Granville Students Attend Regional NYSSTL Training

Five students from Granville Central School District in New York attended a week long New York State Student Technology Leader (NYSSTL) Training Camp at WSWHE BOCES in Saratoga, during the last week of July. At the summer camp, students learned how to become New York State Student Technology Leaders in their school. There were approximately 30 students from WSWHE BOCES regional schools, from as far south at Ballston Spa Central School and as far north as North Warren Central School.

At the camp, students discussed and demonstrated their understanding of crucial contemporary Internet technology topics, including Internet safety and ethics, copyright and fair use, citing sources of information, evaluating websites and checking author credibility, netiquette, cyber bullying, and digital footprints.  They also learned to use new technologies and completed two technology projects using these tools to demonstrate their technology literacy.

As the training progressed, students spent time learning to become peer mentors, so that they can help other students with technology projects at school. They practiced this skill at the camp as they completed work on technology projects throughout the week.

Students were also trained to assist teachers with technology. They were provided with accounts and taught how to access and use their school’s NYSSTL Help Desk which is an online tracking system and communication tool. Students learned how to help teachers request a TAP or Technology Assistance Project, and also how to use many of the tools built into the online help desk.

In addition to discussions, role plays, and working with computers and various peripheral devices, students also participated in recreational games such as competition cup stacking, bocce, ladder ball, and ultimate Frisbee. All students who attended the camp received complimentary breakfast, lunch, and desserts, such as make your own sundaes. They also received embroidered NYSSTL T-shirts, TechYES Technology Literacy Student Guides, 4GB flash drives, and messenger bags, which they decorated with fabric markers at camp.

Granville Computer Technology Teacher/NYSSTL Advisor, Leanne Grandjean, along with experienced Student Technology Leaders, freshman, Josh Sumner, and sophomore, Marc Billow, also went to the camp to lead and support students who were training to become Student Technology Leaders.

Mote here!

GenYES is remarkable in how it brings student voice into the learning conversation. In this episode, Sylvia Martinez, President of GenYES, describes the project’s original program for bringing students and teachers together to co-plan technology-infused lessons as well as a newer program, TechYES, which offers a unique project-based learning approach to certifying middle school students as technologically literate.

via Radio TICAL.

Yup, that’s me, in a podcast recorded with Michael Simkins of  the Technology Information Center for Administrative Leadership (TICAL). It’s the “go to” place for California school administrators who want to understand how to integrate technology in their schools. TICAL offers resources and networking opportunities both online and in person.

Direct podcast link (MP3)

Sylvia

From Education Week:

“A new whitepaper addressing recent calls for technology literacy education argues any such education should involve project-based learning, while a separate new report indicates the need for such education may soon increase. The whitepaper from Jonathan D. Becker, a grant evaluator for the U.S. Department of Education, and Cherise A. Hodge and Mary W. Sepelyak, doctoral candidates at Richmond’s Virginia Commonwealth University, insists that, despite contention over what exactly constitutes technology literacy, there is consensus in the 49 states with technology literacy goals that the construct is multidimensional, and that one of those dimensions is acting or doing. In other words, students don’t just observe technology. They interact with it, meaning any instruction involving technology literacy should include students using technology in an active or interactive way.”

via Project-ing Tech Literacy – Digital Education – Education Week.

Although they got Dr. Becker’s job wrong (he’s actually an Associate Professor of Educational Leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University,) it’s a nice analysis of the whitepaper! Hope you read it and share with principals, tech coordinators, and others wondering what to do about student technology literacy.

Assessing Technology Literacy: The Case for an Authentic, Project-Based Learning Approach (PDF)

Sylvia

Wondering what he’s going to talk about and what the World Bank has to do with education?

Mr. Rischard is the author of High Noon: 20 Global Problems, 20 Years to Solve Them, a book that identifies urgent global issues and proposes better, alternative methodologies for developing solutions. According to Mr. Rischard, the effectiveness of any solution to a global problem hinges on technological innovation and student action. The presentation will conclude with a description of four kinds of strategic curriculum changes that will enable educators to help prepare students for these increasingly relevant challenges.

Many of Mr. Rischard’s solutions are centered on what are called Global Issue Networks. These networks vary in implementation, but one commonality is a focus on “user” driven solutions to problems; sort of Governance 2.0. Technological acumen and information literacy are going to be increasingly valued skills as the way we solve problems evolves in our inter-connected world. If you’d like to read something before Sunday,  here’s an article written by Mr. Rischard, called Global Issues Networks: Desperate Times Deserve Innovative Measures.

See you there!

The Generation YES team – Sylvia, Dennis, Megan & Steve

P.S. We’ll be in booth 855 during the conference, along with students from local schools who will show what they are doing to improve technology integration in their schools. They will also be printing out business cards for anyone who leaves theirs at home! Come by and say hi!

Assessing Technology Literacy: The Case for an Authentic, Project-Based Learning Approach (PDF)

This whitepaper takes a comprehensive look at the research, policies, and practices of technology literacy in K-12 settings in the United States. It builds a research-based case for the central importance of “doing” as part of technology literacy, meaning more than just being able to answer canned questions on a test. It also explores the current approaches to develop meaningful assessment of student technology literacy at a national, state, and local level.

Where “doing” is central to students gaining technological literacy, traditional assessments will not work; technological literacy must be assessed in ways that are more authentic.

Building on this definition, the whitepaper connects project-based learning and constructivism, which both hold “doing” as central to learning, as the only authentic way to assess technology literacy.

True project-based assessment is the only way to properly assess technological literacy.

Finally, it examines our TechYES Student Technology Literacy Certification program in this light.

A review of existing technology literacy models and assessment shows that the TechYES technology certification program, developed and implemented by the Generation YES Corporation using research-based practices, is designed to provide educators a way to allow students to participate in authentic, project-based learning activities that reflect essential digital literacies. The TechYES program includes an excellent, authentic, project-based method for assessing student technology literacy and helps state and local education agencies satisfy the Title II, Part D expectations for technology literacy by the eighth grade.

This whitepaper can be linked to from our Generation YES Free Resources page, or downloaded as a PDF from this link.

Sylvia

PS – Share this important research with your PLN!
Tweet

Simply put, calling the assessment “Technology Literacy” didn’t really capture the breadth of the planned assessment, which will cover technology as anything in the “designed world.” That term includes engineering principles, design and systems in a wide variety of contexts. It goes well beyond the much narrower K-12 use of the term “technology literacy.” In K-12 schools, districts, and state departments of education, “technology literacy” typically means the knowledge and ability to use computers and technology with fluency, efficacy, and safety in schools.

This post outlined some of the issues inherent in the previous name “technology literacy” THE Journal: NAEP Gets It One-Third Right.

But now, the name has been changed to the NAEP 2014 Technology and Engineering Literacy Assessment. I think this aligns better with both the scope of the assessment and the conventions of K-12 schools across the country.

One other change, the date has been pushed back to 2014. This change is due to the time  needed to develop computer-based items for this assessment. For the first time, this assessment will be 100% computer based.

You can take a look at the framework at www.naeptech2012.org.

Eventually this will move to a new domain, www.naeptech.org, but this is not up yet (as of 3/10/10).

As someone who is both an engineer and works in technology education in schools, I believe this is a good compromise. I think it will help people better understand the results of this assessment as we move forward. And in the long run, I hope it will spur the design of innovative and diverse learning opportunities for students that combine engineering, IT, programming, math, science, collaboration, communication and many, many different types of technology.

Sylvia

“Sixth-graders in Tom Coons’ computer class linger after the bell rings, asking for passes to come back during their study halls and lunch periods.

The reason?

They’re excited to use mini Flip Mino video recorders, digital photography, PowerPoint and computer animation to create projects that will earn them national recognition through “student technology literacy certification.”

Maple Ave. is one of 45 schools participating in the New York State Student Technology Leaders (NYSSTL) grant, funded with state EETT funding. NYSSTL schools use Generation YES tools and curriculum to meet technology literacy standards (TechYES) and to teach students how to be leaders and help teachers and peers with technology (GenYES.)

It’s great to read a story about students doing good things with technology. This is the way to fight stereotypes and misinformation about youth. Students almost always do their best when given support and encouragement to raise the bar.

I love the part about the student who spent 6 weeks on his project about Mesopotamia, drawing and animating his own graphics, and memorizing and recording his own soundtrack. This student is so far beyond the normal checklist of tech skills it’s amazing. And yet, this is NORMAL when you give kids time, support, and the encouragement to go beyond the checklist.

This is exactly why we do what we do with schools – to help schools take that leap of faith that together, students and teachers can achieve tech fluency beyond everyone’s expectations, especially their own. This is the essence of Generation YES – Youth and Educators Succeeding.

What I’d like to do here is provide a short skim through the topics I brought to the session. I think many of them either support themes I’ve posted about before, or will in the future. I plan to return to them in the future and explore each one in depth.

This is such a rich area for two main reasons:

1. Unstructured time is undervalued by School.
2. Tinkering supports technology and technology supports tinkering.

Random thoughts in no particular order:

Humans yearn for tinkering and playful activity
The popularity of the Food Network, HGTV, and shows like Monster Garage  illustrate how people want to learn from watching others DO things they love. Work is interesting when you can see it happen, and people are interesting when they work. Make magazine is awesome.

Tinkering is social
Yes, there is the stereotype of the lone tinkerer in his basement. But more often, tinkering is a shared, social experience. Social learning with no structure or single, all-knowing teacher can happen! Leveraging the power of social learning seems like something we should be thinking about in this day and age.

Bricolage
French for tinkering, using found objects, playfulness in creation. (Wikipedia)

Tinkering/bricolage vs. the scientific method/analytical design
Seymour Papert, the father of educational technology, defined two styles of problem solving: analytical and bricolage. School only honors one style. What are we losing? (Who are we losing?)

“The bricoleur resembles the painter who stands back between brushstrokes, looks at the canvas, and only after this contemplation, decides what to do next.” Sherry Turkle

Tinkering and gender
The book by Sherry Turkle that I couldn’t remember in the session was “The Second Self”. I also forgot to mention this crucial connection to tinkering and gender issues in technology. Turkle says that tinkering is a “female” approach to technology, calling it “soft mastery” (as opposed to the “hard mastery” of linear, step by step problem solving, flowcharting, and analytical design). However, these “hard” styles are often taught as being superior, with “soft mastery” styles deemed messy or unprofessional. Again, who and what are we losing by ignoring (and denigrating) alternative learning and problem-solving styles?

Tinkering requires similar conditions to project-based learning and games in the classroom. Implementation brings up similar questions
Teachers who are looking at project-based learning or games are struggling with the same issues that arise with tinkering. Time, space, overwhelming curriculum requirements, tests, etc. These all need to be solved in similar ways, and teachers are doing this all around the world. Sharing is important.

More connections with games
James Paul Gee (What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy) says that we should examine the attributes of gaming such as identity and agency and how to bring those to the classroom. We are being too literal with “games in the classroom.” The attributes of tinkering are similar. We have to be willing to give students agency and allow them to develop their own identities as problem-solvers and learners.

Why is tinkering learning?
Tinkering is a uniquely human activity, combining social and creative forces that encompass play and learning.

The problem with the scientific method
A pet peeve of mine is this structured monstrosity called “the scientific method.” We teach it to children like it came down on stone tablets. It’s not how science really works. Science is about wonder and risk and imagination, not checklists.

Risk and design – what happened in engineering in the 80s
When I went to engineering school, they taught us to use the “waterfall” design methodology. Every stage was planned and went in order. Then in the 80s everything changed.

What happened? Computers. Digital design and modeling decreased the cost of making mistakes. You could try things out with little risk or cost. It’s called the spiral design method, or rapid prototyping, sort of like tinkering with an audience. It’s why Google is always in “beta”. Of course it doesn’t work for everything, you can’t release a “beta” skyscraper or tinker a space shuttle, but for digital products, what’s the harm?

The problem is that school hasn’t caught on to this design methodology. What do we need to do to get school design courses to catch up to the real world?

What can we learn from other unstructured (but successful) school activities?
This also connects back to a post I wrote called Technology Literacy and Sustained Tinkering Time which connected the ideas of Sustained Silent Reading to using technology in less structured ways. Schools have embraced Sustained Silent Reading in the face of scripted curriculum and standardized testing – what can advocates for constructivist education learn from this?

Technology literacy without tinkering time is hard to fathom
Maybe we should be talking about technology fluency anyway. Literacy is such a low bar.

Teaching risk free design is so 20th century.

More later – your feedback on what to tackle first is welcome!

Sylvia

Monday and Tuesday I’m in Washington DC for a big announcement – stay tuned for something exciting!

Wednesday I’m in New York City leading a workshop on project-based technology literacy with some independent schools.

If it’s Thursday and Friday (Jan 28/29) it must be Atlantic City for TECHSPO 2010 – the annual statewide technology exhibition and training conference for New Jersey school leaders, sponsored by the New Jersey Association of School Administrators. Alan November and Gary Stager are keynoting this conference so it ought to be a good one.

The cherry on top of this crazy week will be Educon in Philadelphia Jan 29-31. This is the third year for this conference put on by the Science Leadership Academy (SLA.) Educon and SLA are captained by their visionary principal, Chris Lehmann, and powered by the amazing teachers and dedicated students of SLA.

The sessions will likely be streamed online, so if you are interested in tuning in for “conversations” rather than “stand and deliver” – check it out. It’s an awesome session list.

My session on Tinkering Towards Technology Literacy will be Saturday morning at 10AM Eastern time. If you are attending Educon, I could definitely use a volunteer to help with the streaming! If you will not be in Philadelphia, check the Educon website for instructions on connecting remotely.

Whew!

Sylvia

Related posts:

• Posts on Tinkering
• Posts on Educon and SLA

I’m not going to comment on this right now and here’s why. For the past year, I’ve been on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Technology Literacy Assessment planning committee. (See my post NAEP Technology Assessment 2012.) The first phase of writing the framework (which is where my committee contributed) is almost complete. Our final meeting will be next week. Now others will take the framework and turn it into an assessment.

At the first meeting, I asked about blogging along the way, without revealing personal things or anything still in draft form. I was told that this would be detrimental to the process. After some discussion, I agreed not to do it. Although I felt (and still feel) that openness is the best policy, I also felt that this “was not the hill to die on.”

Last month, a discussion draft of the framework was released for public comment. This Ed Week article contains a link to the draft.

Like I said, I’m not going to comment on the draft framework or the THE Journal editorial right now. I made a promise to keep my thoughts and comments within the committee and I intend to keep that promise. However, when I can, I’ll share my thoughts more publicly.

Your comments are welcome.

Sylvia