Fostering Learning in Unique Ways: Greg Monaco, Great Plains Network Linda Rosenblum, National Park Service Randy Stout, KAN-Ed Kate Adams, Great Plains Network Brown v. Topeka Board of Education Interactive Panel Discussion

Outline 1. Overview: How this Activity Evolved (Randy) 2. Interactive Panel Event and National Park Service Involvement (Linda) 3. Supplemental Learning Pilot (Greg)

1. Overview: How this Evolved  GPN K20 Committee founded in 2006  Volunteer activity to pool efforts  Founding Members  Randy Stout  Sandy Sprafka (emeritus)  Kim Owen  Bill Giddings (emeritus)  Rick Golden  There are now 20 active subscribers to the mailing list, including teachers  Web site –

Activities  Phone Meetings to plan coordinated events  Developed Some Guiding Principles: 1.Take advantage of what’s available & local to the GPN Region 2.Retain for future use  Streams located at GPN Wiki 3.Curriculum materials should be available to teachers, both for the event itself and to accompany viewing after the event.

State and local organizations came together with K12 and higher ed. for some unique events.  Riverbluff Cave  Lessons from Greensburg  Chinese Autumn Harvest Festival

Curriculum Materials Issue  Tried a BLOG for Riverbluff  Book, when possible

Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site in Topeka, KS  Local to Randy and Greg  Contacted Linda Rosenblum  Visited Site

Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site Open Daily 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Free of charge

Note:  This would not have been possible without other Internet2 members as partners.  As with many of the events, the significance was not clear until it actually happened.  Linda Rosenblum and Randy Stout spearheaded the organization of the event and involvement of all appropriate people.

Kansas – Brown v. Board of Education 2. The Event  Linda Rosenblum, National Park Service

3. Supplemental Learning Pilot  Recap  How to provide supporting materials for teachers and students both before, during and after the event  Brown v Board web site has extensive curriculum materials  Blog didn’t really work  Security issues for GPN Wiki

Can we employ Web 2.0 technology successfully for an interactive distance learning event?  Learning should be enjoyable  Learning is collaborative  Learning is engaging  The idea is to "encourage kids to use media and technology and not let it use them." (from Human Futures for Technology and Education By Michael Wesch) Human Futures for Technology and EducationHuman Futures for Technology and Education

Pilot with the Brown v Board event:  Collaborative environment: wiki  Augments existing material and webcast/streaming  Sustainable and expandable  Informal testing of self and others  Ease of use for teachers  Identity management  Track student progress  Reinforcing to students

Wiki Choices  Better looking “skin”  Live chat  Contribution scores  User tracking  plains.net/k20 plains.net/k20 plains.net/k20  Made available for teacher use prior to event  Accounts grow from 7 to 33

Skin

Site

Post Questions

Contributions

Test Yourself

Contribution Scores Contribution Scores

Contributions

Chat

User Evaluation: Q1  How did you participate? (Note: Interactive Classrooms could ask questions of panelists; Video Streaming Classrooms saw the panelists but could not ask questions during the event.)  Panelist 1 (9.09%)  Teacher (Interactive Classroom) 1 (9.09%)  Teacher (Video Streaming Classroom) 1 (9.09%)  Student (Interactive Classroom) 2 (18.18%)  Student (Video Streaming Classroom) 0 (0%)  Technical Support 5 (45.45%)  Other 1 (9.09%)  Total11

User Evaluation: Q6  About the online information at the web site (please select all that apply)  I read information at the web site. 7 (63.64%)  I contributed information to the web site. 1 (9.09%)  I am likely to go to the web site in the future to read info.1 (9.09%)  I am likely to go to the web site to contribute info. again. 0 (0%)  I found the information helpful in preparing for the event. 3 (27.27%)  I did not use the web site. 1 (9.09%)  N/R 2 (18.18%)  Total15* *One could do multiple things at the web site.  Two comments:  The format of the wiki was confusing for the discussion portion. (student)  Good materials! (teacher)

User Evaluation: Q7  What are your suggestions for making a web site like this more useful:  I observed the students looking at the website and this is a great learning tool. This website needs to be available several days ahead of time. Our students didn't receive the web info until a day or two before the event. (Tech Support)  I had to make up a worksheet so that focus could be brought to certain material. The DVD material was helpful also, though on a low level. Maybe we could also know who made up the Supreme Court at the time and why the decision finally went the direction that it did. (Teacher)  Instead of a wiki, I suggest a blog site for instant chatting! (Student)

Conclusion  The event, itself, was a success  Intend to repeat, at least annually  Perhaps engage higher ed  More living history events  Web 2.0  Needs more testing/development  More fun  More variety  Easier to use  Multiple Web 2.0 features (wiki, blog, etc.)  Involve kids  Involve teachers early

The End       