Social media can play a solid role in the twenty-first century classroom. Like any other tool, these must be properly presented to the students and monitored to ensure academic interaction as well as to assure quality, and, from time-to-time, students will need guidance to redirect them back to the path.

At the beginning of any course in which social media will play a role, it is important to establish standards and expectations when the tool is introduced.  This is best done in the course guide or syllabus, but should be reinforced with the student’s learning community and all stakeholders. Class discussions early in the process will help avoid any confusion concerning what is proper and improper use of social media in the course. Allowing students to discuss misconceptions will give everyone a better understanding of what should and should not be done.

As the students begin using their selected social media to share and interact, the instructor should monitor student interaction.  The instructor’s role, here, is as a moderator, not a heavy hand. Ghosting is the best policy when it comes to monitoring student working with social media.

As issues arise, the instructor should bring attention to the problem in a general observation. Students should not be pointed out and care should be taken to make sure that student expression is not extinguished. Rather, students should be redirected, rewarded and rebuked.  As students begin to go astray, the instructor should redirect students back to the topic.  Those who make solid contributions should be praised, and those who are having trouble or fail to meet expectations – particularly in the arena of polity, should be corrected.  Correction should be outside of the open view of other students except where such rebuke might be helpful in redirecting the whole class. In this case the rebuke should be drafted carefully so as to encourage every student toward the goal of better communication and adherence to the expectations of the class.

The clearer the instructor makes his expectations of individual students and the class as a whole, the more effective the use of social media will be in the scope of the material discussed.

It is mind boggling! The array is stunning! It can be a lot to take in! Technology keeps growing and improving. It can be overwhelming to the new teacher much less the veteran.
The key to survival is an open mind. A mind open to the idea that there might be a tool out there that can do things better than I have always done it; open to the idea that improvements are great; that I can apply new technology tools both in and outside of the classroom with confidence.
This concept not only applies to the way we present information to our students, but how we interact as educational professionals.
One tool I use is Jing. At my school, interim reports are sent to the parents of students with ‘D’ or ‘F’ averages in classes. Communication from the teacher is key. Without clear unambiguous communication about what is going on with their student, parents have no option but to go crazy. . .mostly at the teacher. With Jing, I can go over the student’s individual grade report and record my observations as I show the parent where the student’s weaknesses are.
Jing videos are better than a phone call, and if the parent wants more information, they are still free to call me. This asynchronous tool gives personal attention to each student/parent allowing for the student to correct their learning strategy for the course and improve scores for the next interim report.

Check it out…Jing.com

It is a worthy axiom of life.

Here’s a tip.

New teachers enter the classroom with heads full of what turns out to be unrealistic, untested ideals.  They often carry in with them a winds of new ideas.  Full of new and different perspectives on what may become mundane and routine.  They can’t help but share all of their new ideas and technology with all of those with whom they interact.  Sometimes to curry favor with peers and administrators, other times to “help out” a colleague. Great.

This strategy has built into its DNA the seeds of its own destruction.  In this situation, seasoned teachers may gravitate to some of these new tools and pick through them like a third grade prize box . . . pulling out only the best ideas to implement in their classroom.  Still, good.

When all of the seasoned teachers attempt to apply the new technology, one of three things occur: 1) The apply the technology without a full grasp of its real potential; 2) they apply the new technology without a full grasp of the limitations; 3) they apply the same technology tool their colleagues are and in the same slipshod manner.

Any of these will cause a problem for students and their learning community, but in concert they mean disaster and loss of instructional time and energy.

It is for this reason that I hold on to a new idea before rolling it out to colleagues.  This gives me time to master procedures in my particular classroom and with my curriculum and academic objectives.  I get to work out the kinks and then I can show my colleagues A) What it is; B) How it works; C) How I apply it; and, D) What the limitations are.

Timing of the roll-out is important.  Giving myself time to delve into the “Next Big Thing” before I let everyone else in on the tool I have developed allows a competitive edge.  Consider that my students take seven other classes during the school week.  If they encounter a new tool used in ineffective and incorrect ways in all seven other classes, their eyes will glaze over when they use it in my class.

I want every precious moment my students have with me to be focused and well-directed toward deep understanding of objectives.  Holding a tool in reserve is a good strategic move in keeping students interested and engaged.

When I consider my own personal learning style, I find that I learn the same way I teach.  I prefer my instructors to approach course objectives with some dimension, depth and differentiation.

The use of a tool because it is available is simply not acceptable.  Each component must have a raison d’être.  In the same way that barbecue sauce goes poorly on chocolate cake, the use of a power point that crams too much information onto each slide is distasteful; as is the use of the “talking head” as a video component.

As a teacher I am a facilitator of knowledge.  I take all the information that is important for my students to understand, measure it, weigh it and present it to them in a logical manner that will help them build understanding.  Occasionally, I toss in a formal or informal assessment to gauge misconceptions and to track growth during and after the lesson.

These assessments help me move the lesson along in a direction and speed that will best help student understanding. Thus, a good lesson in my French class will begin with a problem or question to get the learner thinking about the objective.  Next we share our perspectives.  The whiteboard lesson will take the intangible thoughts and give them a bit of structure.  Next we can insert applicable video or reading.  Pausing from time-to-time to assess grasp of the concept, I can use these videos as opportunities for informal assessment — adjusting speed and direction as necessary.  A practice set allows me to see how their understanding has developed during the class.

I teach how I learn.  Using all the tools I can to help build real understanding in my students.

On a personal note, I have to say that I was impacted by the lecture style of Professor Steinhoff back in the late 1980s.  Anyone who attended Liberty back then likely experienced one of  his multimedia extravaganzas.  It seemed each lesson brought to bear so much… overhead, posters, slides, VHS, acting… It all made sense when taken in together.

An instructor must differentiate his instruction in order to be effective.  Using a broad spectrum of presentation tools and styles helps give the student more angles on the learning objective.  So, as a learner, this is what I prefer.

I am an active member of a number of online communities.  They reflect different interests in general, but tend to converge at various points.  I am active on Facebook, Edmodo, CCAEagles.org, luonline, ISTE, and a number of other sites like Skype and Twitter to lesser degrees.

To me, online communities allow for better contact with students and parents.  Within the confines of these contact points, I am able to explain and clarify the intricacies of the day’s lesson.  I am also able to assign work and collect assessments of my students through sites like Edmodo.  Here, students are able to message me with questions or post those questions to the stream so the entire class is able to benefit from their question and my response.

Through my school blog/class website (ccaeagles.org) I am able to easily interact with parents and students about academic progress and the like.  Here is where I post notes whole cloth.  Via the email function of the page, students are able to voice concerns or gain clarity on tougher concepts, thus, allowing me to reach out to their classmates with the clarification or additional information the class needs to succeed.

Facebook is the tool I use to connect to friends and family near and far.  I prefer these discussions be in the open with students, should they have an urgent question.  Photos, videos and text converge in this forum to provide a fairly balanced platform.  As with any technology, care must be taken to not over-use Face book.  I try not to check my Facebook too often, but daily birthdays and occaisional notes about big events are posted here.

With each of these, balance is key.  If we are not careful, we can easily get swamped by artificial obligations to check and post to our online communities.

One of the key components to team success is the evaluation process.  Without it neither individual nor collective progress can be measured nor made.  Leaders must know what assets are at their disposal to meet each challenge (Gueldenzoph & May, 2006).  These assets certainly include software and hardware, but the most important asset at his disposal is the staff working with him to assess problems and develop and implement solutions to the challenges facing the school or district (Gueldenzoph & May, 2006).

The team leader must know how effective his team is in the execution of their individual and collective responsibilities.  To this end numerous models have been developed to help the leader evaluate and rank individuals within the team based on defined sets of criteria.  Some of these include Employee Performance Mapping, Management by Objectives (MBO) and Professional Growth Plans (PGPs) (Hall, 2008).  Each focuses on a different line of attack as it pertains to the individual’s contribution to the team’s goals(Myers et al, 2007).

To be sure, the leader must build up leaders from with the ranks of his team.  IN the end he is accountable for the growth of individuals in his team.  He must also be clear about his expectations and his team’s performance standards.  Finally, the leader takes on the role of working to assure each team member has a shot at achieving success (Hall, 2008).

Regardless of the model used to assess team members, each member must be aware of the process and expectations prior to the assessment process.  This way, the leader is better assured of the team members’ best work for the evaluation process (Hall, 2008).

Schools, traditionally, do a poor job of evaluating teachers.  Typically, the evaluator sits in on one lesson and gives a “whole year” evaluation based on twenty minutes of time spent in the classroom.  This is certainly not the best means of determining individual or collective success.  New processes are being implemented which take a broader look at individual and collective achievement by instructors (Myers et al, 2007).

The broader the perspective, the better the end product.

References:

Gueldenzoph, L. & May, G. (2006) The Effect of Social Style on Peer Evaluation Ratings in Project Teams. The Journal of Business Communication. 43. (1). P 4

Hall, D. (2008) The technology director’s guide to leadership: the power of great questions. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education

Myers, N., Paiement, C. Feltz, D. (2007) Regressing Team Performance on Collective Efficacy: Considerations of Temporal Proximity and Concordance. Measurement in Physical Education & Exercise Science. 11. (1). P 1

Although there are numerous schools of thought concerning organizational development, Hall (2008) describes four distinct phases that technology teams go through they are, forming, storming, norming and performing.  This structure is helpful when leading any group of educational technology leaders.  Careful attention to the dynamics at work within the team will help the implementation of the technology at the administrative and classroom level.

The first stage Hall (2008) describes is the forming stage.  Here the team is assembled and undergoes a kind of honeymoon in which they enjoy the excitement of all things new and shiny.  Members seldom question ideas and strategies.  Even the strongest members of the team appear to be complaisant in all matters.

Next the team may encounter a problematic phase.  Hall (2008) calls this the storming phase.  Here the comfort of the forming stage gives way to such comfort among the team members that they develop cliques and alliances which are disruptive of the group dynamic.  This phase of the organization may be looked back upon as “the good old days,” but as it the team is enduring it, there is a lot of contention and division.  During this phase, even the most driven members of the team produce little to nothing and fail to meet deadlines and individual goals.  For the sake of the team and the larger objectives the team is charged to develop, it is best to get through the storming phase as quickly as possible and with as little time and resources wasted in the process(Wilpert, 1995).

Following the storming phase, teams will often encounter the norming phase.  Here, the leader brings the team together to define for and with them the guidelines for the creation and advancement of the team’s culture.  All members of the team are encouraged to participate in the creation of these norms, thereby making them a point of shared ownership.  This shared ownership builds cooperation among the team members and tends to break down walls that may have grown among the team.  Although this process is often formal, it may be very informal in nature.  This process develops individual accountability that allows the team to work together toward common goals(Wilpert, 1995).

Once the team comes through the previous stages, the real work can be done.  This last stage is called the performing stage.  Individual members, being held to the standards that bind all members, work toward the common goals of the team individually and collectively.  High volumes of quality work will flow from team members ahead of schedule.  This is the goal of any team, but care must be taken by the team leader to keep the team from regressing into earlier stages(Wilpert, 1995).

Hall (2008) points out “blinders” which prevent the team from thinking ahead to avoid future problems.  Among these are, stringent deadlines, tight budget constraints, lack of authority by the team or its members, lack of understanding by the team or its members, technical limitations, and failure of the team or its members to consider what impediments lie just ahead.

References:

Hall, D. (2008) The technology director’s guide to leadership: the power of great questions. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education

Wilpert, B. (1995) Organizational Behavior. Annual Review of Psychology. 46. P 59