Login | Create an accountDiscussion Boards | Comments Stream
Login to use bookmarks

Learning 2.0 -- Overhauling Classroom Best Practices

When:
Session Two: Saturday 12:30pm–2:00pm
Where:
Room 208
Who:
David Warlick
Affiliation: The Landmark Project
Conversational Focus/Audience:
All School Levels
Conversation Description:

Participants in this conversation will discuss specific learning activities that are assigned by members, suggesting enhancements and new elements that bring the assignments into the light of learning 2.0. As a guide, participants will be able to collaboratively evaluate the evolving activities based on a number of criteria — mapping the activities visually. The purpose is to provide educators the practice of questioning the appropriateness and relevance of current best practices in light of hierarchies of thinking, our students native information experiences, and the changing character of our times. Professional collaboration will be another element of this conversation, suggesting that best practices can be enhanced through the enlightenment of conversation.

Conversational Practice:
My plan is to provide and ask for suggested classroom activities that may or may not already engage students effectively and at a high level. Participants with networked laptops and browser-equiped cell phone will then evaluate the lessons utilizing a graphical tool that I have developed for measuring instructional practices along two or more criteria spectrums. They may include Blooms Taxonomy, a metric for engagement, and one for relevance. I may also call up elements of our students "native" information experiences, asking participants to identify and suggest enhancements to the activities that leverage our students perspectives on content. The tool will provide a 2D map, which participants will use to touch spots of intersection indicating their beliefs about a specific activities placement on Blooms Taxonomy and some other spectrum of depth. A group projecting computer will display each participants vote and a mean position with ranges of standard deviation. It is my intent that this sort of open conversation, coupled with graphical voting will provoke questions like: * How do we move this activity along this line? * Who placed the activity here? Why? * What do you think he meant by engagement? * Why would that promote more collaboration? * Why is this learning better than that?
Elluminate Rooms ( instructions for launching Elluminate )
Stream via Elluminate: Room 208 — Channel B

Comments

Great Session. Wonderful backchat! I wish I could be in Philly, but connecting with other teachers via Elluminate or Vokle is fabulous :)

Sat 30 Jan 2010 02:09:54 PM EST

Sue Hellman Sue Hellman said:

Here's a blog about an interesting matrix for assessing the use of technology in classrooms: http://wilkesinstructionalmedia.blogspot.com/2010/01/technology-integration-matrix.html

Sat 30 Jan 2010 12:27:29 PM EST

I just learned, thanks to Diana, that I can make the change. So the description is now the correct one.

Fri 29 Jan 2010 03:10:31 PM EST

Quite observant, Dennis. They do not match, because, evidently, the wrong description was ported over from the wiki. The original description is there, and I'm sure that this page will be corrected soon.

Go the the URL below and search for "warlick" for the correct description...

http://bit.ly/wsb4m

Thu 28 Jan 2010 05:02:39 PM EST

David, the conversational description and practice both sound very interesting; however, from the descriptions I am not certain how one relates to the other. I suspect that the project described in the "conversational description" would be an excellent example for the analysis planned for the conference conversation. Also, the analysis tools are intriguing, and if they can support substantive conversations that help to address questions such as those you list, they hold much promise for communities of practice.

Sun 24 Jan 2010 09:29:36 PM EST