Reflections on my first experiences developing a PLN

Prior to this assignment, I have never used RSS feeds, Twitter, or Ning. 

In the context in this assignment, the RSS feeds are my favorite.  However, perhaps this signals that I’m too much a creature of habit; the RSS feeds are closest to how I already seek-out articles/media/Internet-content.  For assignment I used Feedly, and I’m impressed by the elegance of the service.  Since I already have a Gmail account via CSUSM, I’m already ready to go; Feedly fetches whichever RSS feeds I’ve subscribed to and bring the content to my doorstep.  What I like the most about RSS is that the publisher publishes/broadcasts the content when the content is ready.  So RSS feeds can easily, closely mimic or mirror professional journalism/newspaper/radio-broadcast formats, but with the added convenience of automatic and centralized delivery of these independent sources.  One of the feeds I followed is “Education : NPR,” and I read the article “5 Ideas To Ease The Burden Of Student Loans.”  The article discusses how dramatically U.S. student debt has increased, debt discrepancies between different demographics, some commentary on these ideas, and it explores suggested political-based solutions.  Though this topic might seem outside of the course’ scope, I personally consider it very important to my own professional development; my wife and I both already have graduate degrees have not yet found professional work in our corresponding degree fields.  Via the “NYT > Education” feed I was happy to read that millions of dollars have been donated to a scholarship fund in Charleston since the race-based murders at a historic black church.  From the “Politics K-12 – Education Week” RSS feed I listened to presidential hopeful Ted Cruz espouse his nullification-based sentiments about why we should “repeal ever single word of Common Core.”  The feed “Emerging Teacher Technologies” has some interesting articles also.  I also really like that every feed subscribed to also prompts: “You might also like [another similar/related feed].”  I most definitely plan on using Feedly and RSS in the future!

Personally I found Twitter to be a bit overwhelming and slower than RSS feeds with respect to leading me to serious content.  But perhaps this is only for the time being – like Professor Chen mentioned in the Moodle PLN assignment page, “Building a PLN takes time, and this is just an introduction.”  The first thing I did: sought out educators that I previously worked with in Illinois, but it’s summer break and no one was tweeting anything educational-related.  Attempting to keep my Twitter account educationally-based, I found myself many times clicking “follow,” but shortly thereafter clicking “unfollow” on the same account because it flooded my stream with too many non-education-related tweets.  As I type now, I’m only following nine accounts.  An interesting facet of Twitter is how aggressively it tries to network you with pre-known people: upon signing up, several people I already knew were immediately aware of my account (via my phone number) and followed me.  It’s not like this interfered with my Twitter-education mission, but it was somewhat distracting and a nuisance.  In any case, I never procured any education-related followers, so I didn’t do any tweeting of my own. 

I followed some of the people/accounts suggested on our class’ Moodle assignment page, and I also checked-out some popular education hashtags.  Though I agree with most of his opinions/sentiments, I feel like Jay Rosen just tweets too much stuff; he wears all of his opinions on his sleeve – he floods the stream.  It’s strange to want to “unfollow” someone not because you don’t like what they say, but because they almost unbalance the feed – this is a new concept to me.  Some of the content #edchat seemed cutesy; there wasn’t content that caught my eye while browsing.  #mschat has lots of participating educators, pasting/sharing a lot of other hashtags, creating a massive matrix of education hashtags.  While starting on #mschat, I found one interesting article, but by the time I found the article, I had not idea how I’d gotten there.  I also checked-out #CAedchat: California educators who chat synchronously every Sunday at 8pm about West Coast topics.  I also followed the U.S. Department of Education Twitter feed: I think it’s very cool that Arne Duncan posts articles about student debt relief, and even cooler that he holds synchronous chats to allow people avenue to tell him what they think.  Overall, I think dialing-in my Twitter will take more time, whereas with Feedly it was practically instantaneous.  I’m a big fan of “less is more,” and thus far, Twitter is giving me far more content than I want to swim through just to find one or two golden-nuggets of goodness.  

Ning is a really cool and interesting online space.  While Twitter seems like it is much more for general purposes, Ning created an interface/space intended to build a community around people who already care about a given topic.  My impression is that Ning caters very well certain niches; the product is for people who are already good at building communities.  For example, if an event is created, everyone who is part of that group is notified. The social networking built within is powerful.  Ning supports chat rooms, calendaring, forums, and more.  It has a curated user base, and the whole social network revolves around community managers who peruse and manage/upkeep/care-about the online space and community.  I didn’t become a member, but Classroom 2.0 seems like an awesome community.  This group is so loaded with relevant content that I never had to look very far when looking for content.  When I selected “blogs” under the “members” pull-down menu on the homepage, the first entry “Google Apps” was worthy of reflection for this paper.  The blogger, Andrea, discusses the benefits (for teachers and students) of the different Google, cloud-based tools.  Andrea’s post corroborates and supplements what I’ve learned about Google Drive within this course.  In fact, after just looking at some more of Andrea’s other posts, she seems like she is a student currently enrolled in class similar to Educ 422, summer 2015!  Classroom 2.0 has over 80,000 members.  There most certainly is lot to learn in here; spending time on Classroom 2.0 provides lots of focused thoughts and discussion about current, relevant education topics. 

In certain respects, this assignment has been the most difficult of this course – partially why I asked for an extension, though I’m not sure this really helped in the end.  Just with respect to our three examined formats, the volume of information available is overwhelming.  My overall feelings are about PLNs are most surely not consolidated yet.   I can see the networking power, but, simultaneously, it’s almost too powerful.  But, I’m sure I will add some or all of these tools to my own teaching apparatus.  The pros of these PLN tools is: once they’re dialed-in, keeping-up with pedagogical conversations and discussions will be far more convenient – the info will come to you; you can’t say you forgot to look or that you didn’t know it was there.  The con of these tools is: knowing when to stop!  Analogous to stopping eating when you’ve already eaten enough food.  I think this latter point is a general truism nowadays for computers and Internet phenomenon.  We say this all the time in the digital recording (music) world – you could spend the rest of your life polishing a final audio project; the art is knowing when enough is enough, now walk away!  On the other hand – of everything discussed today – the PLN is not totally a new concept.  Though I’ve never referred to my network as a PLN, I’ve already had my own PLN going for years, via email, forums, or just a plain old phone call.

Can Common Core Prepare Students for Future Careers?

“Can Common Core Prepare Students for Future Careers?”

           

I enjoy reading, contemplating, and critiquing these “point/counterpoint,” opposing-viewpoints articles.  These articles are shorter, but I think more.  It’s probably because both answers – “yes” and “no” – are right, and wrong.  Any author could answer either way, and justify that answer in many different ways.  It’s the authors’ perspective that that matters; not which way they answered.  The same as last week, I find myself more inline with the naysayer.  This week’s question is: can the common core prepare students for future careers?

Our first author, Brian Coffey, says “yes.”  Coffey says that the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) “allows us to implement a common language of concepts across all states that are aligned to modern knowledge and responsive to the needs of this century?”  First of all, is he talking about the whole century?  I can’t image us taking anyone serious who, with respect to the implementation of pedagogical technology, in 1915 said, “we’re good through 1999.” But, at the same time, Coffey is right; this is what the CC is doing.  But, how do we judge who is and who is not “aligned to the modern knowledge” benchmarks?

In the next paragraph, Coffey says: “The CCSS lays the foundation for students to successfully navigate adulthood and become lifelong learners.”  Coffey also says: “But most people, including many of my colleagues, are not sure what the standards represent, other than something to be tested on.”  I guess I’d be one of these colleagues then.  Perhaps because claims like this are way too overstepping.  Even if I had nothing but respect for the Common Core – or any program for that matter – I would never claim that this one program would ensure that someone can “successfully navigate adulthood.”  

In the next paragraph, Coffey says that the “primary objective is to ensure equity in education nationwide.”  Again, way too big of a claim; one program alone could never accomplish this task.  Education equity has a lot to do with issues outside of education.  If a child lives in poverty, hunger, doesn’t have enough parental time, etc. – how is an educational program going to compensate for all this inadequate stuff happening outside of school? 

In this article, Coffey argues that the CCSS “reinforces the skills of problem solving, critical thinking, and creativity, which are only secondary in our present educational system.”  I don’t know whether this is true or not – I lack the experience to argue for or against.  Perhaps it is true.  But then Coffey argues that the CCSS “is not only the driver of educational transformation, but it is the benchmark.”  CCSS alone can judge what it itself implements?  He says that in “50 years, today’s students will be ready to build better communities, enhance public forum, develop new technologies, and promote the common good.”  Again, I’m just repeating myself… I’m not much of a futurologist, but anyone really make credible claims like this about a single program? 

Also, is it a secret that the world “common” is just another way of saying “standards?”  If you look up “common” in a thesaurus, you’ll see “standard” listed.  It’s also no secret that there have been plenty of problems with the standardization movement.  Plenty of educators that I know are not happy with Bush’s Orwellian-esque-named education policy, “No Child Left Behind.”   PBS Frontline produced a critical piece about Michelle Rhee’s (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/education-of-michelle-rhee/) standardization movement in the Washington D.C. school system that I would advise all future and present educators to watch.

In a nutshell, I believe Coffey is correct with respect to his first two sentence: “We all know today’s kids are living in a different world than when we went to school, especially in terms of technology. To reach them, we must engage them in ways we never thought of or imagined.”  Yes, of course it’s different now, and of course we do have to engage them in ways that we never imaged.  But couldn’t someone just have easily and accurately argued this position in 1950?  Or in 1920?  Mainly I disagree with Coffey’s position because #1) he’s overly confident about the CCSS, and #2) he doesn’t explore deeper questions the way that our second author does.  Funny that he claims that CCSS does this, yet he himself does not.

I believe that Steve Taffee’s position is deeper, more compassionate, and contains healthy skepticism. Taffee starts with two main questions.  #1: “Should the primary goal of Common Core be to prepare students for the future careers?”  And #2: “Is the Common Core better at preparing students for the future careers than other approaches?” 

It’s probably not even fair for me to critique this article.  My conflict of interest is that I’m already very much aligned with Taffee’s positions.  Taffee immediately answers with: “Career preparation is just one among many goals of education and arguably not the most important.”  To summarize Taffee other goals: “Preparing and informed citizenry, capable of reasoned debate about issues concerning the common good of the nation and state… preparing children to be responsible… compassionate… engaged members of the world community faced with mitigating the effects of global climate change… turning students into lifelong scholars with a love of intellectual inquiry and creative expression…eradicating poverty, and hunger, promoting gender equality, reducing child mortality…” I’ll stop there. He goes on.  I don’t even need to paraphrase Taffee – again, I’ll just quote him: “I believe that an emphasis on preparing students for the world of work neglects a larger world view of adulthood, and that as a result, too many people end up in unfulfilling jobs, perpetuating an uncritical view of capitalism that serves the needs of business and industry of those learners.”  We cannot deny that our history is filled to the brim with examples like these.  And that it continues right up until the present. Why would we think that CCSS is going to eradicate all these deeply seated historical problems now? 

Lastly, Taffee says “if one accepts the assumption that the primary goal of U.S. education is the preparation for future careers, as a new endeavor, Common Core is untested.”  In this respect, Taffee’s postion is the exact opposite of Coffey’s: Coffey says CCSS is going to do all these magnificent things, and Taffee says this is totally not provable.    

Coffey, B., Taffee, S. (2013). Can common core prepare students for future careers? Learning & Leading with Technology, 41(3), 6-7.

Chat It Up

“Chat It Up”

This article explores and promotes the use of the social networking Internet website Twitter as a tool for professional networking and development.  The two authors, Jeffrey Carpenter and Daniel Krutka, say “140 [text] characters may seem like a strange way to get professional development,” but, these authors probably do not think it’s too strange – they met on Twitter and have “collaborated on several projects while continuing to learn from each other via tweets.” The first question posed is “why Twitter?” “Twitter is not just limited to 140 characters… tweets can include images, short videos, and hyperlinks.”  Twitter helps educators connect to different “blogs, websites, and other teaching resources.”  Also, unlike Facebook, on Twitter, it’s not strange to follow – or to be followed by – people you don’t know, so it’s a great way to connect with previously unknown educators just based on their work/ideas/tweets.  Next, the article explores “what is a Hashtag?”  “A Hashtag is a keyword or phrase preceded by the # symbol, which indicates” “content on a particular topic.”  Hashtags let educators to join an “ongoing discussion” with others with a “shared interest.”

 

Educators can also participate/explore in a more “synchronous” way of communicating: the “Twitter chat” – a study cited within the article revealed that 73% of educators who use Twitter have participated in these chats.  The Twitter chat allows an “immediate response” and also the benefit of “collective intelligence.”  Participating – or observing – educators meet online during a pre-scheduled time to engage in a real-time, professional learning discussion.  Chats facilitate “resource sharing, networking, emotional support, community building…” Twitter chats also promote leadership: “chats are started and facilitated by a small group of self-nominated leaders.”  “Chats typically have one or two moderators” who usually prepare questions and/or discussion topics beforehand.  The authors “recommend setting up a third-party account with a service like HootSuite or Tweet-Deck.”  “These free services link to your Twitter account and allow you to more conveniently manage tweets and chats.”  Another advantage of Twitter chats: if you miss the real-time chat, the “transcripts” are often “archived on a companion blog or website.”  Furthermore, anyone can “spread” the word and create their own unique Hashtag, or Twitter chat. Twitter is a tool that provides us the opportunity to “model participation and innovation in a digital age learning culture.”    

Part of the reason I chose to review this article is because exploring Twitter is part of our own PLN assignment.  Prior to this class, I have never used Twitter.  Now, I’m becoming very interested.  Part of the reason I’ve not had an interest in Twitter is because I still do all my computing via a desktop, at home – I have no smartphone; I don’t even take a laptop to a coffee shop.  To me, Twitter seems like a smart phone thing.  I like the idea of having portable Twitter; in my pocket.  But, like the authors’ say: Twitter is like a “waterfall” of information, so don’t try to catch all the water; you can drink so much from your cup.  “Twitter is no panacea for professional development,” but it is a slick way to facilitate conversations and digitally network about a multitude of old and new pedagogical ideas. 

Carpenter, J. P., Krutka, D. G. (2014). Chat it up. Learning & Leading with Technology, 41(5), 10-15.

Should Students Use the Internet while Taking Tests?

“Should Students Use the Internet while Taking Tests?”

            This week I read and pondered another “point/counterpoint” article from the periodical Learning & Leading with Technology.  Both authors answer the article’s title-question with one word: James Cash says “yes,” and Jeffrey Starr says “no.”    

My own viewpoint wavers and floats somewhere in the middle.  Perhaps my answer is somewhat cop-out-ish, but I think the answer is: sometimes “yes,” and sometimes “no,” it really depends on several situational factors.  I don’t think you can answer this question with a hard-line answer.

            Cash says that “it should not matter what you are testing… students should be allowed to access the resources while taking any test.” Cash claims that allowing students to always use the Internet would “force the test designers to move beyond asking plain facts, demonstrations of simple skills, or basic understandings of concepts.”  First of all, he doesn’t specify any age group.  Even if correct, would he feel the same way towards first graders as he would towards eleventh graders?  Cash believes “that higher-thinking skills, such as critical analysis, idea synthesis, or delineation of evaluative arguments, are more worthwhile educational goals than memorizing names and dates.”  I like and agree with this statement, but isn’t it still sometimes important to asses some basics?  Testing “basic understandings of concepts” seems sometimes appropriate, especially depending on the age group.  Thinking about math: wouldn’t having access to the Internet just simply answer the question for the student?  Even when testing basics in Calculus – there are websites now like www.wolframalpha.com that can solve extremely abstract (though still basic) problems, like a derivative or integral computation.  Cash also says that “there are enough resources out there (such as turntin.com)… to detect if a student has simply cut and pasted an answer…”  Again, with Calculus – or any math really – this is simply not true.   Yes, higher-level thinking is the ultimate goal – I totally agree – but aren’t you doing disservice to your students if you move onto more complex, higher-level thinking questions without solidifying some basic mechanics? 

And sometimes I believe that Cash’s criticism is too harsh: “Those who are concerned that students will simply find answers to the test online trust neither the learner nor the purpose of learning.”  Again, higher-learning is the ultimate goal, but if some assesses aren’t testing successfully yet, that doesn’t automatically indicate that these educators “are not concerned” with high-learning – these two ideas tenuously connected.  Just because a teacher is not administering a Internet-based, higher-learning test to his/her student, doesn’t t all imply that they don’t “trust” the “learner,” not to mention “the purpose of learning.”  And it’s still true that some students will just try to find answers – monitoring/policing student Internet activity will continue to be necessary, just like it has been with with paper-based assessments for a long time. 

Cash also says that “when, as adults, we need to solve problems…[or to] be critical, we used the internet-based resources… why would we deny our children this capability during their education when it is so essential in the real world?”  I agree – we shouldn’t deny them this tool – perhaps the most powerful tool in all of history.  Yes, the Internet is a POWERFUL tool.  But, you also don’t just let a child use a power saw.  Powerful tools should also be approached carefully.  We shouldn’t deny the tool, but we should recognize that it takes time to teach students how to use a powerful tool carefully.  After all – a big part of this very Educ. 422 course is about teaching future educators how to ethically and carefully use these powerful tools.  I would just put inverse question back to Cash: “Why would be introduce out children to such a powerful tool too soon?”

On the other side – Jeffrey Starr argues that “giving access to the internet during testing is like leaving the answer key to the test on your desk and then leaving the room.”  In some situations that would be true, but not always.  James Cash does have some good points: when you are testing higher-level thinking it’s not like the students’ have the answer key at all.  Cash says it well here: “It is not what you know that matters; it is what you can do with what you know that matters.”  There are situations where what Cash is promoting is great.  Access to the Internet should be based on the situation.  

But, Starr does raise a number of good skepticisms.  Like the point that I’ve already made, Starr points out that we don’t want students Googling “what is 11 times 36?”  When testing times-tables, Google would be disastrous times-table pedagogy.  Starr also feels that the promised “21^st century” “magical changes in education” have not occurred.  “I don’t think we’re there yet,” Starr says.  “I don’t think we’re there yet” seems to me that this is fair statement me.  This point is tangent to the main discussion, but, after all, most of this transition-to-online has taken place during/since the No Child Left Behind Act.  I’ve subbed at a lot of schools.  When introducing myself to a new staff, I used to joke when coming into the break room for lunch: “Yeah, hi, I’m doing a research project for the local university… I’m interviewing teachers that are in favor of No Child Left Behind, and trying to get some data on their perspectives… but, uh, I just haven’t found anybody yet…”  To this day, I’ve still never met one teacher that likes NCLB. 

Starr also points out that teachers are not always setting the best examples themselves, in terms of their own technological stewardship.  He has noticed that teachers, instead of monitoring the hallways like they’re supposed to, are distracted, looking down at their smartphones, browsing Facebook or other Internet sites.  “How can you expect teenagers not to be distracted when using the internet on their phones?”  Starr also has a “problem with allowing students to use their smartphones.”  He says, “we cannot monitor or filter what sites they are viewing because they [access sites] through their cell providers’ internet and not the school’s”  “Good luck,” Starr says, “convincing students to use the filtered school internet when they have the unfiltered internet as an option.”  This is a good point!  Allowing a student to use the Internet in a computer lab still seems far safer and more reasonable than just saying, “OK, we’re gonna take a test now, everyone get out there smartphones.”

Both authors argue some nice points.

Cash, J., Starr, J. (2013). Should Students Use the Internet while Taking Tests? Learning & Leading with Technology, 40(5), 6-7.