Web 2.0 Tech in the Classroom

My buddy Steven just sold his company for oodles of cash. Guess what product his company produced? You guessed it, interactive school websites with web 2.0 technologies. Steven actually tested some of his products on me and my classes and used my feedback to help shape web applications. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not taking any credit for his success. I’m simply telling the story of how I was introduced the world of blogging, wikis, and interactive class websites.

The first tool I used was a chatting/blogging tool designed to get kids reflecting about content. The set-up was impressive and negotiated many of the complaints and fears that teachers might have about online student interaction. First, the only people with access to the blog are students who you invited and accepted. Second, student names only appear as pre-set characters such as Purple Panda for each other, but the teacher can instantly see student identities. Two other features really set this tool apart: (1) By marking and rating each others comments, students could build credibility and award status for their online identity. Alderman (2003) discusses how truly motivating feedback is contingent upon both effort and performance, and this chat tool takes advantage of that motivational opportunity. (2) If a teacher chooses, teachers from around the country and employees from Stephens’s company can approve student comments for publication on chat pages, so the need to review every comment for appropriate content is reduced.

Here in lies the crux of the matter. Do you as a teacher have time to review these comments? I don’t, but that’s my fault because of the way I use this tool. Right now, I use these tools as non-essential extensions for students to explore at home. The fact that other people can review comments for publication makes this chat tool work for me. I know that I’m not using this tool to its potential yet, but I also know what I need to do to get there. To maximize its potential, I need to bring it into the classroom. As an in-class tool, this program offers the opportunity to inspire writing, provide a unique format for co-operative learning, and make sure that all students have an equitable opportunity to participate. In-class use also provides a chance to model excellent participation, provide scaffolding for struggling students, and make sure that kids push themselves intellectually.

So where’s the beef? Try out afterclass.net if you don’t have web tools built into you school website. Let me know how your in-class chatting and blogging works.

Stop Talking

If I could send one piece of advice to my fellow teachers, it would be this: “Stop talking.” Yes, I’m addressing teachers, not students. In fact, my message to teachers about students would be the exact opposite. Students need to be actively engaged in order to learn, and listening to a teacher talk does not help practice the vital skills of reading, writing, and problem solving.

How then does the idea of students talking impact the learning environment? Alderman (2003) emphasizes the importance of overtly teaching students to value effort. And, this is exactly what cooperative groups can accomplish. Marzano (2003) speaks to the power that cooperative groups can have in enhancing on task behavior and the significant effect that on task time has on student achievement. The bottom line: when student talk, write, and problem solve together, they learn more.

There is, of course, a predictable objection: What about the kids who ride on the backs of other group members? That’s where good teaching comes in. It’s critical to distinguish between “group work” and “cooperative” work. Okay, this is teacher jargon, but here’s the point. Keep each student responsible for some part of the learning. These parts can be built into the structure of the project and individuals can choose. In more informal settings, you can have student RAFT for writing assignments. Each student takes responsibility for the role, audience, format, and time. There are many ways to divide labor, but make sure that the group can move forward even if one member fails. We can not let a few students hold us back from using a structure that supports both student achievement and social equity.

I sometimes complain, “It’s so boring to teach five sections of the same lesson.” A close friend replied, “If you’re bored, how do you think the students feel?” This always reminds me, class is not about me; it’s about them. A lesson is not what I say. Learning is about what they hear, or better yet, what they learn. Slavin (1995, as cited in Alderman, 2003) tells us that cooperative learning benefits all students, from low achievers to the gifted. It especially helps African-American students, and also helps support inter-ethnic relationships (Clark, 1991, as cited in Alderman, 2003).

Stop talking. Start structuring the critical work. Don’t tell students how to do it; model it. Show them. Make them read, write, talk, and problem solve. Have them talk themselves through it (Alderman, 2003). It’s not about noise, quiet or loud: it’s about engagement. If you are talking their not fully engaged, and that’s your fault, not theirs.

Choice and Differentiation

Teaching is hard work. Being a great teacher and motivating kids to grow to their potential is even harder. Experts and administrators tell teachers they must help all students meet the same standards and effectively differentiate for the individual needs of each student. (Do you have your web cam turned off, because I don’t see you laughing or smiling?) If you are a secondary teacher like myself, you meet with somewhere close to 150 students a day. Is it impossible work? No. Don’t forget that you have 150 students to help you do the work. If you are trying to do it all for them, then you’re up the creek.

One of the best ways to differentiate is to build choice into as many of your assignments as possible, even daily homework assignments. Alderman (2003) encourages teachers to use open ended reading and writing assignments. I personally give my students a choice on their daily homework and every unit’s culminating project. This keeps things interesting and less redundant for me as well. All I did was establish five different types of assignments that could be done over the course of the week that related to the topics and suggested reading. After a small amount of training my students could choose their own modality of learning. The goal of structured choice work is to help students become self-regulated learners (Alderman, 2003). While guided practice for general reading and writing strategies is essential (Reeves, 2006; Schmoker, 2006), choice can help provide the natural differentiation without working your tail-off.

The self-regulated learner is also capable of self-monitoring , self-correcting, and self-evaluation. Yes, it takes time to teach self-regulation, but doing so will make you a better teacher and save you boat loads of time in the end. Try having them self-grade on your next formative assessment. Save yourself hours of grading time. With the right structures in place it is an effective tool. Alderman (2003) makes it perfectly clear when she states, “. . . motivation has to be explicitly addressed as part of instruction and socialization rather than treated as a by-product” (p. 19). Take her advice; take mine – teach your students to make decisions that will help them. Give them as many meaningful choices as you can, and provide the structures that will make any of those choices a success.