Considering "Underage Children and Social Networking" from JRTE in light of ISTE NETS-S

Weeden,S., Cooke, B., & McVey, M. (2013). Underage children and social networking. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(3), 249-262.

Weeden, Cooke, and McVey (2013) surveyed nearly 200 elementary students between 7 and 12 years old.  They found that students as young as 9 years old had social networking pages, despite the age restriction.  To circumvent this restriction, children lied about their age, often with their parents’ knowledge.  While many students realized that their photos and information posted are publicly available on these sites, 25% of the students did not.  To address these concerns, Weeden, Cooke, and McVey (2013) suggest providing safety information to students and caregivers early.  This would allow parents to help their students manage privacy settings and instruct students in responding to online harassment.

Until reading this article, I hadn’t given a lot of thought to children on the internet.  I’ve been assuming that kids today are pretty tech savvy; more so than their parents.  This article points out that my assumption is clearly a dangerous one.  The internet opens kiddos up to the dangers of interacting with adults they don’t know in their own home.  While we don’t need to make children afraid of the internet, we do need to make sure that they understand and interact safely.

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) put out a series of National Education Technology Standards (NETS) for administrators, coaches, computer science educators, teachers, and students.  The student standards (NETS-S) address six areas: creativity and innovation, communication and collaboration, research and information fluency, critical thinking, problem solving and decision making, digital citizenship, and technology operations and concepts.

Considering the information Weeden and colleagues (2013) present, four of these standards apply to students and social media.

On the positive side, students (even young students) can use social media for communication and collaboration with peers, specifically to “Interact, collaborate, and publish with peers, experts, or others employing a variety of digital environments and media” as per standard 2a.  Social media also presents opportunities to “Locate, organize, analyze, evaluate, synthesize, and ethically use information from a variety of sources and media” and “Evaluate and select information sources and digital tools based on the appropriateness to specific tasks” as per standards 3b and c, respectively.  Social media are communication tools that allow students to coordinate and interact with a diversity of people.  These interactions result in exchange of information that students must be able to evaluate and use ethically.

As young students are not physiologically and emotionally ready to always behave ethically using social media (i.e. cyberbullying), this is certainly an area that teachers and caregivers should address.  Additionally, the use of social media provides opportunities for students to practice digital citizenship and understand technology operations and concepts.  Standards 5 and 6 are summarized as “students understand human, cultural, and societal issues related to technology and practice legal and ethical behavior” and “students demonstrate a sound understanding of technology concepts, systems, and operations.”  These standards address exactly what Weedan and colleagues (2013) suggest regarding online safety awareness.

For young students, digital citizenship really means not fabricating an age to use social media sites before the age of thirteen.  However, as teachers cannot keep students from creating such accounts away from the school setting, they can help students share information legally and responsibly and understand that these technology systems are often public; information shared cannot be retrieved or erased.  Based on Weeden and colleagues’ (2013) findings, elementary teachers clearly need to pay attention to these standards, incorporating them into their daily curriculum.

Twitter Response: OR Project

At this point, I have learned nothing about my teaching style, but have certainly confirmed previous observations of my *working* style...

Personal Professional Development Goal

While this post is EXTREMELY late (I blame general exams), I shall share one of my professional development goals anyway.

I know web tools piecemeal and am aware of the Bloom's Taxonomy 2.0 diagram, but I need to familiarize myself with the kinds of web tools available to my students for learning and communication.  So, by this time next year, I will visit all of the sites on the Bloom's Taxonomy 2.0 graphic.

Every Friday, I will spend 30 minutes visiting one of the sites on the diagram.  Long-term, I will create an evaluation table with a very brief description of each program, its ease of use, and its applicability to a science classroom.

I know I will have been successful if I can look at this table and see information for all 50 sites!

Ertmer & Leftwich, 2010

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher Technology Change: How Knowledge, Confidence, Beliefs, and Culture Intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.

Summary

            Ertmer and Leftwich (2010) suggest a shift in the definition of good teaching to include appropriate use of pedagogy. They encourage teachers to use technology as an essential tool of the trade rather than supplemental to traditional pedagogy.  Ertmer and Leftwich (2010) also recognize however, four areas where challenges may arise to effective technology integration for both preservice and inservice teachers.  These include technological knowledge and skill, self-efficacy regarding technology as an instructional tool, pedagogical beliefs, and school culture.  To overcome these challenges, the authors suggest giving teachers hands-on and vicarious experience with technology in small doses along with appropriate training in its use.  This training should also be specific to integrating technology into the classroom using higher-order thinking skills, pointing out gains in student learning with these techniques.  Finally, administrators need to support teachers in their use of technology by providing adequate resources and encouraging teachers as scholars, researchers, and lifelong learners.

Reflection

           

            I honestly don’t know what to say about this one.  Right now I’m stuck on the idea that we may soon lose a number of teachers across the nation, thanks to what seems to be a stuck society.

When considering that we aren’t spending enough to pay our teachers, making sure that technology is put to use in each and every classroom the way that Ertmer and Leftwich (2010) advocate seems trivial.  I agree with their general sentiment and ideas – in fact, the patterns and solutions the authors describe really seem associated with implementing any change, not just technology integration.

            Where I can’t go with Ertmer and Leftwich (2010) is their proposed change in the definition of good teaching to include appropriate use of higher-order technology.  I think that good teaching is timeless and separate from the context of the age.  If they would have said we should change the definition of best practices, I would likely agree; we’ve made significant advances in technology and should teach our students how to use that technology for something other than shopping.  But to say that good teaching depends on the use of technology, well…

One thing that did catch my attention was the specific application of technology, especially when encouraging teacher buy-in.  It definitely gave me a new perspective on our use of technology in class.  Being able to create audio, video, and wiki pages really doesn’t mean a lot if you can’t figure out how to actually use them to promote student learning.

Chapter 5: Teaching with Technology

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Redefining student and teacher roles (p. 76-88). Teaching with technology: creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Summary

            In a technology based classroom, the authors find that the roles of student and teacher begin to blur.  As students quickly become experts with the technology, they lead their classmates and even teachers in one-on-one instruction.  This expertise does not correlate with academic achievement however, as typically low achieving students often become classroom leaders.  Many teachers begin to shift their teaching styles to encourage this classroom partnership and even districts and businesses begin to realize the resource in older students.  The challenge comes however, in assessment.  There is a growing recognition that assessing student knowledge must change to accommodate collaborative learning and classroom leadership, rather than lower order content knowledge.

Reflection

           

            Adjusting to a collaborative classroom is difficult.  A few years ago, I co-designed and taught a science writing course.  Much of our time in class was about giving students time to engage with each other and work through class activities.  To be honest, it made me feel like I wasn't doing my job.  On the other hand, I wouldn't run the class any other way.  The same is true for workshops that I teach now – I really do try to give things over to the students instead of just telling.

            What are often also difficult in my classrooms are student expectations.  In the chapter, teachers identified new students as needing to adjust to a collaborative classroom.  In reality, most students are not accustomed to such a high level of partnership.  With standardized testing, they have learned to be really good listeners and test takers.  Many of my students are often uncomfortable with the level of freedom they are given; their preference is to have very clear and precise expectations.  While this is a challenge, it shouldn't be a roadblock.  As a college instructor, I am expected to prepare them for their career, which will not usually depend on them being a good student, but rather a good creator.

            One of the most amazing active learning classrooms I've seen is at the University of Minnesota.  I had the opportunity to meet with Robin Wright, a biology professor at Minnesota, and what she told me was dumbfounding.  The freshman biology course she teaches in this classroom has over 100 students in it.  Dr. Wright has stopped lecturing on things students can read in their book, instead relying on them to actually do the reading (there are quizzes as an incentive).  In the classroom of over 100 students learning is almost entirely project based, where the instructor presents questions or challenges and the students learn concepts by solving them.  This is revolutionary and the kind of classroom the authors talked about in this chapter.  In my mind, this is what most classrooms should start looking like.  That would be awesome!

This video was originally posted on vimeo by the University of Minnesota, College of Biological Sciences. 

Chapter 4: Teaching with Technology

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Managing a technology-rich classroom (p. 55-75). Teaching with technology: creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Summary

            As part of technology integration, there are several stages of technology concern within the classroom setting.  During entry, teachers cannot anticipate and thus are unprepared for student misbehavior with technology.  Additionally, many schools are not built to incorporate technology into the classroom and as such, managing physical space and software becomes difficult.  In the adoption phase, teachers integrate these experiences into their cognitive framework and can now anticipate and address problems.  This paves the way for technology to aid in other tasks during adaptation.  Given a new comfort level with technology, teachers begin to use it to increase efficiency in other areas of their classrooms and lives.  The authors indicate that movement through these phases is supported via professional development.  Given the new classroom context of multidimensionality, simultaneity, immediacy, and unpredictability, guiding teachers into a new type of classroom management is critical.

Reflection

           

            What grabbed my attention in this chapter was the paragraph linking classroom management and learning at the top of page 74.  Essentially, classroom management is a top predictor of student learning and if teachers cannot keep students engaged in learning because of a lack of classroom management, technology is useless. 

            It was this phrase that underscored the relevance of this chapter in today’s classroom.  The examples of floppies, laser disks, and 20 megabyte hard drives made me chuckle, but the concerns surrounding student attention, time on task, and cheating with technology are ever present in my current classroom.  More than ever, our classrooms are multidimensional, simultaneous, immediate, and unpredictable and  as one teacher pointed out, students remain students, regardless of the technology they use.  It is still our job to guide them into becoming responsible for their own learning.

            Technology has done wonders for discussion in my writing workshops this semester.  In classrooms where students won't speak, I can use tools that immediately (or almost so) allow me to know what everyone in the class is thinking and understanding.  I use Socrative on a regular basis so that students can contribute using their mobile devices.  Otherwise, I can’t even get a head nod out of them… “Does this follow an inductive structure?” I ask.  Silence and stillness… I often joke with them saying, “I guess I’m going to have to start a new open-ended question to get you guys to answer.  At least nod or shake your head!”

            At the same time, this wonderful technology often makes me feel like my students are distracted or not paying attention, especially when they choose to make my classroom include shopping or social interaction part of its multidimensionality.  I see them out of the corner of my eye, posting to Facebook or texting.  It makes me crazy, but at this point I ignore it figuring that the time it will take to call out that one student will disrupt the flow of the class more than the actual technology does.

            I may have to rethink this policy now that I realize how critical classroom management is for learning.  Of course, a better solution may be to rethink some of my teaching.  The more I put them to work with their technology, the less they are using it for off-task purposes.

Chapter 3: Teaching with Technology

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). The evolution of instruction in technology-rich classrooms (p. 33-54). Teaching with technology: creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Summary

            Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer (1997) outline the hopes for technology in the classroom while pointing out the complex nature of belief and instruction in K-12 education.  Taking into account the power of belief in moderating change, the authors describe a five-stage model of technology use.  Perhaps the largest hurdle to integrating new technology is entry.  This stage is rife with challenges and concerns, which as they are overcome, lead to adoption.  Now that technology has made it into the classrooms, teachers begin to learn how to use it and integrate it into their lesson plans.  This also is a stage filled with concerns and challenges as the technology is put into use and explained to outside parties.  Overcoming these somewhat rocky stages leads to adaptation, in which the technology becomes a normal part of everyday life in the classroom as a support for productivity rather than a hindrance.  As this normalcy extends to the teacher, the technology is appropriated and becomes part of personal life and new habits.  Finally, teachers and students enter invention, where the new technology is used to push the limits, creating new collaborations and partnerships within the classroom.

Reflection

           

            While this model was built to describe technology adoption, it can clearly be extended into other areas, like adoption of new standards (e.g., Common Core).  The power of belief is what stuck out to me most; its corollary being fear of the unknown.  Just like increasing self-efficacy, most of the support towards changing belief seems to be internal, focused on repeated positive interaction with the new technology.  However, training and verbal persuasion also seemed helpful, especially when that persuasion and encouragement came from university researchers (outside experts).

           

            What is discouraging is an apparent lack of change, even with technology.  It has been over 15 years since this book was written and partnering classrooms are still not the norm.  Nearly 10 years after the book was written, Mr. Winkle Wakes made its internet debut, decrying this lack of change.  Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer’s (1997) point that education lacks specification (learning, teaching, standards) is perhaps still the drag on cultural inertia.  It takes a lot of force to make changes and we have a lot of baggage attached to our education system, whether K-12 or university.

            Still, there are many districts, schools, and teachers who are making great strides in creating partnering classrooms and integrating technology.  I look forward to their continued inventions that will further new belief systems within education.