New and Emerging Technologies

The course “New and Emerging Technologies” has introduced me to a few of the technologies that I either wasn’t aware of, or that I would never have made use of in the context of education.

As an example of an online technology that I knew about, but would never have considered as having educational value before taking this course, I would present SecondLife. This free educational technology is modeled after online gaming applications. I know that lots of my students participate in online gaming. My son even does so. First-hand, I know that kids (and adults) will spend literally hours on these games, trying to overcome “obstacles” to attain “goals.” Why, I have always asked myself, would anyone want to dedicate so much of their time to “succeeding” in a virtual environment (which is, after all, nothing but zeros and ones, in the binary sense!) having little or nothing to do with reality? According to Gee (2005) there are sixteen good reasons, all of which can be associated with valid learning principles. They are

(1) Identity (learner takes on new identity: e.g. physicist, biologist)
(2) Interaction (learning is not a passive process)
(3) Production (learners are producers, not just consumers)
(4) Risk taking (learners are willing to try new things, regardless of potential failure)
(5) Customization (learners like to customize a context to fit their learning style)
(6) Agency (learners like to feel in control and have a sense of ownership)
(7) Well-order problems (if problem space is too complex, students will find creative solutions to problems, but will NOT be able to build on that solution in further problems, thereby necessitating order and levels of mastery)
(8) Challenge and Consolidation (learn something new, practice and master it-- consolidate it, then build up on it to meet a new challenge)
(9) “Just in time” and “On demand” (learn details IN context, when needed, or just in time—not out of context and prior to actual need for usage)
(10) Situated meanings (word should be defined in terms of actions, images and dialogues, rather than in the traditional words for words, out of context definitions)
(11) Pleasantly frustrating (learning should occur at the outer edge of competence”
(12) System thinking (learning should encourage thinking in terms of relationships, rather than in terms of isolated events, facts and skills)
(13) Explore, think laterally, explore (learning should encourage thorough lateral exploration rather than linear and rapid progression)
(14) Smart tools and Distributed knowledge (multiple learners pool their skills, knowledge and tools to solve collaborative problems)
(15) Cross-functional teams (learners specialize, but know enough about other learners’ skills that they can collaborate smoothly through integration and coordination)
(16) Performance before competence (learners can perform actions before they gain competence—this is how one “learns by experience” after all)

In light of these sixteen traits—which Gee goes on to state can be used even in the traditional learning environment—I am convinced that SecondLife or some other virtual multu-user environment could be used in a very productive and engaging way to bring 21st century teaching-learning techniques into my curriculum.

As an example of a technology that was completely unknown to me, I’ll describe “Smart Objects” in the context of the Horizon Report (Levine and Smith, 2009). Smart objects are real, physical objects, which have electronic tags on them which have coded traits, characteristics and functions which can be scanned into a virtual environment, and be made to interact in a “smart” way with other smart objects and the virtual environment itself. A scanner, and software to make and encode the desired virtual properties of the physical object, and a platform for creating a virtual environment, are all that is needed. Smart objects, I think, could be used in many creative and engaging ways, in many different courses, to actually incorporate real objects into an interactive virtual environment.

These are only two of the Horizon Report ‘s enumerated emerging technologies. There are many more in the 2009 report, and I am sure that there are many on the way. The fact that I wasn’t aware of the potential (or even existence) of these technologies has further demonstrated to me the need to keep up with the burgeoning growth of these technologies and their applications to education through the use of online peer collaboration, RSS readers, and reading the educational literature.

References:

Gee, J. P. (2005). Good video games and good learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(2), 33–37.

Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Smythe, T. (2009). The 2009 Horizon Report: K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Learning Management System presentation

Click the title of this posting to view my LMS presentation, which focuses specifically on Moodle.

Reaching and Engaging all Learners through Technology (EDUC-6714-I-4)

Participation in this course and interaction with members of my Differentiation Station social network have contributed greatly to adding to my list of technological resources and suggestions for their use. Among the many resources suggested by this coursework and my cohorts are the following...

The tools I will use to determine my students' academic strengths and weaknesses will be a pretest which I wil use to determine English language usage and basic scientific knowledge, and http://www.terragon.com/tkobrien/algebra/ which will help me determine the mathematical preparedness of my students.

To determine my students' academic interests and learning preferences and profiles, I will use Survey Monkey to attempt to elicit student classroom preferences, goals and interests. For learning styles, I will use the Memletics Learning Styles Inventory.

The main modification I will incorporate into my learning environment wil be to become more flexible in exposing students to content (not just lecture-oriented) and assessment (allowing for various modalities of testing knowledge). This is a basic tenet of UDL. Having established the learning styles preferred by my students, I can incorporate best practices into all of my lessons to meet the needs of students with a large variety of learning styles.

I will start out small, learning the many Web 2.0 tools out there, and incorporate them piecemeal into my lessons, geared to particular students. This differentiated instruction will be a necessary precursor to Universal Design for Learning, which incorporates all of these technologies into the foundations of lesson design, thus requiring a mastery of them by me at the outset of the design process.

I will provide various means of assessment of student knowledge, and evaluate the outcomes of these various papers, projects, and presentations using Rubistar. Students will be given a copy of the rubric at the outset so that they will know exactly what is required of them regardless of their choice of assessment artifact.

Since my classroom has only one computer, just about all of the technological applications I do with my students will have to be managed using "outside the classroom" forums such as Google Groups, Google Docs, Wikis, Blogs, and Voice Threads. All of these free Web 2.0 tools will allow me to extend the classroom beyond the school day. Participation can be monitored from any computer, and rubrics can be made so that students know what is required. From the school district it would be obviously to my advantage to repeatedly request more classroom computers following the adage the "the squeaky door gets the grease."

In conclusion, I will begin using the many Web 2.0 tools that are out there before incorporating them into DI. After field practice with these tools in DI I can then progress to the level where I can design technology seamlessly into my UDL lessons. The important thing for me is to begin with small steps, and maintain my pace. The end product should be a 21st centure classroom.

Reflection on 6713

This course gave me the impetus and experience to integrate technology in a meaningful way into my course curriculum. In truth, I have not yet put the lessons developed in this course to the test in actual practice because my students are preparing for the May IB exams at this time. However, whether or not I actually implement these lessons, I will certainly use them as a model for other lessons that might not be quite so involved but will be authentic learning experiences nonetheless. The new technologies will certainly become more familiar to me as I mature, and my lessons more authentic and technology-oriented.

As far as my GAME plan is concerned, I did receive a free trial software package for Autodesk Inventor which I am currently muddling through. The portion of my plan on interacting with other teachers in a learning community has, I think, been fruitful. I have seen some really creative, authentic, and fun lesson plans, and have been given many ideas on the use of Web 2.0 tools I have never heard of before. I also learned how to really get good use out of a free wikispaces.com account from one of my cohorts, and have placed all of my notes online for my students. As my cohort Virg said: “When a student who has been absent comes up to me asking for make-up assignments or notes I ask him ‘Did you check the wiki?’.” Now I can do this, too.

Autodesk just arrived in my mail - I'm Somebody!

Wow, my 30-day free trial three-disk Autodesk Inventor software just arrived in the mail, and I have installed it. Now I just have to learn how to use it in the alloted thirty days! It looks really cool, and I think I will make a 3D model of my house and yard for landscaping purposes, if that is possible. I figure if I have a goal, I'll learn the software faster. We'll see.

In summary, about the only real accomplishment in my GAME plan is the receipt of this software package. I am, though, checking bloglines pretty regularily and responding to blogs here and there, which is certainly more than I have ever done before. All of this is making me more comfortable with Web 2.0 shiz, which I guess is one of the main goals of taking these courses.

Getting students into the GAME (or How to make our kids GAMEy)

The following are the NETS-S performance indicators for students: (1) Creativity and innovation, (2) communication and collaboration, (3) research and information fluency, (4) critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making, (5) Digital citizenship, and (6) Technology operations and concepts. The GAME plan is a problem-solving process which consists of defining a Goal, implementing an Action, Monitoring progress, and Evaluating and extending the process in a fluid manner.

Looking at the NETS-S performance indicators, it would appear that indicator (4) would be well-served by having students use the GAME plan, too. Not only could I model its use in my own presentations, but students could practice it in their problem-based learning assignments. The plan is applicable to problems of any type and so would easily extrapolate to “lifelong learning.” Critical thinking, problem-solving and decision-making are probably the most important skills we can foster in the education of our students.

Autodesk Inventor trial and Google Docs

Well, I signed up for a 30-day free trial software package from Autodesk Inventor which should arive in 2 to 3 weeks. I'm not exactly sure if I'll have time to look at it too closely before the summer, but we'll see. Also, I might be able to get the actual software package free through FIRST Robotics--I'll check with my engineer.

After reading the text and looking at this week's videos, I have looked into Google Docs as a vehicle for collaboration--students can look at, comment on, and edit Word, PowerPoint, and Excel documents online from different computers at the same time or asynchronously. The key here is that it would result in the creation of a single document by the members of a team, and document participation in the creation of the "product" (at least I think it does--maybe someone can straighten me out here...). This would ensure that each team member is an active participant in making the PowerPoint that a team will be responsible for.

So far, I have discovered that my browser must be updated from IE-6 to IE-7 to take advantages of all of the frills Google Docs has to offer. I uploaded an old PowerPoint just to see how it worked, and it uploaded all right, but doesn seem to have all the animation of the original. The initial memory capacity for a new account is 1024 MB, and it appears that it can be increased. In the next few weeks I will see how Google Docs is managed. For example, how do students share documents in such a way that outsiders can't mess with 'em. Can I look at them as they are created by my students? Can I comment on 'em? These are all questions that some of you may be able to answer for me!

Using Autodesk Inventor

James Tadesco suggested the use of Autodesk Inventor for designing mechanical devices, which I mentioned to the engineering mentor on my robotics team. The engineer said that he knew how to use it, and showed me a part of a robot that he had designed on it. The user interface was pretty visual in nature, and it looked like something I could handle (with some practice, of course). James says the kids he knows who use it also like it, so I think I will focus my efforts this summer on Autodesk Inventor. I have used a CAD program years ago, which was not altogether that visual in interface, and was hard for me to use.

In our second regional competition, in Minneapolis, our FIRST Robotics team made it to the quarter finals but did not make it to the next level. We were still happy with our showing, and our kids had a blast. You can Google Team 1675 or go to http://team1675.com/ if you want to find out more about our team. It is populated by students from two "urban" schools, and is very well represented from the standpoint of diversity.

GAME over (only kidding...)

Looking at my GAME plan, I see that at least I am checking the blogs of my colleagues (my first goal)—but it is not yet a natural process (like the checking of my email). In fact, I wouldn’t even be checking any blogs (much less entering this post to mine) if it wasn’t required of the course. This is not because I think blogging is a waste of time—it is merely because I am not yet used to it. I don’t even think of it unless someone tells me to!

As far as my second goal is concerned, one of the engineers I work with in robotics has agreed to help me with CAD after the competition season ends. We are both strapped for time at the moment, and we will probably communicate via email. He has proposed getting me access to a CAD program, in the meantime, and that, at least, is a start. I have no grandiose plans right now to git ‘er done, but I think that over the summer break I can begin to master the program.
In the meantime, back to robotics, graduate school, teaching, and sleeping (with an occasional martini thrown in for good measure).

A review of my GAME plan.

To meet my first goal of using colleagues’ blogs as resources for professional development, I have found relevant blogs, and subscribed to them with my RSS reader. I have also followed through by looking at them, although admittedly not very often. My idea of making a log to help me become aware of how often and in what capacity I read colleagues’ blogs has not yet been fulfilled.

My second goal will require me to have access to CAD, DesignCAD, AutoCAD, or some similar drawing software, and to bring an engineer into my learning community from whom I can gain assistance. Fortunately, I work with a couple of engineers through FIRST Robotics who use computer aided drawing programs, and when the robotics season is over (it is in full swing now, and I am putting in 12- to 16-hour days) they can perhaps be recruited to help me work out the kinks in my learning curve.

Two GAME Plans For Strengthening My Confidence and Proficiency In NETS-T.

My first goal is to increase my use of professional resources for continued professional development (NETS-T Outcome G5). My action plan is to subscribe to the web logs of my fellow professionals, and to monitor my RSS readers to these blogs. I will monitor my progress by keeping a log of when I monitor updates to these logs, and how many I comment on. I will evaluate my activities by tallying the number of times I look at bloglines per week, and how many blogs I leave comments on per week. After I have habituated myself to reading these blogs I will eventually extend my monitoring process to include brief descriptors of my comments, and those of the professionals whose blogs I subscribe to, as to value, applicability, depth, and usefulness.

As a second goal in getting familiar with the NETS-T Outcomes I will increase my knowledge of technology—specifically the use of DesignCAD (NETS-T Outcome S2) in order to bring extremely relevant technology into my physics unit on statics, which is built into a project in which students design a skyscraper. My action plan will be to acquire DesignCAD and begin tutorials in order to gain confidence and proficiency in the software. I will monitor my progress by keeping a log of my skills as I gain them, and the number of hours I have spent learning them. I will evaluate my learning by determining if I can design a complex 3D rendering of a skyscraper to scale, designed within the limits I will impose on my students. I will extend my learning to determine how to shade, how to adjust the lighting, how to walk and fly around the finished design, and how to add environmental “frills” to the rendering. This will not be required of my students, but some may want to extend their own knowledge, so I should at least be able to give them some guidance.

Reference:
ISTE_NETS·S. (2007). The International Society for Technology in Education - National Educational Technology Standards for Students. Retrieved January 12, 2009, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standard

Information Literacy and Online Inquiry

The most striking revelation of this course is that everything my students and I need to develop the new information literacy and conduct an inquiry unit is online and free for use as part of the Web 2.0 tool set. Social networking skills can be developed using sites like blogs, VoiceThread, etc. with the added advantage that a complete unit can just about be accomplished outside of the classroom. Peer and teacher input and assessment can occur using these sites during the development of the inquiry unit, particularly for sharing search experiences and fruitful sites with peers. Synthesis of online information can be done digitally and shared with peers using concept mapping tools such as Webspiration. Convincing multimedia PowerPoints can also be created and shared online, serving as the culmination of the online inquiry. About the only portion of the whole unit that might require physical proximity in the classroom would be the presentations of the inquiry results to peers in a live setting – this to give students the experience of a non-digital audience, complete with non-digital questions and responses.

Since computer access in my building is very limited, and with budget cuts does not appear to be improving in the near future, and furthermore, since almost all of my students have Internet access from home, I think I can develop some out-of-class assignments that are both collaborative and independent, and of an inquiry nature. The unit I developed for this course, The Particle Adventure, serves as a model for such units.

My immediate professional development goal that builds upon this course and my need for information literacy and technology skills is to master Webspiration and VoiceThread. These will be the two most useful Web 2.0 tools for synthesis of online inquiry information and for collaboration and assessment of my students in the virtual sphere. Working out the bugs (mine) using basic lessons will probably be my method of attack. From there I will progress to doing a genuine inquiry unit, conducted and presented online.

Reflection on my personal theory of learning

On rereading my personal theory of learning (which I wrote seven weeks ago and posted below, today) I see that during this course, “Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction and Technology,” I have learned that I lecture too much, and I use too many teacher-centered approaches in my instructional methods. My (limited) use of technology is no different. My use of PowerPoint is exclusively as an instructional tool, as opposed to a learning tool, as described by Dr, Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2008b). I also realize, as a result of this course, that almost all of the Web 2.0 tools I need for making my instruction more student-centered have free-for-use versions which are accessible by any student who has internet access. Thus, I can no longer make the excuse that I don’t use technology because if its “limited availability.”

Since social networking is one of the goals of NETS·S, and since students seem to gravitate toward online networking tools, I will try to make more use of VoiceThread and other tools such as wikis and blogs, which will facilitate collaboration between my students and me outside of the classroom (ISTE_NETS·S, 2007). Use of social networking sites can provide students with opportunities to experience some of Dr. Pickering’s nine instructional clusters, depending on how I design my lessons (Laureate Education, Inc., 2008a). Combining social networking tools with virtual field trips and online graphic organizers, these clusters may include similarities and differences, summarizing and notes, creating non-linguistic representations, using cooperative learning, and using advanced organizers. All of these are student-centered and thus meet Dr. Orey’s plea for using technology as a learning tool.

Two of my long-term goals for integration of technology as a learning tool into my instructional practices are to become an advocate for technology in my school with a view to obtaining more hardware in my classroom, and to become more knowledgeable in the use of Web 2.0 learning tools. Accomplishing my first goal will be the most difficult of the two. My principal and coworkers will be the people I try to convince of the advantages of the use of technology in instruction. There are already many teachers at my school who use technology better than me and would be happy to work with me in applying pressure to the administration to give teachers and students more access to technology. The resistance, of course, will be in the form of “no money” and “no interest.” Accomplishment of my second goal is simpler, and completely within my power. I must become proficient in the use of these tools so that I can demonstrate their versatility, validity, and simplicity to my coworkers. And meeting this goal will make meeting my first goal less difficult.

References.

ISTE_NETS·S. (2007). The International Society for Technology in Education - National Educational Technology Standards for Students. Retrieved January 12, 2009, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standard

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008a). Program eleven. Instructional Strategies, Part One [Motion picture]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Baltimore: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008b). Program thirteen. Technology: Instructional Tool vs. Learning Tool [Motion picture]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Baltimore: Author.

My personal theory of learning

I am a believer in (most of) the nine learning styles enumerated by Howard Gardner (Lever-Duffy, 2008). Teaching to the multiple intelligences (Orey, 2001) forces me to borrow from all of the four main learning theories. I utilize elements of social learning theory by having students work in collaborative groups to practice their interpersonal and linguistic skills. My labs borrow from constructionist learning theory, wherein students design and conduct labs on their own. The labs also serve to cultivate student’s kinesthetic, spatial, logical and naturalistic intelligences. As a physics teacher my lectures bring up existential questions such as the beginning and the end of the universe, and man’s place in it.

The level of hardware and software now (as compared to the late 70s which had a predominance of green text and cheesy animations) allows for technology to enhance learning through multimedia – touching on many of the learning styles rather than just the linguistic, or the logical. Sound, movies, graphics, and controls that students can use to interact with the computer are all broadening the extent to which educational technology can enhance student learning. Web 2.0 capabilities allow for collaborative interaction with a virtually unlimited pool of information and cohorts with an ease that is only impressive to someone who has experienced digital technology from its beginnings. Students interact naturally and seamlessly within the web. Orey’s claim that learners learn better when they are active in the process, and that they learn best when they are immersed in the process demonstrates, I think, that technology has a lot to offer.

The level of technology use that I incorporate into my teaching strategies is almost nil when I consider what is out there. The reason for this inadequate use is mostly because of its limited availability to me in my classroom environment-but admittedly it is also because of my naïveté in its use. I use PowerPoints for all of my notes so that I can walk around the classroom as I lecture and have animations and graphics and sound effects to hold student’s attention. I use email so that students who are absent (or are poor note-takers) can email me for the notes. I use a wiki with a very limited subset of my students, mostly as a learning experience for me (and apparently for them). But other than these basic uses, technology and the Web 2.0 capabilities for collaboration are grossly underused by myself, and most of my colleagues. This is, of course, why I am enrolled in the technology track in this university.

References

Lever-Duffy, J. & McDonald, J. (2008). Theoretical Foundations (Laureate Education, Inc., custom ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Orey, M.(Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page.

My VoiceThread Link

Press the title to visit a link called "Fun At The (Physics) Movies" to see some real action footage (that only a physics teacher could love).

Technology and social learning

The maximum level of social interaction is possible, in my opinion, only in the classroom, where peers can work together in collaborative groups and interact in real time and face-to-face with one another. The ideal use of technology in the context of social learning and constructivist theory, in my opinion, would be for research by a real, live collaborative classroom group, for assistance in creating an artifact (by the collaborative group), or for posting the artifact on the Web (by the collaborative group). The technological functions could be of the social learning type (FaceBook, VoiceThread, or podcast), the constructivist type (Webspiration, or a virtual field trip), or the collaborative type (a wiki or even a blog). All of these technological tools would be in addition to the real-time collaboration that would happen in the classroom, rather than a substitute for that face-to-face collaboration that I think is important for a student’s social development.

Generating and Testing Hypotheses

The reading on “Generating and Testing Hypotheses” relates to constuctivism in that the student who is going to generate a hypothesis must understand certain facts before he can even hypothesize, and therefore must search out these facts in an active manner. After attempting to organize and understand these facts, he must then construct his hypothesis, and formulate a way to test it. All of this is very active and student-centered learning. And an artifact, in the form of an experiment, or a survey, or a report, can be presented to a class, or placed on display, or published on a blog.

At a deeper level, the generation of a hypothesis draws from a student’s current schema, or overall view of the world, whereas the testing of the hypothesis may very well cause a student to feel what Orey referred to as disequilibration (a term coined, along with the following few, by Seymore Popper) – a feeling of discomfort because of a new fact that doesn’t fit into the student’s world view. This discomfort can be relieved either by assimilation of the new fact into the student’s current schema, or by a process called accommodation, where the student actually adjusts his world view to accommodate the new fact. All of these processes are just what is meant by constructivism, which in the words of Orey is “a theory of knowledge stating that each individual actively constructs his own meaning [of the world].”

My field of physics (and I suppose any field of study for that matter) actually grows by the generation and testing of hypotheses. And the history of physics is rife with examples the battles between assimilation and accommodation among the scientists of all eras, with the discovery of new facts that did not fit into the neat schemas of the times.

Cognitive learning theory: Concept-mapping and digital media

Having seen Dr. Orey’s lecture, and listened to his comments on the “dual coding hypothesis” (which basically hypothesizes that when you see an image of something, not only does your brain store that image but it also formulates a language-oriented label for that image in another portion of your brain, thus creating more than one network path to that memory) I see how important it is to include graphics in my PowerPoints. Since the internet is a virtually infinite source of graphic images, animations, photographs, virtual tours, sounds, and videos of just about any subject, it is easy to incorporate these into my lectures, which might otherwise be even more boring.

Concept-mapping, which I have never used before, appears to be a good way for students to take a complicated group of interrelated facts and form them into a personally coherent, structured system that may be easier for them to retrieve from memory than any system I might present to them. The map they produce is a way for them to graphically build connections (which fits into the network model of cognitive learning theory). Their map may contain more information than their short-term memory is capable of assimilating, thus assisting them in building their networks and connections at a higher level than without this technological tool.

Behaviorism: Alive and kicking on the web

I enjoyed testing out each of the behaviorism-based online drilling programs referenced in this week’s resources. All of these technological tools make use of practice and reinforcement. They represent the same “programmed instruction” developed by B. F. Skinner and the behaviorists in the 60s, but use contemporary technology. In total, they illustrate the wide range of capabilities offered by the web for drill and practice. WebMATH and English Grammar 101 were both very basic, but, I think, utilitarian. Their score-keeping capabilities made for quick feedback. The DC Physics site was more basic, and didn’t evaluate your responses as did the math and the grammar programs, though it supplied you with the correct answers. My favorite site, because of the graphics and the sound, was the Social Studies Tutor. It was also the most difficult to use because of the more advanced topics it tried to teach. The map skills were basic and the tutorials for these were clear. But the section on “Recognizing Bias,” for example, gave hints that were not too helpful, simply because of the complexity of the skill. The section on “Analyzing Images” was also subject to various interpretations. For practice and drill, then, I think simple programs are best. I was intrigued by Pitler’s use of the spreadsheet to show students how their achievement is directly related to their effort. Not only does it illustrate to students the importance of effort, but it also illustrates the use of the spreadsheet (if you don’t give students a template, and you have each kid make his own sheet). This is a very cheap, creative, and productive way to make an old program do a new thing.

Reflections on coursework

Before taking the course “Understanding the Impact of Technology on Education, Work, and Society” I had no ideas what blogs, wikis and podcasts were and how these tools were embedded in the Web 2.0 information and communications technology interface. Now, having been forced to experience each of these tools (not without some trepidation) I can see how each can be integrated into the classroom.

From my perspective, I can enhance student learning by increasing their opportunities for creative contribution (in ICT terminology: publishing and collaborating), and I can extend my classroom rather painlessly to after-school hours, when many of my students are already involved in doing Web 2.0 stuff why not in the context of my classroom curriculum. For example, a blog facilitating out-of-class debate on global warming, or a wiki facilitating group development of projects on alternative energy sources shifts learning from my teacher-directed classroom to student-directed home time. From the students’ perspectives, collaboration and experience in the Web 2.0 medium will help prepare them for their future occupations.

Two long-term goals I have in mind for transforming my classroom environment are to advocate for the district removal of internet blocks on the socializing sites that are currently off limits to my students from within the building, and to advocate for more classroom computers, and general access to computers and the internet during school hours. Becoming a vocal advocate for these two goals may (unfortunately) be required of me.