A slice of humble pie

I feel a bit foolish over a comment I posted this morning. I'm not writing this post to attempt to absolve myself of any wrongdoing. Instead, I think it's a teachable moment, for myself and my students if I decide to tell them about it.

Here's the short of what happened: David Jakes wrote about an analogy on Posterous between student binders and the cloud. He ended it with the line: The cloud is the new binder. I left a sarcastic comment.

-----

I follow David on Twitter and I subscribe to his blog and his Posterous blog. Before I commented on his analogy post, I thought I understood David well enough -- though I've never met him -- that I could be sarcastic without coming off as rude.

I learned two things about myself:

1. I need to stop using sarcasm as an attempt at humor -- online or otherwise. Offline it's a cutting way to get through a conversation. Online it just doesn't work.
2. Following someone's tweets, subscribing to their blog, being privy to some of the conversations they have online does not mean we're buddies.

I refer to many of the people I've connected with online as friends even though I've never met them. I'm not going to take that back now. It made me think about my students, though. A colleague was telling us about her nephew the other day who is in 6th grade and has 500+ friends on Facebook. "450 of them he's never even met!" my colleague said.

My favorite part of going to conferences is meeting people. I will say that unapologetically. I've been to some great sessions and keynotes, but making those face-to-face connections with people I've only known up until then on the Internet is what it's all about.

I had convinced myself I knew David well enough from merely following this thoughts online to leave a buddy-buddy, har har comment on his blog. The kind of thing I'd do with a friend if we were hanging out playing video games. I need to keep perspective on the relationships I have online.

Portfolio Artifact Reflections Overview

I added a link to my teaching portfolio to the top bar. From the Iowa Department of Ed website:

The Iowa teaching standards and criteria represent a set of knowledge and skills that reflects the best evidence available regarding quality teaching. The purpose of the standards and criteria is to provide LEAs and AEAs with a consistent representation of the complexity and the possibilities of quality teaching. The teaching standards and supporting criteria are linked to the teacher evaluation system and individual professional development plans.

At this point, my portfolio is extremely bare bones. Really, it's just a template with the standards and criteria.

As I find artifacts for my portfolio, my plan is to reflect on the artifacts here on the blog and put links to those reflections on the portfolio. I'd like to have a conversation around the artifacts here on the blog. As has always been my goal with this blog, I want to learn from and reflect with you.

Something to note regarding the Iowa teaching standards (from the model evidence pdf on the Iowa DOE site):

Evidence is not needed for each of the 42 criteria. It is the presence of quality evidence under a standard that determines if a teacher meets that particular Iowa Teaching Standard. This is determined by a qualified, Iowa trained evaluator, the conversation around these pieces of evidence by the evaluator and the teacher, and the district guidelines for evaluation. Evidence used to show competence in one standard and criteria can and should be used for showing competence in other standards and criteria. The conversation between the evaluator and teacher is vital in this determination.

There is no requirement by the State of Iowa that 42 different pieces of evidence for a teacher (beginning or career) must be produced to meet the Iowa Teaching Standards.

I wanted to put that out there in case this whole process gets confusing. I may have one artifact that goes toward multiple criteria. I will make sure to note that when it happens.

This is all a learning process. Thank you for learning along with me.

Nate Kogan and #Comments4Sophs

Nate Kogan is a friend of mine on Twitter. He took a liking to the #comments4kids project I talked about in my recent projects post and blogged about what he's doing with his sophomores. He has some great thoughts and questions and I'd appreciate it if any readers here would add their input for him.

Here's the comment I left for him:

Hey, Nate,
I'll echo what Bill said about the "Great post!" style comments. I have a teacher in my building who advised me not to "allow" (in the moderation sense) those types of comments. I smiled and moved the conversation along, knowing that I want my students communicating with each other, not leaving NYT-worthy commentary. Sure, if a student leaves a few too many "Great post!" comments (whatever that number may be) I pull the student aside and ask her to "step it up" but I don't discourage back-patting comments from the start.

I've found that not putting points on comments was the smartest thing I could do. It took a lot of unlearning for my kids plus one come-to-Jesus class discussion, but they now fully believe me when I say that the conversations they have on our blog are for their learning, and that's it. "What do I get for commenting?" Learning. "What happens if I don't leave any comments?" You don't get to learn as much as you would have. Basically, my advice is not to steal the authenticity.

To attempt an analogy, I can't imagine I'd be as active on Twitter and commenting/sharing blogs if I had a quota I had to hit. Or possibly a better way to think about it: if I had a quota of sites to share on Twitter every day, I would bet that my sharing would be right around that number, rarely much more.

The other place I'll give a big "Heck yeah!" to Bill is in "giving to receive." We have access to computers once a week or so. The only requirements I have at that time is that they leave more comments on other blogs than on our own blog (for each other.) No set numbers, just more for others than for ourselves.

Without turning this comment into a blog post, what I've attempted to do with our class blog is give the kids their own blogs inside our blog. On the far right sidebar of our blog you'll the kids names listed. Those are links to their labels. Click on a student's name and you're at "her blog." We use the labels extensively to keep things organized. Next year, I plan on expanding on that even further. We just don't write enough for kids to have their own blogs. At this point in the year, each student would have only 4 posts. Personally, I don't do well following blogs that post once every other month. If your kids are posting more often, their own blogs should work fine.

Something else I'll say is to get them involved with getting readers. My kids have an easy-to-remember URL for our "student writing" label. http://tr.im/mrgkids. I've preached to them on Fridays and before holidays to tell their friends and families about their blogs.

I agree that making it easy for commenters is key. You're on the right track. Can't wait to see what you come up with!

(Special thanks to Bill @wmchamberlain for being the catalyst behind #comments4kids. My kids are eternally grateful.)

Russ

So much for not turning that comment into a blog post.

If you have any ideas for Nate or about class blogs in general, please leave him a comment on his site. I don't want to steal his conversation.

The force is strong with the shiny one

This idea came about in a conversation I had the other night with my wife and Mike Sansone. I want to apologize in advance for any possible misrepresentation of the TPACK framework. I understand that feeling the need to apologize in advance means I should probably research more before posting, so consider this acknowledgment that this is an idea-in-progress. I'm posting these thoughts to learn more.

My brother-in-law and fellow edublogger Matt Townsley introduced me to the TPACK (formerly TPCK) framework a while ago. While I haven't taken the time to study it in depth, from what I do understand about it, its simplicity appeals to me. From TPCK.org:

image via http://tpck.org

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) attempts to capture some of the essential qualities of knowledge required by teachers for technology integration in their teaching, while addressing the complex, multifaceted and situated nature of teacher knowledge. At the heart of the TPACK framework, is the complex interplay of three primary forms of knowledge: Content (CK), Pedagogy (PK), and Technology (TK). See Figure above. As must be clear, the TPACK framework builds on Shulman's idea of Pedagogical Content Knowledge.

I don't want to simplify it too much, but my takeaway has been that to be the quality teacher I want to be, I need to be in the middle of the diagram.

.....

I've been thinking lately about the allure of digital technology. I love it. Too much, most of the time. I spend a disproportional amount of time thinking about, reading up on, and lusting after gadgets.

I'm trying not to let it affect my teaching, though. I'm trying to start with the purpose in mind when figuring out what tools will best help my students learn. This post from Evan Abbey illustrates what I mean.

Now that I'm able to see this technology infatuation of my own, I'm noticing it in others, too. As I said, I've been thinking about why.

At this point, I have no answer for why, but I do have a theory based on personal experience I want to throw out there. When I think of the TPACK diagram, I picture horseshoe magnets on the outside of each circle, pointed into the middle. Those magnets are what keep the quality teacher balanced in the center, each magnet pulling and building a feeling of equilibrium. This is obviously best-case scenario.

What I see happening in conversations of big change in education is a super-powered magnet on the Technology circle. That magnet pulls people to the technology. It's what keeps us searching for that silver bullet, that one "thing" that will fix everything.

I'm not here to say we need to "teach naked" and forgo technology altogether. I just have an idea to keep us grounded while we add the Technology circle to our knowledge Venn diagrams.

As I said earlier, I think about the TPACK diagram with the idea that the goal is to be in the center. I see schools working on getting to that center by going on a path through the three circles. I'm being metaphorical. They need to start their journey through one of the circles.

There's the conundrum: through which circle do we start our journey to the center of the Venn? I should capitalize that. Journey to the Center of the Venn. 

My fear is that if we start our journey by attempting to walk through the Technology circle, the pull of that super-strong magnet won't let us get to the center.
 

.....

So, if you agree about the big technology magnet, where should schools start their journey?

If you don't agree about digital technology's pull on our collective psyche -- it's fine if you don't, by the way -- does that change where we should start our journey?

Do schools need to walk through the circles, or can they drop right down into the middle? 

Let's talk about this journey. Let's talk about TPACK.