January 2013


A Bill of Rights and Principles for Learning in the Digital Age   EdSurge News
Mike Gwaltney and I presented this afternoon at OESIS a session on robust and responsible digital citizenship; see my previous post for those slides.

At the center of that session we shared with the session participants the recently published EdSurge “Bill of Rights and Principles for Learning in the Digital Age,” and then asked them to use it is a model and inspiration for discussing and developing in small groups their own set of rights and responsibilities for learning, participating, and contributing in the digital age, aka a digital citizenship bill of rights.

Here is the link to the open google document for those who wish to join in the conversation and add their own additional suggestions: it is (should be) an open for editing document.

Below is the what the group came up with in our short time together.  I also welcome readers to use the comment box as another way to add their own suggestions or comment on this set— (which is not meant to be my own work, nor to be inclusive/exhaustive).

Our followup conversation was about the potential for bringing this back to your school community– Mike asked if it were Polyannish to think that this might be a real option.  But the conversation in the room was rich with the optimism that this is an exercise feasible in our schools and in our classrooms, democratizing the AUP.  Several said they are already in the midst of reinventing the AUP into a RUP– Responsible Use Policy– and a “Digital Citizenship Agreement.”

Several seemed to think it would be exciting to take this approach and make it a democratizing experience in our schools as a vehicle for all members of an educational community to examining, reflecting upon, and developing a more thoughtful, intentional, and meta-cognitive appreciation for the rights, responsibilities, and opportunities of digital citizenship.

Rights

  • Freedom of Expression
  • Participation
  • Guidance and Mentorship
  • The right to access and not be filtered.
  • Privacy and boundaries
  • Right to your own creations with attribution.
  • To safely experiment with ideas and expression and points of view.
  • To Be treated with respect and common decency
  • To participate in communities to the degree to which one is comfortable.
  • To equal access.
  • To unfiltered civil discourse and avoid the echo chamber tendency.
  • To unplugged time.
  • To contribute to and build upon the creative commons.
  • To Access.
  • To be Creative
  • To express thoughtfully
  • To express oneself without censorship
  • To Transparency
  • To dialog in a safe environment—without there being a right answer.
  • To an environment in which things would not be said that we couldn’t /wouldn’t say face to face.
  • To engage honestly with peers and that others will reciprocate understanding.
  • To change your mind without being ridiculous.
  • Ownership
  • Expression
  • T0 Control one’s identity and presence.
  • To Community.
  • T0 Curiosity

Responsibilities

  • Honesty
  • Transparency
  • Cautiousness
  • Respect for other opinions
  • Taking responsibility and being held accountable.
  • Treating others online as you would in person.
  • Policy yourself and your colleagues
  • Understands the responsibility that they are part of a community not a lone wolf.
  • Mindfulness
  • Self-Monitoring
  • To self-regulate connections and connected-ness.
  • Control one’s identity and presence.

Mike Gwaltney and I enjoyed greatly facilitating this conversation on digital citizenship, rights, principles and responsibilities.     We ended up just focusing on the digital bill of rights, which will be posted here soon, but we wanted to make available the rest of these slides for those who might be interested.

View this document on Scribd

In “conversation” yesterday at educon about the CWRA and the data it generates, Pam Moran and I spoke about how important it is we all develop our skills in interpreting data– and even more than that, and I have to say, this has previously been a bridge just beyond my full focus– using data to conduct our own research as teachers and administrators.

Pam emphasized this is a critical project: we need to support teachers, offering education, resources, and time, to undertake their own action research projects and generate their own findings.

I began, belatedly, this conversation as a Head of School last year, and it is a big project, to be sure, to help busy, often over-loaded, teachers to get to this place.

And so it is with great respect and admiration I share with readers here this very interesting report, generated by teachers and administrators, on their research and findings.    The folks at St. Andrew’s Episcopal School (MD), particularly Glenn Whitman, were kind enough to send me their recent publication, Think Deeply and Differently:  The Transformational Classroom:How Research in Educational Neuroscience Enhances Teaching and Learning at St. Andrew’s.

Too often, I fear, and certainly I’ve been very much guilty of this, professional learning in schools lacks focus, coherence, continuity and a sense of accomplishment and completion, and part of the reason it lacks focus is because it doesn’t have a finish line and any type of finished product around which its efforts can be centered.

But, it would see here in this example from St. Andrew’s, they’ve tackled exactly this problem by organizing themselves, their professional learning, and their action research toward the end of a publication that speaks from and to their organizational mission and their pedagogical initiatives and next steps.   That is great.

To quote the preface,

St. Andrew’s Episcopal School and its Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning is a sterling example of how educators are informing the teaching and learning process through research-based practices.

These practices encompass every aspect of the educational experience including how we approach the learning environment, how we plan instruction to promote mastery of skills and concepts, how we assure that students are engaged in higher-order thinking and creative problem-solving, and how we use the arts and technol-ogy to maximize each child’s learning potential.

St. Andrew’s is on the forefront of not only practicing but also advancing this knowledge by engaging in research and discovery that has the potential to inform their own teaching practice as well as the entire field of education.  (more…)

Pam Moran and I shared this and facilitated this conversation today at educon: our thanks to the attendees for the rich and meaningful conversation.

lightbulbHeadBenchmarks, projects, inquiry, presentations— these words trip off the tongue of Science Leadership Academy as easily and frequently as do the words test, quiz, and paper for most “regular” school students.

But, in contrast,  they do so with a different intonation, a tone of pride and seriousness of purpose.

I’ve just completed spending a day visiting classrooms in session (last time I attended educon, this day was a snowday and school was cancelled) and speaking with, listening really, to SLA students, as this was the agenda for day 1 of educon.

There are many things to be impressed with and excited about at this school– to be sure.   So student centered is it that one friend here, Greg Bamford, observed in conversation, “The sign of SLA’s student-centered genius? When you walk into a class, everyone’s working – but you have no idea who the teacher is.”

photo (28)

It is a  a cliche, perhaps, of Educon observations that these students are especially articulate about and proud of their school– and I heard this loudly.   Students told me they think their PBL education is far preferable to the norm, that it “requires they become more independent, responsible, and collaborative, that it is better preparation for college and life.”

They say that at first their friends at other schools are jealous that, mostly, educon students don’t have tests and quizzes to stress about, but that envy diminishes as they recognize increasingly how demanding it is to have “benchmarks” every quarter in every class.

But what interested me most specifically was how fluent these students are with the school’s “jargon,” its practices and concepts of inquiry driven, project based learning.   Every student I spoke to went there, explained it to me, often patiently in the manner of someone who has to explain it often, and proudly.

In working with educators on developing PBL, project-based learning,  so often these days, I often hear– and anyone who works in this field often hears– the response that as much as the teachers think it is valuable or important, they regularly encounter push back from their students– their students don’t want to do PBL.  (more…)

View this document on Scribd

When we are selecting for admission, do we prioritize selections of those who will succeed inside our halls, or those who will be most successful in using our education to be valuable after leaving our school?

In one of the most fascinating presentations of the USC conference, Sheldon Zadeck, a professor of industrial psychology at UC Berkeley shared the story of his ten plus year, as I understood it, project with the highly selective UC Berkeley Boalt Hall law school.

You can see his lengthy presentation above.

His work dates to the end of affirmative action, on the basis of race or ethnicity, in California by popular referendum.   As he explained, the result was a steep decline in the number of enrolled African Americans and Hispanics– because, he explained, their LSATs, and their combined rating of undergraduate GPA and LSAT scores, their INDEX,  were rarely high enough for admission.

Attributes

Upon close review, it was also found that that combination could be “justified,” because it was a high predictor for first year law school GPA.

But- maybe first year GPA is not the only, or best, thing we should ask of prospective students applying to law school.   It not good law students we are seeking to add to the world’s ranks, it is high quality lawyers.

zedeckInstead, this professor spent years studying very intensely how one might establish the definition of a good attorney– and came up with 26 criteria.

Quoting the conference blog:

The 26 factors were organized into 8 categories including: intellectual and cognitive, research and information gathering, communications, planning and organizing, conflict resolution, client and business relationships- entrepreneurship, working with others (other attorneys), and character (passion and engagement, diligence, etc.).

Next up was collecting a sample set of over 1000 California attornies, Boalt Hall alums, who subjected themselves to rigorous evaluations– by themselves, peers, supervisors, etc– of their effectiveness on each of these 26.

The first question that follows: Did their LSAT scores predict their effectiveness as a lawyer?

For almost half– 12 of these factors, LSAT did correlate.

But for nearly a third, LSAT scores inversely correlated!

Regarding the INDEX of undergraduate GPA and LSATs, the INDEX predicted 9 of the 26 performance dimensions and 4 were negative.

As the blog quotes, Zedeck:

Thus, for some domains, the better you did on the LSAT, the less effective you would be in the workforce in that specific domain. (more…)

View this document on Scribd

This is the third of four posts about the USC Rossier Attributes that Matter Conference.

Morning Sessions: Non-cognitive Variables in Action and Attributes of Good Students and Good Professionals

Where Bill Sedlacek (see previous post) laid out the intellectual concept of noncognitive assessment with a bit of history and a lot of theory, sharing his decades of research and his passionate advocacy, the following two sessions took us from theory to practice, as five university administrators and researcher told us about the fascinating work they’d done in this field.

Attributes

Two bold and innovative directors of admissions at the university level, (Oregon State and DePaul), came to report that, despite their best efforts, their experiments with noncog assessment have had only very limited success in predicting student performance on campus.

As Eric Hoover reports in the Chronicle of Higher Ed about Noah Buckley’s leadership at OSU.

In 2004 the university added to its application the Insight Résumé, six short-answer questions.  One prompt asks applicants to describe how they overcame a challenge; another, to explain how they’ve developed knowledge in a given field.

The answers, scored on a 1-to-3 scale, inform admissions decisions in borderline cases, of applicants with less than a 3.0 GPA. “This gives us a way to say, ‘Hey, this is a diamond in the rough,'” Mr. Buckley says. For students with GPAs of 3.75 or higher, the scores help determine scholarship eligibility.

The Insight Résumé is a work in progress, Mr. Buckley says.

Reading 17,000 sets of essays requires a lot of time and training. Meanwhile, he believes the addition has helped Oregon State attract more-diverse applicants, but it’s hard to know for sure. A recent analysis found that although the scores positively correlated with retention and graduation rates, they did not offer “substantive improvements in predictions” of students’ success relative to other factors, especially high-school GPAs.

Details about the Insight Resume can be found in the slides above; it includes

Six short-answer questions asked as part of admissions application:
•Leadership / group contributions
•Knowledge in a field / creativity
•Dealing with adversity
•Community service
•Handling systemic changes / discrimination
•Goals / task commitment

Similarly, at DePaul as at OSU, very meaningful evidentiary results still stand further in the future.   (more…)

Next Page »