Observation of a group of learners displays the inherent differences within and among individuals. This is true regardless of whether we are observing students or teachers as they learn. If our goal is to integrate technology within the classroom, then we need to consider how to create effective professional development that addresses this goal and is tailor-made to meet the diverse needs of teachers so that they are prepared to meet the diverse needs of students.
Traditional methods of professional development often do not “align with participating teacher’s professional learning needs, interests, and contextual realities.” (Harris, 2008) Therefore, we need to rethink our models for professional development and customize them to facilitate optimal learning and application of technology. To begin with, the needs of teachers must be determined. What do they already know about technology? What are they incorporating in their practice? What would they like to learn? What subjects and grade levels do they teach? The answers to these questions can be achieved through conversations with teachers or a needs survey and can be used along with their goal to determine which of the 5 types of models is most applicable which Judi Harris outlines in her four part series, “One Size Doesn’t Fit All.” While an instructor-led model may be necessary when introducing a technology tool, “if the goal and focus is effective technology use in particular curriculum areas, collaborative learning that takes place over time and with peers would probably be more effective than instructor-led sessions.” (Harris, 2008)
Teacher-librarians assist technology professional development by participating in professional learning communities. “Powerful learning takes place when teachers teach other teachers in a peer-to-peer network.” (Gagliolo, 2008) Teacher-librarians are often early adopters in the area of technology integration. “Early adopters are known to others in the social system for successful but discreet use of new implements, methods, or ideas, and as such often serve as role models for many others.” (Harris, 2008) As role models and mentors, teacher-librarians identify the learning style of their colleagues to determine if they need to be coached, nurtured, or nudged. (Ketterer, 2007) Coaching results in collaborative planning and teaching of lessons that integrate technology, nurturing focuses on assisting with the creation and modeling of technology based lessons, and nudging involves clearly identifying the benefits and uses of technology and how to incorporate it with traditional teaching methods. To support the diverse needs of teachers, technology integration can be delivered as appetizers, salads, entrees, desserts, or snacks according to the “professional development menu” created by Kimberley Ketterer (2008). Within my school, we have effectively served staff with various appetizers and are now exploring entrees and desserts. An introduction to the use of wikis in the classroom has led to the development of wikis to support student learning in the areas of Science and Language Arts. Teachers have the ongoing support of a technology resource person and the teacher-librarian as they proceed with implementing the use of this web 2.0 tool. These small successes have resulted in a stronger desire for more technology professional development and a greater willingness for teachers to integrate technology in their classrooms.
Remodeling the traditional to create focused, effective technology professional development based on current models will support the diverse needs of teachers. The goal of integrating technology within the classroom is best met through both instructor-led and collaborative learning models. Continued support through mentoring and peer learning networks is beneficial and results in greater motivation to explore and implement new technologies in the educational setting.
References:
Gaglio, Camilla. (2008) “Help Teachers Mentor One Another.” Learning & Leading with Technology. p. 39.
Harris, Judi. (2008) “One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Customizing Educational Technology Professional Development.” Part 1 to 4. Learning & Leading with Technology.
Ketterer, Kimberley. (2007) “Coach, Nurture, or Nudge: How Do You Learn Technology Best?” Learning & Leading with Technology. p. 21.
Ketterer, Kimberley. (2008) “A Professional Development Menu.” Learning & Leading with Technology.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Technology Integration
Technology. It has transformed an otherwise quiet, rainy day weekend in March into an opportunity for professional development and growth. Online I access my distance learning course from a university that I have never attended in person to participate in a weekly discussion with colleagues, some of whom are several provinces away. My thinking is challenged and new knowledge formed as we converse. This knowledge leads me to decide to change part of a Language Arts unit I had prepared. I easily locate relevant resources to support the lesson online and add these websites to my delicious account. After changing the lesson plan itself on Microsoft Word, I go onto Skype and use a microphone to speak with a teaching partner about lesson ideas and student assessment practices. As we are speaking, I update two wikis I created for school and check my RSS feeds to see what is new. I read a couple blog posts and then access the university library and peruse a few articles. What I teach and how I teach are positively influenced by technology. Imagine what technology integration can do for student learning in a classroom or library!
“Technology integration is using computers effectively and efficiently in the general content areas such as math, science, reading and social studies to allow students to learn how to apply computer skills and technology in meaningful ways. As a result, the curriculum drives the use of technology, not vice versa.” (Wikipedia, 2009) Technology is used as a valuable tool to teach curriculum and is interwoven throughout the process of student learning. Teachers are able to use technology in a variety of ways when teaching content and are often provided with suggestions through documents outlining provincial learning outcomes or state standards. For instance, the British Columbia Ministry of Education’s Integrated Resource Packages contain suggestions for how to instruct and assess using technology for each subject and provide a list of learning resources (software) that can be used. Technology integration in the educational setting provides opportunity for improvement in teaching and student learning. Teachers are able to use technology to engage students in meaningful lessons that prepare them for a future of life-long learning. Students are able to use technology to take greater responsibility for their own learning and extend their classroom and library learning experiences. “Used in the context of intelligent decisions about other aspects of education, technology enables learning to be limited by only one thing -- imagination.” (Hawkins, 1997)
How does technology integration look in the classroom and library?
“Technology integration is achieved when the use of technology is routine and transparent.” (Shaffner, 2009) The use of technology in the classroom needs to be a part of the everyday learning experience. Students use technology along with other traditional learning tools as they develop an understanding of the topic being studied. Technology integration is seen when students conduct research projects and access both books and computers to acquire information. The information itself may be recorded on paper or on the computer using a choice of programs. Students then decide how to present their understanding using either technology or a traditional method. In the article “Meaningful Technology Integration in Early Learning Environments”, technology integration is described within a Science unit on bones, fossils and dinosaurs in a preschool/kindergarten class. Technology was used along with other traditional tools to enrich learning. Other examples of technology integration in the classroom are described in “How to Integrate Technology: Finding the right tools to implement in the classroom.” They include making movies to explain scientific principles and creating slideshows about books students have read.
How does it improve teaching and student learning?
“Being literate no longer only involves being able to read and write. The literate of the twenty-first century must be able to download, upload, rip, burn, chat, save, blog, Skype, IM, and share.” (Mullen & Wedwick, 2008) This new definition of literacy applies to both teachers and students. If we are to teach information literacy to students then we also need to be information literate. The use of technology furthers teacher and student understanding and allows for diversified learning experiences. It also allows teachers and students greater access to resources and provides opportunities for learning that may not be met by traditional methods of teaching and learning alone. Rebecca Mullen and Linda Wedwick outline in “Avoiding the Digital Abyss” (2008) how using YouTube, digital stories, and blogs can facilitate and enrich experiences in the classroom. Video sites such as YouTube provide a plethora of videos that would otherwise not be available due to storage and financial concerns. The sites are easily searched and can accommodate the teachable moment. Digital stories offer students a new medium to display their knowledge and creativity. Students learn to “write” in this format by writing a script and drawing a storyboard. Blogs are another new style of writing and allow students to share their thoughts and have other students and the teacher comment. Web 2.0 tools such as blogs, wikis, and VoiceThreads enable teachers and students to interact on the internet. Instead of just learning from the internet, teachers and students are learning together.
How do we implement technology integration school and district wide?
The first steps to implementing technology integration involve having the technology available and allowing teachers time to learn and become comfortable with technology. I have found that in my teaching practice, technology use has not been as prevalent in my classroom as I would like because of the difficulty with accessing technology. In other classrooms, teachers describe their own lack of comfort as being the major hindrance to implementing technology integration. In “All Aboard!” David and Margaret Carpenter state the importance of having teachers be in charge instead of having technology integration be forced upon them. They stressed the need to include the library media specialist and the instructional technologist “[b]ecause these two specialists serve all grade levels, their perspective on the next-step skills needs was invaluable to the classroom teachers, whose focus was naturally more grade specific.” (Carpenter, 2008) In my district we have begun to address technology integration through the formation of a network of administrators, the assistant superintendent, information technology support staff, and teachers (including those specializing in teacher-librarianship and ICT). Using a wiki, we have initiated the creation of a technology resource that outlines various programs that are available and how they can be utilized to support the curriculum. School wide we are exploring how to support and scaffold the implementation of technology integration through the use of teacher-mentor relationships and peer learning opportunities. There are various sites already available to support teachers to integrate technology into the curriculum. Two good sites are Marnie McMillan’s “Supporting Student Learning with Technology” and Lee’s Summit School District’s “Technology and Instruction Interwoven.”
“Effective integration of ICT occurs when it is built into day-to-day classroom practice to meet curriculum objectives and engage students in inquiry-based learning, collaboration, self-directed learning, complex thinking, and communication outside the classroom through the use of technology.” (BC Ministry of Education)
References:
British Columbia Ministry of Education. “Information Technology Resource Document (K-7)” http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/resdocs/itk7.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Education. “Resources to Support ICT integration” http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/technology/6-9.htm
Carpenter, David & Margaret. (2008) “All Aboard! How a New Curriculum-Development Review Process Brought Teachers, Administrators, and Learning Specialists to the Table and Resulted in Some Innovative Uses of Technology.” Learning & Leading with Technology. pgs. 18 - 21
Hawkins, Jan. (1997) “The World at Your Fingertips: Education Technology Opens Doors.” http://www.edutopia.org/world-your-fingertips
Lee’s Summit, MO R-7 School District: Technology Integration. “Technology and Instruction Interwoven.” http://its.leesummit.k12.mo.us/
McMillan, Marnie. “Supporting Student Learning with Technology.” Regina Public Schools. http://web.rbe.sk.ca/support/
Mullen, Rebecca and Wedwick, Linda. (2008). “Avoiding the Digital Abyss: Getting Started in the Classroom with YouTube, Digital Stories, and Blogs.” The Clearing House. Vol. 82, No.2, pgs. 66-69
Schaffner, Marian. (2009) “Technology Integration.” Edutopia: The George Lucas Educational Foundation. http://www.edutopia.org/teaching-module-technology-integration
Wang, X. C., Jaruscewicz, C., Rosen, D., Berson, I. and Bailey, M. (2008) “Meaningful Technology Integration in Early Learning Environments.” National Association for Education of Young Children. Vol. 63. No. 5, pgs. 48 - 50. ProQuest Educational Journals.
“Technology integration is using computers effectively and efficiently in the general content areas such as math, science, reading and social studies to allow students to learn how to apply computer skills and technology in meaningful ways. As a result, the curriculum drives the use of technology, not vice versa.” (Wikipedia, 2009) Technology is used as a valuable tool to teach curriculum and is interwoven throughout the process of student learning. Teachers are able to use technology in a variety of ways when teaching content and are often provided with suggestions through documents outlining provincial learning outcomes or state standards. For instance, the British Columbia Ministry of Education’s Integrated Resource Packages contain suggestions for how to instruct and assess using technology for each subject and provide a list of learning resources (software) that can be used. Technology integration in the educational setting provides opportunity for improvement in teaching and student learning. Teachers are able to use technology to engage students in meaningful lessons that prepare them for a future of life-long learning. Students are able to use technology to take greater responsibility for their own learning and extend their classroom and library learning experiences. “Used in the context of intelligent decisions about other aspects of education, technology enables learning to be limited by only one thing -- imagination.” (Hawkins, 1997)
How does technology integration look in the classroom and library?
“Technology integration is achieved when the use of technology is routine and transparent.” (Shaffner, 2009) The use of technology in the classroom needs to be a part of the everyday learning experience. Students use technology along with other traditional learning tools as they develop an understanding of the topic being studied. Technology integration is seen when students conduct research projects and access both books and computers to acquire information. The information itself may be recorded on paper or on the computer using a choice of programs. Students then decide how to present their understanding using either technology or a traditional method. In the article “Meaningful Technology Integration in Early Learning Environments”, technology integration is described within a Science unit on bones, fossils and dinosaurs in a preschool/kindergarten class. Technology was used along with other traditional tools to enrich learning. Other examples of technology integration in the classroom are described in “How to Integrate Technology: Finding the right tools to implement in the classroom.” They include making movies to explain scientific principles and creating slideshows about books students have read.
How does it improve teaching and student learning?
“Being literate no longer only involves being able to read and write. The literate of the twenty-first century must be able to download, upload, rip, burn, chat, save, blog, Skype, IM, and share.” (Mullen & Wedwick, 2008) This new definition of literacy applies to both teachers and students. If we are to teach information literacy to students then we also need to be information literate. The use of technology furthers teacher and student understanding and allows for diversified learning experiences. It also allows teachers and students greater access to resources and provides opportunities for learning that may not be met by traditional methods of teaching and learning alone. Rebecca Mullen and Linda Wedwick outline in “Avoiding the Digital Abyss” (2008) how using YouTube, digital stories, and blogs can facilitate and enrich experiences in the classroom. Video sites such as YouTube provide a plethora of videos that would otherwise not be available due to storage and financial concerns. The sites are easily searched and can accommodate the teachable moment. Digital stories offer students a new medium to display their knowledge and creativity. Students learn to “write” in this format by writing a script and drawing a storyboard. Blogs are another new style of writing and allow students to share their thoughts and have other students and the teacher comment. Web 2.0 tools such as blogs, wikis, and VoiceThreads enable teachers and students to interact on the internet. Instead of just learning from the internet, teachers and students are learning together.
How do we implement technology integration school and district wide?
The first steps to implementing technology integration involve having the technology available and allowing teachers time to learn and become comfortable with technology. I have found that in my teaching practice, technology use has not been as prevalent in my classroom as I would like because of the difficulty with accessing technology. In other classrooms, teachers describe their own lack of comfort as being the major hindrance to implementing technology integration. In “All Aboard!” David and Margaret Carpenter state the importance of having teachers be in charge instead of having technology integration be forced upon them. They stressed the need to include the library media specialist and the instructional technologist “[b]ecause these two specialists serve all grade levels, their perspective on the next-step skills needs was invaluable to the classroom teachers, whose focus was naturally more grade specific.” (Carpenter, 2008) In my district we have begun to address technology integration through the formation of a network of administrators, the assistant superintendent, information technology support staff, and teachers (including those specializing in teacher-librarianship and ICT). Using a wiki, we have initiated the creation of a technology resource that outlines various programs that are available and how they can be utilized to support the curriculum. School wide we are exploring how to support and scaffold the implementation of technology integration through the use of teacher-mentor relationships and peer learning opportunities. There are various sites already available to support teachers to integrate technology into the curriculum. Two good sites are Marnie McMillan’s “Supporting Student Learning with Technology” and Lee’s Summit School District’s “Technology and Instruction Interwoven.”
“Effective integration of ICT occurs when it is built into day-to-day classroom practice to meet curriculum objectives and engage students in inquiry-based learning, collaboration, self-directed learning, complex thinking, and communication outside the classroom through the use of technology.” (BC Ministry of Education)
References:
British Columbia Ministry of Education. “Information Technology Resource Document (K-7)” http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/resdocs/itk7.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Education. “Resources to Support ICT integration” http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/technology/6-9.htm
Carpenter, David & Margaret. (2008) “All Aboard! How a New Curriculum-Development Review Process Brought Teachers, Administrators, and Learning Specialists to the Table and Resulted in Some Innovative Uses of Technology.” Learning & Leading with Technology. pgs. 18 - 21
Hawkins, Jan. (1997) “The World at Your Fingertips: Education Technology Opens Doors.” http://www.edutopia.org/world-your-fingertips
Lee’s Summit, MO R-7 School District: Technology Integration. “Technology and Instruction Interwoven.” http://its.leesummit.k12.mo.us/
McMillan, Marnie. “Supporting Student Learning with Technology.” Regina Public Schools. http://web.rbe.sk.ca/support/
Mullen, Rebecca and Wedwick, Linda. (2008). “Avoiding the Digital Abyss: Getting Started in the Classroom with YouTube, Digital Stories, and Blogs.” The Clearing House. Vol. 82, No.2, pgs. 66-69
Schaffner, Marian. (2009) “Technology Integration.” Edutopia: The George Lucas Educational Foundation. http://www.edutopia.org/teaching-module-technology-integration
Wang, X. C., Jaruscewicz, C., Rosen, D., Berson, I. and Bailey, M. (2008) “Meaningful Technology Integration in Early Learning Environments.” National Association for Education of Young Children. Vol. 63. No. 5, pgs. 48 - 50. ProQuest Educational Journals.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Privacy in a Digital World
“I have as much privacy as a goldfish in a bowl.” – Princess Margaret
We all have the right to privacy. However, more and more we find that the digital world is impacting on this right and it is often due to unawareness on our part or a lack of concern. Many engage in online communities and openly share their private world on a global scale. Even our thoughts and opinions are laid bare to the public through blogging and other Web 2.0 tools. Are we creating our own “fishbowls”? Has it become the societal norm to no longer have privacy? What can educators do to ensure that they guard their own privacy and teach students to do the same?
One area in which privacy can be threatened is in the school library. Helen Adams’s, “The Ebb and Flow of Library Privacy”, outlined legislature affecting students’ rights to confidentiality of their school library records in four states. She concluded that “the majority lack understanding of or support for privacy rights for minors using library media centers.” (Adams, 2008) In Canada, students’ privacy rights in public schools are protected by the Privacy Act. However, there is no formal documentation that specifies protection of library usage records. “Library users’ rights to privacy and the need to respect the confidentiality of library use and records are indivisible. Privacy cannot be protected unless records and inquiries for resources are treated as confidential information.” (Riehl, 2007) It is imperative that students are able to trust that their reading choices are kept confidential. This may mean re-examining current school library policies to ensure that student privacy is respected. Riehl provides thought-provoking questions about policy, practices and procedures, advocacy and training, technology, and balancing intellectual freedoms and social responsibilities in her article, “Students’ Privacy Rights in School Libraries: Balancing Principles, Ethics and Practices.” Evaluating our school library using these questions, immediately highlighted areas that need to be addressed including current procedure for notifying students about overdue books. I also question now how library records are stored and who sees them when using our online library program.
Student privacy is also jeopardized by their online activities. Personal information is often shared through social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace. Yet, social networking sites are not alone in the invasion of student privacy. Even something as simple as a Google search results in information being shared unintentionally. Exploring a few Google videos about privacy on YouTube revealed what and why information is collected each time anyone enters a search query. These videos made me aware of privacy issues which I had not even known to question. Cookies, logs, search histories were all words that I had heard but not realized how they impacted on privacy. The videos also explained that personal information was not collected or shared with outside agencies and it further went on to explain how to disable some features to allow for more private searches. Educators need to be aware that ensuring students read and understand privacy policies is not enough anymore. Teaching about the many ways that information is gathered and shared online is necessary, as well as how students can minimize infringement on their privacy rights. Unfortunately, “while many young people recognize the risks associated with their online activities, they lack the knowledge and the tools to mitigate those risks.” (Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 2008) Students need to be taught to think critically before sharing any information online. They need to question who might see this information and how it can be used either positively or negatively, now and in years to come – their digital footprint. Integrating this within the ICT outcomes is a beginning but it needs to be taught by all educators considering the use of technology throughout all aspects of the curriculum. Social responsibility is one subject in which this information can be explored as students recognize the importance of being digital citizens and maintaining a high level of safety for themselves and others. Privacy policies can be examined in Language Arts classes and a discussion about the seven resolutions outlined in “Children’s Online Privacy: Resolution of Canada’s Privacy Commissioners and Privacy Oversight Officials” could occur as well.
Students and educators who share their thoughts and ideas on blogs and wikis also need to be cognizant of the impacts that these practices may have on their privacy. Unlike Princess Margaret whose loss of privacy was due to her royal blood, we have a choice about what we share online. Some people prefer to be completely open, while others are more guarded. Within the school setting, class blogs and wikis that are private will alleviate concerns but result in a loss of the global aspect of Web 2.0 tools. It is much more important then to be aware of and abide by the suggestions of Doug Johnson in his post “Lighting Lamps.” His sage advice, while intended for educators, bodes well for our students also. Sharing this with students and exploring bloggers who model this advice by displaying professionalism can lead to the development of student’s own suggestions when writing publicly on the internet.
Teacher-librarians can lead the way in teaching awareness about privacy concerns and tools with which to protect ourselves. The school library should be an environment that clearly respects student privacy. As more opportunities arise in the digital world for students and educators to share their personal lives through social networking sites, blogs, and wikis, we need to ensure that our right to privacy remains intact. Otherwise we may end up, as Clay Shirky states in the video “Facebook Killed the Private Life”, robbing “young people of something they won’t even know they are missing.”
References:
Adams, Helen R. “The Ebb and Flow of Library Privacy.” School Library Media Activities Monthly. June 2008; Vol. 24, No.10; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 31.
Google Privacy: A Look at Cookies - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfZLztx8cKI
Google Search Privacy: Personalized Search - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsUBnPRtTbI
Google Search Privacy: Plain and Simple - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLgJYBRzUXY
Johnson, Doug. “Lighting Lamps.” Learning & Leading with Technology. June/July 2008.
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. “Children’s Online Privacy: Resolution of Canada’s Privacy Commissioners and Privacy Oversight Officials.” June 2008. http://www.privcom.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2008/res_080604_e.asp
Riehl, Donna. “Students’ Privacy Rights in School Libraries: Balancing Principles, Ethics and Practices.” School Libraries in Canada. 2007. http://www.cla.ca/casl/slic/262studentsprivacyrights.html
Shirky, Clay. “Facebook Killed the Private Life.” November 2007. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azIW1xjSTCo
YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/
We all have the right to privacy. However, more and more we find that the digital world is impacting on this right and it is often due to unawareness on our part or a lack of concern. Many engage in online communities and openly share their private world on a global scale. Even our thoughts and opinions are laid bare to the public through blogging and other Web 2.0 tools. Are we creating our own “fishbowls”? Has it become the societal norm to no longer have privacy? What can educators do to ensure that they guard their own privacy and teach students to do the same?
One area in which privacy can be threatened is in the school library. Helen Adams’s, “The Ebb and Flow of Library Privacy”, outlined legislature affecting students’ rights to confidentiality of their school library records in four states. She concluded that “the majority lack understanding of or support for privacy rights for minors using library media centers.” (Adams, 2008) In Canada, students’ privacy rights in public schools are protected by the Privacy Act. However, there is no formal documentation that specifies protection of library usage records. “Library users’ rights to privacy and the need to respect the confidentiality of library use and records are indivisible. Privacy cannot be protected unless records and inquiries for resources are treated as confidential information.” (Riehl, 2007) It is imperative that students are able to trust that their reading choices are kept confidential. This may mean re-examining current school library policies to ensure that student privacy is respected. Riehl provides thought-provoking questions about policy, practices and procedures, advocacy and training, technology, and balancing intellectual freedoms and social responsibilities in her article, “Students’ Privacy Rights in School Libraries: Balancing Principles, Ethics and Practices.” Evaluating our school library using these questions, immediately highlighted areas that need to be addressed including current procedure for notifying students about overdue books. I also question now how library records are stored and who sees them when using our online library program.
Student privacy is also jeopardized by their online activities. Personal information is often shared through social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace. Yet, social networking sites are not alone in the invasion of student privacy. Even something as simple as a Google search results in information being shared unintentionally. Exploring a few Google videos about privacy on YouTube revealed what and why information is collected each time anyone enters a search query. These videos made me aware of privacy issues which I had not even known to question. Cookies, logs, search histories were all words that I had heard but not realized how they impacted on privacy. The videos also explained that personal information was not collected or shared with outside agencies and it further went on to explain how to disable some features to allow for more private searches. Educators need to be aware that ensuring students read and understand privacy policies is not enough anymore. Teaching about the many ways that information is gathered and shared online is necessary, as well as how students can minimize infringement on their privacy rights. Unfortunately, “while many young people recognize the risks associated with their online activities, they lack the knowledge and the tools to mitigate those risks.” (Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 2008) Students need to be taught to think critically before sharing any information online. They need to question who might see this information and how it can be used either positively or negatively, now and in years to come – their digital footprint. Integrating this within the ICT outcomes is a beginning but it needs to be taught by all educators considering the use of technology throughout all aspects of the curriculum. Social responsibility is one subject in which this information can be explored as students recognize the importance of being digital citizens and maintaining a high level of safety for themselves and others. Privacy policies can be examined in Language Arts classes and a discussion about the seven resolutions outlined in “Children’s Online Privacy: Resolution of Canada’s Privacy Commissioners and Privacy Oversight Officials” could occur as well.
Students and educators who share their thoughts and ideas on blogs and wikis also need to be cognizant of the impacts that these practices may have on their privacy. Unlike Princess Margaret whose loss of privacy was due to her royal blood, we have a choice about what we share online. Some people prefer to be completely open, while others are more guarded. Within the school setting, class blogs and wikis that are private will alleviate concerns but result in a loss of the global aspect of Web 2.0 tools. It is much more important then to be aware of and abide by the suggestions of Doug Johnson in his post “Lighting Lamps.” His sage advice, while intended for educators, bodes well for our students also. Sharing this with students and exploring bloggers who model this advice by displaying professionalism can lead to the development of student’s own suggestions when writing publicly on the internet.
Teacher-librarians can lead the way in teaching awareness about privacy concerns and tools with which to protect ourselves. The school library should be an environment that clearly respects student privacy. As more opportunities arise in the digital world for students and educators to share their personal lives through social networking sites, blogs, and wikis, we need to ensure that our right to privacy remains intact. Otherwise we may end up, as Clay Shirky states in the video “Facebook Killed the Private Life”, robbing “young people of something they won’t even know they are missing.”
References:
Adams, Helen R. “The Ebb and Flow of Library Privacy.” School Library Media Activities Monthly. June 2008; Vol. 24, No.10; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 31.
Google Privacy: A Look at Cookies - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfZLztx8cKI
Google Search Privacy: Personalized Search - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsUBnPRtTbI
Google Search Privacy: Plain and Simple - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLgJYBRzUXY
Johnson, Doug. “Lighting Lamps.” Learning & Leading with Technology. June/July 2008.
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. “Children’s Online Privacy: Resolution of Canada’s Privacy Commissioners and Privacy Oversight Officials.” June 2008. http://www.privcom.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2008/res_080604_e.asp
Riehl, Donna. “Students’ Privacy Rights in School Libraries: Balancing Principles, Ethics and Practices.” School Libraries in Canada. 2007. http://www.cla.ca/casl/slic/262studentsprivacyrights.html
Shirky, Clay. “Facebook Killed the Private Life.” November 2007. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azIW1xjSTCo
YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Digital Divide
The digital divide encompasses a number of inequities. Wikipedia defines the digital divide as “the gap between people with effective access to digital and information technology and those with very limited or no access at all.”(Wikipedia, 2009) It further specifies that this divide is not just related to physical access but also to the resources and skills that are required for digital citizenship.
Three factors which have been identified as relating to the digital divide are socio-economic status, rural-urban location, and gender. “Rural youths are less likely to have access to computers in the home; however, frequency of use and perceived competency levels are not compromised. Female youths and those from families with low levels of parental education are also less likely to have access to computers in their homes; they tend to spend less time on the computer and they tend to report lower levels of computer skills competency.” (Looker & Thiessen, 2003) The role of school libraries is one in which these factors are recognized and steps are taken to counter their effects. This is especially true when considering that “in every instance, those with less interest in, competence with, or experience with ICT (i.e. females, rural youth, youth from lower SES households) are more likely to have first learned to use a computer in school.” (Looker & Thiessen, 2003) Surveying my own class in a relatively rural community, I found that one-fifth of my students do not have a computer at home. Of these students, two-thirds are female and all, except one, are from a lower socio-economic family. I am cognizant of this “localized digital divide” when planning lessons to ensure that I provide opportunities to allow all students to explore the use of digital technology and to develop necessary ICT skills. As well, the computers in the school library are made available to students each lunch hour and are used to complete projects that students are unable to do at home due to lack of a home computer. The availability of computers at lunch also allows students to interact with their peers and to utilize various aspects of the web and its tools which aids in developing positive attitudes to digital technology and greater competency.
The implementation of Web 2.0 tools has been subject to “four levels of influence that take the form of ‘digital divides’ in schools.” (Mardis, 2008) These four levels are: access, skill, policy, and motivation. Within my school, access is the main cause of the digital divide. While teachers’ skill level and motivation are varied and do play a factor, the desire to implement Web 2.0 in individual classrooms has consistently met with difficulties due to access. One of the issues is the computer to student ratio. We have only one full computer lab and a partial lab in the library to meet the needs of 18 classes. It is quite challenging to develop ICT skills in students when they are not able to access the necessary technology. Teachers are also limited in their access to technology in the classrooms. We have one SmartBoard and four LCD projectors that are shared amongst the staff. It is difficult to implement technology through Web 2.0 when it is not readily available. The discrepancies between schools for this aspect of the digital divide are highlighted when comparisons are conducted between school districts not only on a provincial level but also a national level. Schools can be divided into the “haves” and “have-nots”. As well as access, the policy level demonstrates great variations between schools provincially and nationally. These have to do specifically with the types of filters in place and the Web 2.0 tools that are blocked. My school is fortunate in that the filters in place are not overly restrictive whereas other districts have filters that counteract the greater access they have to technology.
The digital divide is a relevant issue for teachers today because it affects us and our students. An awareness and understanding of the factors involved and the different levels of digital divide are necessary as we endeavor to minimize inequities and provide the greatest opportunities for our students to develop the skills and attitudes which will allow them to participate successfully in a digital world.
Three factors which have been identified as relating to the digital divide are socio-economic status, rural-urban location, and gender. “Rural youths are less likely to have access to computers in the home; however, frequency of use and perceived competency levels are not compromised. Female youths and those from families with low levels of parental education are also less likely to have access to computers in their homes; they tend to spend less time on the computer and they tend to report lower levels of computer skills competency.” (Looker & Thiessen, 2003) The role of school libraries is one in which these factors are recognized and steps are taken to counter their effects. This is especially true when considering that “in every instance, those with less interest in, competence with, or experience with ICT (i.e. females, rural youth, youth from lower SES households) are more likely to have first learned to use a computer in school.” (Looker & Thiessen, 2003) Surveying my own class in a relatively rural community, I found that one-fifth of my students do not have a computer at home. Of these students, two-thirds are female and all, except one, are from a lower socio-economic family. I am cognizant of this “localized digital divide” when planning lessons to ensure that I provide opportunities to allow all students to explore the use of digital technology and to develop necessary ICT skills. As well, the computers in the school library are made available to students each lunch hour and are used to complete projects that students are unable to do at home due to lack of a home computer. The availability of computers at lunch also allows students to interact with their peers and to utilize various aspects of the web and its tools which aids in developing positive attitudes to digital technology and greater competency.
The implementation of Web 2.0 tools has been subject to “four levels of influence that take the form of ‘digital divides’ in schools.” (Mardis, 2008) These four levels are: access, skill, policy, and motivation. Within my school, access is the main cause of the digital divide. While teachers’ skill level and motivation are varied and do play a factor, the desire to implement Web 2.0 in individual classrooms has consistently met with difficulties due to access. One of the issues is the computer to student ratio. We have only one full computer lab and a partial lab in the library to meet the needs of 18 classes. It is quite challenging to develop ICT skills in students when they are not able to access the necessary technology. Teachers are also limited in their access to technology in the classrooms. We have one SmartBoard and four LCD projectors that are shared amongst the staff. It is difficult to implement technology through Web 2.0 when it is not readily available. The discrepancies between schools for this aspect of the digital divide are highlighted when comparisons are conducted between school districts not only on a provincial level but also a national level. Schools can be divided into the “haves” and “have-nots”. As well as access, the policy level demonstrates great variations between schools provincially and nationally. These have to do specifically with the types of filters in place and the Web 2.0 tools that are blocked. My school is fortunate in that the filters in place are not overly restrictive whereas other districts have filters that counteract the greater access they have to technology.
The digital divide is a relevant issue for teachers today because it affects us and our students. An awareness and understanding of the factors involved and the different levels of digital divide are necessary as we endeavor to minimize inequities and provide the greatest opportunities for our students to develop the skills and attitudes which will allow them to participate successfully in a digital world.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Filtering
The Internet allows access to a vast amount of information. This includes some information that is deemed unsafe and inappropriate. Should filters be utilized to minimize access to this type of information on school computers? How does this impact on intellectual freedom?
There are a variety of filters currently on the market, all of which use computer automation to prevent access to information. These filters use “five basic approaches to controlling and suppressing expressive content on the Internet: “bad word”, “bad phrase”, and even “bad syllable” stoplists, “bad site” lists, “bad topic” lists, site content rating systems, and “bad service” lists” (Schrader, 1999). The use of these approaches results in appropriate sites also being blocked because they may contain a word that is on the stoplist. Computers are not able to determine the context in which a word is used and are therefore unable to determine the actual appropriateness of a site. “No one disputes the need to protect kids from the harm that lurks online. What’s at issue is whether or not mandated internet filters are the best way to achieve these safeguards – or whether the filters aren’t up to the task and are actually interfering with the educational mission by obstructing use of important Web 2.0 tools.” (Villano, 2008)
The use of filters in my school district was not an issue I had previously considered. I have been fortunate in that any technology that I needed to access was readily available or was easily made available by contacting our technology support person. In other words, I lacked any knowledge of the negative impact of the use of filters and viewed filters as a means of keeping our network safe from the threat of viruses. It came as quite a surprise to read and take part in discussions that listed blogs, wikis, and other Web 2.0 tools as being blocked in other districts within the country and in other countries. I was curious then to find out what filters our district uses and if this has resulted in a loss of accessibility to sites. Our information technology person was able to supply me with the answers I sought. In our district, all school computers are filtered by Websense through the PLNet as mandated by the Ministry of Education. The purpose of using this filter as stated in a bulletin by PLNet is “to ensure students can use the Internet safely, with a reduced risk of visiting sites that contain inappropriate or harmful content” (PLNet, 2002). PLNet also recommends “that teachers and facilitators remain diligent in monitoring students use of the Internet” and explains the procedure when an inappropriate site is accessed through the filter or if an appropriate site is not able to be accessed (2002). As well as this filter, students are not able to download from the Internet (teachers are able to though) and individual sites are able to be blocked by our information technology staff. A site is blocked if a teacher or administrator requests it and is able to explain the negative impact this site is having on the education of our students. YouTube was recently blocked at one of our schools due to incidences of its misuse in the form of bullying. It is, however, still accessible at other schools in our district, as are all other Web 2.0 tools. As for student access to the Internet, our district requires that students and parents sign an “Acceptable Use Policy” and it is then left for individual teachers to monitor the use of the Internet within the classroom environment. Parents and guardians are also notified and permission requested when students take part in online activities such as class blogs or wikis.
How is intellectual freedom impacted by using filters to block information on the Internet? As a colleague of mine stated, it would be naïve to insist that filters should not be used at all. It is important to remember that one of the uses of filters is as protection against viruses which would wreck havoc with the network resulting in the inability to utilize the computers. However, when deciding on the use of filters “fear and misinformation should not triumph over logic and an agenda for learning” (Abram, 2007). The key components to using the Internet safely are education and communication, not censorship through the use of filters. Students have a right to access information. “Internet filters are an illusion. They impose a simplistic set of values on a complex and highly variable world of personal tastes, individualized family values, highly variable perceptions of age appropriateness, and widely varying thresholds of social tolerance” (Schrader, 1999). Overly restrictive filters do more damage than good. Educators and parents need to be responsible for teaching students about the Internet instead of relying on filters or blocking sites. “Educating students to make wise decisions and to evaluate the source and quality of information and communications they receive will provide them with a set of skills to use information efficiently and successfully” (McDonald, 2007). Educators have other options available to them besides filters when it comes to protecting students online while students are learning about the safe use of the Internet. With younger students, the uses of databases or pre-selected websites (trailfires and pathfinders) are methods to prevent their exposure to inappropriate sites. I have always had a twinge of doubt when I request that students do not access certain sites. Instead of restricting access, I would rather teach students responsibility and the ethical use of the Internet. In a span of six years with daily monitoring of student use on the Internet, I have only had a few incidences of misuse and have dealt with them directly. I am concerned about decisions then such as a school-wide blockage of YouTube which affects all students and teachers regardless of whether or not they had acted irresponsibly.
Filtering is important with regards to protection against viruses but its impact on student learning and intellectual freedom must be kept at a minimum. Students, teachers, and parents need to communicate openly about Internet use and learn to use it in a responsible, ethical manner.
References:
Abram, Stephen. “Justifying the Social Tools: Improving the Conversation.” Multimedia & Internet@Schools; Jan/Feb 2007; 14, 1; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 21 – 22.
McDonald, Dale. “Educating Students to Protect Themselves in Cyberspace.” Momentum. Nov/Dec 2007; 38, 4; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 88-89.
PLNet. “Bulletin: Websense Internet Filtering.” 2002 http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/plnet/filtering_bulletin.pdf
Schrader, Alvin. “Internet Filters: Library Access Issues in a Cyberspace World.” 65th IFLA Council and General Conference – IFLA/FAIFE Open Session Lecture – August 25, 1999. http://www.ifla.org/faife/papers/others/schrader.htm
Villano, Matt. “What Are We Protecting Them From?” T.H.E. Journal. May 2008; 35, 5; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 48 – 54.
There are a variety of filters currently on the market, all of which use computer automation to prevent access to information. These filters use “five basic approaches to controlling and suppressing expressive content on the Internet: “bad word”, “bad phrase”, and even “bad syllable” stoplists, “bad site” lists, “bad topic” lists, site content rating systems, and “bad service” lists” (Schrader, 1999). The use of these approaches results in appropriate sites also being blocked because they may contain a word that is on the stoplist. Computers are not able to determine the context in which a word is used and are therefore unable to determine the actual appropriateness of a site. “No one disputes the need to protect kids from the harm that lurks online. What’s at issue is whether or not mandated internet filters are the best way to achieve these safeguards – or whether the filters aren’t up to the task and are actually interfering with the educational mission by obstructing use of important Web 2.0 tools.” (Villano, 2008)
The use of filters in my school district was not an issue I had previously considered. I have been fortunate in that any technology that I needed to access was readily available or was easily made available by contacting our technology support person. In other words, I lacked any knowledge of the negative impact of the use of filters and viewed filters as a means of keeping our network safe from the threat of viruses. It came as quite a surprise to read and take part in discussions that listed blogs, wikis, and other Web 2.0 tools as being blocked in other districts within the country and in other countries. I was curious then to find out what filters our district uses and if this has resulted in a loss of accessibility to sites. Our information technology person was able to supply me with the answers I sought. In our district, all school computers are filtered by Websense through the PLNet as mandated by the Ministry of Education. The purpose of using this filter as stated in a bulletin by PLNet is “to ensure students can use the Internet safely, with a reduced risk of visiting sites that contain inappropriate or harmful content” (PLNet, 2002). PLNet also recommends “that teachers and facilitators remain diligent in monitoring students use of the Internet” and explains the procedure when an inappropriate site is accessed through the filter or if an appropriate site is not able to be accessed (2002). As well as this filter, students are not able to download from the Internet (teachers are able to though) and individual sites are able to be blocked by our information technology staff. A site is blocked if a teacher or administrator requests it and is able to explain the negative impact this site is having on the education of our students. YouTube was recently blocked at one of our schools due to incidences of its misuse in the form of bullying. It is, however, still accessible at other schools in our district, as are all other Web 2.0 tools. As for student access to the Internet, our district requires that students and parents sign an “Acceptable Use Policy” and it is then left for individual teachers to monitor the use of the Internet within the classroom environment. Parents and guardians are also notified and permission requested when students take part in online activities such as class blogs or wikis.
How is intellectual freedom impacted by using filters to block information on the Internet? As a colleague of mine stated, it would be naïve to insist that filters should not be used at all. It is important to remember that one of the uses of filters is as protection against viruses which would wreck havoc with the network resulting in the inability to utilize the computers. However, when deciding on the use of filters “fear and misinformation should not triumph over logic and an agenda for learning” (Abram, 2007). The key components to using the Internet safely are education and communication, not censorship through the use of filters. Students have a right to access information. “Internet filters are an illusion. They impose a simplistic set of values on a complex and highly variable world of personal tastes, individualized family values, highly variable perceptions of age appropriateness, and widely varying thresholds of social tolerance” (Schrader, 1999). Overly restrictive filters do more damage than good. Educators and parents need to be responsible for teaching students about the Internet instead of relying on filters or blocking sites. “Educating students to make wise decisions and to evaluate the source and quality of information and communications they receive will provide them with a set of skills to use information efficiently and successfully” (McDonald, 2007). Educators have other options available to them besides filters when it comes to protecting students online while students are learning about the safe use of the Internet. With younger students, the uses of databases or pre-selected websites (trailfires and pathfinders) are methods to prevent their exposure to inappropriate sites. I have always had a twinge of doubt when I request that students do not access certain sites. Instead of restricting access, I would rather teach students responsibility and the ethical use of the Internet. In a span of six years with daily monitoring of student use on the Internet, I have only had a few incidences of misuse and have dealt with them directly. I am concerned about decisions then such as a school-wide blockage of YouTube which affects all students and teachers regardless of whether or not they had acted irresponsibly.
Filtering is important with regards to protection against viruses but its impact on student learning and intellectual freedom must be kept at a minimum. Students, teachers, and parents need to communicate openly about Internet use and learn to use it in a responsible, ethical manner.
References:
Abram, Stephen. “Justifying the Social Tools: Improving the Conversation.” Multimedia & Internet@Schools; Jan/Feb 2007; 14, 1; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 21 – 22.
McDonald, Dale. “Educating Students to Protect Themselves in Cyberspace.” Momentum. Nov/Dec 2007; 38, 4; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 88-89.
PLNet. “Bulletin: Websense Internet Filtering.” 2002 http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/plnet/filtering_bulletin.pdf
Schrader, Alvin. “Internet Filters: Library Access Issues in a Cyberspace World.” 65th IFLA Council and General Conference – IFLA/FAIFE Open Session Lecture – August 25, 1999. http://www.ifla.org/faife/papers/others/schrader.htm
Villano, Matt. “What Are We Protecting Them From?” T.H.E. Journal. May 2008; 35, 5; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 48 – 54.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Teaching Digital Natives
Each generation has specific characteristics that are a direct result of the era in which they were born and raised. How do these characteristics impact the way in which they learn? Is it necessary for teachers as “digital immigrants” (Prensky, 2001) to develop and implement new teaching strategies in order for the current generation, the “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001), to be successful, engaged learners?
Marc Prensky states that “today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach” and this is due to the “singularity” of “the arrival and rapid dissemination of digital technology in the last decades of the 20th century” (Prensky, 2001). He then compares these students to digital immigrants, highlighting and emphasizing how the differences between the two negatively affect the ability for digital natives to learn from digital immigrants. Furthermore, he states that “Digital Immigrant teachers assume that learners are the same as they have always been and that the same methods that worked for the teachers when they were students will work for their students now” (Prensky, 2001).
I found that Prensky’s arguments tend to over generalize and do not necessarily depict the teaching and learning styles of both digital natives and digital immigrants accurately. “Anyone who takes the briefest look at theories of how human beings learn will discover that our students learn in all kinds of ways and that we should never assume that any one method is universal or even a majority preference. Likewise, to blanket our current students with the label "digital natives" doesn't take into account the wide range of experiences and preferences they have with technology” (Lang, 2007). As a classroom teacher, I strive to meet the individual needs of my students. This involves identifying their needs and teaching students in a variety of ways based on different learning theories such as problem-based, experiential, direct, constructivist, inquiry, and multiple intelligences. Technology is one area in which students’ needs must be ascertained and then met. “The importance of getting to know your students’ out-of-school technology, access, conditions, and use” was described in “Who Are Today’s Learners?” (Greenhow, 2008). To determine my students’ access to and understanding of technology, I gave them a quick survey and found that some of my students were not able to easily access technology outside of school nor were they as techno-savvy as I would have thought considering that they are digital natives. The results of this survey will now determine what and how I teach with regards to using technology in the classroom.
Is it necessary then to develop and implement completely new teaching strategies and alter our teaching styles in order to engage digital natives and ensure that they are successful learners? Absolutely not! “Education does need to adapt and evolve with the times, and educators need to understand the learning styles of their students, but we do not have to assume that our students are incapable of learning from or communicating with the digital immigrants even if we suspect that their thought patterns are different from our own” (VanSlyke, 2003). Teaching strategies can be adapted to include the use of technology in order to enhance student learning. The fundamentals of learning stay the same and digital technology simply offers students and teachers another avenue to access information, to work collaboratively, to create, and to present their knowledge and understanding. For instance, the strategy of webbing is used to generate and link ideas when writing about a specific topic or for note-taking purposes. Students can use software such as Kidspiration and online tools such as bubble.us to generate a web independently or to work collaboratively with others when creating their webs. A second strategy, the R.A.F.T. (Role, Audience, Format, Topic), is a writing strategy that involves students applying their knowledge to write in role and to a specific audience. With the use of the internet, students are able to increase their knowledge base and connect with people on a global basis to assist in developing differing perspectives that would allow them to write in role in a more authentic manner.
The current generation of students, digital natives, are characterized and shaped in part by digital technology. Digital immigrant teachers acknowledge these differences and demonstrate an understanding by adapting, not abandoning, their strategies to accommodate for the need and desire of students to utilize digital technology when learning.
References:
Greenhow, Christine. “Who Are Today’s Learners?” Learning and Leading with Technology. Sept/Oct. 2008.
Lang, James. M. “A Brain and a Book.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. June 2007. 53(39), C.2-C.3.
Prensky, Marc.“Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.” On the Horizon. Oct. 25. Vol. 9, No. 5.
VanSlyke, Timothy. "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: Some Thoughts from the Generation Gap." The Technology Source. May/June 2003.
Marc Prensky states that “today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach” and this is due to the “singularity” of “the arrival and rapid dissemination of digital technology in the last decades of the 20th century” (Prensky, 2001). He then compares these students to digital immigrants, highlighting and emphasizing how the differences between the two negatively affect the ability for digital natives to learn from digital immigrants. Furthermore, he states that “Digital Immigrant teachers assume that learners are the same as they have always been and that the same methods that worked for the teachers when they were students will work for their students now” (Prensky, 2001).
I found that Prensky’s arguments tend to over generalize and do not necessarily depict the teaching and learning styles of both digital natives and digital immigrants accurately. “Anyone who takes the briefest look at theories of how human beings learn will discover that our students learn in all kinds of ways and that we should never assume that any one method is universal or even a majority preference. Likewise, to blanket our current students with the label "digital natives" doesn't take into account the wide range of experiences and preferences they have with technology” (Lang, 2007). As a classroom teacher, I strive to meet the individual needs of my students. This involves identifying their needs and teaching students in a variety of ways based on different learning theories such as problem-based, experiential, direct, constructivist, inquiry, and multiple intelligences. Technology is one area in which students’ needs must be ascertained and then met. “The importance of getting to know your students’ out-of-school technology, access, conditions, and use” was described in “Who Are Today’s Learners?” (Greenhow, 2008). To determine my students’ access to and understanding of technology, I gave them a quick survey and found that some of my students were not able to easily access technology outside of school nor were they as techno-savvy as I would have thought considering that they are digital natives. The results of this survey will now determine what and how I teach with regards to using technology in the classroom.
Is it necessary then to develop and implement completely new teaching strategies and alter our teaching styles in order to engage digital natives and ensure that they are successful learners? Absolutely not! “Education does need to adapt and evolve with the times, and educators need to understand the learning styles of their students, but we do not have to assume that our students are incapable of learning from or communicating with the digital immigrants even if we suspect that their thought patterns are different from our own” (VanSlyke, 2003). Teaching strategies can be adapted to include the use of technology in order to enhance student learning. The fundamentals of learning stay the same and digital technology simply offers students and teachers another avenue to access information, to work collaboratively, to create, and to present their knowledge and understanding. For instance, the strategy of webbing is used to generate and link ideas when writing about a specific topic or for note-taking purposes. Students can use software such as Kidspiration and online tools such as bubble.us to generate a web independently or to work collaboratively with others when creating their webs. A second strategy, the R.A.F.T. (Role, Audience, Format, Topic), is a writing strategy that involves students applying their knowledge to write in role and to a specific audience. With the use of the internet, students are able to increase their knowledge base and connect with people on a global basis to assist in developing differing perspectives that would allow them to write in role in a more authentic manner.
The current generation of students, digital natives, are characterized and shaped in part by digital technology. Digital immigrant teachers acknowledge these differences and demonstrate an understanding by adapting, not abandoning, their strategies to accommodate for the need and desire of students to utilize digital technology when learning.
References:
Greenhow, Christine. “Who Are Today’s Learners?” Learning and Leading with Technology. Sept/Oct. 2008.
Lang, James. M. “A Brain and a Book.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. June 2007. 53(39), C.2-C.3.
Prensky, Marc.“Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.” On the Horizon. Oct. 25. Vol. 9, No. 5.
VanSlyke, Timothy. "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: Some Thoughts from the Generation Gap." The Technology Source. May/June 2003.
Monday, January 19, 2009
A 21st Century Teacher-Librarian
What does it mean to be a 21st century teacher-librarian?
I believe that we need to possess or be willing to acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitude to create a learning environment that recognizes and supports the current needs of our students while being prepared to embrace and adapt to the inevitable changes that the future will bring.
What are the characteristics of a 21st century teacher-librarian?
Joyce Valenza’s “A Modest Manifesto” describes characteristics that define a 21st century teacher-librarian. Her wiki and podcast, while initially daunting, provided an opportunity for me to reflect on my own practice and to set goals to ensure that I am providing an engaging environment that meets the needs of my students. One goal that I now have is to “organize the Web for learners” (Valenza, 2009). Creating a blog, wiki, or a pathfinder provides a model for students on the use of Web 2.0 tools as well as providing them with easy access to resources. Another goal is to reconsider what I view as a school library collection. Beyond books, what do I have to offer students to facilitate their learning?
Who are our learners? What are their needs?
“As the first generation to have grown up always having the Internet, new media, and access to many learning opportunities, educators are faced with growing evidence that the traditional methods of teaching and learning are out of sync with current students and find many are disengaged with their school work and more interested in what is happening outside of school” (Asselin & Doiron, 2008). Therefore, we need to explore how we can change in order to engage students. I plan on updating my lessons to ensure that students have opportunities to use a variety of resources and incorporate the use of Web 2.0 tools such as video and podcasts. As a teacher-librarian, I have already started to focus on having students participate in inquiries rather than traditional research projects. Marlene Asselin and Ray Doiron have developed a list of ten characteristics which are common to the “Net Generation” (Asselin & Doiron, 2008). These characteristics give insight into how students prefer to learn, how they view the use of technology, the importance of their social networks, and their willingness to act globally. It is important to provide students access to technology and allow them to take ownership of their learning while they construct meaning and solve problems.
How do we evolve from a traditional library to School Library 2.0?
Evolving from a traditional library to School Library 2.0 involves understanding and creating an environment that changes “from consumption of information to creation of information” (Todd, 2008). Students are more active in their acquisition of knowledge and strive to present their understanding in various ways. It is important then to consider “which Web 2.0 tools are the most useful and which promote learning?” (Naslund & Giustini, 2008). For instance, I think blogs are great ways for students to share their understandings and to have their fellow students further their thinking through discussions and comments about posts but I am not sure how I would best use social networking sites in the classroom or library.
Another consideration for developing School Library 2.0 is being open to non-traditional activities and literature in the library to further learning and to demonstrate to students that the school library is there for them (Friese, 2008). Students engaged in videogames in the library demonstrate how “videogame play supports learning in many complex ways, encourages positive interaction with computers, the use of imagination, problem-solving skills, and enables opportunities for collaborative engagement” (Sanford, 2008). Allowing students to play videogames in the library has shown me the value with regards to shared learning and the development of social skills in students who are usually introverted. As well, asking for student input into the school library collection has led to many discussions about traditional literature and popular culture literature in which text is analyzed critically.
A 21st century teacher-librarian exemplifies the role by being knowledgeable about 21st century learners. We implement the evolution of traditional libraries and challenge ourselves to include new technology such as Web 2.0 tools to engage and support learners as they prepare for their future.
References:
Asselin, Marlene & Doiron, Ray. “Towards a Transformative Pedagogy for School Libraries 2.0.” School Libraries Worldwide. Edmonton: Jul. 2008. Vol. 14, Iss. 2; pg. 1, 18 pgs.
Friese, Elizabeth E. G. “ Popular Culture in the School Library: Enhancing Literacies Traditional and New.” School Libraries Worldwide. Edmonton: Jul. 2008. Vol. 14, Iss. 2; pg. 68, 15 pgs.
Naslund, Jo-Anne & Giustini, Dean. “Towards School Library 2.0: An Introduction to Social Software Tools for Teacher Librarians.” School Libraries Worldwide. Edmonton: Jul. 2008. Vol. 14, Iss. 2; pg. 55, 13 pgs.
Sanford, Kathy. “Videogames in the Library? What is the World Coming To?” School Libraries Worldwide. Edmonton: Jul. 2008. Vol. 14, Iss. 2; pg. 83, 6 pgs.
Todd, Ross. “Youth and their Virtual Networked Worlds: Research Findings and Implications for School Libraries.” School Libraries Worldwide. Edmonton: Jul. 2008. Vol. 14, Iss. 2; pg. 19, 16 pgs.
Valenza, Joyce. “A Modest Manifesto.” (2009) Retrieved from: http://informationfluency.wikispaces.com/You+know+you%27re+a+21st+century+librarian+if+.+.+.
I believe that we need to possess or be willing to acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitude to create a learning environment that recognizes and supports the current needs of our students while being prepared to embrace and adapt to the inevitable changes that the future will bring.
What are the characteristics of a 21st century teacher-librarian?
Joyce Valenza’s “A Modest Manifesto” describes characteristics that define a 21st century teacher-librarian. Her wiki and podcast, while initially daunting, provided an opportunity for me to reflect on my own practice and to set goals to ensure that I am providing an engaging environment that meets the needs of my students. One goal that I now have is to “organize the Web for learners” (Valenza, 2009). Creating a blog, wiki, or a pathfinder provides a model for students on the use of Web 2.0 tools as well as providing them with easy access to resources. Another goal is to reconsider what I view as a school library collection. Beyond books, what do I have to offer students to facilitate their learning?
Who are our learners? What are their needs?
“As the first generation to have grown up always having the Internet, new media, and access to many learning opportunities, educators are faced with growing evidence that the traditional methods of teaching and learning are out of sync with current students and find many are disengaged with their school work and more interested in what is happening outside of school” (Asselin & Doiron, 2008). Therefore, we need to explore how we can change in order to engage students. I plan on updating my lessons to ensure that students have opportunities to use a variety of resources and incorporate the use of Web 2.0 tools such as video and podcasts. As a teacher-librarian, I have already started to focus on having students participate in inquiries rather than traditional research projects. Marlene Asselin and Ray Doiron have developed a list of ten characteristics which are common to the “Net Generation” (Asselin & Doiron, 2008). These characteristics give insight into how students prefer to learn, how they view the use of technology, the importance of their social networks, and their willingness to act globally. It is important to provide students access to technology and allow them to take ownership of their learning while they construct meaning and solve problems.
How do we evolve from a traditional library to School Library 2.0?
Evolving from a traditional library to School Library 2.0 involves understanding and creating an environment that changes “from consumption of information to creation of information” (Todd, 2008). Students are more active in their acquisition of knowledge and strive to present their understanding in various ways. It is important then to consider “which Web 2.0 tools are the most useful and which promote learning?” (Naslund & Giustini, 2008). For instance, I think blogs are great ways for students to share their understandings and to have their fellow students further their thinking through discussions and comments about posts but I am not sure how I would best use social networking sites in the classroom or library.
Another consideration for developing School Library 2.0 is being open to non-traditional activities and literature in the library to further learning and to demonstrate to students that the school library is there for them (Friese, 2008). Students engaged in videogames in the library demonstrate how “videogame play supports learning in many complex ways, encourages positive interaction with computers, the use of imagination, problem-solving skills, and enables opportunities for collaborative engagement” (Sanford, 2008). Allowing students to play videogames in the library has shown me the value with regards to shared learning and the development of social skills in students who are usually introverted. As well, asking for student input into the school library collection has led to many discussions about traditional literature and popular culture literature in which text is analyzed critically.
A 21st century teacher-librarian exemplifies the role by being knowledgeable about 21st century learners. We implement the evolution of traditional libraries and challenge ourselves to include new technology such as Web 2.0 tools to engage and support learners as they prepare for their future.
References:
Asselin, Marlene & Doiron, Ray. “Towards a Transformative Pedagogy for School Libraries 2.0.” School Libraries Worldwide. Edmonton: Jul. 2008. Vol. 14, Iss. 2; pg. 1, 18 pgs.
Friese, Elizabeth E. G. “ Popular Culture in the School Library: Enhancing Literacies Traditional and New.” School Libraries Worldwide. Edmonton: Jul. 2008. Vol. 14, Iss. 2; pg. 68, 15 pgs.
Naslund, Jo-Anne & Giustini, Dean. “Towards School Library 2.0: An Introduction to Social Software Tools for Teacher Librarians.” School Libraries Worldwide. Edmonton: Jul. 2008. Vol. 14, Iss. 2; pg. 55, 13 pgs.
Sanford, Kathy. “Videogames in the Library? What is the World Coming To?” School Libraries Worldwide. Edmonton: Jul. 2008. Vol. 14, Iss. 2; pg. 83, 6 pgs.
Todd, Ross. “Youth and their Virtual Networked Worlds: Research Findings and Implications for School Libraries.” School Libraries Worldwide. Edmonton: Jul. 2008. Vol. 14, Iss. 2; pg. 19, 16 pgs.
Valenza, Joyce. “A Modest Manifesto.” (2009) Retrieved from: http://informationfluency.wikispaces.com/You+know+you%27re+a+21st+century+librarian+if+.+.+.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)