The Philadelphia Writing Project (PhilWP) at the University of Pennsylvania and the African American Museum in Philadelphia (AAMP) developed and hosted a series of events focused on the hidden histories of African American women in Philadelphia from 1700 to the present. Using shared texts including They Carried Us: The Social Impact of Philadelphia’s Black Women Leaders (Baker-Rogers & Traylor 2020) and two books by Gholdy Mohammad—Cultivating Genius and Unearthing Joy—teachers engaged in inquiry together and then organized four public panel discussions and created open-source resources for students, educators, and community members to freely access.
Hear from the Dina Portnoy, Barrett Rosser, and Trey Smith about the project and the array of resources now available.
Webinar: Connecting Past and Present with Primary Sources and Civically Engaged Argument Writing
PhilWP Summer Institute 2022 website: For this Institute, PhilWP partnered with the African American Museum in Philadelphia (AAMP) to engage teachers, young people, and community members in exploring The Hidden Histories of African American Women in Philadelphia from the 1700s to the present. Daily agendas and linked resources are available. The related Padlet resource is also available.
Quick Writing: Our Lessons Learned in the Marginal Syllabus 2016-2017
During the week of July 10th, we – Remi Kalir and Joe Dillon- attended the National Writing Project’s Resource Development Retreat (RDR; and check out #NWPRDR17 on Twitter) in Denver, Colorado. Throughout the 2016-17 academic school year, we played key roles in organizing and facilitating the Marginal Syllabus, an openly networked experiment in educator professional learning that leverages web annotation, social reading practices, and author partnerships to advance conversations about educational equity. Part geeky book club, part digital learning resource, the Marginal Syllabus embraces an intentional double entendre; we partner with authors whose writing may be considered marginal – or contrary to – dominant education norms, and our online conversations with authors occur in the margins of their texts by using the web annotation platform Hypothesis.
Our passion project has grown, and the NWP RDR was a welcome opportunity to reflect, design, receive feedback, and plan for next year. As an entry point into the week’s collaborative work, we began by clarifying some of the core values that have guided our organization and facilitation of the Marginal Syllabus. These values include:
Fostering transparency and openness;
Designing experiments via technology;
Inquiring through partnership; and
Sustaining critical conversations about equity.
We were tasked with two broad responsibilities for our work during the RDR.
First, our retrospective activities will include the development of resources for educators that summarize what happened during the first year, curate information about our conversations, and make the entire syllabus accessible as an open educational resource (or OER; also, read more the Marginal Syllabus as OER). One example of this curation includes our recently published The 2016-17 Syllabus, a summary of author partnerships, nine annotated texts, and some educator takeaways (thanks to our many partner authors and participants!).
Second, our forward-looking efforts are all about design – sketching out a plan, sustaining and growing partnerships, and detailing concrete next steps for Marginal Syllabus activities during the 2017-18 academic year. Last year, Marginal Syllabus programming concluded on a notable high thanks to an emergent partnership with the NWP’s Educator Innovator initiative. While we welcome and are very thankful for this emergent partnering, we’re now eager to more proactively shape future collaborative activities.
The purpose of this page is to address – provisionally and formatively – one aspect of our retrospective work that, most simply, boils down to this question: What did we learn from the first year of Marginal Syllabus activities? As reflective educators who are both active in the world of digital media and learning, engaging a question about our own learning is a welcome opportunity for introspection, iterative design, and strengthened collaboration. We also approach this question from different yet complementary perspectives: Joe is a K-12 educator, Remi is a professor; Joe has a history of collaboration with the NWP and the Denver Writing Project, and has facilitated the Young Writers Camp, whereas Remi is a newcomer to NWP activities and communities. We’re engaging with the RDR – and, more specifically, this question about what we’ve learned – from both varied experiences and also shared commitments.
So, what have we learned? On the RDR’s second morning, we sketched out a poster that introduced the Marginal Syllabus to other RDR participants. As a part of this poster session, we literally spent five minutes detailing provisional inquiry prompts that have consequently helped us to answer our “what did we learn” question. What resulted were three writing prompts which suggest broad lessons related to partnerships, the design of professional learning, the emergence of a community of practice, and research.
Here are some of those prompts; we’ve each responded individually to highlight our personal experience, useful divergence in our thinking, and some common insights.
1. How has partnership defined activities, and how will partnership sustain activities?
JD: For Remi and I, our different vantage points – he’s from higher ed and I’m from K12 – have resulted in a diverse set of texts that frame marginality differently. Our different personal connections have also helped this work intersect with the work of organizations like Virtually Connecting and Educator Innovator. As we experiment with emergent design and seek to form a community of practice, we’ve had to think about the interests of partners and participants, and reflect on their reactions to social annotation and equity issues. In a couple of instances, a partner’s idea led us to include synchronous Google Hangout discussions as part of the monthly reading and response. Partnering with authors and publishers moving forward will allow us to continually surface new texts about equity issues and responses to the processes we use to facilitate social online annotation. Partnering will also surface emergent interests in annotation technology.
RK: We launched the Marginal Syllabus with a core commitment to author partnership. It was important that authors consented to have their writing annotated – and annotated publicly as a means of conversation and professionally-relevant learning. Accordingly, we set clear expectations with authors about how to access, mark up, and talk about their texts. In some cases, we also consulted with authors about how to annotate texts published according to copyright standards. Partnership also meant establishing participation expectations, such as how authors would engage during live annotation activities and, eventually, Educator Innovator-hosted webinars (as we did last April and May). The lessons we’ve learned about author partnership indicate opportunities to improve how these partners develop and/or leverage their technical fluency (especially with web annotation), share their public participation, and continue to reference their annotated texts as learning resources.
2. How has this experiment in professional learning changed based upon structure and supports?
JD: We made a structural shift when we changed the time window for annotation from a one-hour “flash-mob” format to a week-long “annotathon” format. This may not have changed participation drastically, but it did change the way our invitations sounded – we created more opportunity – and increased potential participation.
Another structural consideration that arose was the technical barrier to entry, which snuck up on me as an issue because the first few authors and groups of participants picked up Hypothes.is readily. It wasn’t until the last month when Bronwyn LaMay, our participating author, asked a few good clarifying questions in the lead up to our synchronous annotation and the webinar to discuss the chapter that I realized how much we’d asked of her technically. She needed to create a Hypothes.is account and familiarize herself with the tool at the same time we asked her to read over the planning document for the Educator Innovator webinar. The addition of the Google Hangout as a structure made the monthly reading increasingly social and also raised a technical hurdle.
RK: As I wrote about last January, our early annotation conversations were structured around the idea of a “flash mob,” though that organizing metaphor failed to capture people’s sustained participation in annotation over longer periods of time. Accordingly, one of the first major changes to the Marginal Syllabus structure was a shift toward week-long “annotathons.” This change in conversation format coincided with our Educator Innovator partnership, and was a new means of supporting and scaling how educators might access, learn about, and contribute to conversation activities. Among these changes to structure to support, we were reminded that web annotation aligns well with a broader media ecology; participating educators were not only using Hypothesis to mark up texts, they were also sharing publicly via Twitter and blogging to reflect on their distinct efforts. We’ve learned that it’s important to be flexible about the structures that support open and collaborative annotation, to welcome a broad range of complementary social media practices, and to amplify participant experiences.
3. What have we heard from our participants, including partner authors, and how does this help us inquire about what’s happened during our first year?
JD: Participants in social annotation comment about their reading process, which is notable. They sometimes reflect that the annotations pull them away from the text to engage in a discussion thread in the margins. Repeat participants have remarked to me that they prefer to read a text one time through before they annotate and consider the annotations of others. Why is this important? Increasingly, I’m familiar with definitive claims about the way people read in online spaces. It seems generally accepted that people read more closely on paper while they are more likely to skim digital texts. Still, If reading on paper is superior for close reading, research is needed about the potential for digitally-enabled reading and its capacity to support extended cognition. The reading people do using annotation software and encountering other readers’ thoughts, might prove to be closer reads because they consider different viewpoints and questions they otherwise wouldn’t while reading.
As for what we hear from authors, everyone we have asked for permission to read and mark up their work so far has granted permission. It bears noting that Bronwyn LaMay remarked that the conversation we had with her online was an uplifting experience, probably because it was the end of a school year and she appreciated us considering her work so carefully.
RK: As someone who regularly wears a researcher hat, I’ll keep my response here brief. First, it’s important to remind people that by using Hypothesis publicly, annotators agree to license their annotation content according to a Creative Commons CC0 Public Domain Dedication (check out Hypothesis’ Terms of Service). Second, my research about educator participation in open and collaborative annotation as professionally-relevant activity is summarized and publicly available here. And third, I’m quite thankful to have begun collaborating with amazing doctoral students, professors, Hypothesis staff, and others who are committed to inquiry about the ways in which (digital) annotation is changing reading, learning, scholarship, and publication. From a research perspective, the Marginal Syllabus embraces a design-based research methodology, and my retrospective analysis about the first year – as an initial iteration – is a focus of forthcoming presentations and publications.
Though these “lessons learned” read as somewhat declarative and definitive, we reiterate that these are rough draft thoughts and, as such, we welcome your responses, questions, and criticisms (and, it should go without saying, you’re very welcome to engage via Hypothesis annotation!). Moreover, we would be thrilled to hear responses from Marginal Syllabus participants, partner authors, or our colleagues at the NWP RDR.
Finally, a brief note of thanks: Throughout our experiences at the RDR, we’ve been deftly and graciously supported by NWP staff, most especially Tanya Baker, Christina Cantrill, and Liana Gamber-Thompson. We’re grateful for their support and critique in helping us to advance open and interest-driven educator learning about educational equity via the Marginal Syllabus.
What follows is a summary of the nine texts, author partnerships, and annotation conversations that comprised the 2016-17 Marginal Syllabus. Read more about this project at marginalsyllab.us.
Conversation Context: In August we read Digital Redlining, Access, and Privacy, a blog post for Common Sense Education written by Chris Gilliard and Hugh Culik. The authors explain the way IT safety nets and employee management efforts can create inequitable educational opportunities for learners. Chris Gilliard joined us to mark up the text during our first “flash mob,” as well as for a discussion in a Google Hangout. Thanks to Autumm Caines for organizing the post-flash mob hangout (and check out her great work as part of the Virtually Connecting project).
This reading might help educators:
Respond to student curiosity online with positive assumptions and curiosity.
Consider the assumptions we make about a youth’s Internet searches and their use of digital tools.
Ask critical questions with IT leadership about acceptable use policies, Internet blocks and filters in order to determine their impact on learning.
Conversation Context: In September we annotated Mia Zamora’s blog post, Speculative Design for Emergent Learning: Taking Risks, which appeared at dmlcentral.net. Mia writes about the way she changed her approach to a course she taught called “Writing Race and Ethnicity” at Keane University. Mia joined in the synchronous annotation as we discussed the risks she took as an instructor with co-design. In particular, this post shares her public reflections about instructional decision-making that was timely and urgent in light of the #BlackLivesMatter movement that influenced changes to her course.
This reading might help educators:
Plan instruction to take into account current events and the civic climate.
Allow students to share in shaping the content of a course, or produce work that is personally meaningful as a result.
Plan course content and structure so that the teacher, too, is learning.
Conversation Context: In October we marked up a chapter excerpted from Antero Garcia and Cindy O’Donnell-Allen’s book Pose, Wobble, and Flow: a Culturally Proactive Approach to Literacy Instruction. Antero and Cindy introduce yoga as an inspiring metaphor for teacher learning, and they provide concrete examples of culturally relevant pedagogy that exemplify their model of Pose, Wobble, and Flow. Their analogy frames in decidedly realistic and human terms the way real teachers develop and improve their craft. In addition to October’s synchronous annotation flash mob, another group of annotators contributed substantially to this text in February.
This reading might help educators:
Think about the “pose” we hope to strike in our practice and consider equity in professional goal setting.
Prepare for the iterative process of teacher learning and improvement in the classroom, in order to learn from inevitable “wobbles.”
Develop new flexibility and strengths in our work with students.
Conversation Context: In November we read Helen Beetham’s blog post Ed Tech and the circus of unreason right on the heels of the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States. In it, she reflected on his victory as well as the state of educational technology from a higher education perspective. She delivers a list of responsibilities for educators based on the stunning election result and, in doing so, synthesizes political reality with the shifting landscape of the Internet. She joined us in our annotation of her post, and commented in the margins with participants who were grappling with the political news and the questions it raised about educational technology.
This reading might help educators:
Unpack our response to the political climate and the way it might change the way we view digital tools and our work in online spaces.
Consider our responsibilities in response to civic events.
Determine the real promise of digital tools as we investigate some false promises propagated in educational technology circles.
Conversation Context: In January we annotated John Dewey’s historical educational text The School and Society with Christina Cantrill of Arcadia University and the National Writing Project. Christina chose the text and invited her teacher education course at Arcadia to join us in our annotation. Dewey’s words reminded us of how social change is interwoven inextricably with education. The responses in Dewey’s margins grapple with that marriage, and serve as a kind of signpost toward contemporary social change efforts and implications for educators, students, and schools.
This reading might help educators:
Grapple with time-honored theory as it relates to modern communities and schooling.
Contextualize community responses to civic events in order to determine our responses.
Challenge traditions in our contexts and in our practice.
Conversation Context: In February we read Reading, Writing and Inquiry with Adolescents, the preface of Dawn Reed and Troy Hicks’ book Research Writing Rewired: Lessons that Ground Digital Learning. Both authors joined us to mark up this short excerpt of their book, which shares three core principles they employ in the planning for, and instruction of, research writing. The text speaks to the way research writing has evolved for them in response to new content standards, the ubiquity of digital tools for writing and publication, and the prevalence of the Internet as a site of inquiry and research.
This reading might help educators to:
Plan writing instruction in response to promising practices established from educational research.
Explore the principles of Connected Learning to plan for authentic uses of digital tools in the classroom.
Create an active role for the student researcher that responds student interest.
Conversation Context: In April, during our first week-long “annotathon” in partnership with Educator Innovator, we marked up Between Storytelling and Surveillance: The Precarious Public of American Muslim Youth, a chapter from the book By Any Media Necessary, by Henry Jenkins, Sangita Shresthova, Liana Gamber-Thompson, Neta Kligler-Vilenchik, and Arely Zimmerman. The chapter author Sangita Shresthova joined us in the annotation of her study of American Muslim youth’s experiences online. We learned about the ways in which American Muslim youth experience islamophobia online, and also how they endure the criticism of older community members who take issue with some youth’s desire to have expressive and creative online identities. As a part of the week’s professional learning activities, we also joined a Google Hangout conversation with the book’s authors hosted via EducatorInnovator.org.
This reading might help educators:
Discuss issues and opportunities germane to Muslim American youth with learners interested in culture, identity, and expression in our contemporary political climate.
Expand their online networks to include Muslim American youth and/or to engage around pertinent cultural conversations.
Include positive media representations of Muslim American youth in classroom teaching and learning.
Conversation Context: In May we read Revising Narrative Truth, a chapter excerpt from Bronwyn Clare LaMay’s book Personal Narrative, Revised. Bronwyn joined us for the annotation and for a Google Hangout hosted via the EducatorInnovator.org network. The chapter shares the story of LaMay’s work with one student who reveals traumatic personal details about his life in response to her encouragement to write personal narratives in search of truth. Her responses to conflicts that arise with that student – and the larger classroom community – offer an inspiring story about relationship negotiation among all learners (including educators).
This reading might help educators:
Support students to investigate their own stories and values.
Learn from productive conflict with learners that inevitably arises in classrooms.
Develop inclusive classroom communities that nurture student risk-taking, expression, and learning.
For the last two summers, I have worked closely with two fellow teacher consultants at the Bay Area Writing Project’s Young Writing Camp in San Francisco. Last year, we were new writing camp teachers so we were experimenting with writing and technology using videos and digital storytelling. We wanted to intertwine writing with technology to engage our students and push their creativity.
Our first summer, we used Google Documents as a way for students to share their work, to comment and help each other edit. However, we found that it limited the audience, the author had to invite readers to their piece thereby limiting both feedback and encouragement. We wanted a space that was inclusive to the entire camp. We wanted an open space where every student had the opportunity to read everyone’s work. We also wanted a space that was both user and instructor friendly, especially with only three weeks of a half-day camp.
This summer, we improved upon the previous summer’s lessons and used pbworks.com, a free blog and wiki site with each student having their own blog page to compose and receive feedback on. We continued with the video and digital story telling, however pbworks.com allowed for a wider audience and was very user friendly when it came to students sharing and editing, or uploading pictures and finished videos.
Our writing camp is different, because it has a “Technology Component” that includes film-making and photography. We strive to enhance the technology component using the Web 2.0 technologies of our camp, yet, not lose the essence of writing.
In pbworks.com, we created a page on our wiki for each student, allowing for individual creativity.
The wiki allowed all the students at the camp to read, and comment on each other’s work. Though the students were divided into groups, based on age and skills, to help better meet their needs, they were not confined to them. The students were not limited to only reading writings from their group, rather they could read across ages. Hearing some parent concerns on Internet safety, we safeguarded the website via invitation, only students, parents, and staff were allowed access to the wiki.
Although the summer has ended and camp concluded two months ago, students are still using the website. Students are still writing, editing and commenting on each other’s writing. As we reflect upon the summer, we ourselves, why are our Young Writer’s Camp students still writing on the website? What’s motivating them to continue writing?
The Process
As a teacher, I have continually struggled in teaching my students to appreciate the need to go through the writing process. Many students just write once, without proofreading and turning the original piece in for a grade. Students do not see the need to reflect, make corrections, and add details, in their writing. They see the writing process as a chore and non-engaging. The student’s audience is the teacher, and the end result is the grade. Once the grade is assigned, the piece is “dead.” The student will not go back to the piece again.
We weren’t school; instead we were a writing camp. We didn’t give topics and subjects the students had to write about, nor were students given grades or deadlines. Rather they chose what they wanted to write about. Students would conference with each of the teachers and with each other, working to grow as writers. Our students yearned to write. They could spend hours inside the computer lab composing, and some wanted to go home and read what someone else had written.
The process was different for every student. Some students would begin their piece on paper then type it onto their wiki page; others would just type their work on their wiki page. For our younger students, an older student, one of the teachers, or volunteers would help type the piece. To facilitate the flow of writing, older students or teachers would type for the student who had fewer keyboarding skills. We didn’t want typing to inhibit our young writers from the experience of being in a community of writers because they were frustrated with the process of keyboarding.
As seventh grader James was typing Chloe’s lengthy story onto her blog page, he commented how many times she used the word “said.” His schoolteacher had taught them that “said is dead.”
Eliza whispered, “Chloe just finished second grade.”
James replied, “Oh. She can write for a second grader! Then said is not dead.”
The passion for writing grew stronger and stronger as more and more students placed their work on their page. Students thrived on other’s reading their work. Interestingly, only constructive comments were written for the author. They were learning to support each other rather then discouraging each other about grammar and spelling mistakes.
Students wrote comments on the author’s blog seeking more, and praising the author. The author read the feedback, corrected or added to their piece.
We discovered something amazing. Unknowingly, the author was revising, correcting, publishing, and utilizing the writing process taught in schools. Since it was peer driven, the student didn’t realize that they were involved in the editing process. For some students their writing was continually spiraling, where they constantly revisit that piece to add or fix it. The students did not seek the teacher’s approval rather they listened to what their peers had to say. Writing became vibrant, personal, and meaningful.
The author’s friends edged the author for more.
A Young Writing Community
Students were courageous in putting their writing on the wiki page. Everyone at camp, including parents could read what was written. The blog included all students, there was no exclusion and everyone was included. A writing community and culture was built, established and trusted. The author knew the audience was authentic. The audience cared about the author’s writing and commented accordingly. The community allowed students to write safely, and to try.
The blog became a place to share.
Many students had probably never been a part of a writing community, and now they are. They had a place to showcase their work, and they were able to be who they are without constraints. The older student had a hard time being without writing boundaries. Some asked, “What do I write about now?” They had been super imposed with years of educational writing – persuasive, literary analysis, expository, etc. leaving them initially stiff in their writing.
For sixth grader Jake, he was able to break free and to find his voice. He was able to freely explore on his terms. He wrote about subjects that are dear to his heart.
Did the sense of belonging and acceptance trigger the students to write more. We believe the students felt connected with one another and writing was the common ground. Writing was the vehicle uniting the youngest to the oldest student together, and technology was the ignition/gas that carried them forward.
Teacher Reflection
Many students first placed a poem on their wiki page and from there the writing explosion began.
We can not exactly explain what made the writing community powerful. Was it the technology component? Technology is a dominant form of communication for students and we wanted to use it, exploit to engage them and enhance their writing. Many students today are connected with technology and were we using technology to our advantage? Rather than paper pencil, students were publishing online, something they may not have done before. Was it is because there was an instant audience? Once a student published his/her work online, it instantly becomes available for everyone to read. Was it is because no topic was off limits? One week, we were all teaching about descriptive writing and as a result Harlo’s story The Blue Poo was created. Watch as Harlo tells his story: [Original media is no longer available].
We don’t know the exact answers to our questions. We know that we want our students to enjoy writing and the creativity that it offers. For many students, writing became a joyful process. As in the video, Harlo was able to write and read his story about the incident with his brother. Would he able to do so in a regular classroom setting? Would his teacher approve? At camp, Harlo was praised for his story, and students helped him develop it into a powerful descriptive story about blue poo.
Harlo’s brother, Ozzie responds to his brother’s story with a poem of his own.
Creativity was supported and embraced.
We didn’t want camp to reflect the demands and requirements of school. The students called us by our first names. They weren’t assigned to specific teachers rather they had the freedom to go between teachers, and the wiki allowed for that. Did the teacher’s openness create an environment where students felt free to explore and allow their writing to blossom?
According to the students, we probably took off the “academic” out of writing, but we wonder if indeed we were “academic” and they just didn’t realize it. We wonder if we told them they went through the actual writing process they would believe us?
Over the last several years, I’ve looked for ways to use technology to enhance my classroom practice, students’ critical thinking, and student engagement. In 2008, I was introduced to blogs as a way to make students’ writing public. The following reflections discuss the rationale and steps I used to implement blogs in my classroom in a way that not only fostered critical engagement with written and visual texts and encouraged student participation but provided an opportunity to write for an authentic audience.
Assignment Rationale
Every day community colleges students are bombarded with texts that aim to sway their opinions, entice them to buy products, or ask them to think a particular way about a political candidate, the classes they might take, or the issues that concern them. As readers and writers in the digital age, a fellow community college colleague and I felt that it was important for students to think through, understand, and be critical of these texts. We wanted them to be particularly critical of the “information” they so often access without question on the internet, so we developed this rhetorical analysis assignment.
The assignment asked students to analyze the moves made in one of several websites assigned to the class. Students were asked to identify the author, audience, and purpose. Then they were asked to analyze the rhetoric of the images, the colors, the font style, and the text. They were to answer the question: How does the author attempt to reach the audience? Then, they needed to address the follow-up question, which asked students to reflect on whether or not the author was effective in reaching the intended audience.
Our goal was to help students to become aware of the ways in which information can be presented to easily sway an intended audience. Our hope is for students to be critical readers and thinkers in the world. While our goals may be lofty, our objectives were much more grounded. For this assignment, 1) students would be able critically read a website; 2) students would be able to use analysis of style, layout, and text to make claims about how the website worked to reach its intended audience; and, 3) students would be able to evaluate the efficacy of the site in reaching its intended audience.
The assignment had clear objectives and goals, and my colleague and I were satisfied with the work in which the students would engage. But, we felt the assignment could work to foster additional critical thinking if we could further the dialog. We decided one way to continue the dialog outside of class was to have the students post their analyses to an inter-campus blog. In 2008, my colleague and I attended the Northern California Writing Project Summer Institute, where we were introduced to blogs as a classroom tool. As a result, my students (Yuba) and my colleague’s students (at two separate campuses) posted their finished papers to a blog. Once the analyses were public, the students at all three campuses (Butte, Shasta) were asked to respond one another using some clear lines of questioning.
The results were better than we could have anticipated. Students’ original analyses were really interesting, but their discussions online were even more so. What was even more surprising was the fact that their original papers became the subject of a larger discussion outside of their class. Some of the authors of the websites they had analyzed commented on their analyses. In one instance, a students’ analysis of a health food website was adopted as a reference on another health website. Suddenly, the dialog of the students reached beyond their classrooms and campus to the world.
The First Step: Create a Common Assignment
Since the students were going to contribute a piece of writing to the web, we wanted them to investigate the rhetorical purposes and moves behind online documents. So, we created an assignment, that supported by class readings and discussion, asked them to analyze one of eight websites, to identify the intended audience, identify appeals (ethos, pathos, logos) in use, and to discuss the potential success or failure of the site to reach the intended audience.
Second Step: Publish to the Web
Once students (at all three campuses) were done with their analyses, they were asked to publish their work to a common blog-site, Edublogs. Posts were categorized by the website under analysis. This enabled analyses in common to be grouped together.
Third Step: Engage Students in Dialogue
Once students (at all three campuses) had completed and published their analyses on the class blog site, students were then asked to respond to each other. Student online response has to be carefully constructed. If not, there is the danger that superficial comments (those reminiscent of myspace comments) can take over. Because our goal was to create a space of thoughtful dialog we created questions to guide the responses:
Do you agree or disagree with the writer’s assertion about the overall efficacy of the website? Why? Why not?
Were your thoughts on the website’s author, audience, and purpose similar or different? Explain the differences and or similarities. Reflect on the writer’s reasons and arguments. Were they similar or different?
What was interesting and/or insightful about this writer’s paper?
Why did you chose this analysis? What makes it interesting, insightful, important?
What were the writer’s claims about the author, audience, purpose, and efficacy of the site? After viewing the site do you agree or disagree? Why? Why not? Explain.
Why were the writer’s conclusions persuasive? Why? Why not? Explain.
Here is an example of a student response [Note original media shared is no longer available]. This was my colleague’s student, but in this comment, she is actually responding to me. In a previous response to another student, Hrossi had left some very brief comments. I pushed her for clarification and explanation. Though there is some informality in her response (which is indicative of a blogging), her insights focus on the content of the assignment (credibility) and she gives an example that demonstrates her clear understanding of the concept in the world outside of the assignment.
The Results: Were Great!
Overall, the results were fantastic!
Students original analysis were thoughtful examples of critical thinking in action.
Students were enthusiastic and excited about participating in a online writing environment.
Because they were publishing on a website, they were more careful to produce a finished product.
The students’ discussions with one another were thoughtful and insightful. They furthered students’ critical thinking.
The online forum helped form an academic community beyond our classroom.
Students’ found responses to their writing not only from students in the other classes, but from the public at large. In one instance, one of the website creators of a site under analysis responded to a students’ critique.
Students felt like their writing was read and validated and/or discussed by others.
Overview: The original version of The War of the Worlds radio news bulletin was aired on October 30, 1938 by Orson Welles. I was intrigued by the idea that the machines were destroyed by the Earth’s viruses, which is now a widespread topic in our increasing technological world. This led me to have a discussion with my students on the topic of computer viruses and ways to change the problem before we began the project. The broadcast occurred at the end of Great Depression and pre-World War II. The economic structure of the US was weakened at that time. These conditions have resurfaced during the uncertain economic times in 2009. We learn from the past and strive to make our future better and this is the audacity of the project. Indeed, history returns!
This project enables teachers to connect creative writing, technology and history. In this way, it brings new opportunities for learners, especially when they are asked to write about something that has not happened yet. The cycles of predicting the future involves researching the past, connecting facts to the present in order to develop a futuristic story. In doing the project, students are writing and recording. They are also using computers for research and interacting with web-based programs.
The trust of the teacher is vital for students to be independent in their choice of envisioning a topic for their futuristic story. The application of creativity goes beyond some of the traditional ways of gathering and presenting information to be shared with others. The process is authentic and reaches a variety of learning styles for learners to express themselves independently and in groups. After all, it is the creative ideas and concepts that fuel new concepts in learning and our society.
Inquiry and Project Description
The spark for my inquiry resulted from a documentary I viewed on Orson Welles. I was intrigued by the technological connections between the humans and robots. Additionally, I am a native of New Jersey where the original broadcast about the ‘War of the Worlds’ occurred. My professional and personal connections led to this inquiry project for my student’s to predict their own future.
Project Overview:
This project is a part of the read/write component which enhanced the overall curriculum in my Computer Applications classes. The goal of the writing unit is to empower all students to the level of powerful literacy. Students explored the context of literacy learning with technology. They gathered and applied conventions of text and audio to support their understandings of diversified skills in the twenty-first century. Two high school classes, consisting mostly of ninth grade students saw opportunities to ‘step out of the box’ in learning and imagined what life would be like in the year 2034. The project began as a unit based on the audio version of ‘War of the Worlds.’ It seemed appropriate as a teacher to provide students an outline of the many elements comprising the story and play the original broadcast of the War of the Worlds which was narrated by Orson Welles in 1938. Initially, students worked individually and progressed to teams when technology and writing came into play for their stories. From my perspective, I saw this as an opportunity to teach and discuss computer ethics, proper researching techniques to recording stories with a digital recorder with my classes.
Process:
Students used computers for research, listening to the original version of the ‘War of the Worlds’ on CD, which also included a vocabulary lesson on decoding key words. Each student was provided a brainstorming sheet for their own idea. They had to write out their ideas. I reviewed each of my students’ ideas and grouped students (2-3 per story) based on their similar brainstorming concepts. Each class appeared comfortable with their assigned partners and immediately began to discuss their ideas into a more defined concept. Group members rotated responsibilities in researching and redeveloping a story of the future consisting of at least 120 words (approximately one minute of recording). There was a dynamic connection as group members applied their creativity in writing their futuristic story of 2034. Each group practiced reading their story to the class prior to the final digital recording. Students practiced several times with the digital recorder and listed their track so I could easily find and convert their story from .zvr to .mp3 format for the web.
Reflections
Student Assessments:
Thirty-four students in my two classes completed a survey on the reading, writing and technological processes of this unit. Each class rated individual components of the unit. The digital recording ranked highest amongst the surveys while the class averages were above average in the enjoyment of the project. Technology does promote creative behavior and this is demonstrated by my students’ feedback. The written story was the most difficult for all classes. When asked what they would do differently with the War of the Worlds project, they responded:
Practice more
Research better 2
Figure out the voice recorder better
Put in more dialogue
I would have included a little more information about new technologies 2
Nothing 5
Have a parent or someone else read the lines with me. Also, I would like to make a PowerPoint presentation on the topic
Write it better
I would have made the project more clearly, sarcastic, yet realistic
Correct spelling and grammar
Self-Assessment:
This is the second time I implemented this project in my Computer Application classes. The project involved many aspects in learning such as research, writing, technology, creativity and critical thinking. The goal of the lessons was to provide diversified initiatives with a variety of digital tools in order to prepare a holistic writing sample for the unit. This project enabled students to take a more active role in learning.
The root word exercise provided a primary resource for students to practice from a website that provided instantaneous feedback to students. Learning with computers offered students the opportunity to read, respond and reinforce their understanding of words in a non-intimidating manner. Although students worked individually, students seated nearby assisted their peers. This led to a collaboration amongst learners as they completed a variety of levels in root word development and the onset of the writing process.
Students worked individually researching different types of technology. They demonstrated interest in their chosen topics and uploaded their work to a network folder. I commented on their idea and grouped students’ in teams of two or three based on their topics. Secondly, the teams were introduced to five academic standards based on the impact of technology on society. The team used computers to enhance their knowledge of technology, type a title and abstract for their story. Upon approval, the teams continued to write their one-minute scripts prior to recording their story of the future. All teams became active participants with the digital recorders and this is evident with my students’ favorable responses with recording their final story with the digital recorder.
The ‘War of the Worlds’ CD lesson was the most difficult part of the unit. Students had difficulty listening and writing facts from what they heard into a word processing program. Despite the overwhelming popularity of mp3 players and I-Pods amongst teenagers, most had difficulty with this lesson because they are used to listening only to music. Learning to listen for content and key words was a challenge. One team used sound as a background introduction and for emphasis. This should be kept to a minimum so as to not distract from the narrative. Writing from drafts, the final copy, practicing and recording their work was the most dynamic part of the unit. All teams worked cooperatively and collaboratively during this phase of the project. It was definitely a teachable moment for me.
I plan to incorporate other disciplines into the curriculum in future units and involve parents in the process. I foresee team teaching this unit with a Social Studies and/or Science teacher in the future. This webpage will be uploaded to my school website. This project could also be applied to online publishing sites such as blogs and wikis. These participatory tools present authentic and meaningful opportunities for my students to share and obtain feedback with others outside of the classroom.
This I Believe, the series resurrected by National Public Radio, provides an immense resource for thinking about our values. With each essay, the voices of “regular” people articulate passionate and compelling arguments for the listener’s consideration. We listen almost motionless savoring every detail of the essay. By the end, when the speaker says, “This I believe,” we believe it too. This mode of discourse creates an immediate connection to a listening audience and this is the relationship my students deserve to experience.
Using This I Believe as the foundation for the multi-modal presentation, students must merge their oral essays with music, images, video, text, and enhancing design features.
The Rationale
If we watch typical teenagers connected to their electronic gadgets, we know they are determined users of technology. They immediately react to it, checking for text messages, adjusting musical selections, and clicking here and there “searching” for a myriad of social connections. They experience technology minute by minute with thousands of friends and gamers. They’ve never known a world without it.
Multi-modal documents, one of the new literacies, provide the genre for the insights of articulate writers to reach beyond notebooks. This project connects students’ academic skills to their social habits, and forces them to accept the responsibility that speaking up and speaking out require.
This project requires teenage writers to intentionally utilize technology for “building” an idea rather than “using” it for staying connected.
The Inspiration
Peter Kittle’s multi-modal presentation of James Gee’s learning theory takes viewers to the core of Gee’s work. Through a series of videos, still images, and website screen shots merged with narration and music, Gee’s ideas easily reach the viewer. Kittle’s video inspired this project.
The Process
There comes a time in teaching when we need to jump in and trust that our theories and practices will prevail. Teaching takes risk sometimes, and for the person who flinches at these sorts of projects, I say…if I can figure this out, so can you.
I came to this project with a solid knowledge of writing instruction, but I knew very little about multimodal presentations. Like other things I don’t know how to do, I asked some experts for help: my writing project friends and teaching colleagues.
Because so much internet access is blocked from schools, and our hardware is outdated, we pushed ahead with what is available. Some students own laptops, cell phones, digital cameras, and ipods. We gathered up cables, a scanner, and extra cameras. And we used whatever movie making program is installed on our school’s computers. My friend reminds me that you always “dance with who you brung.” We used what we had and it worked .
Studying Models
We spent a few days listening and reading actual selections from the This I Believe collection. Choosing pieces with more of an interest for teenagers: Be Cool to the Pizza Dude ; Always Go to the Funeral; The People Who Love You When No One Else Will, we listened then discussed the effectiveness of each one. We read from printed pages in order to identify particular strategies and features that impacted our impressions and responses to the speaker’s purpose.
In addition to Peter Kittle’s multimodel presentation, we watched Jason Shiroff’s Daddy Duty video. After several showings of each, students noted presentational modes they wanted to include in their own essays and videos.
Finding a Topic
Students composed extensive lists of beliefs, then tinkered with experiences that lead to those beliefs. This is the most intense, emotional, and frustrating step in the process.
Many students began with one idea and ultimately abandoned it.
(NPR makes a curriculum available, although we didn’t follow it.)
The Writing
The writing is EVERYTHING. Glitz and music can’t make a weak paper strong. This fact alone motivates good writing.
After studying and internalizing the intent of writing a personal philosophy, students composed either by handwriting their essays, or word processing them.
Revising and rewriting happened spontaneously as students tested their essays’ effectiveness.
The Recording
Voice recording requires practice with phrasing and articulation. This is a time-consuming step in the process because recording takes at least 30 minutes per person. We have learned that cell phone recording quality is sub-par. Therefore, students recorded themselves reading their essays using a 1990 something laptop and a simple and inexpensive headset. Students sat in a quiet room, read their essays into the microphone, listened to them, and rerecorded as needed.
We learned that marking essays for revision required more than traditional notation. Students invented ways of indicating voice inflection, image placement, and musical timing. They rehearsed reading and carefully planned phrasing to synchronize with music, pictures, slides, and videos. This process helped them conceptualize their final projects.
The Field Trip Without the Field Trip: Making a movie
Composing a multimodal project demands an extended time frame. To create several consecutive hours for students to work, we took them on The Field Trip Without the Field Trip. If students miss a full day of school for sports or trips to other events and locations, why not take them to the computer lab for a day of composing?
Students arrived at school on the day of the field trip prepared to compose their videos. We gave general instructions, including permission to use their usually banned cell phones, ipods, and locked down websites. Students with lap tops accessed a wireless connection set up by the school’s technology expert, with access lasting from 8-3.
For a single school day, 100 students were given the freedom to work on a single project without interruptions. They had access to adult mentors, school resources, and one another.
(In order to qualify for attending the field trip, we established due dates for the essay’s final draft and the voice recording.)
Not a single student missed the field trip!
The Results
The following videos illustrate the accomplishments of several students whose deeply held beliefs and philosophies take shape through multimodes.
Eduardo, in his video entitled I Believe in Language, inserts the voices of others to make his point. Even though he makes some odd slide choices, he provides a vast array of images, film, slides, and sound to make us believe in the power of language too.
[Original media is no longer available.]
When Luis heard the assignment, he immediately knew, I Believe in Love at First Sight. Although this sounds trite, it isn’t.
[Original media is no longer available.]
Dusty struggled finding a topic. At one point another student reminded her that if she didn’t completely believe in her topic, her essay would show it and her video would “just be a slide show.” She took his advice and created the language that captured her belief.
[Original media is no longer available.]
Casey’s video is a testimony to I Believe in Union. He uses still shots, slides, and video to tell his philosophy. This video became one of the school’s most popular.
[Original media is no longer available.]
Authors of multimodal compositions anticipate an audience’s response. Because these videos explore authentic points of view and share deeply held personal philosophies, my students prepared themselves for a public showing and designed a plan for sharing their work. We reserved the school’s library, which houses a large projection screen, and we invited juniors and seniors to a full-day showing of the videos. With over 100 students, teachers, and administrators present per period, we played every video. The huge room was silent as the videos aired, and at the completion of each one, the room thundered with applause. Later, students were invited to show their videos to classes of underclassmen, clubs, teams, community groups, and faculty meetings. When something “big” is happening at school, everyone knows about it. Talk and excitement about these videos continues to happen. This is what it means to take writing public.
Once the project officially ended, we burned a dvd for each student, we sold them to parents and grandparents (to offset some of the costs of flash drives and headphones), and many live on youtube. We made a how-to manuel for the project with advice and warnings. And now, students entering English IV expect to make a video in the spring, and the school community expects to see them aired.
Honestly, I never thought a writing event could have such far-reaching impact. Students truly made technology work for them rather than control them. After this project, many students created multimodal projects for other classes.
A teacher rarely knows if what happens in class ever sticks, especially in the writing classroom. We hope so, and in this case, hope is realized.
Guiding Essential Question: How can students from urban and rural communities use an online writing space to connect with others while still keeping the focus on learning?
Funded with grant money from the National Writing Project’s Technology Initiative, the aim of the Making Connections project was to provide teachers with an opportunity to explore the world of blogging and to bring those tools into their classrooms in urban and rural towns in Western Massachusetts so that students could better understand the world outside of their own communities.
Implemented with a mix of hands-on professional development for teachers and collaborative development of both a free Summer Camp for students and a unit of curriculum integration for the school year, the Making Connections project provided in-roads to technology in communities where computer labs were mostly reserved for standardized testing and online writing sites were looked at with concern by school administrators.
Over two years time, which included expansion beyond the first two communities, more than 20 teachers were involved and hundreds of students were using the closed blogging space for writing and sharing stories, discussing books in online literature circles, engaging in collaborative science experiments that led to the publishing of scientific abstracts, and even cross-grade/cross-school mentoring, with high school students working with elementary students.
For many of the teachers in Making Connections, this was the first time they were immersed in the world of technology. And for many of the students from the poor communities that the project strove to reach, the initiative was an opportunity to introduce emerging technology to young writers in a meaningful and creative way.
Project Overview, Part One
This is the first part of a video documentary of the Making Connections Project.
Project Overview, Part Two
This is the second part of a documentary of the Making Connections Project.
Making Connections: On the Radio
The local affiliate of National Public Radio in Western Massachusetts (WFCR) stopped by some classrooms one day as the students were blogging and produced this piece about this use of technology in the school districts. [The media here is no longer available.]
Student Reflections
A survey was given to all participants of the Making Connections project. Here are some of the student reflections:
“The project, Making Connections, lasted for months through the school year. I liked this project for many reasons. One was that it used technology and a different way of a school writing project in a good way. Another thing that I liked was that the writers got to use feeling into their writing and most of the writing entries were very good. Finally, another reason why I liked this writing project was that you got to interact with many schools in this area. They were also very creative writers and had similar and different opinions as I do. This is why I liked this project. I also have learned many things while using this blog. I learned how to use constructive tips and not hurtful ones. I have also learned that many writers feel the same way I do in some topics. I have also learned about many writing assignments and how to improve them. This is what I have learned from this project.” — Jim
“I liked this project. I liked it because you can express yourself without getting bullied. Kids could write from the heart. So they could write without pressure on your back. By my calculations 90% of students in 99% of schools are not the way they make themselves seem to be. They could be really smart, but not want to show it because of popularity. I learned how to express myself. I was able to write about Megan without feeling mad or sad. I learned how to be a polite critic. I learned to say nice things about others.” — Rose
“I like this Weblog project. I like it because you got to communicate with other students. I liked doing all of the work for the blog. It was fun reading and responding to some work from students from other schools. Weblogging in school is very fun. I learned many things doing this project. I learned different kinds of ELA writings such as I poems. I learned how to use constructive criticism. I learned how to write better in the Blog project. I learned how to respond better to other students. I learned personal thing about my friends and classmates. I have learned a lot doing this Weblogging Writing Project.” – Mike
Teacher Reflections
Throughout the Making Connection project, our teachers were regularly using blogs to reflect on their own experiences with using blogs for writing. Here are few piece of writing from participant teachers:
“Growing up in Athol, I understand how living in a small community can become isolating for young people … Sharing their writing with peers in other communities is an invaluable tool that many young people do not get to experience … I believe we can share those (life-long learning) experiences and show the community that we can continue to build positive learning environments in our small town …”
– Deborah Piragas, language arts teacher, Athol-Royalston Middle School, Athol, Massachusetts
“This project seems to be a great opportunity for all of us – teachers, students, communities, etc. There is a great potential for using these blogs to help different communities communicate in a personal and meaningful way, and hopefully that personal growth for all of us can be a foundation for the academic work. I am hoping that this will be the beginning of new ideas, opportunities, and experiences for building community in and around our schools.”
– Drew Hafner, social studies teacher, TOP program, Peck Middle School, Holyoke, Massachusetts
The Making Learning Connected Massive Open Online Collaboration (CLMOOC) summer professional learning is comprised not of units or weekly topics. Instead, the collaborative professional learning is organized into “make cycles” which invite participants to make artifacts or content in an effort to explore Connected Learning principles by embodying them. Make cycles are lead by intrepid teams from National Writing Project sites or Educator Innovator partners.
This resource supports make cycle leaders in preparing to lead these cycles, detailing the explicit tasks they’ll need to complete, and describing the help they’ll receive. The graphic below lists the tasks which correspond with the content of this resource.
You will want a team of two or three people to lead a make cycle.
Before the week of your make cycle, a thinking partner or two will come in handy to support your planning. As you begin to prepare some of the communications you’ll send to participants, you will want an extra sets of eyes on them before you push “send.”
During your make cycle, your small team will divide up the facilitation tasks, share the work of responding to participants, and support each other during your synchronous “Make With Me” hangout, a webinar you’ll lead to model the type of making you hope to inspire. Also, you will curate participant contributions to highlight the range of creations participants share during your make cycle.
After your make cycle is complete, participants will come to your topic late or simply opt to spend more time than just a week. Your team may choose to follow and respond to that traffic and content.
When you first sit down to plan your make cycle, you want to be in search of a big, rough idea. The support you’ll receive in a coaching meeting will help you sharpen this idea and plan strategically to engage a large community online.
To begin, you might think through the following prompts:
“What if everyone (made) ______?”
Or, “What might we make if we were all thinking about _____?”
In past years, make cycles grew out of this type of questioning.
What if everyone made maps?
What if everyone made toys (out of toys)?
What might we make if we were all thinking about Connected Learning credos? What might we make if we were all thinking about introducing ourselves?
Etc…
You’re ready when your idea is broad enough that participants have both easy, quick ways to creatively interact, as well as deeper, in-depth opportunities to make and learn. If you begin with a specific idea, it might be helpful to think about a more thematic make.
For example, one make cycle team wanted to lead a make to spotlight the use of paper circuitry. In order to create a make cycle accessible to all participants, the team framed this more broadly as “Hack your writing.” They presented a range of ways folks could think and tinker through hacking their writing, the most supported and structured of which might be paper circuitry.
In another example, the “Make a map” make cycle in the first year of CLMOOC offered participants the options of mapping their neighborhood, mapping their learning, or even taking a learning walk with a camera in hand.
When you’ve got an idea that has entry points for a new arrival to the MOOC and for the most hard-core maker-learner, you will be ready to share your idea with a supportive coaching team.
Your make cycle team (2-3 people) will participate in one coaching session, during which facilitators and participants from last year’s MOOC will serve as thinking partners and “users,” lending a hand in an instructional design activity during a Google Hangout. To help your make cycle team feel prepared going into their week, the coaching session will take place 1.5 weeks prior to the week we’re prepping for.
After the coaching session, your team will have supportive feedback and also will have a number of ideas that build on the idea you generated.
Below is a list of the specific duties that come along with facilitating a make cycle. This should support you in dividing the work and knowing what to expect during your week.
Draft a second newsletter communication prompting reflection on the week in the MOOC (here’s a helpful guide to content and formatting). This will name strong or exciting work and will also prompt participants to reflect on CL principles.
After
Resume your normally scheduled MOOC participation
Watch for posts that address your make cycle even after your week is over. Respond if you like or leave it to the community.
This year we begin our spring testing with civics and economics – the course I teach. Since we test first, we have several weeks of classes left after testing. In hope of sparking each student’s drive, I’ve invited them to undertake capstone projects in government, politics, economics, or career readiness. I’ve offered up some suggestions for planning and iterating projects, and I’ve put forth the idea of working until the project works as our criterion for success. I’ve also told students that learning and making things they love trumps my request that students’ projects focus on civics and economics.
I believe that when a student pursues an ambitious, inquiry-driven project, he or she performs a more civic service than doing a project I assign. I believe that my students will be more civic minded in the future if they feel like they can identify problems and set and meet goals than if they feel like they have to wait to be told what to do.
Democracy is about individual political expression contributing to the greater good; political expression should be personal and idiosyncratic, but also reasoned, generative, and shaped to consensus. Political expression should be much more like inquiry-driven, project-based work – sometimes collaborative – than like test-driven memorization of content.
In looking at how my students have responded to the capstone project prompt so far, I’m struck – as I was on #DLDay – by the variety of the work they’ve chosen and by how intuitively they’ve set about doing that work. I am, frankly, astounded by how much project-specific work is coming from what are, essentially, bare bones plans. In fact, I am reconsidering they way I ask students to approach planning – right now I’m not sure a “good” plan helps a student achieve more than actual work does.
For example, one student spent the entire first day of capstone work messing around on Minecraft, which – in our classroom – is akin to reading a book instead of doing the work at hand. However, today, after we finished testing, I showed the student some HTML5 code I’ve been learning and asked if she had any interest in moving towards making things like on-line games. She said yes. We grabbed a couple of laptops and each built a tiny web page with 3 or 4 CSS definitions a piece and some pixel art we learned to insert and format so that it displayed inline with our text. She came back for our “official” class after lunch, helped me launch an HTML camp for 3 students (through which we built another set of quick proof-of-concept websites with CSS and pixel art), and then took off without the rest of us. I handed the girls notecards with the CodecademyWeb fundamentals URL at the end of class and told them I fully expected to be spending my class time learning from them very shortly. Today, serendipitously, I heard those comments we all want to hear – the ones that alternate between how difficult and awesome learning is.
How could I have asked or expected that first coder to plan for all of that? How could I have asked her, the Minecraft player, to tell me how she was going to iterate her second webpage after building her first, before she built either? Maybe her experience with Minecraft helped her more than a plan ever could. Without wondering about the guts of Minecraft, would she have moved from consumption of a game to production of a website?
What is the role of a plan – or a lesson plan – in inquiry? How many questions does it take to get to the center of learning? What more do we need than, “Where am I? Where do I want to go? How can I figure that out?”
Maybe what I’m beginning to doubt isn’t planning, but the idea of neutral or discipline-agnostic planning. I’m sure that seems like a naive statement to most professionals, but I’m not sure it would be recognized as such inside our system of public education.
Regardless, those are kind of scary questions, and my questions about those questions aren’t new or otherwise original. I have students who aren’t ready to answer those questions yet; we all have students whose anxieties are triggered by uncertainty. How do you scaffold independence for students who need some external dependability? Is it always right to do so?
Probably not, but we need to keep finding ways to help kids who struggle against destructive forces in their lives to be agents and advocates for themselves. Perhaps one way we could this is to ask them to plan and prepare less, and to do and make more.
Perhaps there is a “digiship” – a digitally-mediated citizenship – that isn’t as unreachable for all kids as we – the system – believe it is.
Digiship is an immediate citizenship, one that takes advantage of everyday technologies and materials to let kids rapidly prototype, share, and reiterate solutions to the problems and opportunities they see around them and in their own lives. Being a digital citizen who practices digiship means recognizing opportunities for change and working on a solution until the solution works. Code, test, debug, repeat until I am a better person and/or the world is a better place. Digiship is digital, but also of-the-digits – hands-on work with tangible results that can be assessed and improved on the fly in response to feedback and needs.
This digiship relies on two kinds of democratization of composition. First, we have to accept making and iterating as the equals of writing and drafting. We have to acknowledge, value, and make pedagogical use of a wide cultural variety of knowing and doing so that all students have access to our best teaching and learning about critical thought and design thinking. We can’t limit access to that kind of education because of handwriting or non-academic use of English. By all means, we should help kids communicate clearly about the work they value, but should put a sudden and utter stop to withholding such work from kids who don’t communicate clearly through work they don’t value. Philosophically and practically, we (especially we English teachers) have to let kids connect to the world through a variety of composition that none of us – no student or teacher – could ever be expected to master in its entirety. We have to let go of language as a carrot-and-stick of control and look at all kinds of making – coding, cooking, drawing, dancing, embroidering, et al. – as signal rather than noise, even – and especially – in academic settings. Why? For my part, I suspect there is a causal relationship between kids not showing up prepared to do what we want and us not preparing kids to do what they want to do. We ought to escape that cycle by making stuff that matters to all of us together.
Why does it fall to us educators? Because we – in public schools – live with our kids in a digital world; we are all digital natives; we share an ecosystem, as cybernetic as it has become, with our children, and in that ecosystem we have responsibilities to them that are morally independent from those we think they have to us.
What digiship offers students who are traditionally excluded from such work is immediate access to making work that matters and that is repeatedly assessed and revised until it works. (I can’t count the As or Bs I got that didn’t “do” anything.) What digiship offers us is the opportunity to teach and learn with kids as equals in the present, rather than from a privileged and resisted position of authority grounded in the past.
I looked around my room today and saw kids teaching kids circuity and mechanics inside a game; I saw kids writing voluntarily the entire time; I saw kids mashing-up pixel art backgrounds and hand-drawn character sketches for a comic about an alien, cyborg Abe Lincoln looking for enough scattered Lincoln logs to rebuild his crashed spaceship so he can escape Earth; I saw kids mashing up pixel art and multi-layer stencils.
I bet we’re going to read some Egyptian mythology, the non-fiction works of Scott McCloud, and the The Art of Video Games catalog; I bet we’re going to write code and dialogue and maybe even some plans. I hope that by doing so in digiship we contribute to lasting habits, cultures, and communities of learning, understanding, and inclusion in our school and in our lives. If we learn to value doing what we love (as Western as our obsessions generally are), maybe we’ll be better at making sure others can do the same. Maybe we’ll make use of our democracy to listen, as well as to speak. Maybe giving our attention to the immediacy of work will re-kindle our appreciation of the people likewise learning and working around us. I want to bet on that.
Jesse Shapiro, History teacher from Oakland High School, gave the following response to the above question, “I found that students really step their game up. Their writing is much better when they know that other people’s eyes, other than me, [are] going to be on it. They become better speakers, when they know that they are going to have to go out in public and be prepared to speak and they are going to be accountable for what they say.” As a member of Educating for Democracy in the Digital Age, Jesse was speaking as part of a teacher panel on a weekly webcast called Teachers Teaching Teachers (watch the full webcast here).
His point addresses the need that our students feel for authenticity. They know when they are being asked to participate in a simple exercise, and they know when something real is on the line – their image, their beliefs, their feelings, for example. While practicing skills has a place, and a very important one, students experience a dramatic shift when they exchange their practice jerseys for game uniforms and have to perform in front of a real audience. This is not just true in the realm of sports, but as Jesse points out, for academic efforts like writing and speaking that we hope students will develop. It is important to bring civic engagement to classrooms, by which I really mean bring our students outside the classroom, because it gives them a reason to care about their writing and speaking. It adds an element of authenticity to what can feel like a never-ending series of exercises. It motivates them to hone their skills and rise to the occasion.
These academic benefits cannot be overstressed, but there is still another compelling reason for schools to care about civic engagement. Civic engagement promotes social and political development. One of the great criticisms of the United States is that we, as a country, prize individualism above the needs of the larger society. The push for students to strive for their own individual success and achievement begs for the countervailing balance of a healthy sense of connection and community. Students must also learn that they are an integral part of a larger society and that they have both rights and responsibilities within that society.
They cannot develop a sense that they belong to a larger society or live within a political system through theory alone; they must experience society and they must experience that political system. For example, learning about the three branches of government must be coupled with opportunities to effect change through action taken at the local, state, and/or national level. In her government class, Maryann Wolfe has asked her students to do just that. During the 2012 election year, her seniors volunteered for local, state and national candidates and worked on propositions that they cared about. Similarly, being told that they should be compassionate takes on new meaning when students experience what it feels like to care for others through a service learning project. Michelle Espino’s students are acting with care and developing their sense of responsibility to the ecosystem through their recycling project. Finally, instead of banning smartphones and other devices that connect students with the world, schools can provide students with guidance on how to use these powerful tools to take actions that benefits others. Jo Paraiso’s students see themselves as part of an online community, engaging in respectful dialogue with students and adults via their social issue research blogs.
Jesse made a powerful case for how civic engagement can inspire students to “step their game up.” It gives students a reason to care about the quality of their written and spoken word. They feel that it matters. At the same time that students are honing these academic skills, their experience with civic engagement helps them see that their active participation is vital to the health of the larger society.
Video credit: TTT#379 Teaching Civic Engagement in Oakland Schools 1.22.14byPaul Allison
Log in or register to bookmark your favorite content
You'll be redirected back here after logging in or registering.
