I had an interesting experience this week.  Something I have never experienced previously but something which certainly put to the test everything I have ever put out there in regards to digital pedagogy and my practice. I was approached by a school who requested access to and observation of my practice.

So how do I keep myself honest and ensure my practice is sound – open my classroom to them.  The three visiting teachers were invited into my classroom to observe, and encouraged to them to interact with my students.  This allowed them to ask questions about anything I’ve claimed to have done and gain honest reflection from my students.  I previously informed the students what would be occurring, and encouraged them to be honest in their answers – and I have confidence this group of students would be.  The fact that I know not all of my students are enjoying or even participating in the journey of digital pedagogy to the extent that I am, and this honest reflection can only be helpful to others striving to begin their own journey.

This visit has caused me to further reflect on the ways in which I provide information.  Without being egotistical, I’m aware others wish to learn from the journey I am in.  The level of learning differs depending on experience and interest, and some just simply want to know “how to.”  It is my intention to keep this blog as a reflection on digital pedagogy and not a “how to” for the digital tools I use.  To cater for this I am investigating other spaces that could cater for this service.  Once I have these reconciled I will no doubt link to them under the “Other ShaneTechTeach Spaces” links that appear to the upper left of this blog.

So, consolidate your practice and keep your self honest by inviting others to share and comment on your teaching and learning.

Recent work of a colleague who gets a fair bit of blog love from here has seen me reflecting on the inherent risk associated with the expanding use of digital tools in education.  What is risk when it comes to digital pedagogy?  Is it the risk of using the actual tool, risk of failure in terms that the lesson may not implement as planned, risk of inappropriate use, risk of privacy breach, risk of incurring financial cost, risk of any number of things?  To be honest, before this discussion with @mobbsey my thinking on the risks with digital learning centred on the protection of my students.  Since the discussion, and the subsequent web cruising and reading, I am considering a whole lot more.

Acknowledging risk is one thing, one must also assess it then put in place steps to manage it.  The assessment and management of risk is something @mobbsey has been thinking about considerably, and has shared with me some planning documents she is developing to aid the risk analysis and management process for teachers.  The process is similar to that of HPE teachers when managing physical activity.  It is when I made this link to my curriculum knowledge that my perception of potential risk inherent with digital pedagogy expanded remarkably.

First consideration is copyright.  I have blogged previously about my focus on students learning appropriate use of digital resources and their guided discovery of Creative Commons licensing.  One aspect I promote the onsideration of is the aspect of “Share and Share Alike.”  However as an employee of an educational organisation I don’t officially or legally own my work.  Anything I create for use in my employment by my employing organisation is owned by the organisation.  Does this then limit my ability to share and share alike?  I can certainly share within certain boundaries, for example by direct request and response.  But am I sharing alike if the work is not re-posted to a public domain?  Does this represent risk is the use of licensed work?

Secondly, the consideration of license is huge.  I acknowledge the relative safety we enjoy as educators in Australia where use of material for education within our closed classroom environments can occur without fear of copyright breach.  I fear less informed educators do not realise the potential risk of making public materials they have used in such a fashion.  My understanding is by letter of the law if a copyrighted material is used as a learning resource or in a piece of work produced, this can be freely displayed to students and teachers within the school only.  This does not include shown to parents, visitors to the school or sharing to others outside the school.

Is there risk opening our students awareness of digital tools and theirpotential use.  If I show my students that phones can capture images, then phones can connect to the internet – it is not incredible that they may join the two and realise they can easily post pictures to the internet.  Indeed there are many services out there that make this process too easy.  Does this learning, despite being productive and effective, increase the risk of privacy issues with our students?

As I think along this concept, my mind keps running deeper and deeper and I don’t think there is a simple solution to it at the moment beyond the corporate control that currently exists.  My employing organisation has a filtering service, provides a secure LMS and allocates each teacher a webspace.  This maintains control of the resources (which they rightfully own) and ensures some level of safety.  Essentially, within those boundaries the risk analysis and management is already done for us.

And then there is the idea of real risk versus perceived risk.  Perception of risk in regards to digital tools is heavily dependent on teacher experience and knowledge.  A teacher who has not experienced the troubles a digital tool could bring may not perceive as high a risk.  A teacher pushing the envelope of corporate control in the pursuit of innovation and engagement may not perceive a risk with their planned activities, whereas others in different contexts may.  I guess this is why we are restricted, and that our work is owned by the corporation.

Now I know some of you will react strongly to the idea that we as teachers do not own our work, and that the corporate control could be a good thing.  I have had many debates with teachers about these issues, and I have often lamented the restrictions (perceived and real) of the corporate control.  Yet now, I may see some logic behind it all.

In the end, I think the process @mobbsey is looking for is for teachers to think and communicate before they innovate and implement digital pedagogy.  As a Head of Department, I can totally agree there.  I would expect the same of any of my teachers attempting to innovate with physical movement, why should digital tools be any different?

Further to my recent posts where occurrences and conversations at my school have caused me to reflect and refine my approach to developing staff capabilities in digital pedagogy.

I have spent considerable time this week working on the tools, in preference to the pedagogy.  In particular installing software for IWBs onto teacher laptops and showing teachers how to connect their laptop to projectors and printers.  Not exactly what I had in mind when my administration offered me a position of eLearning support.  However, an amazing thing has happened.  Teachers are talking.  Conversations about pedagogy have emerged around the tools enabled.  So I listen and think “What is more important here, the tool or the pedagogy.”

Its at this point I have one of those “aaahhh” moments.  In my pet subject of Health Education we often discuss the need to enable a population to change health behaviours and outcomes by providing them with the skills, knowledge, support and services.  Why should the development of digital pedagogy be any different?  Having been through this process, how can I enable the development of digital pedagogy?

Skills and knowledge – I need to tap into them, their teaching colleagues and HODs to ensure this is maximised.  The Ways of Working and Core Curriculum Elements will provide a base for discussions about pedagogy as they should be consistent across subject disciplines.

Support and services – getting the tools to work, providing access.  But I think there is more to it than this.  There needs to be an environment where teachers can experiment, and fail.  Although I am looking for an alternative word to fail, as that insinuates they have done something wrong.  But there needs to be support for trial and refinement.

I need to go and plan my enabling approach.  I’m ecstatic that setting up IWB software has sparked conversations about pedagogy.  There have even been decisions about what the IWB would not be useful for.

Further to my last post where I was challenged on my focus and beliefs in regards to the interplay and interdependence of digital pedagogy and digital tools, I have spent some time this last week deliberately focusing on functional use of technology.  I have concentrated on not asking the questions about learning intent, instead listening to teachers openly and then assisting them to work around the hardware or software problems they perceive they have.  Through this I have discovered 2 remarkable things.

Firstly, I can see and hear genuine excitement from teachers when their problems (perceived or real) are solved.  An example occurred with interactive whiteboards that are installed at my school.  We have 3 Teamboards and 3 Starboards at my school.  Since the managed operating environment was installed last year the IWB software has not been activated on the relevant computers.  This has not occurred for a number of reasons.  One board is owned by Maths, and they have seen a number of acting HODs since that time.  Three boards are owned by Academic Excellence, whose HOD believes they are inferior boards to Smartboard and therefore has not bothered with them.  I’ve spent considerable time over the last week working with my techie and the board manufacturers to establish a plan of action that would allow me to install the software on teacher laptops and have the boards usable.

To gain access to the boards, I’ve had to enter the classrooms while classes are running.  Its amazing how this brings interested teachers out of the woodwork.  There is a substantial number now asking questions like “Do you think you can get them to work?” and “How can I get access?”  There is genuine excitement as digital tools are made accessible and available.  Now that I have successfully trialled an install on my laptop, my lunches next week are already booked as teachers queue to have their laptops prepared.

The second amazing occurrence I have witnessed is that teachers are much more willing to talk to me about digital pedagogy if my initial approach is about digital tools.  I believe I have experienced much more conversation and engagement by a focused approach on improving access to technology and listening to their perceptions without judgement (a skill that I should be well and truly aware of as a HOD – I know).  There is also the off-shoot of them wanting to show me what they can do.

All of this is possible due to two reasons.  Firstly my administration, in particular my upline manager, recognise the efforts I am making within the school in this area and have created a position of eLearning support where I am provided time to assist teachers individually.  Secondly, a good relationship with my techies which has seen significant trouble shooting to enable this process.  One of the great achievements is the creation of an “Local Installation Logon” where I can log onto any computer and a list of installation files is stored on the desktop.  I then have permissions to install on that local machine.  This has included scripts for installation programs that require OC (techie) permissions, such as the teamboard software.

This does not change my beliefs in regards to digital pedagogy, I am simply realising there are alternate ways to achieve my goals.  I now need to trial methods of engaging the ‘advanced’ digital pedagogues within my staff and those in the “preparing for Digital Pedagogy License submission.”  This group is where a more structured approach can be useful.  I am refining some planning templates that I have developed, and I hope to trial these on my license group.  Their intent is to provide evidence of thought and planning in regards to the use of digital tools and digital pedagogy.  A “Risk Management Template” by an inspirational colleague has opened the door to further possibilities for me also, thanks to @mobbsey for sharing.

So, a slight shift in my approach reaping results.

A thought provoking conversation today that has me seriously questioning what I have been doing, how I have bene doing it and the message perceived by staff.  This is all in relation to encouraging digital pedagogy within my school and promoting the Smart Classrooms PD framework.

For 5 hours today, all HODs and admininstration at my school collaborated on developing strategic projects based on feedback from staff.  We had identified four main areas to focus on, one of which was pedagogy.  There was a significant amount of feedback from staff that inferred they felt their pedagogy was limited by a lack of access to working technology.  In our small working group we decided to separate those comments as a misinterpretation of pedagogy.  We then developed our key issues from the remaining comments.

When we presented to the rest of the executive administration group, one HOD pointed out that 50% of the comments responding to the question “What barriers do you preceive limit your pedagogy” mentioned ICTs and maintenance of such.  He suggested we were taking liberties with the staff feedback by removing this from focus.  I responded as I would normally do in these circumstances and explain that pedagogy is about more than tools, and should not be dependent on tools.

Well a robust discussion ensued, and continued into and through our coffee break.  However it was one comment from the HOD of the Education Access Centre that shook me, and has me questioning myself.  She made a statement that staff feel they are required to use ICTs if their pedagogy is to be considered satisfactory.  I argued against that again stating pedagogy versus tools argument.  She responded that this was the significant message being sent.

Bang.  There it was.  Of course this is a significant message.  We are told daily that if we do not use the digitla tools that our students are supposedly so comfortable with that we will be left behind.  We have significant promotion of a PD framework that requires use of such digital tools.  So is it any wonder that teachers believe the tools are more important than the pedagogy.  Now I know some who read this will defend the PD framework, but there is no need as I believe in it strongly and base much of my work upon the indicators within.  However I had to agree.  The most significant message, one that I have been contributing to, is that ICT use is linked to required standards of pedagogy, strongly linked.

Now I am still not clear on how I feel about this.  It has certainly rocked me and had me reflecting since the comment was made.  Considering that my school has recently provided time for eLearning support of teachers and the fact that we require all staff to hold at minimum the ICT certificate supports this perception.  All I know is that I have significant impact on this perception.  How do I ensure the correct message is received, and staff do not feel the pressure to conform to a perception of a tool as more important than practice?

Definitely food for thought.

I snapped.  At our executive administration meeting my frustration showed.  I am tired of walking into staffrooms and seeing teacher’s laptops left on their desks while they go to class, disgusted when I walk past rooms that have IWBs installed, and the old OH projection screens are pulled down in front of them.  Instead of calmly expressing that our teachers were not what could be called early adopters, I went into a frustrated rant.

Thanks to the sanity and perceptivenes of one of my Deputy Principals, who sat me down in her office the next day for a calming chat, I was froced to reflect on why I felt the frustration.  Our conversation began to impress upon me that I was simply thinking differently than the vast majority of teachers within my school.  I see a laptop, and can run though endless possibilities for it to enhance learning in my classroom (even if there is only one laptop, and its not connected to the internet).  However other teachers don’t see or think like that.

This forced me to reflect on two thoughts in particular.  Firstly, how fortunate I was to be able t connect with like minded teachers through services such as Twitter.  By bouncing ideas off them it certainly helped in my planning and practice.  I mentioned the importance of my PLN in my last post, but a big shout out to @checkingboxes, @agrei8, @mobbsey, @jnxyz, @Mrs_Banjer, @RicardoTech, @betchaboy, @mrrobbo and @onepaulo who have been of indefinable assistance and support to me.  Without them I think my sanity would have degraded significantly by now.

Secondly, that if I could grab all the forward thinking and resilient teachers and form my own school that life would be a much happier place.  But hang on, I can.  I have the capability to create such a school, its just that it is at my current posting.  Its a matter of finding the right people and the right approach.  And by working to change the culture and practice of other teachers, this will then certainly be the appropriate challenge for my commitment to eLearning and digital pedagogy.

How then, how will I do this?  My upline Deputy is supportive and has some ideas, there is a plan brewing that would enalbe this to happen much more smoothly and effectively than it could now.  If it comes to fruition I’ll let you know.

In the last couple of days I’ve been blown away by the power of a productive PLN.  I have some funds to spend on technology tools for learning and was seeking feedback ideas through Twitter.  Thanks to some influential people, the takup of Twitter by other teachers within my employing organisation has increased rapidly.  As my employer has teachers working across the state, Twitter gives us a central and convenient location to connect and share.

So I posed the question asking for feedback on portable Interactive WhiteBoards.  There were two I was researching, the Onfinity and the Mimio.  I simply asked if anyone had any experience with portable interactive whiteboards.  What I received was beyond what was expected.

A number of colleagues, instead of offering advice, instead offered the use of their portable IWBs.  Almost a try before you buy approach.  Quite simply an amazing response from people whom I know well in a virtual world.

The PLN is certainly a powerful force.  Nurture yours, it will bring results.  Thank you to mine.

I’ve referred to my employing organisations framework and infrastructure in this blog before.  As I prepare for a meeting tomorrow to review this framework I am reminded of the even bigger picture.

There are a lot of groups and organisations who research and prepare standards and guidelines for pedagogy and ICTs.  In an age where performance based pay for teachers is often discussed, standards seem to become ever so important.  Indeed, certifications and qualifications are base on standards.  As my journey with digital pedagogy continues I have become increasingly aware of the standards present and relevant to my work within my organisation.

The ISTE  National Educational Technology Standards (NETS•T)  and Performance Indicators for Teachers, and the UNESCO ICT competency standards for teachers are two of the global sets of standards that are relevant, particularly in an era where “common curriculum” seems to be the desire of those wanting national curriculum standards.  I particularly like the reading of the ISTE standards.

The first standard is simply “Facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity.”  I like how this is stated before any use or exploration of digital tools and methods.  After all, isn’t this our core business, student learning?  Whether we do this with digital pedagogy or not is irrelevant in the long run.  All that really matters is have we inspired learning.

If during this inspiration we provide opportunity for learners to develop skills and competencies with digital tools, then that is a bonus.  I often query teachers who believe it is the digital tools that inspire, by asking them to determine if the learners are inspired or entertained.  It is the person who inspires, which for me is fundamentally why human contact is the most important ingredient in any learning environment.  The human contact does not need to be face to face, as demonstrated by the vast number of teachers who consider Twitter a significant component of their learning environment.  There is certainly human contact there.

We are a lucky group of people that have significant impact on the lives, development and emotions of numerous people every year.  Why would you do any other job?

This post is a break from the usual theme of my blog, but one I hope you will indulge with me.

Mention the letters PLN, and most people who are reading this assume a discussion on networks built for the purpose of self development would result.  However, no offense to my regular PLN but I have discovered an even greater version.  I’m calling this version my Personal Life Network.

As a teacher I get the benefit of being on holidays the same time as my sons.  This year, due to voluntary end of employment my wife is also not at work at this time.  We have also been lucky enough to be extremely busy with visits and visitors, both friends and family.  This experience, and forced withdrawal from the technological world, has resulted in a refocused understanding of the importance of a work-life balance.  For the first time in years, I have holiday time without thinking of preparing for next years work schedule.  My Personal Life Network has taught me so much in such a short time.

Thanks to my Personal Life Network, I have achieved some significant things in my personal life that would never have occurred without their belief, support and presence. No offense personal learning network, but I don’t miss you when we are not talking for those brief periods anymore.  I’ve come to realise the personal learnign network should be there to fill gaps in activity from the personal life network, and not the reverse situation – one of which I have been guilty of on quite a few occasions.  Nothing can compare words such as “Daddy, can you help me ….” or “Daddy, can we ….”.

In this period of goal setting and planning journeys, I’m simply going to set forth the promise that for 2009, the dominant PLN in my life will be the Personal Life Network.

Since my previous 2 posts (personal review of 2008) there has been a bit of questioning regarding my use of web technologies in alignment with privacy and policy requirements of my employing organisation.  In particular, teachers working within the same organisation may find this information useful when they come to make decisions about their eLearning spaces.  This post then will be a lengthy one, detailing how I construct my eLearning spaces and what information and materials I place where.

It must be noted that throughout this post I will be comparing web tools to BlackBoard which is the secure LMS my organisation has licensed for us to use.  Policy generally directs us to hosting our work and students work within BlackBoard for security and privacy reasons.  When I make comparisons, I am not suggesting BlackBoard is ineffective of inefficient.  I do use BlackBoard as part of my eLearning space.  Where I make comparisons below, it is for the benefit of explaining tools that add to the functionality of my learning environments beyond what BlackBoard can offer.

1. Scheduling (Google Calendar)

My previous post outlined use of a public Google calendar providing information on learning tasks and my absence from class.  I use Google calendar as it can be synchronised with multiple other calendar formats and across multiple system types.  This synchronisation removes the requirement to log into a calendar to check, as revisions are automiatcally delivered to the user’s system of choice.

I have access to a calendar in BlackBoard, and hosting the calendar within this LMS would mean a secure calendar (versus the public version I currently use.)  However, the calendar in Blackboard cannot be shared, and this to me is the key aspect of my calendaring.  If my students and parents have to log into an LMS to view the calendar they will, but I predict the regularity will be far below their rate of access to their own calendars.

I personally have my Google calendars synchronised to;

• my home desktop via GCalDaemon into Rainlendar
• my iPod Touch via Neuvasync
• my EeePC in Google Gadgets
• my work laptop through Lightning (within Mozilla Thunderbird)
• my mobile phone via GCalSync

I could not achieve this functionality with a calendar hosted within BlackBoard.  (I mean, as far as I know and have explored, I can’t find this functionality.)  Due to the security of BlackBoard I doubt if this is possible.  This also means that I can get the class calendar to synchronise with whichever system my students and parents are using.  Currently I have students syncing with iPhones, mobile phones, Outlook calendar, their own personal Google calendar and iCal on the Mac.

The other advantage to Google calendar is that I can view all my google calendars simultaneously, another functionality not possible in BlackBoard.

What information do I include – very basic lesson directions.  Think of it as a to do list for the lesson.

2. Resources (existing)

One important lesson I’ve learnt is that no matter what I am trying to learn, or help others to learn, someone somewhere has done it before.  And it is more than likely someone has developed resources and shared these via the internet.  I do not need to create resources from scratch, but “mash-up” existing resources to use.  I will regularly search YouTube, SlideShare, BlipTV, MySpace, Diigo, Delicious, Blogs, wikis and other common social resource sites for resources to use in learning.  I encourage students to also search these spaces when requiring information.  The work is in collecting the links and feeds in a central location for ease of use.  I use 2 web tools for this.

Netvibes allows publication of a public page – accessible by anyone.  I use this functionality to host the links and feeds relevant to what we are learning.  This enhances the use of the resources as the “starting point” is easier to find.  Could I not set up a series of links within BlackBoard – yes I could.  However, I cannot import RSS feeds into BlackBoard whereas I can on the Netvibes page.  Therefore I can have blog post titles appearing, and if students are interested they can click to read further.  This is particularly appealing for blogs that go beyond plain text.

I have started to also use Jog the Web.  This tool allows you to arrange web sites in an order you wish to have them viewed.  It also allows you to add some commentary (which could be questions to answer) on each page of the jog.  Here is a jog I use to teach teachers the possibilities of mobile phones as learning tools.

SimplyBox is another tool I am exploring the possibility of, however at this point have only learnt enough to group images.  This may be useful for gathering stimuli for discussion.

Its important to note that no student work or school specific information appears on any of these.  They are simply spaces for gathering existing information.

3. Class specific resources

Where we do create resources within and for the class, these need to be hosted securely.  Student work in particular needs to be protected.  All class blogs, wikis and discussion forums are hosted within BlackBoard .  This ensures any viewing requires a log in.  I can, at my discretion, generate a generic log in that could allow guests to participate.  This then offers the “realism” of an external knowledge and experience having input into learning.

Resources created from scratch for the purpose of delivery of information or tasks to learners are stored on the local school network and backed up on my external hard drive.  I have throughout 2008 uploaded some resources toSlideShare.net, but recent discussion has queried whether this is in breach of policy.   I have searched the policy documents but could not find a clear answer.  Therefore I have composed an email asking for further guidance and temporarily disabled my slideshare account until I can reach a clear understanding.

4. Using web tools, and leaving a digital footprint.

There are certain web tools that provide essential functionality to my learning environments.  One in particular is Diigo – a social bookmarking tool.  However, functions within Diigo go beyond bookmarking, with highlighting and commenting on web pages possible.  They have developed an educator account where the teacher can establish the student accounts.  This means email addresses are not required.  I can build their identities with nicknames and avatars.  The discussions we have are not accessible by anyone else due to security built into the Diigo educator account.

I also used Dabbleboard -  a synchronous collaboration tool.  The specific functionality advantage over a wiki in BlackBoard is that more than one person can be editing the same page at the same time.  When dabbleboard was used, at the end of the lesson the board was archived then deleted.  However, reflection has again caused me to suspect this is also not in alignment with organisational policy. There is an easy fix to this though, as the dabbleboard was only used during timetabled lessons I can host a local wiki to achieve the same outcome.  Tiddlywiki allows synchronous collaboration – which is the key functionality I seek and found previously with dabbleboard.

It is acceptable that any web tool we use, we will leave some digital footprint.  My job as a protector of students is to ensure that footprint does not provide information that can lead to any public access to student information.  I have confidence this is not possible through Diigo educator account.

5. Privacy, where is student information.

Locally hosted only – school network, BlackBoard, Learning Place, external hard drive, usb stick (my portable work life version).  I work hard to ensure none of this information appears in any web tools we use, hopefully teaching students the need for personal protection on the web.  If they leave any evidence of a visit (for example a comment on a blog) I encourage them to use a nickname, or only their first name.  If the blog requires an email address, they are currently leaving their school email address (which believe it or not are disabled at my school!!).  If they were enabled, I know there is a Gmail trick I can use where a derivative of my Gmail address can be used which again means their footprint is reduced.

6. Lesson blogs and podcasts

I generate a lesson by lesson blog, which essentially lists the resources accessed and tasks completed.  This blog is hosted within a Project Room in The Learning Place.  I have shown my learners how to import the RSS feed into their aggregators .  I also generate a learning podcast which aims to be a lesson by lesson review, but at times becomes a weekly review.  This too is hosted in a Learning Place Project Room and students import the RSS feed.  The interesting aspect here is that although the blog and podcast are hosted within Learning Place, anyone can import the RSS feeds without logging into the Learning Place.  What impact does this hold for student blogs /podcasts in the Learning Place?

7 Queries

This post brings to my mind many questions about the policy I work within, and its consideration of the advancement of web technologies.  The ever present internal struggle to both explore options that enhance and enable learning versus the requirements and boundaries of the system within which I work is now only stronger.  Despite being a negative, I think this is a positive to ensure the privacy and protection of my learners in a rapidly expanding network of learning.

In conclusion, its important to note that my eLearning spaces are consistently adapting, changing and hopefully improving.  BlackBoard, Netvibes and Diigo are the constants, and the core of these eLearning spaces.