last weekend I was in Japan working with the amazing Kim Cofino and her COETAIL (Certificate of educational technology and Information Literacy) cohort. tweetpic image from @mscofino The 2 day workshop was Authentic assessment and digital media. We had an underlying them them of developing a unit of work they could use with their students to create a digital media product. We wanted a project or problem based learning approach as this brings together core aspects of twenty first century learning, particularly: relevance context higher order thinking, particularly creativity and evaluation (this was part of the authentic assessment component) problem solving challenge engagement The projects that were created were all of these, it was a pleasure to see engaged and enthusiastic teachers developing challenges for their students. One thing we did that was different from many of the other workshops was that we had the teachers develop the media product and preset it, with the unit plan and assessment rubric back to the course. This was a particularly interesting aspect of the weekend. Many times people will create the unit outline and plan, develop the rubric and "guess - timate" how long the product will take to create or the level of complexity of the product. Several teachers reflected that they had revised their product because they could not complete it to a satisfactory  standard in the time frame they had indicated for the students. I wonder how many of us, when developing a PBL based unit or task actually go through and develop the product? Here is what one participant said "You can’t truly ‘teach’ a project without going through the process first. Thanks @mscofino and Andrew Churches for a great #aadmc " The advantages of actually making the product are obvious. The teacher has: experience in the process, an exemplar to show the students an idea of timing a bench mark product to assess against. I wonder how many of  us would have produced and excellent product and how many would have produced a acceptable one?  

Every year we run a series of workshops with our year 11 student to revise and review the acceptable use guidelines. The guidelines we use are based on ones I developed and shaped by the students and the rest of the school community. Everything in them is up for discussion and review. We believe that there is no point in making a guideline or rule that does not bear scrutiny and discussion. If you can not justify the statement and support/defend the stance then you should not have proposed it in the first place. So the process we go through examines reach of the different aspects of digital citizenship: Respecting yourself Protecting yourself Respecting others Protecting others Respecting intellectual property Protecting intellectual property (http://edorigami.wikispaces.com) We support the presentation and discussion with some great stimulus material from various sources: https://www.thinkuknow.co.uk/teachers/ This has great videos and teacher resources for all school age groups http://www.netsafe.org.nz E-safety: Developing whole-school policies to support effective practice http://edorigami.wikispaces.com The discussions that develop are amazing, often challenging but very worthwhile. Investing the time to explain why you recommend a behavior and discussing the rationale and reality behind it adds transparency, integrity and scrutiny to an area of the school that is often dictatorial and prescriptive. Having the students shape the the policy and review it brings ownership to them as this is their policy and ours. These factors combined with a realistic common sense approach will help to achieve the long term goals of the process - safe, ethical and appropriate users who act appropriately and suitably when confronted with the many challenges the internet and its variety presents. I would love your comments and suggestions:

AUT has been part of the World Internet Project which attempts to map internet usage. The highlights below are the key points for New Zealand and make for very interesting reading. The sample group was a little over 1250 individuals. We are a country that is online (86%), alot of us on a daily basis (59%), we socialise online (64%) of which 96% use facebook, buy stuff online (72%), bank online (58%) and use it as a key information source ahead of traditional mediums (69%). When we also link the number of mobile connections we have - 5.02 million connections  compared to 1.87 million land lines (source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nz.htmleala). We as a nation are embracing technology. Interesting huh. Is this reflected in the use of technology in schools, is it as ubiquitous as it is becoming in the home? Highlights of the 2011 New Zealand World Internet Project Use of the Internet in New Zealand has continued to rise reaching 86 per cent in 2011, up from 79 per cent in 2007 and 83 per cent in 2009 69% of respondents rated the Internet as an important source of information ahead of television, newspapers, radio and other people. 58% of New Zealanders feel the Internet is important or very important in their everyday lives 40% of Internet users look up the definition of a word every week 59% surf the web daily Māori, Pasifika and Asian ethnicities are more likely to ‘make friends’ online than NZ Europeans 64 % of Internet users say they belong to a Social Networking Site (SNS) More females (68% of those that use the Internet) use Social Networking Sites  than males (59%) SNS membership is highly stratified by age, attracting 87% of under-30s but only 34% of over-60s Of those with a SNS membership, 96% say Facebook is the site they use the most 72% of Internet users buy things online Almost half (48%) say they use the Internet to sell things 58% of Internet users log onto their Internet banking accounts at least once a week Link to full report - http://www.aut.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/252077/WorldInternetProjectNZ_2011final.pdf

Thursday, I was down in sunny Nelson for a one day leadership conference with the link learning cluster, working with Charles and Allanah and the principals and lead teachers of the 20+ primary schools that make up this ICTPD cluster. The keynote was Key competencies in the 21st Century. In work that we (21st Century Fluency project) have done all round the world we have had our participants come up with the key competencies they see important in our dynamic world. The key competencies are: problem solving creativity analytical thinking communications collaboration ethics, action and accountability This match very nicely with the key competencies from the New Zealand curriculum framework: thinking using language, symbols, and texts managing self relating to others participating and contributing Source: http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-documents/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum/Key-competencies The things I love about the ones we have developed and the New Zealand Curriculum is not only the obvious similarities and synergy, but also the focus not on learning and recalling knowledge but on processes and relationships. The day in Nelson was great, a receptive and hugely enthusiastic group, eager to discuss, debate, contribute and share. Kia Kaha, our kids are in good hands.  

This is an interesting Infographic looking at Games and education. I found the post here - http://www.knewton.com/gamification-education/ I think we are going to see the use of games in a learning context increase. If we consider the importance of feedback in learning,the level of engagement that games provide the users, the opportunities for genuine learning that these tools provide us, it will be no surprise to see them appearing more and more often in a classroom near to us. here are some links from the info graphic and a couple of my favorites: http://www.fas.org/immuneattack/ http://brainage.com/launch/index.jsp http://www.seriousgames.org/ http://www.globalconflicts.eu/ Created by Knewton and Column Five Media  

I have long been a fan of the work of Sash and Lee Le Fever of the Commoncraft show - http://www.commoncraft.com/ The videos they ahve produced have provide excellent professional development resources and I frequently direct my students and staff to these resources on their website. Earlier in the week I visited the commoncraft site again and noticed they now have a membership option. Membership is essentially an annual subscription to the site and rights for me as an individual to use the videos in my classes, blog and my presentations. The price is ok, well actually it stings a bit, but it is worth it for the convenience and to help support their work, as well as the obvious ethical reason. So this week as part of the digital citizenship aspects of the ITGS course we have been using http://www.commoncraft.com/video/copyright-and-creative-commons http://www.commoncraft.com/video/plagiarism http://www.commoncraft.com/video/protecting-reputations-online http://www.commoncraft.com/video/phishing-scams http://www.commoncraft.com/video/computer-viruses-and-threats http://www.commoncraft.com/video/secure-passwords It is appropriate after all as I am teaching digital citizenship, that I ethically use the resources and acknowledge the developers. Also worth looking at is the Educase 7 things you should know series of educational resources. The latest of these is focused on the flipped classroom - http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7081.pdf This concept is an excellent starting point for changing and adapting the classroom. It provides excellent opportunity for discussions in the classroom that lead into higher order thinking  - particularly analysis and evaluation. As an approach, the flipped classroom has merit, but it does require the students to buy into the concept and participate, the families to have access to suitable technology and internet connectivity and the school to enable the teachers. But learning shouldn’t be limited to school and learning & school shouldn’t be limited to the four walls of the classroom. Learning is a life long process and is a family opportunity to be cherished and valued.

I have long valued and used a constructivist approach to teaching and learning. Tasks of short or long duration where the emphasis is on constructing the knowledge, process, product or understanding is core. Students develop ownership of the concepts, ideas, product or knowledge. Learning is practical, hands on, multi-sensory, collaborative experience. There must be engagement of the learners and they must be motivated to learn. To do this the tasks have relevance to them as learners and are set contextually. There is transparency and clarity in assessment and where possible the students help to develop and administer this.  They often involve a digital medium, but the medium is isn’t ever the focus, the journey is everything. My personal underlying education philosophy matches quite nicely to what I see in the Reggio Emilia Philosophy often used in primary and early years education. Consider the following explanatory statement about Reggio Emilia Children must have some control over the direction of their learning; Children must be able to learn through experiences of touching, moving, listening, seeing, and hearing; Children have a relationship with other children and with material items in the world that children must be allowed to explore and Children must have endless ways and opportunities to express themselves. As an education philiosophy it allows the teacher flexibility to seize the teachable moment. It encourages problem solving and project based learning. It does not restrict solutions to being text based but celebrates expression and communication in its many different and varied forms. It is multi-sensory  - Visual, auditory,  kinaesthetic, tactile  and potentially olfactory and even taste. Its collaborative and because students have a degree of control it is motivating, engaging, relevant and contextual. This is not a bad teaching philosophy to have. Resources and sites: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED355034&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED355034 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggio_Emilia_approach http://www.stellamaris.school.nz/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93&Itemid=75 http://www.reggioemilia.org.nz/ http://www.reggiokids.com/about/about_approach.php http://www.education.com/magazine/article/Reggio_Emilia/ http://www.educate.ece.govt.nz/learning/curriculumAndLearning/Learningenvironments/ThirdTeacher.aspx http://www.reggioemilia.org.nz/pdf/PRINCIPLES%20OF%20REGGIO%20EMILIA%20APPROACH%20TO%20EARLY%20CHILDHOOD%20Powerpoint%202011.pdf

This week has been hectic, not that that is much different to any other week. But on Wednesday night I gave a presentation to teachers on Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy. The session was 50-60 minutes with about 10 minutes of Q&A. The Q&A was spread throughout the presentation as the teachers had questions we would pause and discuss them. The presentation went well.  After the presentation there was Pizza and wine and working dinner followed. The difference was I was in Auckland and the teachers were in Beijing at WAB, the Western Academy of Beijing. It was 10pm in NZ time and 5 pm Beijing time. We used Blackboard Elluminate (they call it Collaborate) to host the session. While we ran into the odd problem with the size of the presentation I wanted to use (I had to reduced the file size substantially), the program worked well and supported the file I uploaded. The audio was good, but there was a 5-10 second delay, which when we left the microphone on in the room in Beijing was quite disconcerting. However, with the microphone off while I was speaking and using the chat window, we were able to communicate, keep me up to speed on the slide (its very strange not seeing your slides pop up) being displayed at the time. Madeleine was brilliant and had every thing running like a well oiled machine. Doing distance presentations is very different from standing up and presenting in front of an audience. There are some advantages, you can build in interactivity, polls etc and deliver to people in remote locations, as well as the obvious reductions in costs and the carbon footprint. The disadvantages are quite profound at times, its hard to gauge the impact your presentation is having, that the funny bits are coming across as funny and the serious elements are delivered. Its hard to pick your speed of delivery and to feel confident that your slides are presented as you would want. The importance of rehearsal and great support on the ground can not be under estimated, seeing comments flowing in the chat window are brilliant for adjusting and modifying your delivery to suit the audience. Doing distance presentations and working with teachers across the world is a great example of Transformative use of Technology. This would not have been possible with out technology. There are three levels to consider: Literacy, Augmentative and Transformative. The three levels come from the work of Bernajean Porter Level 1: Literacy use - This is often "Teaching about technology". This level of use often manifests itself as learning how to use technology etc. This is critical as there must be an aspect of this before we progress to the higher levels. eg. This could be teaching of word processing techniques, discussing use of colour in a presentation, writing formula in a spreadsheet etc Level 2: Augmentative/Integrating use - This is often "Teaching with technology". Does the use of technology reinforce, augment or substitute for a traditional teaching approach? The key question here is "Can we do this without technology?" If the answer is Yes, then this is augmentative or integrating. eg. This could be using an email system to distribute class notes or materials, having students process mathematical formula or process on a smartboards, developing a presentation etc. Each of these can be achieved using traditional teaching approaches. Level 3: Transformative use - This is "Teaching through technology". Here the activity or learning you are doing can only be completed by using the technology. The learning is focused is on learning by and developing skills in collaboration & communication, self-directed learning, higher order thinking and use of electronic information. Technology here is not the goal, rather learning is. At this level the use of technology is seemless and this level of learning could not happen without the technology. eg. Students collaboratively researching a presentation topic and assembling the research in Google documents and then each students prepares a section of the presentation synchronously using the presentation tool in the Google apps suite. A teacher who holds a regular evening homework tutorial between 7pm and 7.30pm for his students using a collaboration tool. etc. Source: http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Tech_audit_tool

This is a BBC clip about the hole in the wall experiment - This is about a computer made available to the young people in Gurjola. Professor Sugata Mitra of Newcastle University is setting up a ‘hole in the wall’ experiment to explore the impact of access to computers on learning. Watch the video - its quite amazing. I love the fact that the computer is in English and the students are still able to navigate and use the computer. - http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldclass/17461332. I suspect that we take for granted the access to such technologies. The young lady who is the center of the article has been teaching her father to read and write. Education is the key, its opens opportunities and more. This is a useful article for ITGS education.

I have been working on a new rubric for storyboards for production of a video. My students are developing an advertisement and part of the production process is the development of a suitable storyboard or plan which provides structure and flow to the final product. The storyboard must have a start, middle and end. They have to consider timing, sequence, structure, purpose, audience, balance, alignment, transitions, images, audio etc. storyboard rubric Level Criteria Not achieved Does not reach the minimum level Acceptable The storyboard contains some detail.A script is provided.(Script has a start, middle and finish) Most scenes have some detail and some action is described. There is information about some of the following: Transitions between scenes Camera action, angles and shots Lighting effects Sound effects Timing are approximate Sketches are included and have some accuracy. The Storyboard is understandable and has some flow Good The storyboard is mostly accurate or detailed.A suitable script is provided (Script has a start, middle and finish) Most scenes are detailed and the action is described. There is detailed information about most of the following: Transitions between scenes Camera action, angles and shots Lighting effects Sound effects Timing are relatively accurate compared to script Sketches are reasonable accurate It is relatively easy for a third party to understand the shot and flow of the advertisement Excellent The storyboard is accurate and detailed.A suitable and appropriate script is provided (Script has a start, middle and finish). Scenes are detailed and the action is accurately described. There is Consistent detailed information about: Transitions between scenes Camera action, angles and shots Lighting effects Sound effects Timing is accurate and consistent with the script and transitions Sketches are consistently accurate and show care and attention to detail. It is easy for a third party to understand the shot and flow of the advertisement Comments and suggestions are always welcomed.