Thursday, January 12, 2012
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
School 2.0
"For the first time in history we're preparing kids for a future that we cannot clearly describe. We have no idea what their work experience is going to be like, what their life experience is going to be like, what their social experience is going to be like. We just don't have any firm target to aim our curriculum at..."Thursday, February 24, 2011
RSA #3: Internet Safety Concerns
The digital age is well under-way, with educators scampering to incorporate 21st Century Skills, tools, pedagogies, and methodologies into their curriculum. The age of technology is here, and it is advancing at an exponentially fast rate. The opportunities for using technologies are not only available to students and teachers at school, but also at home, on the bus, at the park or library, even in the back seat of the car. The world is a technological playground, available anywhere, at anytime, and for anyone. “In 2000, ‘place the computer in a central area of the house’ was good advice. But that was before Netbooks, tablets, web-enabled smart phones, Wi-Fi and wide-area wireless networks,” records the Online Safety and Technology Working Group (OSTWG p. 11, 2010). Due to advances, teachers and parents are finding it harder to monitor the behaviors of children, making the importance of good digital citizenship skills imperative. The government is struggling to keep laws and enforcement agencies current and reflective of the advancing technologies. Parents and educators strive to educate and protect the children in their care. Online resources supporting digital citizenship are sparse, and difficult to find.
In the report by OSTWG, examples of Internet safety included: cyberbullying, inappropriate content, predation, sexting, and geolocation technologies. (2010). Their research reinforced courteous and respectful behaviors as being deterrents to at risk activities, and suggested taking into account that access points are standard in many of today’s digital devices.
OSTWG Subcommittee on Internet Safety Education Recommendations:
Keep up with the youth-risk and social-media research, and create a web-based clearinghouse that makes this research accessible to all involved with online safety education at local, state, and federal levels.
- Coordinate Federal Government educational efforts.
- Provide targeted online-safety messaging and treatment.
- Avoid scare tactics and promote the social-norms approach to risk prevention.
- Promote digital citizenship in pre-K-12 education as a national priority.
- Promote instruction in digital media literacy and computer security in pre-K-12 education nationwide.
- Create a Digital Literacy Corps for schools and communities nationwide.
- Make evaluation a component of all federal and federally funded online safety education programs (evaluation involving risk-prevention expertise).
- Establish industry best practices.
- Encourage full, safe use of digital media in schools’ regular instruction and professional development in their use as a high priority for educators nationwide.
- Respect young people’s expertise and get them involved in risk-prevention education.
(OSTWG, p. 14, 2010).
The subcommittee of parental controls and child protection suggested a “layered” approach to online safety, encouraging “educational strategies, parental involvement, and other approaches to guide and mentor children”. (OSTWG 2010).
OSTWG Subcommittee On Parental Controls & Child Protection Technology Recommendations:
- Engage in ongoing awareness-building efforts.
- Promote greater transparency for parents as to what sort of content and information will be accessible and recorded with a given product when their children are online.
- Make parental empowerment technologies and options possible into product development whenever possible.
- Develop a common set of terms, agreed upon by the industry, across similar technologies.
- Promote community reporting and policing on sites that host user-generated content.
(OSTWG, p. 15, 2010).
Risks children face continue to multiply; including accessing harmful websites, distracted driving, inappropriate advertising, online pornography, hate sites, even identity theft. (OSTWG 2010). A Harvard task force with the mission of identifying online-safety tools, and online identity-authentication technologies was established. The Internet Safety Technical Task Force (ISTTF) had two main findings - that “sexual predation on minors by adults, both online and offline, remains a concern” but that “bullying and harassment, most often by peers, are the most frequent threats that minors face, both online and offline”. (ISTTF 2008). Therefore it was determined that all educators, parents, and individuals charged with the safety and well-being of children, need to continuously keep current, ask and answer the questions of online safety and citizenship based on the educated knowledge of current technologies. (OSTWG 2010). According to the OSTWG, “the best solutions for promoting child safety, security, and privacy online must be the result of an ongoing negotiation involving all stakeholders: providers of services and devices, parents, schools, government, advocates, healthcare professionals, law enforcement, legislators, and children themselves. All have a role and responsibility in maximizing child safety online.” (p. 13, 2010).
References:
Online Safety and Technology Working Group. (2010, June 4). National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Retrieved February 22, 2011, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/advisory/onlinesafety/
“Enhancing Child Safety & Online Technologies: Final Report of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force to the Multi-State Working Group on Social Networking of State Arrorneys General of the United States,” the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, December 31, 2008 (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu?sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files;ISTTF_Final_Report-Executive_Summary.pdf
In the report by OSTWG, examples of Internet safety included: cyberbullying, inappropriate content, predation, sexting, and geolocation technologies. (2010). Their research reinforced courteous and respectful behaviors as being deterrents to at risk activities, and suggested taking into account that access points are standard in many of today’s digital devices.
OSTWG Subcommittee on Internet Safety Education Recommendations:
Keep up with the youth-risk and social-media research, and create a web-based clearinghouse that makes this research accessible to all involved with online safety education at local, state, and federal levels.
- Coordinate Federal Government educational efforts.
- Provide targeted online-safety messaging and treatment.
- Avoid scare tactics and promote the social-norms approach to risk prevention.
- Promote digital citizenship in pre-K-12 education as a national priority.
- Promote instruction in digital media literacy and computer security in pre-K-12 education nationwide.
- Create a Digital Literacy Corps for schools and communities nationwide.
- Make evaluation a component of all federal and federally funded online safety education programs (evaluation involving risk-prevention expertise).
- Establish industry best practices.
- Encourage full, safe use of digital media in schools’ regular instruction and professional development in their use as a high priority for educators nationwide.
- Respect young people’s expertise and get them involved in risk-prevention education.
(OSTWG, p. 14, 2010).
The subcommittee of parental controls and child protection suggested a “layered” approach to online safety, encouraging “educational strategies, parental involvement, and other approaches to guide and mentor children”. (OSTWG 2010).
OSTWG Subcommittee On Parental Controls & Child Protection Technology Recommendations:
- Engage in ongoing awareness-building efforts.
- Promote greater transparency for parents as to what sort of content and information will be accessible and recorded with a given product when their children are online.
- Make parental empowerment technologies and options possible into product development whenever possible.
- Develop a common set of terms, agreed upon by the industry, across similar technologies.
- Promote community reporting and policing on sites that host user-generated content.
(OSTWG, p. 15, 2010).
Risks children face continue to multiply; including accessing harmful websites, distracted driving, inappropriate advertising, online pornography, hate sites, even identity theft. (OSTWG 2010). A Harvard task force with the mission of identifying online-safety tools, and online identity-authentication technologies was established. The Internet Safety Technical Task Force (ISTTF) had two main findings - that “sexual predation on minors by adults, both online and offline, remains a concern” but that “bullying and harassment, most often by peers, are the most frequent threats that minors face, both online and offline”. (ISTTF 2008). Therefore it was determined that all educators, parents, and individuals charged with the safety and well-being of children, need to continuously keep current, ask and answer the questions of online safety and citizenship based on the educated knowledge of current technologies. (OSTWG 2010). According to the OSTWG, “the best solutions for promoting child safety, security, and privacy online must be the result of an ongoing negotiation involving all stakeholders: providers of services and devices, parents, schools, government, advocates, healthcare professionals, law enforcement, legislators, and children themselves. All have a role and responsibility in maximizing child safety online.” (p. 13, 2010).
References:
Online Safety and Technology Working Group. (2010, June 4). National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Retrieved February 22, 2011, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/advisory/onlinesafety/
“Enhancing Child Safety & Online Technologies: Final Report of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force to the Multi-State Working Group on Social Networking of State Arrorneys General of the United States,” the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, December 31, 2008 (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu?sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files;ISTTF_Final_Report-Executive_Summary.pdf
Thursday, February 3, 2011
RSA #2: Transformative Learning in Online Communities
Interaction and Collaboration are critical components for the success of a professional online learning community. (Palloff/Pratt 2007). Without the existence of social interaction, the framework of a community is obviously negated. Collaboration entails individuals interacting, working and learning together and from each other. Ongoing collaboration of individuals contributes fresh and new ideas, without which a community’s interaction may grow stale and lead to members leaving the community or its extinction.
When considering the contributions of individuals in an Online Learning Community, the authors of our text, Palloff/Pratt stated, “Transformative learning moves a student from someone who takes in information to a reflective practitioner involved with the creation of knowledge.” (2007). Having not heard the term or theory of transformative learning before, I went to the theory’s author and creator, Jack Mezirow for insights and verification.
Mezirow claims that transformative learning is developmental of autonomous thinking. (1991). “We must learn to make our own interpretations rather than act on the purposes, beliefs, judgements, and feelings of others” says Mezirow (1991). He observes that individuals develop a “frame of reference” based on previous knowledge, experiences, beliefs, and feelings. Mezirow states, “Adults have acquired a coherent body of experience - associations, concepts, values, feelings, conditioned responses - frames of reference that define their life world. Frames of reference are the structures of assumptions through which we understand our experiences”. (1991). These preconceived notions and predisposed habits can interfere with individuals’ ability to listen to others without bias, rather with an open and objective mind.
Individuals who feel free to express their genuine beliefs are more likely to contribute in a social network. The same individual in a forum with judgemental tendencies is less likely to contribute to discussions or participate in endeavors. Communities should stress environments where participants are encouraged to develop personal growth and transformation. (Palloff/Pratt 2007). It is in these types of environment that “transformative learners move toward a frame of reference that is more inclusive discriminating, self-reflective and integrative of experience.” (Mezirow 1991). Knowledge germinates in an environment of interaction amoungst online connections and relations free of prejudice, but loaded with open-minds and supportive collaboration.
References
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Original work published 1997) http://www.iup.edu/assets/0/347/349/4951/4977/10251/AF0EAB12-C2CE-4D2C-B1A0-59B795415437.pdf
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: effective strategies for the virtual classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
When considering the contributions of individuals in an Online Learning Community, the authors of our text, Palloff/Pratt stated, “Transformative learning moves a student from someone who takes in information to a reflective practitioner involved with the creation of knowledge.” (2007). Having not heard the term or theory of transformative learning before, I went to the theory’s author and creator, Jack Mezirow for insights and verification.
Mezirow claims that transformative learning is developmental of autonomous thinking. (1991). “We must learn to make our own interpretations rather than act on the purposes, beliefs, judgements, and feelings of others” says Mezirow (1991). He observes that individuals develop a “frame of reference” based on previous knowledge, experiences, beliefs, and feelings. Mezirow states, “Adults have acquired a coherent body of experience - associations, concepts, values, feelings, conditioned responses - frames of reference that define their life world. Frames of reference are the structures of assumptions through which we understand our experiences”. (1991). These preconceived notions and predisposed habits can interfere with individuals’ ability to listen to others without bias, rather with an open and objective mind.
Individuals who feel free to express their genuine beliefs are more likely to contribute in a social network. The same individual in a forum with judgemental tendencies is less likely to contribute to discussions or participate in endeavors. Communities should stress environments where participants are encouraged to develop personal growth and transformation. (Palloff/Pratt 2007). It is in these types of environment that “transformative learners move toward a frame of reference that is more inclusive discriminating, self-reflective and integrative of experience.” (Mezirow 1991). Knowledge germinates in an environment of interaction amoungst online connections and relations free of prejudice, but loaded with open-minds and supportive collaboration.
References
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Original work published 1997) http://www.iup.edu/assets/0/347/349/4951/4977/10251/AF0EAB12-C2CE-4D2C-B1A0-59B795415437.pdf
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: effective strategies for the virtual classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Friday, January 21, 2011
RSA #1: Implementing Learning Communities
Implementing Learning Communities
In a school environment, the education of teachers and staff is ongoing with technology continually evolving, information and methods continually developing and adapting. In the framework of school improvement, educators collaboratively work to identify and develop knowledge, goals, skills, and methods, enhancing the education of their students. In a learning community, “the dynamic interaction of shared practice and collective inquiry is perhaps the most essential aspect of a professional learning community.” (McREL, 2003).
Finding the key to desirable and effective learning communities is imperative. Nussbaum-Beach states that professional development that promotes reflection and relationship-building, “is visible in schools where the focus is on learning, rather than teaching, where teachers become co-learners in the learning process and traditional classrooms shift to become communities of practice”. Nussbaum-Beach (2009). In this practicum a different learning takes place. A learning that is serendipitous. The tools are in place, the goals and learning objectives determined, and the participants are in attendance. Here, both the student and the teacher, become the learners and the educators.
In a published article through Innovations in Education and Teaching International, the notion of keeping current with evolving technologies and teaching strategies through the practice of blending online communities of practice and face-to-face meetings is proposed. Catherine F. Brooks expresses, “Though faculty members’ needs and constraints vary, faculty support is increasingly necessary in an age of technological advancement that brings new educational tools that faculty members are being asked to learn about and use in their classrooms.” (2010). The technologies are constantly changing as well as the students’ use and understanding of these implements. Students are native to the technologies that many of us are unaccustomed to.
Blended learning communities, will provide flexibility, opportunities, and the infrastructure that will assist educators in developing technology skills and methodologies in student learning. “Once online forums for collegial interaction among faculty are implemented, researching the enactment of community online will bring about enhanced understandings of what it means to be a faculty member in contemporary times. As education continually evolves, so will the needs, questions, concerns, and stressors among faculty,” says Catherine F. Brooks (2010). The evolution of technology, the maturation of the next generation of students, the goals and methodologies of tomorrow secure the need for educators participation in today’s learning communities.
References
Catherine F. Brooks, C.F.B. (2010, August). Toward ‘hybridised’ faculty development for the twenty-first century: blending online communities of practice and face-to-face meetings in instructional and professional support programmes.
Nussbaum-Beach, SNB. (2009, December 06). Creating learning organizations. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/tsb/articles/2009/10/01/01nussbaum-beach.h03.html?qs=nussbaum-beach+creating+learning+organizations
Sustaining school improvement; professional learning community. (2003). Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning, Retrieved from http://www.mcrel.org/zoom/search.asp?zoom_sort=0&zoom_query=%22sustaining+school+improvement+professional+learning+community%22&zoom_per_page=10&zoom_and=0&zoom_cat[]=-1
http://web.ebscohost.com.cucproxy.cuchicago.edu/ehost/results?hid=119&sid=ae66fde0-72d3-45e6-93aa-987b3f66da20%40sessionmgr113&vid=12&bquery=%28learning+AND+community+AND+hybridised+AND+faculty+AND+development%29&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpcCxjcGlkJmN1c3RpZD1zODQxOTIzOSZkYj1hcGgmdHlwZT0xJnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d
In a school environment, the education of teachers and staff is ongoing with technology continually evolving, information and methods continually developing and adapting. In the framework of school improvement, educators collaboratively work to identify and develop knowledge, goals, skills, and methods, enhancing the education of their students. In a learning community, “the dynamic interaction of shared practice and collective inquiry is perhaps the most essential aspect of a professional learning community.” (McREL, 2003).
Finding the key to desirable and effective learning communities is imperative. Nussbaum-Beach states that professional development that promotes reflection and relationship-building, “is visible in schools where the focus is on learning, rather than teaching, where teachers become co-learners in the learning process and traditional classrooms shift to become communities of practice”. Nussbaum-Beach (2009). In this practicum a different learning takes place. A learning that is serendipitous. The tools are in place, the goals and learning objectives determined, and the participants are in attendance. Here, both the student and the teacher, become the learners and the educators.
In a published article through Innovations in Education and Teaching International, the notion of keeping current with evolving technologies and teaching strategies through the practice of blending online communities of practice and face-to-face meetings is proposed. Catherine F. Brooks expresses, “Though faculty members’ needs and constraints vary, faculty support is increasingly necessary in an age of technological advancement that brings new educational tools that faculty members are being asked to learn about and use in their classrooms.” (2010). The technologies are constantly changing as well as the students’ use and understanding of these implements. Students are native to the technologies that many of us are unaccustomed to.
Blended learning communities, will provide flexibility, opportunities, and the infrastructure that will assist educators in developing technology skills and methodologies in student learning. “Once online forums for collegial interaction among faculty are implemented, researching the enactment of community online will bring about enhanced understandings of what it means to be a faculty member in contemporary times. As education continually evolves, so will the needs, questions, concerns, and stressors among faculty,” says Catherine F. Brooks (2010). The evolution of technology, the maturation of the next generation of students, the goals and methodologies of tomorrow secure the need for educators participation in today’s learning communities.
References
Catherine F. Brooks, C.F.B. (2010, August). Toward ‘hybridised’ faculty development for the twenty-first century: blending online communities of practice and face-to-face meetings in instructional and professional support programmes.
Nussbaum-Beach, SNB. (2009, December 06). Creating learning organizations. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/tsb/articles/2009/10/01/01nussbaum-beach.h03.html?qs=nussbaum-beach+creating+learning+organizations
Sustaining school improvement; professional learning community. (2003). Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning, Retrieved from http://www.mcrel.org/zoom/search.asp?zoom_sort=0&zoom_query=%22sustaining+school+improvement+professional+learning+community%22&zoom_per_page=10&zoom_and=0&zoom_cat[]=-1
http://web.ebscohost.com.cucproxy.cuchicago.edu/ehost/results?hid=119&sid=ae66fde0-72d3-45e6-93aa-987b3f66da20%40sessionmgr113&vid=12&bquery=%28learning+AND+community+AND+hybridised+AND+faculty+AND+development%29&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpcCxjcGlkJmN1c3RpZD1zODQxOTIzOSZkYj1hcGgmdHlwZT0xJnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Just Getting Started
Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school. ~Albert Einstein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)