Did you know that all schools providing registered childcare in the UK use a Canadian-made Internet filtering system to deter children from becoming terrorists?
Good grief. Kindergarteners are plotting terrorist activities? How they fit all that in between fingerpainting, learning to count to 100, and taking naps, I’ll never know.Sound a little extreme to be true? Check the news release on Waterloo-based Netsweeper’s own website. Thank goodness we haven’t gone over the edge of paranoia in our schools here in Canada.
According to the Cambridge Times, that same company, Netsweeper has offered “free” internet filtering to the Waterloo Region District School Board on a trial basis. This comes on the heels of a request by school trustees including Cindy Watson, Natalie Waddell, and Kathi Smith to hire “experts” in Internet filtering after oneCambridge couple complained their child had seen pornographic content at school. While I sympathize with the parents, I believe we may be treading in dangerous waters here.
Netsweeper is the same company Toronto’s CitizenLab discovered in 2011 to be blocking sites in Pakistan. Waterloo-based Netsweeper was hired by the Pakistani government in an effort to block any sites that would seem blasphemous to a muslim-majority, as well as those featuring political discourse, and the news outlet CNN.
Normalizing surveillance in society leads to the eventual acceptance of blocking freedom of information and freedom of speech. That’s a direct hit to democracy. Am I over-reacting? Well, that’s why I started this post with the story about the terrorist plotting kindergarten kids in the UK! You see, this is how it all starts. Yes, filtering pornographic and racist material makes sense. Of course we want to protect our children. But, we need to consider how best to do that while being cognizant of the short and long-term effects and trade-offs.
There’s always a cost involved when hiring “Internet filtering experts”. Besides the high potential for computer algorithms to inadvertently block perfectly innocuous material and affect access and freedom of information, companies never give anything away for free. We need to consider our children’s privacy as many of these companies are in the business of data mining, especially if offering free services.
So, what’s the practical way to deal with censorship and surveillance for the sake of our children? With 571 websites created every single minute on the Internet, harmful sites are bound to slip through the best content filtering algorithms. That’s why WRDSB teachers use a user-based monitoring system called School Connect where they are able to monitor students’ screens in their classroom. There’s nothing better than this. Teachers act not just as filters intercepting inappropriate content, but as guides and educators, they are able to interject and have a discussion with students about content. This is what we call “education” and “media literacy”.
Is it any wonder the Board has delayed its decision on stricter Internet filters? They’ve got a lot to ponder.
School’s out but I’m just revving up. Right now I’m teaching an ABQ course at Queen’s University while taking my Librarianship Qualifications at OISE. The lack of sleep and pots of coffee cause my mind to wander and stumble upon topics I just can’t stop mulling over in my mind. The latest obsession falls on the TPAK model for technological integration in education. “There’s something missing!”, I think to myself. The interconnection of pedagogy, technology and content needs to have some sort of glue that holds it all in place. After 2 cups of my morning brew, I can finally pinpoint what it is. It’s the people element. The missing “A’ in TPAK is “AUDIENCES”. It’s the intersection of representation and interpretation of communicated messages.
Now, this should have been an obvious addition for me, coming from a media background. I’m reminded how Stuart Hall’s theories of dominant and oppositional readings are all shaped by the various filters each one of us carries with us. And aren’t those filters really central to how we use content, implement pedagogy, and construct media representations with technology? Of course they are. It’s all about our own bias. Take a moment to view the list of filters and think about how each may affect each of the three current elements of TPAK.
culture and hegemony
power and authority
TPAK creator Matthew Koehler recognizes that the transactional relationships between the elements is unique due to the various contexts that interplay. Koehler says, “Effective technology integration for pedagogy around specific subject matter requires developing sensitivity to the dynamic, transactional relationship between these components of knowledge situated in unique contexts. Individual teachers, grade-level, school-specific factors, demographics, culture, and other factors ensure that every situation is unique, and no single combination of content, technology, and pedagogy will apply for every teacher, every course, or every view of teaching.” I can’t help feeling that this is of most significance and it’s been buried and hidden from the graphic representation. It’s really the place where we all need to start.
Why do we need to start with audience? Audience defines our purpose for communicating. How and what we say is shaped and interpreted by our own filters and those of others. The purpose here is not to strip away at those filters to create a uniform equalization. It’s to acknowledge that the filters create a unique perspective. This is personalization.
So let’s put it into application.
Students in my grade 12 college level English class did a guided research and inquiry project for their summative that allowed them to focus on communicating for a specific audience but allowed them choice in production of a media representation. The project was presented to them as a question so that they could focus on their personal connection and a targeted audience. “If you could go back and tell your grade 9 or 10 self one really valuable piece of advice, what would it be?” The students were to leave their legacy by presenting in small groups to rotating groups of younger grades (thank-you to Karen Blaak for creating the project). The topics students came up with were varied and included (to name just a few):
how to use technology to organize your high school life of academics, activities, social lives, and after school jobs
maintaining a healthy teen lifestyle through diet and exercise
how to save money to buy a car and your independence
maintaining good attendance and punctuality in the school setting
avoiding social isolation and depression
These topics may seem very simple, but each presentation had a personal story that supported the authenticity of the purpose behind the presentation. These students were sharing their experiences and coming up with solutions through experience, discussions with others, and research. Not only that, but these experiences and solutions are transferrable life hacks.
Though the focus was on communicating with an audience, TPAK was applied to the project. Here’s a quick overview of the three areas that needed to be combined so that transformation learning could take place. Technology (as tools/support):
The assignment was posted on Google Classroom so that students could have 24/7 access to any needed documents.
Video tutorials and online guides were made available for using the various technologies
Google Docs, presentations, and forms were used for 24/7 accessible collaboration, gathering and enacting active research, and representation
Pedagogy: Inquiry based, project-based, problem solving
Content/Knowledge: English curriculum expectations on reading, writing, research, representation, presentation skills, combined with personal experience/connections
Now, here’s where the exciting transformation takes place as the elements of technology, pedagogy, and content/knowledge combine. Students selected the medium that best suited their targeted audience, researched topic, perspective, interest, personality, and skill level to communicate their message. Here are some example of the types of media presentations students produced:
a video of a series of interviews conducted of experts, youth, and parents; followed up with an online survey
a fictional diary that was read to the younger students and used for a guided discussion
a series of games the students played to initiate problem solving in the selected topic area
a series of pamphlets and posters providing information and tips, along with an online poll to gauge impact and opinion
pecha kucha style presentations, followed by online quizzes and verbal discussion
Students really bought in to the project as they were able to express themselves with media in whatever way they wanted to. They followed the guidelines of a research-based inquiry model and English curriculum expectations, kept the targeted audience in sight, and used technology to analyze and synthesize content, produce media representations, and personally express themselves. The wide variances in topics and representation serve to highlight the overarching impact that the “people element” makes in this personalized learning process. Place any of the filters listed above over the media products and the personalized voice of the author shines through. As mentioned at the start of this post, the missing “A’ in TPAK is “AUDIENCES”. It’s the heart of representation and interpretation of communicated messages.
Auditory, kinesthetic, visual. Why is it that when we talk about differentiated learning, we so often focus on just the sensory aspect of communicating how we learn best? Applying Dr. Howard Gardner’s inventory of multiple intelligences towards differentiated learning and instruction adds another layer through manipulating interest-driven categories for the sake of engagement and identifying strengths and skills. This is all good stuff and we could all put our heads together and write a huge list of technological tools that would aid us in meeting goals of differentiated instruction on this basis. Heck, we could even Google it. But how else can technology be used to aid our various learners?
We talk about the engagement and input/output communication pieces in differentiated learning. But, we don’t always talk about differentiating the “processing” piece on the road to cognition. We see the words, “more time needed” under accommodations on IEPs, but this really just addresses the issue of speed and has little to do with key entry points of time during the learning process. This is where technology’s strength comes in. Besides holding various forms of communication (sensory included), technology’s brawniness is in it’s access, and access allows us to play with time. Instead of focusing on just the speed of processing, we could be thinking about how technology can help us manipulate “when” in the learning the differentiated aids for processing can step in.
The processing entry points we’re all most familiar with take place during and after the lesson, a carry-over practice from the late 20th century. I believe part of the reason why “flipped learning” has become so popular is because it addresses an earlier point of entry by allowing learners to “play” with the content first and make their own meaning and connections with it. Technology allows us to post content in an effort to initiate learning before that content is addressed in a face-to-face location. It also serves to lengthen the time of processing between learning stages by adding reflection time. This is a key strategy for some learners who may rely heavily on this early stage in the learning process for fuller comprehension. It’s also worth noting that flipped learning could employ more than just posting videos before class. Remember, teachers are working to address all types of learners at various stages in the learning process.
How are you using technology to aid differentiated learners through these stages of process and reflection? If you use the flipped learning model, do you continue to use technology in differentiated ways through these stages to reach all learners? Would love to hear some of your stories.
Thanks to Carlo Fusco, Christy Wood, and Elaine McKenzie for challenging me to think more about technology’s role in differentiated learning while at the very recent Eduhop event in Kitchener.
For the last couple of years, a group of secondary school teachers has been meeting regularly for breakfast at a local diner to talk about tech and education. People come and go as their schedules allow amidst plates of bacon and pancakes and cups of steaming coffee while we share ideas about instruction, implementation, cross-curricular connections, and new and evolving tech.
On one sunny Spring day, as the group exited the diner, a group of elementary school teachers were gathering just a block away for mid-day snacks and discussion at a local restaurant. We connected through Twitter and after leaving the breakfast diner, I found myself heading over to meet with this group. After great discussion, we decided we should bring the two groups together. Jeff Pelich suggested an extension of the two meetings into a full day affair of “eduhopping”. Breakfast, lunch, and supper venues were planned and invites sent out via Twitter for all to attend.
You know how people are always saying that the learning and connections they get most excited about take place over lunch at conferences? Even Owen Harrison, father of the open space meeting was told by participants the coffee breaks were the best part of his events. And that’s how this whole day is framed. Whoever comes are the right people, whenever it starts is the right time, wherever it take place is the right place, whatever happens is the only thing that could have, and when it’s over, it’s over. Except, in this case, Harrison’s framework is applied to the coffee break.
I can’t begin to write down what we collectively learned at Eduhop. It was different for everyone who attended. But, I can tell you that it was a rich opportunity to dialogue, form relationships, and make partnerships with people from various divisions and subject areas, all with a keen interest to move education forward in the best interest of our students. Much the same as anyone attending and enjoying the coffee breaks at any conference. One discussion in particular was bouncing around inside my head all day to the point that I need to write a full separate blogpost on tech’s pedagogical role in differentiated learning. Stay tuned.
What a fantastic end to a rough week. I had the opportunity to attend EdCamp Hamilton, coming off the back end of several heated discussions around the organization and attendance of a focus group held by Pearson last weekend. I had taken issue with the fact that some were unable to distinguish the difference between a conference and a focus group. Today, I stand somewhere in the middle.
My colleagues were at the Pearson session to share opinions about social media. They weren’t told exactly what Pearson was looking to gain from the meeting but I’m told by several attendees that it didn’t really matter since anytime Tweeps come together face to face, PD is happening. Fair enough. Members of this group have a high interest in advancing education into the 21st century and are well-meaning and forward-thinking people. Though I still take issue with the misguided use of the ontsm hashtag. It suggested that 50 educators were representing all Ontario teachers on the topic of social media. It also didn’t include Pearson’s company name in the hashtag. This led to the embarrassment of at least one colleague doing her best to smooth over the recent political turbulence with the public over education, tweeting how proud she was that Ontario educators were getting together over a weekend on their own time for PD. She did not know that this time, these teachers were being paid. Though I can’t go without mentioning that several of the same attendees of the focus group had paid for PD at the Google summit the week previously and showed up to the free edcamp event in Hamilton this weekend. Afterall, these are highly engaged teachers.
Edcamp felt like neutral ground. The uninhibited chance for everyone to freely post and select topics keeps current practice just that-CURRENT-with a capital “C”, and I thoroughly enjoy edcamp for that. The topics were also uninhibited by companies hawking their wares through sessions and trade show-like activities. Yes, there was some corporate sponsorship, but we’d be remiss if we failed to acknowledge that at least some money has to come from somewhere for an event like this. However, towards the end of the day, I overheard a publishing representative approach a colleague of mine asking for a meeting. It proves just how desperate these companies are to infiltrate the good things we have going on in education. Whether you view it as a goal to exploit teachers for profits or whether you chalk it up to simple recognition that we’re on to something big here, we’ll have to examine our relationships with publishers and educators. The line has become blurred between our meeting spaces.
I suggest that we need to take into account all the relationships that we have-with our employer, the college of teachers, our union, and our corporate suppliers. It’s time to revisit our contracts around ownership of our content in all arenas. Consider also whether you will take an open approach and use Creative Commons or whether you will go privately; corporate or as sole owner. So, the next time a company approaches you with a media release or some other sort of contract, what would it hurt to ask for it in advance and have it checked over by a board or union lawyer? Sometimes in our effort to be shift disturbers we push too hard, too fast without considering the agency of all parties. And above all, keep a critical eye open and remember that all media have commercial interests.