Author: lanapeterson

Modules 1-3 represent the unit or project plan for the user(s). It will be in this section that they answer the questions:

1. What will youth know or be able to do at the end of this project? (Identify Desired Results)
2. How will you know they have learned that knowledge or gained those skills? (Determine Acceptable Evidence)
3. And finally what activities or lessons will they participate in to achieve those results? (Plan Student Experiences)

For each module NYLC will be capturing videos that show projects in that phase of planning and implementing. These videos could capture instruction, interviews with adults or students, or students serving in the community. While it will take time to build the video library to start off we want to capture a K-12 classroom educator at each level (elementary, middle, and high school), a group student (who serve in a youth council of some sort), and an educator that works outside of the formal K-12 classroom in each step of the planning and implementing process. Luckily, we have a budget to make this happen.

Each project that is featured through video will have the formal curriculum to support ensuring that members can cross reference the larger plan when watching shorter videos. Additional videos could also include mini (3-5) webinars or instructional videos created by NYLC. Each module is set up so that the videos and supporting documents can be modified at anytime because we know that videos age quickly and we want the tool to stay relative and build over time.

Another constant through the modules will be the presence and encouragement of using the K-12 Service-Learning Standards for Quality Practice. While the modules represent the different steps in the recipe, the K-12 Service-Learning Standards for Quality Practice represent the ingredients. Majority of NYLC’s resources are based on these standards and many of these standards happen naturally within service-learning. However, there are key indicators for using the standards with quality.

Every module will feature supporting resources to guide users through answering the questions. For instance in module one there will be documents that users can call upon to look up the Common Core State Standards, the Next Generation Science Standards, civic outcomes, character outcomes, and leadership outcomes if they need help defining their desired outcomes. Along with the library of standards, their will be resources to help decide guiding questions as well as unpacking those standards and goals.

Module two will have supporting resources that support users in defining how youth will prove their growth for the defined outcomes in module one. Again with videos but also with content that teaches how to create a rubric, what are examples of formative and summative assessments, how can young people self or peer assess? Often times the assessment or final project in service learning is the service itself or the demonstration of that service. This can be very tricky because one of the standards for service-learning is youth voice so how can educators ensure that students are meeting the standards but still getting voice and choice.

Module three will use the IPARD model for service-learning to plan the student experience. Often times people start with this step when planning but this is really the student inquiry process for service-learning and doesn’t represent a full plan. For each step of the IPARD process we will have supporting resources:

via gsn.nylc.org

Investigation: community research, inquiry based lesson, defining the community need

Planning: how the need will be met, student roles and collaborations, who in the community can you call upon for support

Action: direct, indirect, or advocacy, addressing the root cause vs. putting a band aid on an issue

Reflection: cognitively challenging reflection, happens before during and after, multiple intelligences

Demonstration: reporting results to the community, proposing next steps, engaging important stakeholders

Modules 1-3 will have a similar feel, after a member plans module 1-3 they will go back and add evidence as their plan comes to fruition.

Based on my research there is not a project-based learning tool or a service-learning online multimedia tool that guides educators or students through the process. There are a lot of worksheets and handouts but nothing interactive or engaging.

Currently on our site a user titles their project, then adds a description, some “tags” to make it easier to search and then publishes. Leaving it up to them if they are interested in adding additional resources such as unit/project plans, supporting documents, pictures, or videos. Since there is no incentive for doing so, unless being directed by an instructional coach or program coordinator many projects are left unfinished. Which leaves us with a library of half-ideas for projects. We encourage and take pride that users upload their projects at the inception of the idea vs. when the project is complete but often that strategy backfires.

Hopefully with the integration of the project-planning tool it will better guide members in sharing specific details and helpful pieces of evidence. By integrating the digital badges members will ideally feel incentivized to continue working on their project. Another feature that will support this is email reminders for those who have begun projects but then deserted them.

In the simplest form, this is how the tool will work. Modules 1-3 will guide the user through a series of questions based on what NYLC believes are the best steps for planning. The questions will all be guided with resources to help the user(s) plan their projects.

Ideally, this happens at the beginning before the project happens but if not the users can retroactively share what happened. From there before moving onto module four the users will upload pieces of evidence which could be student samples, newsletters about the project, videos from class or media coverage, pictures of students working, etc.

The tool will require them to upload five artifacts or pieces of evidence before moving onto module four which is self-assessment. At this point the user’s project can be complete, or they can choose to enter their project into a queue to be peer-assessed. The peers will use the evidence and artifacts to rate and give feedback to their peer. Both the project creator and the assessor will receive a badge for participating. If the project creator wants to complete the full cycle, they can submit their project for NYLC adjudication. The only catch is that will be for a charge because it requires staff time. If the member is a part of a specific NYLC program they may be granted a code to bypass the fee.

Without getting too far into details about the specific modules some overall tool will include the following features:

• Multiple members may co-create projects
• The user(s) can print at any time
• The user(s) will receive email notifications if:

1. Their project has been sitting too long in steps 1-3 without updating or evidence added
2. Their project has steps 1-3 completed and evidence added but hasn’t been self-assessed.
3. Their project has been peer assessed
4. Their project has been NYLC assessed

• As soon as they move to the next module their project will be saved
• Members can go back and forth between modules or just use the tool as a professional development opportunity

Alternative uses

Many service-learning organizations and funders offer small grants $500-$10,000 to schools and classes for service-learning projects. Many of the grants ask similar questions to our module 3. If educators and youth are already going through this process to share their project, why not make the grant application within the same tool? The GSN gets more content, the tool has multiple purposes, and the grant applicant gets support along the way. The grant module would feature any additional question that the funder or program would need addressed in order to be processed. This may be logistical questions, information about their specific issue area, or other questions. The module would be modified based on the grant application.

From there, NYLC can pull the applications, judge them and award the best ones a grant and a badge.

While this semester, my growth and learning in terms of learning technologies has primarily been focused on digital badges, it really only represents half of the updates I am making to the online community. The second half is the creation of an interactive, multi-media, service-learning project planning tool. The need and idea for this tool came from several areas:

Service-Learning often gets a bad wrap in the classroom because people are not planning or implementing with quality. Either their focus is too much on the service or it becomes project-based learning, both equally good things amongst themselves but they are not service-learning.

We see educators and students starting with the genuine community need, planning activities, and loosely tying it back to goals and outcomes. These projects may have impact on students but often focus on the “nice-to-know” vs. the “need-to-know”. And with the continued focus on accountability schools do not have time for the “nice-to-know”.

We also see educators and students using the K-12 Service-Learning Standards for Quality Practice as their planning tool. And while the standards do represent the best practices within service-learning, amongst themselves do not provide enough support to bring students from A-Z.

A widely used model for planning service-learning is the IPARD model: Investigation, Planning, Action, Reflection, and Demonstration. It is similar to many inquiry models in education but this is the process the students go through and before we get to this process, educators should have their goals and outcomes defined and their assessments mapped.

via nylc.org

Hence, NYLC wants to create an interactive project planning tool to guide teachers through the planning process to ensure that service-learning is planned with quality. Our past Research Director, Susan Root, used Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe’s Understanding by Design to create a planning form and supporting trainings that we believe leads to quality service-learning projects.

Here is the challenge, educators (in particular those serving in a formal pre-K through 12 settings), only represent a portion of who will be using this tool. We want this tool to be applicable and useful for all of our members which includes youth ages 13-24 and adults who do not serve as a K-12 educators (including Higher ED). We need to modify the process so that everyone can relate and understand the process no matter what setting they are in.

Not everyone who is using service-learning has a curriculum to base the project on. That being said, they still should have defined goals and outcomes for the participants (even if they are the participants) before they begin the project. For example, a student group may decide that they are looking to grow as leaders. In particular, they would like to grow their skills and knowledge related to public speaking and project management. They would create clear goals and outcomes for that growth before the project begins.

To appeal to a large audience this tool also cannot look like a blank worksheet, in fact I am not sure what audience that would ever appeal to. One tool that was created 3-4 years ago was Lift. Lift is a multimedia tool that follow three schools (one elementary, one middle, and one high school) from around the country that NYLC believes has an exemplar service-learning program. The tool is colorful, has dynamic videos, downloadable resources, and reflection questions. People from around the world call upon the Lift to see what the K-12 Service-Learning Standards for Quality Practice look like in person.

There are some problems with the tool. The first being that it is built in flash and not accessible for many mobile devices, making it difficult to access for some. The second is that it is yet another website for NYLC to maintain and takes people away from the GSN. The videos and content within the site are not easily changeable; in order to add new schools many videos would need to be re-edited. NYLC staff does not have access to add and remove tools from the site. The Lift also needs to appeal to a large audience but in doing so leaves out opportunities to feature content that specific audiences may find helpful. For example, there is a lot of video of students in-action planting trees and working collaboratively but less of the instruction in the classroom.

In a past blog you saw an overall concept video that I shared with the RFP bidders. Building on the design in that video, the next few posts highlight more in-depth planning of the project-planning tool (which seriously needs a new name). Using all of the inspiration and lessons-learned above.

Hopefully, by now through the blog my readers have an idea of my large-scale vision for the digital badges and project-planning tool. The further the project moves forward, the more details I need to figure out. The bidders for the RFP had a lot of great questions for me and through providing answers my plan begins to build. Specifically what badges we want to offer is something I have been grappling with for some time.

In the fall of 2013 through my practical research course I created a research proposal that stated I wanted to increase autonomy, relatedness, and competence in which based on the Self-Determination Theory created by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan.  I am arguing would hopefully increase motivation for our members. Motivation for what? Well motivation to participate in NYLC’s programs both online and in-person and our programs. Our programs are based on NYLC’s mission which is:

to create a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world with young people, their schools, and their communities through service-learning.

I have struggled through this argument a few times because Deci, Ryan, deCharms, and others have wrote about the effects of using rewards and the effect it has on extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivation. Not considering the power that badges could have, especially if we as an educational field can build common ground around the worth and value exchange of badges. In the least, if you consider offering badges to my members for their actions is almost like giving them a special cookie every time they do something I want them to do. What do I want them to do?

Engage with their peers, learn more about a powerful pedagogy, make plans to make the word a better place, share their knowledge and expertise, change the lives of young people whom they work with everyday by showing them that they have power and voice in this world. If initially, my members engage more because of the badges, the rewards, the external acknowledgement, I don’t care. I have seen lives changed, professions refreshed, and classrooms, schools, and districts turned around completely because of the use of service-learning as a powerful teaching strategy. That is where the intrinsic rewards will come through.

Let me cautiously jump off my soapbox quickly to show you my plan for the digital badges. I shared in my earlier blog post that I loved how Buzz Math organized and shared the details of how to earn badges. In retrospect, my only addition to that and maybe this is possible once you actually sign into Buzz Math is that I would love for you to see exactly who has earned that badge.

The first step in designing the badges was creating a logic model. This is my first attempt and there may be some holes in my theory but somewhere to start and discuss:

From there I move to design, a few years ago I went to a training on engagement pyramids for non-profits. Using their logic, I modified my pyramid to relate to my needs. This is my engagement pyramid acknowledging member’s behaviors from just being present and participating to contributing and then mastery.

From there a breakdown of badges in each area I am calling the GSN Badge Matrix. A never-complete guide to the badges that you can earn from both online and offline participation in NYLC’s programming. I say never-complete with pride as we continue to build and grow at NYLC. As we develop more online tools, events, trainings, and programming we want badging to be a core element across. Thus this badge plan will always serve as a working document.

The RFP had been floating around the interwebs for approximately two weeks when the follow up questions began to roll in. Since this process is new to me, I was really not sure what to expect. Below are a series of questions that were asked to me through email:

Where is the site hosted?

Can we obtain access to the source code, some or all, to review so we know the quality of code we’ll be working with?

What database does it use?

Does any of the existing major functionality of the site depend on any 3rd party gems (aside from the core Rails ones)?

Are they using a CDN (such as Amazon S3) for any storage?

The expectation that the two new functions of the site (the badges support and the planning modules support) would be integrated directly into the existing site code, or that they would be bundled gems?

Are there any restrictions on which 3rd party gems can be used the site?

Is the existing code currently stored in a code repository, such as git or svn?

How well tested is the existing code on a unit-testing level and on an integration-testing level?

What testing framework (RSpec, TestUnit, Cucumber, etc.) is used?

Could you send a copy of the existing code base, schema, or object model? (this would answer a lot of questions…)

Could you send screen shots, or a login to the current administrative interface? If you have a staging/demo environment, that would work as well.

Could you provide more detail on how you see the modules behaving? Are there a lot of fields to fill out? Is it one long page? Are there new files/videos/etc for each module?

Will modules be visible to non-authors? Only after they are published? What all will be visible to non-authors?

Are the modules linear or can users jump around and complete modules in any order?

Could you provide examples of how a user completes a module? Can this be done by only the project members, or does a community manager/admin play a role?

Do you have community managers today? What access do they have?

Could you provide examples of some of the badges you expect to use?

How many badges do you anticipate having? Would you like us to provide the design assets for these?

Could I ask what your target budget for this project?

Some of those questions I can answer but a lot of them seem to be in a different language. My organization is small but mighty, we are a programs organization focused on youth development. We do big things with a small budget and that budget does not include a lot of IT support unfortunately. Through this process I realized those were questions I should know or at least someone at my office should know but we don’t. What made a difficult situation worse was that the person who did know those answers (our current developer) was also bidding on the project so it was a conflict of interest.

These questions only represented what was emailed with me. Which is also another lesson learned. I thought in the RFP I was clear on the process but now reading back, I wasn’t. In my ideal world everyone would submit their questions through an email so I could collect them all and answer them all at once through a bidders conference call. Instead I had eight different vendors sending me requests for individual meetings all asking me similar but different questions. In the future, I will be clearer with my directions and stricter on the process because it in end it was more time consuming than necessary.

Another reflection on all of the questions asked was that every vendor asked different questions. Some had a lot of more tech-based questions, some focused on what our relationship would be, some wanted to know more about the plan for content. There was a lot of discrepancy in the essential information needed to move forward. In general, I learned I needed to be much more detailed in the future.

Each year the National Youth Leadership Council convenes the National Service-Learning Conference. This year was the first time the event took place in our nation’s capitol, Washington D.C. Like every other year, the event was inspiring, educational, and energizing featuring speakers such as Sandra Day O’Connor, Philippe Cousteau Jr., and Cassandra Lin. The National Service-Learning Conference is made up of 40% young people under the age of 24 and represents the GSN’s audience of adults and youth engaged in service-learning.

To capitalize on the opportunity we host focus groups each year with a set of youth and a set of adults who are GSN members. Each year our questions shift slightly depending on what we are trying to find information about. This year, given the updates to the GSN we asked about motivation and incentives. While we learned a lot from our members for future updates the two pieces of feedback the stood out related to digital badges and the project-planning tool were certificates and mobile access.

Educators are required and encouraged to engage in professional development to stay certified and move up the pay scale. In order to prove this, they must have documentation from the professional development organization. This made me realize that every member who earns a badge should be able to print out a certificate with their name on it and an explanation of what they had to do to earn the badge. For students this could count towards school or extra curricular activities as well.

The second suggestion of mobile access made me realize that I should have required the updates made to the GSN to be mobile accessible in the RFP. The question is, if one part of the site is optimized for mobile use but the other isn’t, is it still helpful. This can be a question for the bidders.

After many revisions, brainstorms, procrastinating moments, it is here: the RFP for the web development work on the GSN. It may have taken me a long time because I had no idea what I was doing. It was also difficult because the digital badges and the project-planning tool are two different projects but they will need to interact. There were some resources I called upon in the process.

The first resource, which I found most valuable, is from the Warehouse Education and Research Council; it gave me a step-by-step process for creating the RFP.

Some other resources that I found helpful were:

FivePaths, LLC

Confluent Forms

Tech Soup

Net Dynasty/Priority Net Marketing

The Nerdery

So without further ado below is the RFP we published on May 31st, 2014. A special thanks to my boss Susan Valdés, and my colleagues Amy Meuers and Davis Parker for their editing: NYLC RFP 033114

In my blog about the presentation from Elisabeth Soep I didn’t mention the second half of the presentation. It was a panel of local innovators: Cassie Scharber (moderator), Marika Staloch, Youth Services Director, St. Paul Public Libraries; Jenna Sethi, Youth Studies, University of Minnesota, Delania Haug, Teacher, South High School, Minneapolis.

While all of the panelists had interesting things to say Marika Staloch announced that the St. Paul Public Libraries had received a grant from MacArthur for an innovative learning lab. The learning lab will be the in-person center for city-wide programming where young people can be supported through courses and caring mentors. As a part of this growing programming St. Paul will also be distributing badges.

BADGES?!? I am doing badges too! Please, be a learning friend. So of course I tracked Marika down after the presentation and asked if we could connect. She referred me to her colleague Leslie Spring, Library Associate at St. Paul Public Libraries. Leslie and I made a plan to meet up for coffee and she invited a colleague she was working with on their badges, Gary Leatherman, owner at macMonkey Digital Studios.

The first time we met we shared about our programs and goals. I shared about the Generator School Network and how I was currently writing an RFP for the badge integration. Leslie shared more about the program Marika introduced and some other connections with the Northstar Online Digital Literacy Assessment. Gary shared about some of the online platforms and curriculum he had experience with.

The second time we met we focused more on the technical aspects of the Open Badges platform. Leslie is lucky because essentially she gets to build her website from scratch and can choose a website platform that works best with Open Badges. I need to make it work with what I have, not that the GSN isn’t great but there are other types of websites that would maybe be easier. Gary is very helpful in this area because he stays up to date with the tech calls and can speak the lingo.

The advancements in Open Badges continue to happen all the time. This is wonderful considering it is free but also difficult because you need to make decisions based on the current technological capabilities. In a few months, there may be an update that could have saved you a lot of money from paying a web developer to create a custom solution.

What this means for my work

It is wonderful having a local personal learning network that I can call upon to learn and grow with. Continuing to call upon my growing tech network will be essential for the best design and implementation possible. Our coffee conversations have stretched my knowledge of Open Badges and challenged me to think of alternative solutions for my design.

Also, more meetings at Groundswell in St. Paul. They serve bacon, gruyere, rosemary scones.