Uncategorised – Bobbi's Blog

Activity 3 Design Phase

(Better late than never…)

Description:

The purpose of this resource is to help students gain a better understanding and consistent messaging of the school’s plagiarism and academic integrity policy.

Learning Goals:

The learning goal of this digital resource is the students will:

Understand what is plagiarism.
Gain knowledge of how to paraphrase, and cite properly.
Apply skills of paraphrasing and citations for purposeful evidence in writing.
Build consistent messaging and learning regarding academic integrity at the school.

Intended Audience:

The intended audience is high school students, grade 9-12. For this particular resources, it is aimed at grade 11 as a pilot project. Creating a resource for grade 9 -12 will require different levels of information and examples that for this assignment, are beyond the scope of what is needed. The users, of grade 11 students targeted as they are entering the International Baccalaureate (IB) and Advanced Placement (AP) courses, as well as the students’ parents.

Rationale:

The digital learning resource will meet the needs of students because it will provide a consistent learning experience to guide the understanding of plagiarism and what is the academic policy at the school. The students have varying degrees of understanding of plagiarism and academic honesty, yet I am striving to create an expectation of a standard level of understanding. Our student population is transient the digital resource will fill the gaps if those students with less knowledge of the academic policy and plagiarism and it will create a common understanding. The digital resource will provide the knowledge to meet the expectations of the school.

Tools:

The tools that I will be using to develop the digital resource is a mixed bag of tricks. The resource itself will be housed in Google Sites. Our school is a Google school and a 1:1 laptop program in the high school. Google Suite is a typical digital application for our community, and as students will use the resource that is facilitated by teachers, and also acknowledged by parents, the users require easy access with a familiar tool. Google classroom will record the documentation of learning, where students and parents acknowledgment their understanding and partnership of the school program.

From here, I will be using a series of tools to help compile the resource. Some of the tools I plan to include are:

Videos (Snagit and Camtasia…I hope, still playing with it)
Graphics (Canva, images, screenshots)
Learner response (Google Form, Kahoot)

Assessment Plan:

To ensure the students have achieved the intended learning goal, the students will be completing a quiz from their learning of academic integrity whereby the students must identify from examples and create their examples of adequately using evidence within their academic work. The students will require to submit evidence via Google and in Google Classroom. The students will have to succeed fully, be able to discern proper use of evidence and parents acknowledgment, to earn their micro-credential of academic integrity (or plagiarism — haven’t decided).

The parents will also have to acknowledge the academic integrity policy and show understanding, with a submission from a Google form (I think … haven’t decided the best method here yet).

Learning Theories & Instructional Design Principles Used:

Behaviorism – The need for the student to master the skill is essential, forming habits of integrity within students’ academic life. Students will have clear learning outcomes and expectations. To ensure that they understand the mechanics of using evidence in writing, there will be assessments that check the students’ achievement level and feedback and review of their work to improve.

Constructivist – Students will be involved in a good facilitated online learning experience blended with the classroom. They will have opportunities to construct their knowledge by using prior knowledge and building new knowledge. Although the initial lesson will be the given to all members of the class, the students can navigate their learning to grow in their knowledge and understanding. The ultimate goal is to share their knowledge with peers and parents, and able to transfer the skills and integrity across all disciplines.

Instructions for Use:

For most students, these instructions will apply. The only students these instructions will not work for are those students whom are enrolling in our school late and may have missed this lesson.

In class:

Enter the Google Site
Read the Honor Code and Academic Policy. Students may ask clarifying questions.
Students will complete a quiz on the Honor Code and policy.
Students complete a lesson on how to use evidence in writing correctly.
Students will practice using and identifying evidence properly used and cited.
Students will construct own meaning and provide an example.
The classroom teacher will ensure the students are using the correct skills.
Students will complete an assessment for their learning of proper use of evidence.

Outside of class:

Students and parents will read through and understand the Honor Code. Both student and parent will sign to acknowledge.

Plan for Use:

Initially, the digital learning resource will be shared within a controlled group, grade 11 class. This class is where I will monitor results and collect the data. It will also be provided for all students to view and use as a resource on the school website.

External Scan: Innovating Change

Innovation is change. A new leadership team (L2) is disrupting the norm and invoking necessary change to a new model of professional learning teams (PLTs). Each leadership team, the previous one (L1), and the current one (L2) approached change differently. The current model reveals how relationships and reflective practice are critical for innovation.

Change Management

Both leadership teams (L1 and L2) established a need to build more purposeful collaboration. Initial factors to implement change are physical – the school has difficulty with space, lacking space in the schedule for teachers to physically collaborate, but also mental space due to a hectic pace in – impeding mental capacity to grow and develop.

In recognizing this need for professional learning teams (PLT), the previous leadership team (L1) implemented a plan and affected change; however, the full faculty did not demonstrate a commitment to the PLT implementation. For four years, the L1 team has had difficulty in sustaining the trust of the faculty and resulted in low motivation by the faculty to build a collaborative group. Working backward, faculty members noted the L1 lacked transparency in stages of planning and implementing; change efficacy of the faculty was low (Weiner, 2009). According to Weiner, without the common belief in the change, implementation of the PLT model was difficult (2009).

The faculty demonstrated a lack of confidence in L1, leading to a difficulty in building enthusiasm and willingness to change. According to Lewin’s theory of change, the L1 team should have created a psychologically safe place when disrupting the traditional structure (Antwi & Kale, 2014). However, unable to do so, the L1 strategy became more autocratic by nature versus adaptive, weakening Lewin’s “moving” stage, where smaller influential groups is vital to implementing change (Antwi & Kale, 2014).

In contrast, the current leadership team (L2) had a different approach to determining organizational readiness. L2 created trust through transparency. The faculty identified the issue of PLTs, and common agreements were established. Under the lense of Kotter’s steps for change, L2 was able to create a sense of urgency, instilling greater efficacy for change (Weiner, 2009). Transparent in the vision and strategies, the immediate investment by the faculty in the change model was greater (Al-Haad & Kontour, 2015). Assessing the organizational readiness to change, allowed L2 to establish trust in the process (Weiner, 2009).

Perspectives

The success of L2 is the difference in approach and reception, leading to a reflective and adaptive process. L1 demonstrated strength in identifying the issue and implementing a plan; however, establishing trust proved challenging. L2 focused on building supportive relationships with the faculty through an adaptive leadership approach: faculty’s needs and goals were listened to and respected (Khan, 2017). Applying Kotter’s Leading Change model, L2 was successful in establishing a (1) sense of urgency, (2) a trusted guiding team, (3) a common vision, and (4) communication of the vision (Al-Haad & Kontour, 2015). The faculty demonstrated willingness and investment in the change ahead by forging common agreements.

Although L1 was unable to have full investment in the change, the L1 team was able to implement PLTs. The change was in process only, leaving the culture of the unchanged. L2, due to the relationship and trust, moved the culture from an on-site PLT to pair with professional learning networks via Twitter. Although traditionally labeled a tech school, there are difficulties in fully being current in practice and L2 was able to promote and build enthusiasm for being vulnerable to try something new.

L2, unlike L1, demonstrated the characteristics of an innovator. Kotter’s Leading Change model aligns with a reflective leader (Castelli, 2015) and innovator characteristics (Dyer, 2011). The first stages of Kotter’s model demonstrate the need for an innovative leader:

(1) The ability to associate with colleagues, showing the leadership diversity, connecting with each member, and establishing trust;

(2) question the status quo, displaying the vulnerability with suggestions;

(3) observe and respect the needs and goals of the faculty (Dyer, 2011).

L2 was able to instill trust and build change efficacy. By nurturing networking characteristics to lead to the implementation of change and aligning with experimenting characteristics, the faculty was infused with trust. Being an effective changemaker requires a skill set and a plan; the analysis reveals that trust and relationships are key to building enthusiasm and willingness to change and invest in the process.

Final Thoughts

Communication is important. The leadership who are changemakers are learners themselves. Leaders need to investigate, source, plan, and apply, then reflect in order to be transparent with the process.

Activity 4: Continuum

When examining the continuum from renewal to new in the case of digital collaborative, I found that my case as a whole is more on the renewal side of the continuum. The use of digital platforms to collaborate is not new. Collaborating and teaming is not new. Collaborating digitally is not new. The method in which we will be collaborating is new.

My school, the location for my case study, is a Google school and is swamped with the use Google Suite. Google is fine; however, when examining other platforms and their performances, it seemed appropriate to test MURAL.

However, MURAL as a platform is new.

My colleagues are entrenched with user-friendly Google Suite, but this does not mean that all teachers are tech-savvy. The team that will be working with MURAL in the collaborative do not all have the same level of technology competencies. There will be a learning curve and comfort-level required to function in the collaborative. The learning curve for MURAL and the user expectations are ‘newer’ and will move down the continuum. The expectations of the familiarity and the consistent use of MURAL will be higher, for this collaborative work well and with purpose.

Research a research question

What makes a good research question is a good question?
First thoughts: it cannot be a yes or no question, and it should be involved, not easily answered or solved.

How to get there?

When considering your topic, think about what you enjoy and interests you, and what you want to explore further. You will spend a lot of time with this topic and question. I think that you would have to enjoy it!

Having strong foundational knowledge on the topic is also important, so you can find gaps and areas of necessities to explore and further examine. The subject of choice should not be too broad or unchartered (yikes), but rather something that has a path to inquire further. In having strong foundational knowledge about your topic, you can see or discover the gaps in other research help guide your particular issue.

Where does your problem exist? Or does it?
Who would be interested in knowing more about your issue?
Who is impacted by it?

Think about the perspective or lens in which you will guide your research and helps you formulate the question.

I hope with critically thinking in the early stages and having foundational knowledge of the chosen topic; the ability to narrow to for a question will be narrowed enough.

Last thought: research your research question – maybe there will be a similar thought or style to use as a mentor or as an example. Always good idea to read and reflect on well-written questions before you start!

Engagement = Learning

Does engagement actually equal learning?

While perusing Flipboard , an article called “How to Determine if Student Engagement is Leading to Learning” caught my interest. Its main focus is how it is common to hear educators discuss the use of technology in both physical and virtual classrooms to engage students. The effectiveness of technology to increase learning is drawn from the 21^stcentury student context. Put some technology in front of a student and they are sure to learn, right? After all, they love technology.

“In education, student engagement refers to the degree of attention, curiosity, interest, optimism, and passion that students show when they are learning or being taught, which extends to the level of motivation they have to learn and progress in their education.”

(The Glossary of Education Reform, 2014, Student Engagement)

Students can be engaged in a class – collaboration, creativity, and fun can all be evident – but how can you tell if learning is actually occurring? Where is the evidence? Students “can walk away from a lesson or activity having been very engaged but with very little in the form of new knowledge construction, conceptual mastery, or evidence of applied skills” (Sheninger, as cited in Mindshift, 2016).

It is critical that educators do not just use technology as a means of getting students to have more fun or think more positively about a lesson without designing the use of the technology to also enhance the learning process. Visible evidence is needed in order to justify the use of technology in an academic setting – both physical and virtual.

Using an instructional design model that is based on the integration of technology is one way to help ensure that the technology being implemented both engages the students, but also helps them to take away new knowledge and skills. One such model that is currently being advocated for in the 21^stcentury teaching and learning context is SAMR (Puentedura, 2006). This model provides four methods of incorporating technology into the design of a program. Each method is connected to an aspect of Bloom’s technology and moves from lower to higher order thinking. It is at the two higher levels that meaningful learning takes place, and being able to recognize these levels in one’s own design process is important.

So to correct my title…it should read:

Learning = Engagement + Design (meaningful technology integration)

References
The Glossary of Education Reform. (2014). Student engagement. Retrieved from https://edglossary.org/student-engagement/

Mindshift. (2016). How to determine if student engagement is leading to learning. Retrieved from https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2016/01/14/how-to-determine-if-student-engagement-is-leading-to-learning/

Puentedura, R. (2006). A model for technology and transformation [pdf]. Retrieved from https://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf

Down the Rabbit Hole…

Hmmm … ok … procrastination and interest—I Google myself and see what pops up.

5 mins…10 mins…15 mins later…

I have progressed from self-interest to now stepping all over people’s personal moments in

http://krazykez.deviantart.com/art/The-Rabbit-Hole-to-Wonderland-165580001 — The Rabbit’s Hole

just a few clicks. I jumped from checking where I ‘pop up’, to a rabbit’s hole of many other options (more fun options) to seek and explore. I felt like I was trespassing through the lives of some friends and acquaintances, and even family. Then, ‘hey—why is my picture on your Facebook?’ I continue to investigate, read some comments, and I discover that my entire life story was revealed. Someone, an old acquaintance posted ‘how is Bobbi doing anyway?’ Innocently, and probably naively, a family member explained, in three paragraphs, the past two years of my life. I am exposed. I was plastered on her wall for all people, that I do and do not know, to see. Okay, maybe I was not plastered but there is a niggling feeling because I know didn’t consent to share all my information—maybe, violated? Vulnerable?

Boom. Tables turned in a minute. I was just ‘creeping’ on other people’s pages, and linking to other acquaintances, happily gathering updates. It no longer felt like I was trespassing. I felt shame for my trolling. But I felt betrayed.

In Susan Lucas’ article, “Job Hunting? Take a closer look at your Facebook page, ” she reminds people of the information posted is always public. There may not be any intention from you, but with our digital age and ideas, pictures, and events posted, whether it is through Facebook or a company website, YOU are out there.

Luckily, I guess, I have tried to fend off Facebook. I have held out, only until recently, to have an FB account. I have learned that it does not mean my information still is not out there. I have had people query my name, received an update, either through events or school postings, discovering where I am and how to contact me. Some ghosts from the past have appeared and made contact. Again, appearing with mixed feelings. I was ‘found’ when I didn’t know if I wanted to be found.

Interestingly, years ago, when I was first dating my husband, we were to meet his dad and wife for dinner. I was suppressing my nervousness by knowing I had an in with the commonality of running. However, to my surprise, after the pleasantries were completed and we sat down with tea, my father-in-law began to rattle some of my running times, splits and overall in events. He was peppering me with questions about training and events…I was in shock and awe. I think I sputtered a few responses, mouth agape, and with his big bellowing laugh, he declares “I Googled you!”

Shock. Now, what?

I quickly tried to recap anything that I had online. I felt somewhat safe because I had not yet entered the world of Facebook or other social media. But, obviously, there is information about me out there. My father-in-law’s laughter lingered for longer than the actual 45 seconds. I was thinking – I am judged. Did he think I am fast or slow? Did he like me or not??

Provided by Pew Research Center

Lucas’ article throws a caution to adults, maybe less nimble in the social media world than teens. This is what leads to Amanda Lenhart’s data that illustrates the differences between “parent and teen attitudes towards and experiences with online advertising, and third party access to a teen’s personal information.” I think phrase of concern is “third party access to a teen’s personal information.” The cautionary tale becomes greater and more immediate, knowing that social media usage, posting private information – pictures, name, school, friends – has been on the rise, over the past 6 years by 20-30%. Yikes!

Privacy. This may be an urban myth in a few years.