Uncategorized – Savor Every Byte

Publication: Learning About Makerspaces: Professional Development with K-12 Inservice Educators

In December of 2017, Dr. Cassie Scharber and I published “Learning About Makerspaces: Professional Development with K-12 Inservice Educators”, in a special issue of the Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education (JDLTE).

Peterson, L., & Scharber, C. (2018). Learning About Makerspaces: Professional Development with K-12 Inservice Educators. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(1), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2017.1387833

Abstract

Makerspaces are the latest educational movement that may disrupt the “grammar of schooling.” Makerspaces may change the ways schools use technology; change the ways schools engage in learning and teaching; and change the forms of learning that count in schools. However, without deliberate professional learning and planning, the glamor of new tech tools can overshadow the importance of pedagogy within makerspaces. We share our approach to makerspace professional learning in K–12 schools, which is adapted from the Frank et al. “Focus, Fiddle, and Friends” framework on knowledge diffusion within schools. Our workshops focus on teaching and learning strategies, model making pedagogy, expose educators to current technology tools, and value play.

December 2, 2017

AERA 2017- San Antonio, TX

In the spring of 2017, I presented at the American Education Research Association Conference in San Antonio, TX. I had a wonderful experience meeting new scholars, getting feedback on my work, and experiencing San Antonio with my peers.

I presented a round table on behalf of my peers Dr. Cassie Scharber and Tiffany Nielsen-Winkelman titled, “If You Build It, They [Don’t Always] Come”: Investigating K–12 Tech-Infused Flexible Learning Spaces. This study investigates newly designed learning spaces within three schools: one elementary, one middle, and one high school. Guided by script theory, this qualitative case study describes (1) the ways in which these spaces are being used for teaching and learning, (2) how technology tools are being used by teachers/students, and (3) the impact these spaces had on teachers’ pedagogical practices. “Underutilized potential” was evident across the three schools, most notably at the middle school. Oftentimes, spaces were empty or being used as a “pull out” space for students with special needs. While the access to technology was robust, the actual use of technologies was limited. There is little evidence of shifts to teachers’ traditional pedagogical practices.

I presented a paper with my peer Dan Bordwell titled, Empowering Students to Turn Knowledge Into Action: Development of Civic Identities Through Micro-Writing Workshops. This Design-Based Implementation Research study informs the development and implementation of a civic micro-writing workshop to help students identify and enact civic anonymous and non-anonymous identities through online discussions. Using Critical Discourse Analysis, researchers analyzed discussion boards within three ninth grade honors government classes. The results helped builded the writer’s workshop based on Kahne et al.’s Participatory Politics Framework and research on new digital literacies.

Additionally it was my first AERA officially serving as the graduate student representative for the Computers and Internet Applications in Education SIG. Here is a group photo from our business meeting:

April 15, 2017

Better and Better

Modules 4-6 look very similar but their interaction is unique. Each of these modules is some kind of assessment; the difference is whom the assessor is. As we encourage reflection for our students we must as that educators and student project planners look back and evaluate their work. It is through this evaluation that we believe that practitioners, no matter their role, will grow to use service-learning with quality. At NYLC we base the quality of the service-learning on the use of the K-12 Service-Learning Standards for Quality Practice.

A few years ago NYLC contracted with The Center for Urban Initiatives & Research

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee to create The GSN Self-Assessment Guide for Service-Learning Projects. This is a multi-step process that has practitioners self-rate their service-learning project by using evidence such as student work. This rubric will serve as the guide for modules 4-6. Below is an example of one of the rubric pages and a final scoring sheet.

Members will go through and use the evidence that they uploaded to self-rate using this process. The project-planning tool will not allow the member(s) to use the self-assessment module until the member(s) have uploaded at least 8 pieces of evidence (one for each standard). The rating tool will also allow the member to leave comments. The project will not be complete until the member has completed the self-assessment module.

Modules five and six are optional but both will be recognized with badges and will use a similar process. Module five will require a GSN member assess another member’s project and provide feedback. The assessor will use the same rating scale, utilize the evidence uploaded by the project planner, and provide comments. The NYLC adjudication is similar but may be more of a back and forth until the member increases the quality of the plan or the evidence. This is a win-win-win situation because it allows the member to have their project “NYLC Certified”, it shows are other members which projects have been stamped as quality, and it gives us at NYLC a solid library of quality projects to use as examples.

May 9, 2014

Combatting Complacency

I spend most of my time selling the idea and training on service-learning. I rarely, however, get the chance to sit down with a group of folks committed to service-learning as a best-practice pedagogy and analyze the method. That is why some of my favorite service-learning discussions happen with members who work in higher ed settings. Although I am committed to training on service-learning in the K-12 education field, I find university faculty more willing to talk openly about its challenges and successes with a probing eye.

On Friday, April 5, I had the opportunity to attend a discussion titled “Combatting Complacency: Challenges of Advancing a Critical Service-Learning Pedagogy”, led by Professor Tania D. Mitchell from the University of Minnesota. Professor Mitchell shared some of her research on the difference between “traditional” and “critical” pedagogy within service-learning. Critical service-learning is focused on social change and redistribution of power, which causes service in the first place. This method is change driven, versus need driven, and sees community partners as teaching partners.

This made me think of the K-12 Service-Learning Standards for Quality Practice, and how people use the eight standards for planning or to ”check off” their progress along the way. How many teachers have sat down and really studied the indicators for those standards to really assess whether or not they are truly meeting those teaching practice standards in their classroom?

In her many positions at a range of universities from Amherst to Stanford, Tania has served in many different roles related to service-learning and culture. She stressed that it is a hard to find a balance between encouraging teachers to integrate service-learning as a methodology, and to think beyond the “my students volunteered X amount of hours in the community resulting in $X contributed because of their service” mentality. I struggle with that same balancing act as a professional development manager; I want to encourage teachers to try, but I also want to give them the push to create real change.

Inevitably, these discussions led to the institutional barriers that higher ed schools face, including the integration of technology, which, to me, was not the intended focus of the discussion, but it was hard to ignore. Hurdles such as the school calendar, tenure procedures, job descriptions, ease of integration, the marginalization of serviced-learning, professional development, language and definition, humanities vs. science-based courses, and students not seeing the community around the university as their home were all mentioned as barriers that faculty in the room face. The answer to all of these seems to be a shift in culture, starting with the leadership.

In closing, I ask everyone reading this from any setting: Are you, or the teachers you work with, using a traditional or critical approach to service-learning? What are the hurdles you are facing institutionally to service-learning, and how can we work together around those?

To read more about critical pedagogy in service-learning, visit:
Traditional vs. Critical Service-Learning: Engaging the Literature to Differentiate Two Models, Tania D. Mitchell
Critical Consciousness and Critical Service-Learning at the Intersection of the Personal and the Structural, Etsuko Kinefuchi

Originally posted and written for the National Youth Leadership Council’s blog

April 17, 2013

Category: Uncategorized

Publication: Learning About Makerspaces: Professional Development with K-12 Inservice Educators

Please tell your friends:

AERA 2017- San Antonio, TX

Please tell your friends:

Better and Better

Please tell your friends:

Combatting Complacency

Please tell your friends: