiency has been established by the sheer numbers of people who have voiced their concern that our education system is not producing what it is that society expects. Of course that expectation is another topic. What is that expectation that society demands as THE educational outcome, or goal?

In the past, lack of time, and lack of funds were the major excuses for educators not to engage technology. That was a topic of one of my past posts, “No Time, No Funds” http://bit.ly/87G63j. (Thanks to Shelly Terrell for inviting me to post.) Putting those aside we should discuss the other major deterrents for technology use in education.

My personal choice of leading deterrents and where we might first point a finger would be the lack of leadership on the part of the local educational leaders. The leaders would include: Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, Directors, Principals, Assistant Principals, and Department Chairs. These are the people who determine the direction of a school or District. There are some examples of leaders who have embraced technology for their districts and often they are Keynote speakers at education conferences. I guess that supports the point that they are unique among educational leaders.

Teachers would be more accepting of technology if their leaders understood, used, and modeled technology use in their everyday leading tasks. Additionally, supporting and encouraging those educators who use it successfully would also make a big difference. Many leaders are quick to cite the wonders of technology when making public speeches, but that is lip-service support. When those same leaders return to their offices, many (not all) have no clue. How many IT Directors have to research, develop, and construct the PowerPoint presentations for their Superintendent to deliver at school board meetings?

Many educators see PowerPoint and email as the pinnacle of technological mastery. The attitude seems to be that, if we use e-mail and our teachers give PowerPoint presentations, our school is employing technology in education. The other extreme, acting as a deterrent, would be the district’s IT staff. I cannot say this happens in every district, but I can say that this is often the complaint that many educators express. They point the finger to the IT people as a problem. The tech people are big tech fans. Their life is tech. They know it. They love it. They can’t live without it. Some are viewed as being more of a techie than teacher, yet they need to teach tech to teachers to teach. (ya gotta love alliteration) The problem is the damned bells and whistles. Some IT people teach their PD classes as if these teachers are being trained to teach tech. They are NOT tech teachers! They have no need to know all the bells and whistles. They need to determine what tech, if any, can help them to teach their students. Can a specific tech application enable their students to learn more meaningfully? Sometimes the answer is no, it can’t. They need to be taught the ability to view tech in the context of their course. Here is the point. If they don’t get it, they won’t use it. Once they do get it, it sells itself.

If the use of technology works its way into the culture of the schools, we will not need to demand tech training for teachers. In a technology rich culture the teachers and students should be engaging technology and each other as a further step to deeper learning. Schools should develop their own tech support groups using best practices and mentoring programs for professional development. Leaders and teachers will model learning for students. Students will engage learning in the digital world in which they have grown up with the help of educators who have had to learn and adapt to that world.

I would hope that, if we can identify our problems and go beyond the finger-pointing to apply solutions, there is a chance for positive change. Without an approach to solutions however, the finger-pointing can disintegrate into a far less helpful finger display. Comments are welcomed, either thumbs up, or thumbs down.

Here is a cartoon series done in response to this blog from my friend Jeff Branzburg: http://edudemic.com/2010/06/the-7-reasons-technology-isnt-in-your-school-comic/

Read Full Post »

IWB’s Help or Hurt?

Posted in Administrator, EdChat, Education, Interactive White Board, IWB's, Leadership, Ning, PLN, Pre-Service teachers, Reform, Skills, Teacher, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking, Twitter on April 17, 2010| 41 Comments »

I teach pre-service teachers to prepare them for the classroom, but I also try to steer them in directions that will make them more marketable as they look for jobs in an extremely competitive job market. In addition to trying to make them web 2.0 tech-aware, I also require that they do at least one interactive whiteboard lesson. I like to require that the lesson deal with some aspect of Grammar. This tackles two of the biggest hurdles for English Teachers, Tech and Grammar.

Although I require that my students achieve a comfort level with the Interactive White Board, I needed to update my personal knowledge of the subject in order to keep up. At my own expense I signed up for a workshop/conference on the Interactive Whiteboard sponsored by one of the leading Interactive Whiteboard companies. I had limited expectations, expecting maybe 50 educators and a few trainers.

This conference was held at one of the many Long Island high schools which have embraced the IWB technology. There were more than several classrooms with IWB Technology in them. Hence, this was the perfect choice of locations for an IWB conference. There were nine hands-on workshops repeated over four sessions and there were Science, Math, Social Studies and ELA Training classes conducted on both the elementary and secondary levels. There was a product demonstration area set up in the Gym. There had to be 500 educators in attendance. This was a pleasant surprise, a real conference. My adrenaline was pumping away. I was truly excited as I often am at statewide or national educational conferences.

My enthusiasm was somewhat dampened as I engaged educators in conversation and asked two simple questions. Are you on Twitter? Do you use The Educator’s PLN Ning site? The first question elicited not verbal responses, but stimulated what can best be described as facial contortions. The second question was answered by one or two questions: What’s a PLN? or What’s a Ning? I digress however. This is a topic for another post, so, back to the IWB’s.

Two things that I strongly advocate in my class would be creative thinking for students through authentic learning, and the use of technology as a tool for learning. It is no coincidence that it also takes up much of the discussion time in our #edchat discussions. These are major common concerns of many educators today.

Now, I need to address the point of this post. I must admit that I believe that IWB’s are an asset to the classroom. They can seamlessly use web 2.0 applications to engage students in creative and constructive lessons for learning. The important element in this however is the training of the teacher using the IWB. Without training the user, the IWB becomes an expensive video projector or an expensive PowerPoint presentation tool or a very expensive hat rack.

What I believed one of the added pluses to this product was, is the vast library of lessons which are available to qualified users, but, therein lies the rub. We teach that according to Bloom’s Taxonomy, the highest form of learning is creative. A lesser form of learning, although necessary, is remembering. As I attended each of the workshops, which unveiled several very thoughtful and creative examples of previously recorded and now archived lessons, I began to notice a distressingly common thread. Each of the archived lessons addressed the remembering learning described by Bloom and not the creative learning for which we, as educators, should strive. As I watched the trainer of one of the sessions showcase another remembering lesson. I remarked that the creative learning was not on the part of the students partaking in the lesson, but rather on the part of the educator creating the lesson. It would then stand to reason, for the students to get the full benefit of an IWB, they should each be creating lessons to present to fellow students.

I am not saying that remembering lessons have no place in education. They are necessary and must be taught. This is content. However, it is the use of that content for more creative efforts which affords students learning. Remembering lessons should not be the focus of education, that focus should be on the creative.

The danger in the use of IWB’s is the lack of training. If districts place IWB’s in a classroom without training the teacher in its use, that teacher will seek from the library, lessons which have already been developed, most of which are remembering focused. This is a case of doing the right thing with the wrong result. I have been told that there are districts which place these IWB’s in classrooms as incentives for teachers to be motivated. They do not attach it to proper training. Would any of us fly with a pilot who had a 747 placed in his driveway as an incentive to fly a bigger plane without training?

Now here is what set me off today. I was in a workshop using clickers to respond to questions from a lesson. As a formative assessment it was great. They were multiple choice questions which could be instantly analyzed. It is not to be confused with a tool for learning, but rather a tool for assessment in the multiple choice genre of tests. It was in this workshop that the trainer revealed to the group that the company had filed a number of standardized tests which could be used for practice with the use of the clickers. This would offer the data to be aggregated in any way needed for analysis. Some might use the word manipulated. A teacher in the group immediately came to life. He was excited to see that this would provide him material to use for the month of May. That was the month that his district administrators designated as THE MONTH FOR TEST PREPARATION. In my mind that was squandering a month of learning for the sake of test preparation. Then the same administrators ask, why are we failing our students.

I believe in Technology. I believe in support for that Technology. We need to teach our students to be prepared for their world and not one that which we might prefer. We do not get to make that choice. IWB’s with training and support can move our students forward. Kids understand IWB’s and want to use them. It’s the adults who need to be brought along. Creativity should be the focus and remembering should be the support.

Read Full Post »

We Are #EdChat!

Posted in EdChat, Education, Reform, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking on February 3, 2010| 33 Comments »

I was attending college in West Virginia when Marshall University’s football team went down in a devastating plane crash. The Movie We are Marshall has always had a special meaning for me as a result of that geographical and emotional connection. I was always moved by the community rallying to the support of the team and the University. As I remember, 40 years ago, the sense of community was as true in life, as it was portrayed in the movie.

The sense of community has a great deal to do with social media as I see it. There are no rules in social media. There are pockets of groups that are governed by a sense of purpose for a specific interest or a specific topic. This can be by an occupation, an industry, a family, a common disease, a hobby, a heritage, or any common experience of those who formed that community. What governs the group is its common purpose to advance its cause in a collaborative effort by the members.

There are some social media sites that establish rules for their site. They can also establish them to be private or public. There is but one final consequence for those who ignore the rules on a site. They are banned from the group. It is a setting on the site that group managers have.

Twitter is totally public. One may determine who to follow and even, to an extent, who will follow back. There is a setting for blocking followers from contact. These determinations are made by whom an individual wants to include in their personal network. Each tweeter sets his or her own standards for acceptance of his or her network members.

I, along with many other educators, have set up Professional or Personal Learning Networks, PLN’s. Our common interest is Education. Some educators narrow that down to specific subject areas, and some are generalists. Having taught in the K-12 world for 34 years and now Higher Education for the last three years, I consider myself a generalist with a leaning toward increasing technology as a tool for education. I have found technology to be a common interest of many educators on my PLN since that is what brings us together in this medium.

That is the backdrop for the facts about the formation of #EdChat. I think this needs to be recorded somewhere, so that those who join today understand what it is and not be confused by what others say it is. I along with Steve Anderson and Shelly Terrell are the founders of #EdChat. It grew from our experiences with Twitter and our PLN.

I often engage members of my PLN in discussions about education. The topic of choice is usually reforming Education to get it more involved with Technology tools for learning. For my PLN, this is the topic that binds us. Since some meaningful and substantive discussions were only visible to members of my PLN who were online at that time, I wanted more. Collaborative learning works best when you can collaborate. We had the subject, but we needed the people. Shelly suggested that we post out a discussion topic and we hashtag it so that anyone could follow. #EdChat was an unused hashtag so we put it in place. We soon found that others had ideas for topics. Steve Anderson contributed the #EdChat Poll.

Each week we place 5 topics on a poll for people to select a topic for discussion. Topics are suggested, or they are developed by popular discussions on the PLN that week, or they are topics that are being discussed by educators at various Educational conferences. Again, I remind you, many of our PLN members have technology in common, and it is a concern that comes to the surface often. This is how we started and developed #EdChat. These are the facts and not the myth. I believe we started in August of 2009.We have now grown beyond or own PLN. Our topics, however, have remained true to our objective. They are: general educational concerns, often Technology-in-Education concerns, reform topics, and general Pedagogical concerns.

We originally had one EdChat discussion on Tuesdays, at 7 PM EST. This was not meeting the needs of many of European members in consideration of the different Time Zones. We added a 12 noon EST EdChat to include them. This allowed more coverage of several topics and avoided duplication. We use the first topic choice for our largest group at 7 and the second most popular topic for the noon session. We try to recycle Topics not selected and we add new Topics from suggestions and discussions on the PLN or the EdChat discussion. We have archived most of our EdChats, but we did not do this at the beginning. Our EdChat archives reside on The Educator’s PLN Ning site, http://edupln.ning.com.

#EdChat has now become more than when we started. We have received national attention in more than one educational journal. We have been represented at a number of Educational Conferences. The hashtag #edchat is now tagged on to many educational tweets making it a 24/7 depository of educational tweets. That takes it beyond the 7 and noon use of the hashtag.

The community that is Edchat, determines the membership. Anyone interested in the discussion of the topic chosen by the community is welcomed to join. The value of members’ tweets is determined by participating members. If they want to engage another member they will. Often there are satellite discussions going on within an EdChat. It is like a great party where members can travel from one group to another and engage in a discussion that was prompted by the original Topic. We have hundreds of participants and over a thousand tweets in a one hour period.

EdChat is about an exchange of ideas. It has had an impact on the educational community based on references in Blogs, journals , and conferences. As one of the founders of Edchat I have laid out the facts as I know them. I hope that this dispels any misinformation that people may have about Edchat. It is a community of collaborative Educators whose only agenda is to improve education from their perspective of understanding. Often, but not always that is a perspective in the use of Technology.

It should be noted that this is a formula that was successful for us. It is also being duplicated by others who had specific topics that concerned their communities. We do not own the formula anyone can use it. There is a parent group chat and a gifted and talented chat there was even a Portuguese Edchat. Social media affords many ways that individuals may address their community needs. If Edchat is not meeting your specific needs please use the same strategies and tools as #EdChat to meet your needs.

That is EdChat as I understand it. That is as a founder, and a participant in all but a few of many EdChats conducted since August. You are free to comment here. I would hope that you will try to respond to what Edchat is, and not what others with far less EdChat experience say it is.