Monday 29 July 2013
School Evaluation Summary
Evaluation | Survey
This was an interesting task; I only wish I had had more time to do a more thorough job. Perhaps if this task had been assigned earlier on in the semester, I would have been able to do the job to the level I will need to justify improvements to my bosses! That being said, I now have some data that verifies what I have thought about "SCIS" in the past.
My school has been in the process of trying to achieve the NAACE Mark which is a British technology maturity certification. It is rather similar to the maturity benchmarks we used in this task. It has not been my responsibility to evaluate "SCIS" against the NAACE Mark criteria but I have been asked to give my opinion in the past. I was not as positive in my assessment one year ago as those that were performing the evaluation and I was clearly being seen to be looking at the evaluation with a "glass half empty" perspective. After completing this task, I am confident that my previous assessment was accurate and that "SCIS" has a lot of work to do.
It was interesting to see the differing perspectives offered by the members of staff I asked to collaborate with me on this task. The Systems Adminstrator, the Assistant Principal for Development, and the Head of IT curriculum all completed the survey I prepared. After bringing all of their responses together I was able to get a much wider picture of the state the school is at. After given the evaluation to these staff members they too were interested in the differences in perception.
The elements that I have identified that need attention: training, new technology use, and assessment, will likely need 2 to 3 years of planned development to get them up to Intelligent level. As I mention in my evaluation, a culture shift will need to occur where it comes to the attitudes of the staff. I regularly visit an American international school and play sport with the staff there. Through this interaction I have had the opportunity to talk with the Americans regarding their attitudes to training. It is clear that the requirement to go through re-certification is a big plus for institutes that have this in place. The staff know they have to meet the standards or they will not be able to teach; their jobs depend on them being up-to-date.
In the past I submitted the suggestion/plan to the leaders of "SCIS" that the school take a more serious view of the attendance at training and the development of the skills needed to work in a 1 to 1 environment. I made comparisons with other educational systems such as the US and Japan but it was decided to continue with training being "optional". The idea of making staff do certification seems completely unrealistic! Whilst "SCIS" employs staff on a 2 year contract basis, they are not prepared to use this pressure to insight change.
Before I return to school I intend to fully compare the benchmark with the NAACE Mark. Had I had the time to be more thorough for this task, I would have asked department and faculty heads to complete the survey along with a sample of students, parents and governors where the survey is appropriate. It was clear to me after I got the responses back from the three other staff members with responsibility for technology integration that perspectives are very different. We will need to thoroughly go through each element and evidence each part from the students perspectives right up to the governors if we intend to succeed with the NAACE Mark.
Jigsaw
http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/martinmullan/502/Jigsaw.html
Elliot Aronson, the creator of the Jigsaw activity describes it as this: Jigsaw is a cooperative learning technique rich in opportunities for promotive interaction (Aronson, 2008).
The Jigsaw activity is an excellent pedagogical group work strategy where students initially assign themselves to do research on part of the whole task. They split up and work with other students from different groups also researching the same topic to become "experts". These secondary groups decide how to teach the content to their "home" group and then give a presentation.
A short quiz is given at the end of the session to ensure the students have taken onboard the learning objectives and have taken the activity seriously.
Aronson, E. (2008). Jigsaw classroom. Retrieved July 29, 2013 from http://www.jigsaw.org/
Elliot Aronson, the creator of the Jigsaw activity describes it as this: Jigsaw is a cooperative learning technique rich in opportunities for promotive interaction (Aronson, 2008).
The Jigsaw activity is an excellent pedagogical group work strategy where students initially assign themselves to do research on part of the whole task. They split up and work with other students from different groups also researching the same topic to become "experts". These secondary groups decide how to teach the content to their "home" group and then give a presentation.
A short quiz is given at the end of the session to ensure the students have taken onboard the learning objectives and have taken the activity seriously.
Aronson, E. (2008). Jigsaw classroom. Retrieved July 29, 2013 from http://www.jigsaw.org/
Monday 22 July 2013
Concept Map
http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/martinmullan/502/conceptmap.html
The concept map image on the right hand side of the main page was build in Adobe Fireworks and then imported into Dreamweaver. This is a relatively straight forward process but one which can make the design and navigation of a page more appealing to the user as images are being used to enhance the experience.
The concept map image on the right hand side of the main page was build in Adobe Fireworks and then imported into Dreamweaver. This is a relatively straight forward process but one which can make the design and navigation of a page more appealing to the user as images are being used to enhance the experience.
Copyright Scavenger Hunt
http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/martinmullan/502/scavenger.html
The copyright scavenger hunt is a learning resource that guides teachers and students to answer questions about copyright abuse, plagiarism and fair use.
After doing the research and building this object, I have a new respect for doing things the right way. Teachers tend to take if they can get their hands on resources, and use them as their own. I have made it my goal to not do this again and have been in contact with companies regarding the use of their materials within the confines of our school's domain.
In order to instill a sense of responsibility in my students, I have begun to include a referencing section in all of my rubrics in order to push the students to identify from where they have been taking the media they find for their work. It is slowly getting through to them that if they didn't build it themselves, they need to say who did!
The copyright scavenger hunt is a learning resource that guides teachers and students to answer questions about copyright abuse, plagiarism and fair use.
After doing the research and building this object, I have a new respect for doing things the right way. Teachers tend to take if they can get their hands on resources, and use them as their own. I have made it my goal to not do this again and have been in contact with companies regarding the use of their materials within the confines of our school's domain.
In order to instill a sense of responsibility in my students, I have begun to include a referencing section in all of my rubrics in order to push the students to identify from where they have been taking the media they find for their work. It is slowly getting through to them that if they didn't build it themselves, they need to say who did!
Thursday 18 July 2013
Technology Use Planning Overview
Technology Use Planning.
Technology use planning is a process by which an institution develops a time based action plan for the future integration of technology. The plan is based upon the mission and vision of the institution; where they currently are and where they aim to be all in light of their budget, stakeholder skills, and the current state of the technology available.
How might the new National Educational Technology Plan 2010 be an effective and powerful resource for technology use planning?
After researching and reading about digital divides and digital inequalities, I feel that the NETP 2010 tries to address each of the elements of possible inequality well while looking at new competencies and how these should be approached. In this regard the NETP is a great guide from which to base technology use planning.
I particularly like the section on "Assessment: Measure What Matters". I have been challenged over the last couple of years to find ways to measure the effectiveness of student behaviors online in relation to 21st century skills, so this section has definitely caught my attention. The recording of formative assessments (assessment for learning) using simulations and games is very interesting and as the authors clearly see the increase in gaming and the use of tablets for such actions as a trend that will continue to rise, finding ways to evidence the 'players' performances seems logical particularly in light of the skills Universities and employers are asking for lately.
The recommendations for "Connected Teaching" are very forward thinking. To have a vision such as this come to fruition will require the other possible divides that teachers might face to already have been leveled. Whilst I am a big fan of using LinkedIn, Google+ and have various RSS feeds aggregating into my email, and enjoy learning on Coursera, the majority of the teachers I work with are far from a level of 'connectedness' that would meet the NETP goals. The degree of awareness and ed-tech skills exhibited by my colleagues would have to grow considerably and would require, at the very least, one year if not more is several cases, for staff members to become connected. On top of this, a full culture change would be required and driven with considerable energy by the senior leaders of the school for there to be an impact. A shift toward professional development that was continuous, focused and has time allotted to it very regularly would be necessary.
The "Rethinking Basic Assumptions" is an interesting section with the reference to the restructuring of classes to ones where competence is the primary factor and not age. Is it not generally a difficult decision to have students, who are not performing at their age appropriate standard, move to work with different aged students? Physical and emotional developmental states can have repercussions in certain scenarios. Having not read any research on the success of American schools using this technique, I am only going on what I have seen in the British and International systems. It has become more common for tutor groups to be arranged in a "vertical" fashion so that younger students come into contact with the more mature students; learning from them and building relationships. It is not common in international schools or British schools for this vertical, competency based approached to be applied to the curriculum.
It is mentioned several times in the NETP 2010 that research into learning sciences and pedagogy has and is to be used to guide the further implementation of technology. This is essential for any effective integration. It has been my experience that new technologies are bought by schools to provide a superficial push toward meeting requirements. The knowledge and experience of how the technology can be used to enhance learning must be built through the use of sound theories from good research and practice.
Do you agree with See about tech use plans needing to be short, not long term? Why or why not?
Whilst much of the technology that Dr See refers to is out of date, his ideas are still relevant. The first two paragraphs of his article refer to his opinions of long and short term plans. I personally do not agree that five years are too long. It really depends on what you are trying to achieve. Planning for the acquisition and integration of a VLE may easily take three to five years; research, trialing, acquisition, implementation, training of early adopters in the student, teacher and parent body, opening up to the institution, and review/evaluation. If however we are planning for the integration of a new site wide application e.g. Prezi, this could easily be done in a much shorter time and probably within six months assuming the budget has been prepared with foresight to allow for such a fast turn around purchase. Certainly curriculum based software and technology identified by the specialists can be requested by a deadline that provides the requisitioning staff time to order and receive the purchase for the next academic year; three to six months seems appropriate in this instance.
So, whilst I understand his perspective, Dr See has simplified the situation too much for it to be applicable in all instances.
What do you think about his comment that "effective technology plans focus on applications, not technology?
After reading this section of Dr See's article, I wonder if Simon Sinek didn't get his inspiration for his "the golden circle" concept made popular on his TED talk from Dr See. The 'Why' is very important and I fully agree with Dr See in this regard. The why is always about the learning of our students. When we understand the why and can answer this question, the how and what are much easier to address. Example: The Art department are interested in giving their students the best opportunity to enhance their digital photography and video work. This is the why. How? By providing them with the best possible hardware and software within the constraints of the budget, if not for this year, perhaps for the year after. What? Apple? Microsoft? Adobe? It may actually be easier to convince the Board of Governors to spend more money by allowing them to answer the question "What?" after considering the why and the how first.
If the answer is Apple for the Art department, a similar consideration of technology may lead the Science department to acquire Microsoft laptops. Like what we teach the students in IT class; use the correct tool for the job, one size does not fit all.
It is this argument with which I intend to approach the Board in the near future to argue that forcing all of our students to buy iPads for our 1 to 1 scheme isn't appropriate. As long as our students can achieve the desired learning experience, it doesn't matter which device they use, therefore BYOT seems like a better fit. The only stipulation the students should be given is that they are capable, using the device they choose, of experiencing the process their teachers wish them to have.
What experiences have you had with technology use planning and what have been your experiences in terms of outcomes (both good and bad)?
The examples I have mentioned above are indeed my own experiences. Not everything has been smooth sailing. The implementation of our VLE has had its challenges as it was decided to implement two different versions of the VLE, one for the primary campus and one for the secondary, on the same server. While we were assured this would work, it has had problems as the company has updated the different instances at different rates causing malfunctions on the instance that wasn't updated.
What have I learned from this? Don't be an early adopter and don't try something that others haven't done before and been successful with. I'm sure that my compatriots in other international schools in the region have looked at our experience and steered away! That being said, I'm not afraid to lead the pack but when it comes to a product that costs $25000 per year, it needs to work!
The majority of my experience has been around the training of staff to improve their basic skills and to enhance their lessons with technology use. This has been a success for those members of staff who have given their time to attend the sessions and apply what they have learned. If I were to have this be more successful, I would need more support from the senior leaders of the school to make the use of educational technologies to enhance learning a greater priority for all teachers. Many teachers who choose not to attend the training sessions use the technologies in ways that could be a lot more inspiring but since there is nothing forcing them to attend and to improve, they continue to use the IWBs simply as a surface to project on to. My plan this year was to identify individuals how were prepared to give thirty minutes of their time after school to run a training session. These sessions were replicated several times each week with different volunteers, including myself, running the same content. This has had the benefit of serving more teachers as many can't make it to training on certain days. This strategy will continue next academic year.
The most recent blunder and success I have had was this year when I, through lack of awareness, registered the wrong email address with Google when we began the process of integrating GAFE into our school. After attending a Google summit I realized the scope of what acquiring GAFE for our school meant. Fortunately the error wasn't a serious one and my drive to have GAFE into our school is progressing well with us rolling out Gmail to our early adopters in preparation for a school wide transition in September. These early adopters are a combination of savvy and not-so-skilled individuals working in teams. They will disseminate there knowledge to the rest of their faculty colleagues and progress through further training sessions, as the year goes by, in the various Google Apps. I have encouraged the less confident adopters to get involved because I wanted them to be able to show the rest of their teams how the technology worked; if they can do it, everyone can! I have also used these individuals as a debugging tool not only for the technology itself but as a gauge for the appropriateness of the training I have organised. Everything seems to be going well although I do have to remind myself on occasion that just because they volunteer, doesn't mean they can use technology, and so I need to go a lot slower!
Technology use planning is a process by which an institution develops a time based action plan for the future integration of technology. The plan is based upon the mission and vision of the institution; where they currently are and where they aim to be all in light of their budget, stakeholder skills, and the current state of the technology available.
How might the new National Educational Technology Plan 2010 be an effective and powerful resource for technology use planning?
After researching and reading about digital divides and digital inequalities, I feel that the NETP 2010 tries to address each of the elements of possible inequality well while looking at new competencies and how these should be approached. In this regard the NETP is a great guide from which to base technology use planning.
I particularly like the section on "Assessment: Measure What Matters". I have been challenged over the last couple of years to find ways to measure the effectiveness of student behaviors online in relation to 21st century skills, so this section has definitely caught my attention. The recording of formative assessments (assessment for learning) using simulations and games is very interesting and as the authors clearly see the increase in gaming and the use of tablets for such actions as a trend that will continue to rise, finding ways to evidence the 'players' performances seems logical particularly in light of the skills Universities and employers are asking for lately.
The recommendations for "Connected Teaching" are very forward thinking. To have a vision such as this come to fruition will require the other possible divides that teachers might face to already have been leveled. Whilst I am a big fan of using LinkedIn, Google+ and have various RSS feeds aggregating into my email, and enjoy learning on Coursera, the majority of the teachers I work with are far from a level of 'connectedness' that would meet the NETP goals. The degree of awareness and ed-tech skills exhibited by my colleagues would have to grow considerably and would require, at the very least, one year if not more is several cases, for staff members to become connected. On top of this, a full culture change would be required and driven with considerable energy by the senior leaders of the school for there to be an impact. A shift toward professional development that was continuous, focused and has time allotted to it very regularly would be necessary.
The "Rethinking Basic Assumptions" is an interesting section with the reference to the restructuring of classes to ones where competence is the primary factor and not age. Is it not generally a difficult decision to have students, who are not performing at their age appropriate standard, move to work with different aged students? Physical and emotional developmental states can have repercussions in certain scenarios. Having not read any research on the success of American schools using this technique, I am only going on what I have seen in the British and International systems. It has become more common for tutor groups to be arranged in a "vertical" fashion so that younger students come into contact with the more mature students; learning from them and building relationships. It is not common in international schools or British schools for this vertical, competency based approached to be applied to the curriculum.
It is mentioned several times in the NETP 2010 that research into learning sciences and pedagogy has and is to be used to guide the further implementation of technology. This is essential for any effective integration. It has been my experience that new technologies are bought by schools to provide a superficial push toward meeting requirements. The knowledge and experience of how the technology can be used to enhance learning must be built through the use of sound theories from good research and practice.
Do you agree with See about tech use plans needing to be short, not long term? Why or why not?
Whilst much of the technology that Dr See refers to is out of date, his ideas are still relevant. The first two paragraphs of his article refer to his opinions of long and short term plans. I personally do not agree that five years are too long. It really depends on what you are trying to achieve. Planning for the acquisition and integration of a VLE may easily take three to five years; research, trialing, acquisition, implementation, training of early adopters in the student, teacher and parent body, opening up to the institution, and review/evaluation. If however we are planning for the integration of a new site wide application e.g. Prezi, this could easily be done in a much shorter time and probably within six months assuming the budget has been prepared with foresight to allow for such a fast turn around purchase. Certainly curriculum based software and technology identified by the specialists can be requested by a deadline that provides the requisitioning staff time to order and receive the purchase for the next academic year; three to six months seems appropriate in this instance.
So, whilst I understand his perspective, Dr See has simplified the situation too much for it to be applicable in all instances.
What do you think about his comment that "effective technology plans focus on applications, not technology?
After reading this section of Dr See's article, I wonder if Simon Sinek didn't get his inspiration for his "the golden circle" concept made popular on his TED talk from Dr See. The 'Why' is very important and I fully agree with Dr See in this regard. The why is always about the learning of our students. When we understand the why and can answer this question, the how and what are much easier to address. Example: The Art department are interested in giving their students the best opportunity to enhance their digital photography and video work. This is the why. How? By providing them with the best possible hardware and software within the constraints of the budget, if not for this year, perhaps for the year after. What? Apple? Microsoft? Adobe? It may actually be easier to convince the Board of Governors to spend more money by allowing them to answer the question "What?" after considering the why and the how first.
If the answer is Apple for the Art department, a similar consideration of technology may lead the Science department to acquire Microsoft laptops. Like what we teach the students in IT class; use the correct tool for the job, one size does not fit all.
It is this argument with which I intend to approach the Board in the near future to argue that forcing all of our students to buy iPads for our 1 to 1 scheme isn't appropriate. As long as our students can achieve the desired learning experience, it doesn't matter which device they use, therefore BYOT seems like a better fit. The only stipulation the students should be given is that they are capable, using the device they choose, of experiencing the process their teachers wish them to have.
What experiences have you had with technology use planning and what have been your experiences in terms of outcomes (both good and bad)?
The examples I have mentioned above are indeed my own experiences. Not everything has been smooth sailing. The implementation of our VLE has had its challenges as it was decided to implement two different versions of the VLE, one for the primary campus and one for the secondary, on the same server. While we were assured this would work, it has had problems as the company has updated the different instances at different rates causing malfunctions on the instance that wasn't updated.
What have I learned from this? Don't be an early adopter and don't try something that others haven't done before and been successful with. I'm sure that my compatriots in other international schools in the region have looked at our experience and steered away! That being said, I'm not afraid to lead the pack but when it comes to a product that costs $25000 per year, it needs to work!
The majority of my experience has been around the training of staff to improve their basic skills and to enhance their lessons with technology use. This has been a success for those members of staff who have given their time to attend the sessions and apply what they have learned. If I were to have this be more successful, I would need more support from the senior leaders of the school to make the use of educational technologies to enhance learning a greater priority for all teachers. Many teachers who choose not to attend the training sessions use the technologies in ways that could be a lot more inspiring but since there is nothing forcing them to attend and to improve, they continue to use the IWBs simply as a surface to project on to. My plan this year was to identify individuals how were prepared to give thirty minutes of their time after school to run a training session. These sessions were replicated several times each week with different volunteers, including myself, running the same content. This has had the benefit of serving more teachers as many can't make it to training on certain days. This strategy will continue next academic year.
The most recent blunder and success I have had was this year when I, through lack of awareness, registered the wrong email address with Google when we began the process of integrating GAFE into our school. After attending a Google summit I realized the scope of what acquiring GAFE for our school meant. Fortunately the error wasn't a serious one and my drive to have GAFE into our school is progressing well with us rolling out Gmail to our early adopters in preparation for a school wide transition in September. These early adopters are a combination of savvy and not-so-skilled individuals working in teams. They will disseminate there knowledge to the rest of their faculty colleagues and progress through further training sessions, as the year goes by, in the various Google Apps. I have encouraged the less confident adopters to get involved because I wanted them to be able to show the rest of their teams how the technology worked; if they can do it, everyone can! I have also used these individuals as a debugging tool not only for the technology itself but as a gauge for the appropriateness of the training I have organised. Everything seems to be going well although I do have to remind myself on occasion that just because they volunteer, doesn't mean they can use technology, and so I need to go a lot slower!
Monday 15 July 2013
Digital Inequality
Over the last week I have been on a school trip to Phuket, Thailand. Every time I go to Thailand it amazes me how rice farmers can pull out a smart phone and happily text away, or how it is possible to pay for your Air Asia flights, along with all your other bills, in 7 Eleven. The Thai technology infrastructure is pretty good despite their 91st placing by the ITU last year!
Initially I was intending to do my piece as a comparison of the strategies Thailand and Malaysia have put in place to bridge their digital divides with regards to broadband access and to bring themselves inline with the international agreements for 2015. However, a discussion with a colleague on the trip, when they said they needed to figure out Google Docs, was what triggered me to think about the issues with our staff as a whole. Since all of our students have their own devices and can bring them to school if they wish, their techie skills are high. They are autonomous. What they don't do so well is use the technologies available to them to enhance their learning, and this is due to the teachers not exposing them to the plethora of awesome apps and websites available to them.
Just like what Anthony has done for us with the use of these different web apps, the exposure to the technology needs to be greater. Of course, teachers will complain about not having enough time therefore whatever strategies are put in place, they need to target as many individuals as possible so as the 'don't have time' excuse becomes superfluous.
I mention Digital Literacy in my second to last slide. This is an issue I wish to look into further and hopefully provide some guidance for the improvement of at my school with the help of our librarian.
Initially I was intending to do my piece as a comparison of the strategies Thailand and Malaysia have put in place to bridge their digital divides with regards to broadband access and to bring themselves inline with the international agreements for 2015. However, a discussion with a colleague on the trip, when they said they needed to figure out Google Docs, was what triggered me to think about the issues with our staff as a whole. Since all of our students have their own devices and can bring them to school if they wish, their techie skills are high. They are autonomous. What they don't do so well is use the technologies available to them to enhance their learning, and this is due to the teachers not exposing them to the plethora of awesome apps and websites available to them.
Just like what Anthony has done for us with the use of these different web apps, the exposure to the technology needs to be greater. Of course, teachers will complain about not having enough time therefore whatever strategies are put in place, they need to target as many individuals as possible so as the 'don't have time' excuse becomes superfluous.
I mention Digital Literacy in my second to last slide. This is an issue I wish to look into further and hopefully provide some guidance for the improvement of at my school with the help of our librarian.
Accessibility
http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/martinmullan/502/accessibility.html
Accessibility is about designing web pages that provide content that is available to the greatest number and type of devices, be they keyboards, screen readers, mobile devices or for low bandwidth connections. It is also equally important that the greatest variety of people are given access to the content of the page. It is the law that designers meet the standards set out in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. These standards are summarized on the WebAIM 508 check list page.
Accessibility is about designing web pages that provide content that is available to the greatest number and type of devices, be they keyboards, screen readers, mobile devices or for low bandwidth connections. It is also equally important that the greatest variety of people are given access to the content of the page. It is the law that designers meet the standards set out in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. These standards are summarized on the WebAIM 508 check list page.
I particularly enjoyed testing my page for color contrast and for access by individuals with different types of color blindness. One of my students is purple/blue color blind and this drove me to produce the most attractive but accessible design I could.
I also found the challenge of ensuring that my pages are accessible on as many browsers as possible fun. The websites analyse your design and find any errors. All of my pages are certified for HTML5 and CSS3 compliance.
Monday 8 July 2013
Netiquette
http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/martinmullan/502/netiquette.html
Netiquette is a set of rules that outlines socially acceptable behavior when you are communicating online. Students need to be taught how to behave and how to keep themselves safe online; this webpage highlights my ability to create HTML5 and CSS webpages but also the rules and guidelines I foster in my students.
Netiquette is a set of rules that outlines socially acceptable behavior when you are communicating online. Students need to be taught how to behave and how to keep themselves safe online; this webpage highlights my ability to create HTML5 and CSS webpages but also the rules and guidelines I foster in my students.
Friday 5 July 2013
Edtech Challenges
This was a tricky one; go safe with a website I have used before or go for a new tech and maybe make a mess of it! Why bother playing it safe when I am on this course to learn new stuff?- Muvizu it will be. After four failed download attempts I finally got it to work. I watched the tutorials and thought, "hey this is pretty cool". The thing is, I've seen applications like this before and there is no way I would master it in 4 days, especially when my computer is overheating trying to run the 3D graphics! I tried to replicate the tutorials and couldn't make my character move! I decided there that the application deserved more time than I could afford to give it in this instance and I promptly uninstalled it!
Since I have used Goanimate before, I decided to try Powtoon. I like this. A web app that permits the upload of .swf files; I'll be able to use that later! Pretty straight forward app right up until I realized that the voice-over had to be one continuous file; the slides don't accept separate audio files. I had to rethink how I was going to work. I downloaded Audacity and the Lame add-on to permit the export of mp3 files. It took a fair bit of creative editing but I think I managed to sync the slides reasonably well.
I chose element 6 of the significant challenges because it is a challenge I am actually facing at the moment. Every character in my animation is real at my school. The pastoral team are looking for a dynamic solution to target setting that links with the eportfolio and reflective writing the Sixth Form students have to do for the AQA Baccalaureate. Unfortunately, as a librarian colleague of mine pointed out in a paper he is about to publish, the British education system isn't very good at assessing 21st Century Skills.
I did some brief research but found this is an area my school definitely needs to look at. The International Baccalaureate (IB) seems to have this kind of assessment of the the students activities away from the classroom done rather well with the Creativity, Action, Service elements of their course. As a Duke of Edinburgh facilitator I am aware of IB schools employing the Duke of Edinburgh as part of their CAS offerings. This makes a lot of sense. Interestingly, we have this programme at our school but the skills of planning, organizing and leadership are not developed further in the school. I think I might try to change this, and with it, implement a more rounded assessment of the students skills and abilities; perhaps we should just do IB!
Since I have used Goanimate before, I decided to try Powtoon. I like this. A web app that permits the upload of .swf files; I'll be able to use that later! Pretty straight forward app right up until I realized that the voice-over had to be one continuous file; the slides don't accept separate audio files. I had to rethink how I was going to work. I downloaded Audacity and the Lame add-on to permit the export of mp3 files. It took a fair bit of creative editing but I think I managed to sync the slides reasonably well.
I chose element 6 of the significant challenges because it is a challenge I am actually facing at the moment. Every character in my animation is real at my school. The pastoral team are looking for a dynamic solution to target setting that links with the eportfolio and reflective writing the Sixth Form students have to do for the AQA Baccalaureate. Unfortunately, as a librarian colleague of mine pointed out in a paper he is about to publish, the British education system isn't very good at assessing 21st Century Skills.
I did some brief research but found this is an area my school definitely needs to look at. The International Baccalaureate (IB) seems to have this kind of assessment of the the students activities away from the classroom done rather well with the Creativity, Action, Service elements of their course. As a Duke of Edinburgh facilitator I am aware of IB schools employing the Duke of Edinburgh as part of their CAS offerings. This makes a lot of sense. Interestingly, we have this programme at our school but the skills of planning, organizing and leadership are not developed further in the school. I think I might try to change this, and with it, implement a more rounded assessment of the students skills and abilities; perhaps we should just do IB!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)