Code of Conduct

The NSW DET Code of Conduct  was updated and took effect last week. The changes are sensible and staff at school have been briefed.

                                          page 16 of the NSW DET Code of Conduct

 

The major additions relate to social media and are not draconian like those announced in Queensland last year that Kelli wrote about with such eloquence and passion. There was also an ethics poster added to outline the philosophical underpinnings of the code.

The basic message re: social networks is do “not invite students into your personal network site, if it contains personal information or inappropriate comments or images”.

My personal system is that I do not add students to my Facebook while they are students. I usually see the kid at school who ‘added’ me and explain my personal policy. I have quite a few ex-students though, which is great!

Thoughts about the ‘code’?

What’s your policy?

PLNs and PLEs

Last year I started asking around, on Twitter, for the origin of the acronyms that I was reading so much about. ‘Personal Learning Networks’ (PLNs) and ‘Personal Learning Environments’ (PLEs) were so often used by the educators that I was following that it was surprising no-one really could source them.

Recently, I have had more luck. Both David Warlick and George Siemens were generous in their explanations and insights.  Stephen Downes’ comments and posts helped put it all together and one just followed the breadcrumbs.

Warlick’s explanation of the origin of PLNs and Downe’s comment that Warlick has been promoting the term in his articles and that:

“The term ‘Personal Learning Network’ is directly derived from ‘Personal Learning Environment’, which as history shows was first used at the The Personal Learning Environments Session at a JISC/CETIS Conference in 2004.”

completes the picture (although I do not understand the politics of this completely) and places these terms in context.

This post is really about framing these concepts for potential use in a NSW DET context. I believe that we should use PLN as a term for teachers/staff and PLE in relation to students’ learning needs. I wrote to a ‘system leader’ outlining this last year:

If we facilitated a model that emphasised each professional teacher developing their understanding and skills on how to create a Personal Learning Network (PLN) using Web 2.0 tools along with traditional notions of professional development (professional associations, regional networks, school-based TPL), it is possible that a quantum leap forward in how students were taught and learn, may take place

If we developed a model that emphasised each student having a Personal Learning Environment (PLE) and facilitated staff understanding of how this could be undertaken, learning outcomes would not only be enhanced but potentially, teachers and students could adapt more readily to technological change due to the development of this most flexible of models.

Considering the evolution of the acronyms, surely we could use them to communicate the changed teaching and learning landscape.  How far do we educators (and our systems) have to go to get up to speed with the tools, and more importantly the pedagogy, that is needed for ‘our times’ and could this framing assist?

What are your thoughts on developing the PLE concept for students and that of a PLN for educators?

Finally, I am looking forward to Stephen Downes’ seminar next Tuesday in Sydney

NB Thought I’d update this post (October 2009) with a link to Stephen Downes’ latest archaeological dig.

‘The Clay Layer’

The glacial pace of change in Education is a theme constantly discussed by colleagues I admire but mostly I hear the opposite, that change is too relentless, too challenging.

Systems seem to have some inbuilt, organic way of slowing change - preserving the status quo – and even when the paradigm shift is acknowledged, key players seem unable to generate the enthusiasm or traction to make it happen.

President Barack Obama’s success, fueled by new media tools like Twitter, the desire for change and more participation in politics by ordinary folks, has met with the expected challenges in Washington:

Government 2.0 has reached its midlife crisis. Despite some leadership from influential individuals on using social software in government, there is still in many cases a disconnect between authorities issuing directives and ground troops carrying them out. In some corridors of Washington, this impervious middle section of government is jokingly referred to as “the clay layer,” the layer through which no light shall pass. Resistant to change and adhering strictly to doctrine even when nonsensical, people in the clay layer can halt progress. Despite their intentions and being in a strategic position, they often stop the progress being called for. SOURCE: Government 2.0: The Mid-life Crisis

I encourage you to read the entire article and also Web-Savvy Obama Team Hits Unexpected Bumps as this experiment in more open government, if successful, provides authority for others endeavouring to make changes in a range of institutions around the world.

Back to Education 2.0. There’s plenty of reading about some of our challenges in NSW with Web 2.0 innovation available in the blogosphere. The filtering in schools worldwide is increasingly making students and teachers despair. The comments at Teachers attack DET filters are a numerous sample of the opinions many hold on this unnecessarily contentious issue. If filtering is about ‘Child Protection’ then a growing body of empirical evidence suggests we are being overly cautious and, as a result, stifling innovation.

For example, the Final Report of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force to the Multi-State Working Group on Social Networking of State Attorneys General of the United States does not support the assertions made in the ZDNet article about ‘Child Protection’.

“A Harvard-based task force set up in the wake of an agreement by MySpace and state Attorneys General has released its report on the safety of children who venture online. It has concluded that the dangers are often overhyped, and that many of them arise from other adolescents.” SOURCE

We have our own ‘clay layer’ and we need some ‘new thinking’ and savvy people not only leading the innovation but making it work. The challenges are numerous and it is easy to be critical but without criticism we are unlikely to adapt at the pace needed. To quote again from the article about President Obama’s challenges:

“You have a choice: you can either create your own future, or you can become the victim of a future that someone else creates for you. By seizing the transformation opportunities, you are seizing the opportunity to create your own future.”

Just had a feed from Seth Godin’s blog which felt relevant:

When people read great ideas online, I often wonder what happens to them after that… Nodding is fun to watch, but largely ineffective.

How will Education 2.0 advocates create the future for children and their communities?

Collisions & Smash Repairs

more about “Collisions & Smash Repairs – Uploaded…“, posted with vodpod

 

 

 

 

This Mark Pesce keynote to the TAFE Sydney Institute ICT Roundtable, held at the Ultimo campus, Wednesday 13 August 2008 makes the point that Education, like information, wants to be free. I particularly like his comments about Twitter being an extension of our classroom conversation. He really gives the DET a blast for blocking it.

Blocked Site

Blocked Site

Alas, went to work during my hols again today and of course, all social networking sites are blocked to staff, regardless of position in the school. I will request that Twitter is unblocked – and Facebook, but suspect my request will be denied. We are so starved of information about the changes that will take place in schools – laptop and wireless networking rollout – that a few more people on Twitter from DET may help us all understand what is actually going on.