Thursday, May 30, 2013

What happened? Boxes, folders, files, rubrics, comments, replies, evaluation (no, these are not my tags)

One thing that I consistently remind myself of... don't expect students to flock to technology just because we are using it.  

I try to engage my students within the classroom.  I am fairly successful at this.  My hope is that, and perhaps we all share this, is that students who don't engage in this way within the classroom may find their stride within an online environment.  At least in this one case, not so.  In both of my courses, there are a small minority that don't engage and this also seems to correspond to the online environment created for this connection.

The technology was  The process was peer evaluation.

So... the results.

A recap.  Students from two sections of Public Speaking.  They were paired with at least one student from the other section (allowing for more privacy, more freedom of criticism).  While not a graded assignment (won't change my syllabus breakdown post-day-one), it is considered as part of their participation score.

The raw numbers to provide quantitative perspective...

About 2/3 of the class participated.  This number seems low, however, a limitation occurred to me.  If one partner didn't provide their work, the other had nothing to do.  Therefore, I'll be using a 2 x 2 approach for the Fall instead of 1 x 1 or the rare cases of 1 x 2 (both sections aren't even in enrollment, therefore the extra).  Also, as happens, some late ones are bound to trickle in.

From those who did participate, 38 files of varying types were uploaded for evaluation.  There were some small issues with file types, in particular the .wps file type, which is Microsoft Works.  Students were directed to convert to either .rtf (Rich Text Format, widely useable although a simplified format) or .pdf.  This solved the problem.  One student also had an issue with and her computer, but she noted that her PC is more than a decade old.

I advised for her to use the mobile app ( works incredibly fluidly).  Students commented how much better they preferred Box and also asked how many other faculty used it.  I told them I'm trying to spread the good word.  They also voiced their disdain for blackboard, for what it's worth, citing a lack of intuitiveness, outdated, messy to name a few.

Back to it - More than 50 comments were made on these files, and many followed the format provided.  Some did not (shocking).  But overall, without creating a qualitative piece here, I was pleased with what was provided.  I feel that if students have the benefit of more time (I am far too used to teaching 16 week semesters) that they will be able to focus on the process more.

The good:  Students did participate in terms of the majority and did so relatively effectively.
                   The technology performed as expected.

The bad:    Reliance on the partner inhibited the evaluation relationship to occur
                   Still some fluff responses and students were more supportive than I would have preferred.

Changes?    As mentioned, next semester, 2x2 groups, more time between the major speeches.
                    Also, in hindsight, work together through an example outline and the rubric.

Mark's post

I wanted to make a quick comment about Mark's post, but I think it is in draft mode.  Technology doesn't necessarily change the nature of collaboration but it does make the interactions visible -- and that's a good thing.  When participants do not play their part it affect the success of the entire endeavor.  When in the past we would be left to conjecturing what might have happened, now it is plainly clear who the responsible -- and irresponsible -- parties are.

End of term thoughts

We are sorry we missed the last session, fellow 2.0-ers!  Myself and some of my comm studies colleagues were inundated with the LaGCC Speech Contest that afternoon.  It all went quite well, and the good news (at least for me) is my 2.0 activity may have had some bearing on those very events.
Some of my students competed in the preliminary and final rounds of the event so it is not beyond imagining that they received and incorporated feedback to their speeches for the competition.  So, if that's the case, a good example of the virtual (peer review) having a positive influence on the real world speaking event.

Admittedly, I felt some frustration with how the activity went.  This is coming from a veteran as for using technology to teach, but I also need to acknowledge the shortcomings of how I set up the activity.  I have some students who are still wrestling with the posting/peer itself so they haven't given up.  But I think that from lessons learned, this activity will run much more efficiently, and be much more effective, during the next go round.

Beyond the technical issues... what did I learn?  (First, I'll talk about those technical issues, though).  Students' technology literacy (or lack of same) came up in the Academic Technology Committee meeting I sit in on with Patricia -- so this is a conundrum that is on the minds of all of us (or at least it should be).  We need to move past assuming that our students are technologically/technically literate.  Some are, but many ARE NOT.  I'm not simply talking about login/basic navigation issues but fundamentally not understanding how to use the technology properly.  For example, a number of my students did not post their outlines in the required space.  I thought it was obvious that they would post from the home page of the wiki to a link of their own page.  But several posted to what could be considered "personal" pages that the wiki automatically creates when a user registers.

To me this is a good example of technological determinism where the user does (or does not) follow the path that is suggested by the inherent usability of the technology.  I chose a wiki for my activity because of its instinsic openness/flexibility but that may have been a challenge in itself because it allows users innumerable ways to "skin the cat" so to speak.  This lesson has been learned.  Going forward, I will be much more explicit with respect to my instructions even for the simplest tasks.
The next lesson I learned is no less important, and is more of a content issue.  [But let's not underestimate the hurdles that the technology itself presents.  I am NOT a fan of Blogger.  Not only did it slow my system to a crawl every time I logged in from home or at a wireless venue (and therefore my enthusiasm to participate), but I think the technology is strangely unintuitive -- the simple act of posting is made unnecessarily complex.  I think some (highly paid) individual in Palo Alto had a good reason for setting up the technology up the way it is but to me it is a very inelegant design -- and inefficient -- design.  In all seriousness, I think this is central to the whole discussion we are having.  If the tech is not making things easier, it is not working and should not be used.]

Content-wise, what I will do differently next time is give the students more guidance in terms of the feedback they can give to the speech outlines.  I kept the feedback rubric (if you want to call it that) pretty general and much of the peer review material was, therefore, pretty pedestrian.  So I think our students have it in themselves to give feedback that is much more valuable, and deeper, than might have been given at this time.  But that's on me.  And that's also on the technology not creating barriers to adding the requisite substance of this kind.

MOOC for online instruction

I came across this online course (MOOC) called Instructional Ideas and Technology Tools for Online's their description and the link:

Motivating students and creating community within blended and online learning environments are crucial to academic achievement and success. This open course will provide both theoretical concepts and practical tools for instructors to improve motivation, retention, and engagement within blended and online courses.

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

"We admired people who did it!" and Voluntary Extra Credit C2.0 Activities in My Classes

NY History Museum
Note that the sand, and thus the time, is almost out.

As y'all may recall, I'd sent around an article way back when we started that talked about successes and failures in C2.0-type exercises; one of the less successful exercises, its presenter said, was in part because he'd made participation voluntary, and I think the fact that my dropped balls of big ideas have become voluntary extra-credit opportunities may impact its success.  Students have gotten back their essays and I've asked them, while preparing for their final reflection in-class essay, to decide what they think are the two best paragraphs in their NYC neighborhoods papers; we'll have an extra credit session in my office next week to turn the submissions from participants into a map of paragraphs.  The most vital part of this is of course that it will enable me to test out a few platforms and find out what the students as well as I find most intuitive and user-friendly, which will be key next semester when contributing to this collaborative map will be a major part of their final grade.

A success, however small, with the voluntary-participation Facebook group in my Images of Women elective: as students work on their final group presentations on fairy tales, they've finally really started using the FB group extensively to share various, often amusing FT-oriented things that they've found in popular culture.  They're "liking" each other's posts more than engaging in dialogues, so I know that I should anticipate "likes" as the default response and ask them for more specific levels of engagement in the future.

I'm hoping that we (this seminar) can keep a conversation going through the summer about the nuts-and-bolts, as we're all learning about the different platforms, how to ensure student engagement, etc.  It sounds like a lot of the projects are going really well, and I intend to learn from all of your successes.  So many ideas sound so huge--I'm amazed by what you could do so well--and am wondering where I fell short in what I asked for and did not get from students. The grand, trivium-covering ideas never played out (although both classes became very communal in the brick-and-mortar classroom), but I'm reapproaching several elements of my teaching in general this semester and in preparation for next year.  With three of the same classes in the fall around which I will build a community, I don't know that I'll force anyone to collaborate with me and my classes and thus burden anyone else with my anxieties, but I'm hoping that everyone will enjoy the lurking for which I'll set up access.

"What had happened was... "

As the semester winds down, I am losing the inspiration that I started with. The community of students that I am working with hit their wall: it seems as if they cannot do anymore work. The college preparation group started out this way, so I felt that there wasn’t much I could do with them from the start. The problems continued to pile on top of each other: lateness, absences, and not doing homework. Continuity and transitions were thrown away; each day felt like a new start. I had to catch up at least a third or half the group at one time or another. That’s what it might have felt like, but there are a lot of needy people in this community of students and each has a different set of challenges.

Image by Doc Rogers (ii)

As we reached the middle of the semester, it seemed like adding another activity would exacerbate the challenges I was already dealing with. Despite that, I decided to try anyway. We had one day. One day to introduce a four person group to blogging. One day to sign them up and sign them on. A couple of the students giggled through the lesson on how to operate the blog. They’ve had two weeks now and only one student has managed to comment or attempt any of the work. I felt like I Willy Wonka battling Veruca Salt. Nothing happened. I probably won’t see them until they have done something. Right now they are working on job readiness, which is what they really need. Perhaps they will be less distracted if they are able to take of their needs.

The frustration is pasted on my face. It seems like the students cannot commit to their own success at this time. At the same time, I have not committed to it either. I probably need to sit them down and ask them to do the assignment during class time. They are not going to do it on their own. They have four weeks left. I will try.

Waiting to Celebrate Group Reflection (Steven, Vanessa, Milena, Daryl)

All members of the group were able to successfully link the trivium.  With regard to the technology, we used YouTube, Blogger, and Wiki spaces.  The communities that were brought together linked more advanced students with less advanced (beginning) students.   A few of us were able to achieve an authentic exchange between the groups, through the activity itself or what the activity taught them.  For some students, the assignment itself “spoke to them” (i.e. it was relevant to their day to day experience), whereas for others, it had importance to the professional roles that they will soon be assuming, making the assignment feel more real and essential to their future.

Some of the problems /challenges  we confronted related to linking students so late in the term (i.e.  students having no real connection and/or  reason to connect with one another); another  group having forged a close community unto themselves  (because they were part of a learning community) and showing reluctance to engage with a new group; and one group had difficulty identifying another professor to link with.
Another challenge was related to exposing students with the technology to assist them in completing the task, and having sufficient time to make use of it.

Overall, most of us felt it was a worthwhile experience, but could be modified and made stronger for the next go round.

and it came to pass...

I've written a couple of posts on the results of our blogger experience.
I've written a little about the process.
This is... a culmination piece? A reflection on the entire process.

The whole seminar has been a great experience for me. Yes, as you can tell by previous posts it has been frustrating at times, however it still has been beneficial.

I think the most beneficial nugget I am taking away is really looking at the rubric, evaluation process, and planning the use of web 2.0 platforms in my syllabus. I've read the scholarly thought of my colleagues in the class and their attention to rubric.

Everything I teach is through experiential learning processes. Adding this dimension should be easy - and it will be in the future.

Trying to force an exercise into an already planned class was difficult; and I am the kind of person capable of changing direction on a dime. There are other people involved though (partner teachers, and students) and this can throw them off. At the same time, some really valuable learning took place as a result of the blogging exercise. (See earlier post)

Entering this seminar without a real idea about the expectations was challenging - but we did it!
I'm glad I was able to get one lesson under my belt to see how I need to change the experiences for next fall.

I'm really looking forward to the fall semester as I have the entire summer to plan and integrate ideas into my upcoming class. I think the ideas we have come up with will be organic and cross discipline. It won't feel forced.

Themes/Challenges Nicole, Leah, Irwin, Wynne

Themes and Challenges
Time constraints:  having to focus more on technology than content out of necessity, such as introducing activities late, lack of lab access, little time for planning

Integrating the parts of the trivium--balancing the 3 aspects of the trivium, plus the existing learning objectives in every class session is a major challenge

Finding the right platform--no one platform had all the features we'd like to use

Assessment and Participation---when assignments were voluntary or not for a grade, there was no accountability and students did not fully participate. We'll continue to explore opportunities for assessment, including student generated rubrics or protocol for commenting on each others' work.  To assess her students' work, Nicole counted the number of responses students posted evaluated the quality of each post.

Tinkering with the Trivium

We discussed how our platforms were an integral part of the activities and contributed to the learning process (of both the students and instructors). Bass and Elmendorf suggest that at the heart of their theory of "social pedagogies" is the development of "authentic tasks," which allow for the "representation of knowledge for an authentic audience" and contributes to the "construction of knowledge in a course" (2). We found that our activities necessitated the creation of an authentic audience, which is crucial for the process of peer and individual learning. There were several challenges that we faced such as timely responses/feedback, lack of participation/promoting discussion, and lack of in-depth responses. The solution is to assign cross-section pairings and use platforms that facilitate interactivity collaboration, and accountability.

Image by Corey Templeton

We Did It! - The Completion of Neighborhood and Community!!

Ahhh…the sweet smell of success!  Well, kind of!  I am happy to report that we completed the web 2.0 Neighborhood and Community assignment.  While as of this writing there is still a handful of students who have not yet posted their videos, the majority of students did in fact complete the task.  And many did an absolutely terrific job!  Some students really got into the activity and recorded videos that were close to eight minutes in length!  What was truly remarkable was how some students captured the texture of their community.  Some videos were narrated, others were silent, and still others were infused with music – from hip hop to jazz – sounds I believe that were designed to reflect the timbre of the community.   What was interesting is that I have had to repeatedly remind students that, after they uploaded their videos, the task was to compare and contrast and comment on others’ videos.  Students seemed reluctant to do this.  I couldn’t understand if this had to do with the perception that they were “critiquing” each other’s videos (because that was not the assignment) or not.  They were to reflect on the videos and see what connected their community to other communities. 

Despite this, the students seemed to really enjoy making the videos once they got started, and enjoyed the “public sharing” of their work.   I realize that an activity such as this one needs to be done earlier, as I see the real potential that it has in creating a sense of community.  To use a Vygotskyan concept, scaffolding the activity is essential.  The video production/uploading seemed to improve once I held a class in a lab that allowed us to work collaboratively.  Again, community is key!  Creating the community of workers supporting the task of creating a video display brought together the technology, community and the pedagogy (the lesson).  Woo hoo!

If I were to do this again (and I am likely to do so), I would probably schedule a session for imovie, windows moviemaker  and create an opportunity for students to blog BEFORE they start their assignment so that they can share ideas and resources.

More Reflecting

I remember being nervous heading into the seminar because I hadn't used much Web 2.0 technology. (I'm a deeply anxious person in general, so I would've been nervous no matter what!) Three months later, I'm happy to report that everything was mostly fine. Using Facebook was a large part of this, given the familiarity and "user-friendliness" of the platform. I was also fortunate enough to work with Thomas, who brought flexibility and a great sense of humor to our collaboration.

As I've written in greater detail my previous post ("Update, May 27), here are some things I'd do differently next semester: 1) provide my students more guidance and practice with peer review; 2) start connecting earlier in the term; 3) use Google Drive to supplement Facebook. This semester has been a surprisingly enjoyable rough draft, and I'm looking forward to revising in the Fall (after a nice, long summer break).

Image by Dan Patterson
When we first started the seminar I wanted to connect my MAT120 regular section with the hybrid class using google groups and post probability type questions so students from both sections can post their response online and have an ongoing discussion. Well, in April, I changed my plan about the type of questions to post. I posted questions on Measures of Variation problems. This didn’t go as planned. Challenges I faced – Initially, we had problems with invites and students joining the group. I felt this could have been avoided if I was more familiar with Google groups. Students posted their response but never posted any discussions/feedback on their peers’ responses. Also, responses were similar. We did talk about these questions in our F2F class.
My future (fall) plan –
-          Get familiar with Google groups or find more appropriate tool for my class.
-          Do research and find questions that will allow students to not only post their response but also discuss with other peers.
-          Make sure everyone contributes.


When I first started the Community 2.0 seminar I wanted to connect my MAT120 regular section with the hybrid class using google groups and post probability type questions so students from both sections can post their response online and have an ongoing discussion. Well, in April, I changed my plan about the type of questions to post. I posted questions on Measures of Variation problems. This didn’t go as planned. Challenges I faced – Initially, we had problems with invites and students joining the group. I felt this could have been avoided if I was more familiar with Google groups. Students posted their response but never posted any discussions/feedback on their peers’ responses. Also, responses were similar. We did talk about these questions in our F2F class.
My future (fall) plan –
-          Get familiar with Google groups or find more appropriate tool for my class.
-          Do research and find questions that will allow students to not only post their response but also discuss with other peers.
-          Make sure everyone contributes.

2.0 Reflection
Image by jurvetson

First of all, I am hoping to use the projects I started working on this semester for greater impact/effect in the summer and fall.  The students and staff are excited about the journal, but I would like to offer more lessons and activities to incorporate writing for an audience outside the classroom.

While I had the chance to collect and put together two editions of the adult ed student journal since February, the forum for an exchange of comments and ideas is still in the works.  The spring semester for most of our classes goes through the end of June, so I have another month to get a first round of commenting and reading going on. In seeking submissions, I sent out a form and announcement, along with ideas about how to incorporate the theme into writing activities in the classroom.  This method seems to work well to generate interest and support instructor's work with resources they can use immediately.

Over the summer, I will work on a set of lessons to facilitate the 2 strands of writing/media creation needed for the project:  creating submissions, and posting comments on others' writing.  I'm also working on a coursesite for college transition activities that all teachers at the BE 4 and GED level can implement: perhaps those activities can inform the journal theme.  We are also running two classes this summer for college prep and GED exam review, so I can pilot another exchange of comments and posts with those smaller groups.

  • how to negotiate between standards of a journal and the lessons/activities that support it
  • what criteria, if any, to use for submissions when they come from writers across such a wide range of skill and experience (I published every submission this time since it is the first digital edition)
  • deciding whether wordpress is the best platform.  I like the way it turned out visually, but it might be hard to navigate for some readers.  
  • playing an editorial role without my own classroom or students
One of the most common issues we faced was time enough to create effective assignments.  One other learning experience I think is even more important is how planning and lesson design change when incorporating digital platforms. 

Reflections on the Facebook Exchange

Image by Max-B
Students selected a paragraph from their research papers to share on Facebook. Students were then given a worksheet that guided them through the peer review and evaluation procedures. Students posted their comments on Facebook and their own paragraphs for evaluation. The goal of the activity was for students to learn how to evaluate written work constructively and objectively. This activity also promoted a greater degree of accountability, since students from both classes were engaged in the process of producing and evaluating a written sample. The concomitant reciprocity ensured a level of "constructive decorum." I evaluated the students engagement in the activity according to the responses produced both on the worksheet and those posted on Facebook. Students later reflected on their experience(s) exchanging feedback on Facebook and its effectiveness. My only concern was that not everybody was able to participate in the exercise on the day of the exchange and as a result several students had to be re-assigned to others "on the fly." However, overall, I think the exercise went very well. Next time, I might choose a different platform (a blog, for instance, or Google docs) that might be able to facilitate the process of posting a comment better. I would also like to devise strategies that would encourage feedback for multiple individuals (i.e., so all of the participants have something to do even if their assigned peer hasn't posted a paragraph). I found it interesting that Nikki's activity had similar procedures (e.g., rubric for peer review/critique), yet the goal of her activity was to encourage "real world" feedback for the development of an app. Both of our activities explored the changes to/influences on peer critique as a result of different kinds of audiences (or "authentic audiences") -- beyond the conventional classroom.

We Did It

Image provided by Bieds
I started viewing some of the comments left by Professor Fernandez's students on my students' workspaces on ePortfolio. Some were very, very good. They were insightful, they followed the rubric criteria, and gave great suggestions that I know my students can use when composing the final drafts of their site summaries. These comments not only help the students in the editing and revision processes of their first drafts, but it also saves me lots of time by stating things that I would normally point out to students. The comments that were thoughtful and useful have given me great hope that the next time I implement a community based activity of this nature, the results will be even better!

I was very thankful that no one left harsh or disrespectful comments, and that most of Hector's students used the rubric, at least to some degree, when composing their comments for my students.
Now, there were a few students who left comments that were not as helpful...and, well, that was sort of a let-down. I know it is to be expected, but since students were grouped by sites, some of my student groups ended up with feedback from people who did not put much thought into their comments, or did not understand the requirements of the activity. They got absolutely no good feedback from their peers, and I cringe to think about what their reactions to this will be when we meet tonight in class. I will have to take on the work of providing all feedback to these students in order to help them revise their first drafts appropriately.

Image provided byorionpozo
Even with that in mind, I am still looking forward to a discussion with my students about the process of putting work "out there" for an "invisible audience" to not only view but to evaluate.  In many ways, this is a great practical exercise in writing to a particular audience and receiving somewhat anonymous feedback (although student names are listed in the comments, my students have no idea who these people are). This is actually what will happen on a much larger scale when our app is launched to the public. Unknown users will evaluate the app and its content and rate the app, as well as leave comments, which may or may not be helpful to all of us in our updating and maintaining the app in the future (and unlike the controlled environment in which they created this app, when it is launched to the public, some of the comments may be downright offensive).

Things that I would change for next time would be to allow for much more time for students to engage in the shared activities. Though Hector and I are planning a low-stakes activity where my students can evaluate his students' work, there just wasn't enough time to do it as of yet, and I feel that it may seem rushed and almost like an "aside" instead of the important element of this project that it is.

small group work
Image provided by Susan NYC

Final word to start again...

The goals of my activity are:
  • Get the students to reflect in the process by thinking on how to write directions/instructions in Plain English. 
  • Connect Language and Math. 
  • Authentic audience feedback - Not just from me. 
The activity plan is (in grey fonts are the ideas :
MY SIDE - Example:
- Write in Plain English how to solve the following operation.
1/4 + 5/4 - 2/9
- Write in Plain English how, in general, you can add and subtract unlike fractions.
-Proofread your assigned short pieces. Make sure your comments and changes are highlighted in a different color.
- Try to follow the instructions to solve the exercise-Try not to use your own math knowledge.

I connected to the College Immersion Program Class - Cynthia Casey

-The goal for the CLIP students, a link where math is related to language.

- CLIP Students will give feedback to my MAT096 students, who are already in College. This way students will feel the value of their work to other at a “higher” level.
- To kick-off the activity I visited their class, talked about how I did start liking Maths and what I do. Also I explain the importance and rationale for the activity, and the value of their work. In that day I presented our website to start explaining the dynamic of the activity. 

I used Wikispaces. It is easy to work with and to add members. As any other Wiki-tool available, there are not any “Math Writing” capabilities. As a result the setup process of our site was very long a tedious.
- Cyndi also did some work during their computer lab hour.
- There is an issue with Wikispaces when several people are working at the same time on the same page. Each contributor has to define a “heading” so text does not get mixed and entangled. This happened to us, and I had to spend some time re-deconstructing what was there. 

The process of writing in their own terms how to solve a problem in math. To help with this part, I gave instructions on first solving the problem on paper and using mathematical symbols, and then describing the steps of the solution.

- Students not completing the work thoroughly, or just not being detailed enough.
- Synchronizing the two courses in such a short time was a challenge that I am not sure it has been successful or not yet. The connection is still in it early stages.
- Since I started my connection late in the semester, I had to randomly assigned only to problems for student and do not overload and overwhelm them with work at the end of the semester. I would like to change that for next term. 
Ideas from others @ Comm.2.0that used in my connection:
- Porsha & Melissa: use questions from the CUNY final practice.
- Use REACT from Wynne: Relate, Experience, Act, Communicate, Apply, Transfer.
I would like start a connection or just the same activity earlier in the semester as a “routine” weekly assignment.

It took me too long to decide which platform to use and how to organize the whole assignment.

Fortunately I heard about a better Web 2.0 tool that allows easy math writing and also it seems it works magic with the students. This is Unfortunately, I discovered too late when the whole site was already set up. I am planning to use it in my classes anyway, traditional, hybrid, and with connections or not. It seems a great find! 

May 28, 2013 Agenda

2:30 Welcome and Announcements
Student Surveys completed by June 5th!

2:35 Cultivating Quiet ... and "We Did It!" Reflection

Post a "We did it!" reflection blog entry that includes how your C2.0 activity went, what challenges came up, what you changed and why, what you learned, what you might do differently next time, etc.
You can use the grid notes if helpful. Include the evaluation criteria you use to assess it.  

Consider including what you noticed about your colleagues’ experiences, their platforms,  and their posts: How did reading about, getting to know others’ challenges, cul de sacs, and (minor/major) triumphs sheds light on your own process? 

3:10 Peer Feedback Small Group Sharing - Social Pedagogies and the Trivium
Pedagogical Framework PPT Presentation

Nicole Maguire
Irwin Leopando
Mark King
Milena Cuellar
Melissa Greenaway
Wynne Ferdinand
Daryl Lucas
Porsha Esterene
Steven Hitt
Thomas Meacham
Leah  Richards
Robert Bruno
Sreedevi Ande
Vanessa Bing
Lisa Barry

How did you address the trivium--bringing together pedagogy, community, Web 2.0 platforms? Group posts: What were the themes and challenges that emerged? How would you relate your experiences to Bass and Elmendorf's Social Pedagogies white paper? 

4:25 BREAK

4:35 Wiki - Go to the site HERE.

4:40 Visual Tools: Blogger Views, Creative Commons Images on flickr & Basic Image Editing

Creative Commons is an alternative to copyright. The creator of the work makes it available to use under certain conditions. Flickr houses millions of these images:

Homework for September: 

1. Wiki - please fill in your info at:

Activity URL/Web Address:
Teacher/Project Leader:
Quick Description:
Spring Schedule:
Tools/Platforms I plan to use:
Course/ Project Objectives:
Theme Tags:
Others I plan/wish to connect to:
Main Texts:
Feedback and Evaluation: 

2. Quiet  - Watch and read the following about “Quiet”:
Post by September 4, 2013: How does “Quiet” help you prepare for/anticipate the coming semester and your goals as a teacher?

When you reflect on students’ participation/engagement with the connecting activity you did—or your own participation in Community 2.0 during this semester-— what seeds/tips can you plant for the fall? Consider how you evaluate “quiet” people and how you address privacy.


·      How have your assumptions about collaboration/participation shifted or changed?

·      How can we use/take advantage of Web 2.0 platforms to “include” and enhance everyone’s presence?

·      What are other categories of students who might find voice in these Comm 2.0 activities?

·      How does thinking about “quiet” students (or faculty members) shape your understanding of the trivium—pedagogy, community, and Web 2.0?

Consider the logistics that go into how students engage and participate on the platform activities. Consider requesting a computer lab for some or all of your fall class!

Student Surveys completed by June 5th!

Fall Meeting Dates - MARK YOUR CALENDARS NOW. 

All meetings are on Tuesday afternoons from 2:30 pm - 5:30 pm 

September 10 
October 8
November 5
December 3 

Image by Will Clayton

Image by Earthlightbooks