Learning Design Summer Camp 2009 (Session 6)

Learning Design Summer Camp 2009 (Session 6)


[ no sound ] [ music ] [ applause ] [ idle chatter ] [ music ] [ applause ] [ idle chatter ] I got a few more for you before we kick off the second session. [ idle chatter ] [ music ] [ applause ] I think I’ll do one more. Thank you again for letting me play for all of you. And enjoy the next day and a half of Summer Camp. This is song is called, [ inaudible ]. [ music ] [ applause ]
Thank you! Hye, everybody! Welcome back to Learning Designs Summer Camp the afternoon sessions. Another round of applause for Dean Blackstock. [ applause ] If you didn’t catch him this morning, the thing I love about live music especially this performance here, is that everybody, like I look out on the crowd here, and everybody has like a little smile on their face and people are talking and laughing and stuff. Yeah, they’re chill-laxing. There you go. So thanks again Dean for doing that for us. I just want to start off talking a little bit about the Faculty Fellows program and then we’ll just jump into their discussion. The Faculty Fellows have really been thinking about their topics for say a month and half now. So I expect the discussion to be really good. Both between them and between them and the audience. The TLT Faculty Fellows program, we’ve always, TLT has always worked with faculty, but in a lot of cases in the past it’s been we’ll develop a multi-media tool. We’ll develop a course material. We’ll be like, you know like Cole was saying, we’ll ask for your
ten pages of content then we’ll turn that into an online course. And we rarely get to work with faculty on topics related to their research interests.
Because that’s, we’re in the job of teaching and learning. Putting courses online, right. So in 2008 Carla Zembal-Saul spent the summer with us and Carla, please correct me if I get any of this wrong. She was a first of a new type of Faculty Fellow. Pierre Centoss was with us before, but again that was working on specific course based tools. But she spent the summer with us on the topic, Blogs as Portfolio. And her thinking around that topic really shaped what we ended up doing with the Moveable Type platform. Thinking of it not just as a blogging platform, but for portfolios and that sort of thing. And in fact Cole just went out and talked to Moveable Type again and told them about what we had in mind. What our vision is for using their tool. And they were telling us about some of the new advancements that’s going to be in the next version. This year we have four Faculty Fellows. Carla’s come back to work with us again for another summer. And we also have Stuart Selber, Chris Long, and Ellysa Cahoy. The url down at the bottom links to all of their descriptions of their projects and to some of the blog posts and stuff that they’ve been making to Wiki pages and that sort of thing that are related to their projects. So with that I will turn it over to the Faculty Fellows and ask each of you, starting maybe with Stuart here, to just describe kind of your research interests. What you’ve been doing so far. And where you want to take it by the end of the summer. Sure, thanks! Stuart Selber I’m a faculty member in the English Department and I also have appointments in the science, technology and society program and in IST. Cole asked me if I wanted to be a Faculty Fellow and that would involve an air conditioned cubicle with a large screen monitor. So I don’t know if you’ve ever been in the Burrowes Building, that’s a great upgrade, so I said, I’ll do it. And you can tell me what the requirements are later.
And Cole said, well just pick something that you’re interested in and you want to work on. So how hard was that. So I proposed something that was already underway. I direct the writing program. The composition program at Penn State. We see ten thousand students a year in the first year course. And then we see all of those students again in the upper division writing requirement. One of the English 202’s. So we have two Gen Ed requirements. Cole said, we need so called high impact projects. I say we touch every Penn State tudent two times. And he said, that counts as a high impact project. Yeah, counts twice. I originally came to Cole because I wanted to run all of our writing classes in basically S-Tech rooms. And some universities do that. We’re sort of here in the 21st century and in many ways the writing program lags probably in large part because of our scale issues. We run a hundred and thirty-five sections of first year composition a semester. Twenty-four students per course. So you can do the math to see how many S-Tech rooms we would actually need.
Not a very realistic request. But in this day and age we don’t have to everything sort of tied, you know, geo physically. So we’ve been working on some virtual platforms and some hybrid configurations. And we’re starting relatively small with our upper division English 202 classes and in particular with the technical writing class. Which every engineering student and science student on campus has to take. And we picked one assignment, one sort of prototypical assignment out of that course. The instruction set. Which maps very nicely onto what instructional designers do here in ITS. So my project has been attempting to conceptualize what how to discourse looks like. More specifically the instruction set. When it moves online. We know a lot about what print based instruction sets look like. What they do. They’re sort of the rich research base for understanding that. Of course the instruction set has moved online. It’s fractured. It’s reconfigured. It’s it looks different, both in terms of design. But also in terms of who is contributing. There’s no longer this sort of expert to user function that we’ve understood in the offline world. It’s much more organic and bottom up. But we don’t really have a good understanding of that practice even though it’s wide spread. So in my project I’ve been trying to conceptualize what instruction sets look like when they move online. And I’ve developed some models for those. And then by the end of my time what I’d like to do is develop some pedagogical materials out of that. That can be used in the technical writing class. But also that could be used by instructional designers in ITS. For example, has ITS taken a hard look at it’s how to discourse to try and understand what it looks like as it moves online. Are we simply bringing along the conventions and practices that were developed in sort of an offline world or are we rethinking those practices. So that’s what my projects working on. Thanks Stuart. My name is Ellysa Cahoy and I am and I am assistant head of library learning services in the
university libraries here at University Park. And when Stuart said that what he’s doing is part of his project to sort of re-imagining reinventing a practice as it moves from print to online. That struck a cord with me because I think my project here in ETS this summer is somewhat similar. I am a former children’s librarian. And a former middle school librarian. And then nine years ago I came here to Penn State and was lucky enough to get a job here as what we call an academic librarian. And librarians here at Penn State are kind of a little bit outside the norm. Not every librarian at every school has faculty status and goes through the promotion and tenure process. I swear I’m gonna get somewhere with this. I’m not gonna just tell you my life story. I know John Meyer is already motioning me to move it along. Anyway, I have a very vivid memory of sitting down to actually think about what was my research agenda. Because when you’re a children’s librarian you just get to read children’s books all day.
You don’t have to have a research agenda. And so what was I actually gonna study here? I used to prove that I could actually stick around past six years. And I thought about how I had existed in the world of kids. And in the world of K to twelve up until I came here.
And I thought, well how can I connect K to twelve and college? And you know think of it as a continuum.
And so the first article that I wrote was actually about, we have information literacy standards in academic libraries, that are about what are the standards that college students should achieve in order to be information literate. And there are K to twelve standards too.
And so my first article was about connecting K to twelve and college information literacy standards. And little did I know when I wrote that first article, I’m not really a rule bound person, but and standards are kind of like rules.
But I really like writing about that. And so I’ve continued on with that. And what I I’m working on this summer, I finally got to it, is re-envisioning how information literacy standards and information literacy in general has changed. You know like Stuart said, kind of moving from print to online. If you think about what our students have created in the past. Well they’ve been writing research papers. As a librarian that’s been here at Penn State that’s been the body of my work is helping students find sources for their research papers. And now we find, as librarians, that we’re moving into a different form of assignments with students. And so I’m working with the Digital Commons this summer on how does information literacy integrate into the online content creation process. When students are creating videos or podcasts. How are they finding sources and how are they finding the best sources for their projects? And what’s the librarians role in that? And what I hope will also come out of this is a new article on the future of higher ed information literacy standards. K to twelve has done a much better job of kind thinking ahead and thinking about what are the skills our students need to be information literate, successful people in the future. And higher ed has kind of lagged behind a little bit. And so I think my work here in ETS is hopefully going to reach a broader audience in the future. And I get to work with, I’m gonna mention my team. I get to work with three great people. I get to work with Chris Millet, Kim Winck, and Hannah Inzko. I didn’t even get to about any of the projects we’ve done. But hopefully I will. We have a lot of time. Hi my name is Christopher Long and hearing about all this high impact stuff I’m wondering about what kind of high impact my project is. I wasn’t told that we had to have high impact, but my project is entitled Socratic Politics and Digital Dialogue. I teach philosophy here at Penn State.
And I teach, I focus on ancient greek philosophy.
A large part of my work has been on Aristotle, but I’m now turning my attention to Plato and in particular to the figure of Socrates. Who from my perspective embodies a certain kind of political engagement that I think can be performed in an interesting way using Social Web and Web 2.0 technology. So my project really, I think, is to use these technologies to perform a certain kind of scholarship.
I intentionally didn’t want to do a project that thought about the implications of all of these technologies on pedagogy in a theoretical way, but I wanted to just use the technologies to perform some academic scholarship, but also to allow my scholarship perhaps to reach out to a broader community. You know philosophers have had a tendency to seem isolated and disengaged. So I think there’s a way in which some of these technologies allow us to talk to people we might not otherwise be able to talk to.
It forces us to put our thoughts into a language that maybe more people can identify with and we might otherwise be doing when we’re just writing to journals and to books. So I see this as a way of, this project as a way of, reaching out beyond the limited sphere of my academic scholarly colleagues, although, I also want to engage them. So I’m ending up doing a number of things on some different levels.
One of the main things that we’ve done my team has been great. Matt Meyer and Allan Gyorke and Ryan Wetzel. We’ve been producing some podcasts called the Digital Dialogue podcast, which you can check out on iTunes U and also if you go to the Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue blog that I have running. And one of the things, this was really at Allan’s encouragement to emphasize the importance of podcasting. The thing that I wanted to do was to have a kind of medium that allowed me to think about some things without it having to be quite so set in writing, maybe, is the best way to put it. This is actually a pretty interesting and important theme in the platonic dialogues when the technological advance that Plato was dealing with was a move from the oral tradition to a writing tradition and he was dealing with questions of what happens when what do you gain
and what do you lose when writing becomes a mode of communication as opposed to remembering and reciting things orally. So he was Plato and also Socrates who himself decided chose not to write, but to simply engage people in philosophical conversations. Happily Plato did write. So we do have a record of them. But he wrote dialogues and those dialogues are dynamic. And as a philosophical form, the dialogue is a pretty important and interesting form. It allows you to bring in ambiguity and dramatic character and all sorts of things that force the readers and those of us who are engaged in it to think critically about what we’re engaged with. So I was hoping that coming out of some political involvement with the Obama campaign last year and seeing the power that the web had in that regard, I was hoping to try to use some of that, some of these technologies, to expand my scholarship. But also the political agenda really is to get people to start
thinking about questions that are important to us all. Questions of the meaning of justice. What does it mean to live a good life? And how do we make our lives fulfilling and meaningful? So I really see this a chance to play with some of these technologies.
And there’s a number of things that hopefully we’ll talk about on the panel with regard
to blogging and other things that I think are really exciting about the way technology empowers us to do this. But just to be clear what I see happening here with these technologies is just an extension of what’s always happened in human culture and human nature. Just another way for us to communicate with one another. And to reflect critically and deliberatively and thoughtfully about the human experience. I’m Carla Zembel-Saul I’m faculty member in science education, which is in the teacher education program in the College of Education here at Penn State. I work primarily with elementary educators and we have been doing electronic portfolios in that space since I came here. And I was actually working on electronic portfolios prior to that. Let me try something. My first electronic portfolios we using hyper card stacks. Oh, last year that got a cheer. I know, I’m in I was gonna see if it actually worked twice, but so anyhow we’ve spent a lot time thinking about this and our idea has always been one around engaging our students in the ongoing consideration and thinking about their own development as a professional in this space. So that’s been the ultimate learning goal for us. Not assessment. Not competencies. Although, some of what you’ll see today addresses those issues because attention we were facing is that as people saw what students were doing in the electronic portfolio space, oh, hey, I see Leanne Haffner is here. Leanne is a faculty member at Penn State Altoona and she actually was instrumental in the first web based portfolios. If she hadn’t stood next to me and said, we’re gonna go from just electronic portfolios to try this whole web based thing,
I don’t know if we would have done it as quickly as we did. I’m glad to see her in the crowd. But anyhow, so we’ve had this ongoing tension between supporting student learning, which those of us in the program and the faculty really want to do. And with being accountable to our accrediting agencies.
And so that’s one of the things that brought me to the Faculty Fellow work last summer. Was really trying to figure out this tension.
How do I continue to support student learning, but give these folks what they need to see that we are doing what we’re supposed to be doing in terms of professional development. And so I figured it would probably be easier to drive you through a portfolio space, so that you can see what we did last summer, and then why I’m back and still struggling with these issues. My team last summer included Chris Stubbs, Brad Kozlek, TK, Erin Long was part of the team as well. And so we spent a lot of time talking about what do portfolios really mean? What does it mean to be
evidence based in your conversations? What is reflection? Really what is the nature of reflection? All pretty important.
And so we ran a pilot this year in the elementary professional development school. There’s sixty students in that space. This is one of their portfolios. Forty participated in the pilot. So everyone was introduced to blogs as portfolio. And forty students continued to pursue blogs as portfolio for the rest of the year. Which is actually, for a pilot, a voluntary pilot, is the most impressive sort of response that I’ve ever received in something like this. So out of the box Moveable Type had some features last summer that were introduced that we really liked,
and one was the professional website look and feel. So that students you can enter the portfolio. You have an introduction into the portfolio. And then a space to reflect on your thinking and development over time. So when you come to an intern portfolio, this is what you’ll see, a little bit about themselves. But when we get into the blog space what we see is that students are engaged in this program. These are elementary, future elementary, teachers in their senior year. And so what they’re really doing is blogging about the kinds of
experiences that they’re having in schools with kids. They’re blogging about their course work. They’re blogging about things that they’re reading.
But the one step that we’ve asked them to do is to think about that in relation to your development as a teacher. And so what you’ll see in the tag cloud is that there are some artificial tags that relate to our performance framework in the program. So as you do this reflection on your fraction lesson, how does that reflect something about your development as a professional educator. What did you learn? What moves you closer to the center of this community?
And that’s what we’re asking them to write about and tag. And like any other tagging, if you clicked on A1, you go to a list of all the blog entries that were tagged in that way. And that’s really lovely and it certainly helps a student go through and look at that. But what we really wanted was at the point in time where you’re
really thinking about how am I developing as a professional in this space, what could you look at that might help you see a medi-view of the things that you’ve been tagging in that way over time. And so this is part of template that was built by the team last year around the domains. So that now what I see as a student, when I’m really trying to reflect on my
growth and development, I don’t just see a list what I see is all the kinds of things that I’ve been tagging around demonstrating my subject matter knowledge and
using principles of learning. And then if I want to go and look at that in more detail, I can. But what I have is a greater sense of what I’ve been doing over a period of time. Once I’ve had a chance to look at that and reflect on that what we’re asking students to do as part of their professional portfolios make selections. So now we’re not saying, give me everything you’ve tagged, as demonstrating your subject matter knowledge, just choose the two best things. The things that you think did the most to provide evidence of your development in that space. And so what students did at that point was to, I guess I should have shown you, come down here and one of the tags that they
would then begin adding is this portfolio tag. And so once they’ve added the portfolio, when you go to the portfolio template, what we see is only those things that so now we’ve gone from four to two. Because those are the things that student feels best represents who they are at that moment in time. That moment in time may only be a third of the way through their senior year. So they have an opportunity to come back and re-visit this. And if you click on these, so back up a step, all the instructor has to do if they want to look at this
is go to the portfolio view. They don’t have to go through the whole blog. They come here and they say, ok, I really want to be able to give feedback to my students on their development. So I can jump out inthese little light boxes, you can tell I’m not a techy, they pull up
and you can actually see the evidence in those spaces if you want to look more closely at it. And students write a medi-reflection. So those were some of the things that we developed. We also have this nifty little tool that actually wasn’t so easy to do, I think. But is very helpful for the accreditation arm. Pack it up, and when you click pack it up, what it does is take everything in the portfolio view, pack it up in a zip file that the student can then put into the assessment system or whatever. So that provides a snapshot of a moment in time. Student continues their work uninterrupted and it’s really been an exciting way to start to think about how do I still support the learning without interfering with this thing that we have to do is report to our accrediting agencies. Now the reason that I’m back this summer is that I want to be able to tell the story of how this went in the pilot.
We learned some very interesting things that I’ve been writing about in the blog.
But the commenting tool is critical for us. And so we’re really trying to think about this collaborative reflection, notion, what does that mean?
Because still in large part the reflection that takes place in the portfolio is sort of within a silo. And so how do we break down the barriers?
Commenting tools are great, but how do we really track the flow of a set of ideas across a set of people and a set of blogs so that we really can get at the social negotiation of meaning. And that students can reflect on the social negotiation of meaning and not just their idea in their blog space. So that’s what we’re hoping to attend to this summer. And it won’t be done by the end of the summer. [silence] Thanks a lot for your introductions there. One of the things that we hope would happen over the summer is for the Faculty Fellows to actually sort of cross pollinate. And I know that Chris and Stuart have had a chance to meet. I don’t know if all four of you have ever
had a chance to meet all at once. So this might be the golden opportunity that you have with your schedules. Actually ask questions of each other. But Chris one of the things that we talk about on your podcasts are types of excellence or I guess forms of excellence, which way would it be? Excellences. And we talked about ideas like openness. As openness in digital dialogue and digital media, social media. is a form of excellence. So I was wondering if the other panelists had an idea of what really makes like an excellent portfolio or what’s really good digital scholarship? What makes a really good instruction set? And I’m thinking of other popular sites like, I learned how to change the flat on my bike by watching YouTube. There’s the instructable site. So maybe Stuart you could start off talking about those kind of, is that what you have in mind? But you also talked about Wiki’s and know that we use a knowledge base, we’re actually using instruction sets all the time. I didn’t even think about it how much until I heard about your project. Yeah, I don’t think we yet know what makes for, in some cases, what makes for an excellent portfolio or an excellent remix or an excellent instruction set. I think when we are working with a conventional genre that’s well established. It has an offline counterpart. When we’re working with institutional requirements for accreditation that we have to respond to. When we have a sort of pre-configured notion of the resume and how it works. Then I think we have all of those standards that we already know a great deal about them. But I think when we begin to wander away from those things, I think it’s very unclear. What makes for a good a remix? We really don’t know that. In other words, everyones very excited about remixing projects. But not every remix is very good. Some are terrible. Some are tremendous. How do we judge a remix project? And can we really bring that into the college curriculum? Until we have an answer for that question we have to be accountable to the Faculty Senate. We have to be accountable to parents.
More importantly we have to be accountable to students. We’re asking them to invest in something. What’s our syllabus going to say about criteria for evaluation when it comes to a remix? And of course a remix isn’t one thing. Remixes look different for different context. So how do the criteria for evaluation vary from a 202c technical writing class to a philosophy class to a research library research project. That answer, what is excellent communication or what is excellent fill in the blank, that question gets answered differently in different context. And that’s a terrible answer to administrators and to people who are very interested in standards. Certain kinds of standards, because there’s just too much flexibility in that kind of answer. So I think and that then doesn’t mean you can be unaccountable. That’s the tension You talked about some tensions. I see the tension there as being accountable for the curriculum while also not falling back into the kind of easy approaches into things that are not sensitive to what’s going on today.
So I mean it’s a terrible answer that I just gave you. What it basically means is that I’m ill-prepared to bring remix into the composition program in any kind of a significant way. Because I can’t defend evaluation very well. I mean I can do it on an individual level. I can do it with one class or I can think about it my way. But when I have to scale it to a hundred and thirty-five sections. When I have a hundred teachers out there teaching these courses. When I have thirty brand new teachers forget the remix. They don’t even know how to teach the most basic traditional assignment that we have in the English department. So it’s a very complex situation that we shouldn’t shy away from pursuing it and working on it, but I also think that we have to situate these questions in a very particular way. My solution has been to, because the English 15 course, the first year composition course, one of the objectives of that course is to prepare people for the rest of their academic career at Penn State.
For the rest of their academic writing. And if you look very hard at the writing that students do in their courses at Penn State, they’re doing very little of what all of you are doing here today. They’re doing some blogging. There’s some Twittering. But none of it’s formalized in assignments. People are still writing papers and essays of a very traditional form. And it’s actually our responsibility to make sure that they continue to know how to do that. But it’s also our responsibility to say, those aren’t the only literacy activities that are out there. And if we’re also preparing them for life beyond academia. For work life and also for civic life, then we have a responsibility to start trying to get a better handle on these things. Which is why we did the blogging pilot with our technical writing class and we’re incorporating things slowly. But I can’t institutionalize it any significant way until I can defend assessment practices. And I think we can do that, but I think we don’t know the answer to the questions that you’re asking just yet. The practice is there. But we haven’t conceptualized the practice into some kind of grading curistics or evaluation rubrics. We don’t really know how to train teachers to think about it. What constitutes a good use of Twitter and what doesn’t? What constitutes a very productive blog post and what doesn’t. We made some head way there. Cause a lot of people are blogging. But we’re probably more out front there than we are in some other areas. And how does all of that then fit within a more traditional course with traditional grading expectations. It’s pretty complex. That’s my non answer. I’ve a non answer too, it’s actually a question for Carla. Because what you said Allan, what is a good ePortfolio? I had a question in my mind that relates exactly to that. You mentioned that this summer you’re working on building the commenting process in and the thing that I found to be the biggest barrier with ePortfolio adoption, and I’m looking at it not so much from a student standpoint, but from a faculty standpoint,
in the libraries we’ve tried hard to encourage our new librarians who are going through the tenure process to build ePortfolios that they can use actually when they’re in the tenure process or not, that they can use to show, just like you’re showing with your student teachers up here, the major artifacts. The major things that they’re creating. And helping others learn about the library. And the big tension is with comments. And with making it an organic social tool. And especially when it’s something that enters into the promotion and tenure process. How do you sort of ease peoples, how do you control, not control, the commenting process, but how do you structure that commenting process and also make it something that people are comfortable with? That they want to participate in,
but that they also want to display. I think that’s the space we know the least about. But at the same time we want to be able to allow room for comments, which can be hard intellectual work. To comment in a meaningful way. Your comment might propel someones thinking forward. Other thinking of the community forward. And out thinking is that that can powerful evidence of your development as a professional. And so how do you capture and be able to think about your commenting, especially when your comments are now owned by someone else. So I go to your blog. I put a comment on your blog. My comment lives there. If you delete your post, my comment is gone. It’s no longer part of my intellectual work that I can point to as evidence of my development. Now the exciting thing this summer is that I’m being introduced to lots of tools that show us that your comments can continue to be your intellectual property and how do we make best use of that. But structuring commenting is a tricky thing. And the thing that we tried in the pilot was to actually have sort of a blog buddy format in which people had to go to other the interesting thing about this is you have to be dealing with a problem of practice that you care about. That other people care about.
Otherwise, what’s the point of commenting and trying to figure something out together.
So this notion of a problem of practice, was around teaching. So they were all in sort of the throws of getting ready to teach and teaching at about the same time.
And so they actually had a reason to go and see, oh, how did that work when you did it with third graders or so on. So there was a relevance to the commenting that we built in. We required a certain minimum number of comments. But what we found is students commented well beyond that on each others blogs. Now when we asked them about this in the assessment of the project, of all the features of the blogs, I own it, it’s my property, it’s public. They loved all this stuff. Rated very highly. Commenting, the ability to comment, or receive comments was the thing that stood out as not being as important to them, but yet they were doing it. So we’re sort of perplexed by what does that mean? You’re doing it, but you say it’s not as important to you as these other things. So I don’t know. If you have ideas and that’s I think part of what we’re here to figure out. I mean we’re in a room with a bunch of smart people who think about this stuff. How do we foster the kind of professional discourse that’s evidence based, that’s driven around these spaces, that’s focused on problems of practice? How do we really foster that in meaningful ways? That again, doesn’t just move the individual forward, but moves the community forward in its thinking. I just wanted to add, I guess, I’m coming at the question of assessment and the question of excellence and cultivating excellences in digital dialogue maybe from the opposite perspective because I know Stuart you’re thinking about how to institutionalize. How to bring this to bare on a large scale. I’m thinking about how to, I’m thinking about one of my main pedagogical purposes in my philosophy classes is how to cultivate the excellence of dialogue. Whether it be through digital media or other media, physical conversations, in ways that push conversation forward and Carla as you had, I think, you were using the vocabulary of negotiating meaning. The social negotiation of meaning. How do we cultivate that? What are the skills that what are the excellences that students need to have?
And that’s where the question of openness comes from. The ability to be, to have a certain kind of openness of a certain kind of courage that comes with that exposure.
That’s one of the things I’ve been struggling with in this project is impart because the normal mode is to go to the library and spend a lot of time reading and hoard your ideas for a long time and nourish them. And bring them up as little saplings and embryos and then finally throw them out there. And so there’s an exposure that comes with some of these social media mediums that really are a little bit daunting. So what I want to argue first is not to just throw everything out there and then just obliterate you know make everything completely open and completely public, but maybe press our comfort level a little bit in terms of the notion of openness and expose things so that they can be cultivated by us as a community. And what happens and how do we dry that and allow that dialogue that emerges there to really open up new possibilities of meaning for us. And I think that has to be done in an individual level.
I mean, I think, that’s what I try to work on with my students in my classes. Giving them, and I think the liberal arts is precisely designed to do this, giving the students the kinds of skills and cultivating the kinds of excellences that they need to be able to expose themselves in a little bit. To be able to respond in ways that are not reactionary, but actually trying to press the issues of importance. I think all of those things are important. I did that, I tried to use and I’ll try see if I can post this. Can I do this all,
it’s so dynamically. I don’t know. On the Twitter thing, to use rubric last spring with a blog that I created which I co-edited with my students, this was an honors class in philosophy, and a lot of really positive. I had a very experience with this blog that we were co-editing. All the writing for the course was on the blog, except for the final paper. which they wrote as a traditional research paper. But there was no one, there were not specific assignment throughout the semester, you know write me a blog post as if it were just a paper. Instead of handing it to me on a paper, post it to the blog. That’s how I’d always done it before. This spring I just said, I wrote in the rubric, you have to post participate frequently and consistently on the blog. Whether it be posts or comments. And they always wanted to know, well how many is that? What’s the number? And I’d never tell them the number. Because I didn’t have a number in mind. And then four times during the semester a gave a qualitative evaluation of how they were doing through ANGEL. All private. Nobody saw their evaluations. And I used the rubric. And the rubric really drove the assessment. I was able to really look. Are they doing this? Are they participating frequently and consistently?
Are their posts conceptually sophisticated? Are they engaged in substantive ways in the material? Do they do this on a regular basis, not just once when I say the papers due? And what I was hoping happened and have some evidence that this was happening. Was hoping it was happening was that they would cultivate a kind of blogging mentality, which is to say that all the experiences that they were having, they were asking themselves, is this something I can blog about? Is this something I could reflect upon?
Is this something I could write about and say something interesting about? And that sort of the whole semester I had a number of students say,
I’m really glad I don’t have to blog anymore. Because I don’t have this worry on my mind. And I thought ok, that’s a victory there. I got into their head. They’re thinking about their world in kind of a reflective way. And they’re wondering if the experience that they’re having is something that’s worth thinking about deliberating on. Can I follow up? I think one of the barriers to what you’re talking about is a very old fashioned notion of originality and authorship and even plagiarism that are sort of alive and well in academia and something that we have to work against all the time. If you’re technical writer at Microsoft and you’re asked to write an instruction set for something. Your first question is has something already been written along these same lines. What resources are here? What can I cannibalize? What can I use? You search the web. You look for things.
And that’s in the culture. And your name is not on it. Except maybe somewhere in the hidden panel with the names of many other people who maybe wrote documentation before you. And you know it’s the copyright, the ownership, the authorship is a shared and identified more with the company. You know at the end of the day in the technical writing class we ask students to, you know, we ask them to do all this,
have this open community and culture and to share work and to comment and do all of these things. But then we ask them at the end of the day,
in a very contradictory fashion, hand in your original work. What ideas are yours? Your and yours exclusively. Point to those. And that’s what I’m going to grade you on. It’s a very old fashioned understanding of knowledge creation and of information work. And yet it’s alive and well. And I think it’s valid if you think about it in certain ways. I also think it’s incredibly not valid if you think about it other ways. And we really, there’s a big tension there that we you know struggle with all the time. First off I wanted to say, I love the brain power at this table. I think it’s really the value of the Faculty Fellows program that we have. Is that you guys are bringing
real problems of practice and real deep philosophical and educational, pedagogical problems research problems, scholarship problems to our front plate, our front door and just laying them there and saying,
what are we gonna do about these? Let’s try to work together and find a solution and
that’s when we come up with really interesting evolutionary leaps I think with tools like the blogging platform. Cole, I didn’t know if you wanted to say anything about intense debate and the ownership of the comments or anything like that just briefly? [ inaudible statement ]
Ok, well stay tuned for that. If you weren’t planning to come back, this is the cliffhanger,
so you have to come back for that. The other thing I wanted to say is that several of you mentioned preparing students for participation in public life. Life after college. Participation in political discourse. Participation in the workplace. Contributions to things like Wiki’s or other public sources of information. So I was wondering if you
could address that a little bit further. Well in the writing program we’ve been working to make a switch. And the discipline
has been working to make switch from really teacher centered assignments to sort of student centered assignments. And also literacies. Historically in an English department we try to teach some academic version of appropriate English. Which clashes very interestingly and nicely with the kind of vernacular literacies that students bring to us. And increasingly we’re beginning to value more and more the vernacular. We’re beginning to value the practices that students bring to our class as a valid form of literacy. And frankly when it comes to the kind of Web 2.0 technologies and the things that people in this room are very interested in,
we have a lot to learn from students about those practices. But there’s never been room in the curriculum for that. So as opposed to always thinking in a top down way, about how English teachers know best about how to write we’re finally starting to open things up and say,
let’s look at what students are doing in their practices and let’s see if that can encourage us to think differently some times about how writing and reading now works. And that’s a major shift. In large part, because you have to relinquish and part the expert role. As a teacher you have to allow yourself to be uncomfortable with in effect the domain knowledge of the class. I mean how many teachers are
comfortable walking into a class saying, I don’t know everything there is know about this subject and there very well maybe some people in this class who know a lot of things that I don’t know. And together we’re gonna explore this learning space. You won’t find many faculty who are secure enough in their own skin to do that. I tell my students on the first day of class, I teach a web design class, it’s always just out of my reach. That makes it fun for me. That gives me a class cause I’m there learn as well. And I tell them on the first day of class, I can probably answer fifty percent of your questions. And we’re gonna, if you ask me a question I can’t answer, we’ll figure it out together. Now I can say that as someone who is white and male and tenured to very easy sort of position to take. But it’s also a very good position to take. And we have to figure out how to let other teachers in the community with a less secure status feel like they can go into a classroom and take risks with these technologies. That they can run an activity not exactly knowing how it’s gonna come out and that that’s perfectly ok. And I don’t think we yet have that built into our institutional culture in the way that it needs to be. For me, I’ve just taken risks because I sort of can, because of my status. That’s a very elitist way to think about things. There are lots of people who are really not in the position to take those risks and yet they are
doing some of the most difficult work of the university. They’re really in the trenches teaching large numbers of students. Seven, eight sections a year and they’re in a very different situation. So I think that’s something that we need to learn to contend with. And I think as soon as we can really encourage teachers to take more risks. Worry less about how things may or may not go in a class. And have a reward system around that. That values risk taking as much as it values sort of outcomes, so-called outcomes, and performances. Then I think we’ll be a little further ahead in our understanding. Because we’re really not practicing and conceptualizing this stuff as much as we should be. And I think it’s in large part because of the larger institutional context. There are things that are discouraging There’s no one person saying you can’t do these things. But institutions are funny in that way. They have these tendencial forces. They have these tendencies that encourage people to, you know, gee, if I’m teaching eight courses where’s my incentive for increasing my workload by doing something different. We have to figure out how to encourage those people in fact to do something different. I’m gonna go off what Stuart just said about outcomes and making things manageable for instructors. The big project that our team is working on this summer is centered around digital literacy, which encompasses information literacy but it also includes media literacy, technology literacy, basically every literacy. Textual literacy, visual literacy, and sort of how can you create a project that will develop specific literacy outcomes in students so that can be as you’re saying Allan, responsible creators of information who create products that have a message that matters and that will carry them through their lives well. So what we’re actually gonna be doing this fall is we’re going to be working with two different courses. A nutrition course and a library studies course. Emily Rimland and Anna Beiler are here. They’re the instructors of that course. And we’re going to be specifying specific learning outcomes for a video project in each of those classes. And giving the students a pre-test and post test to see did the video project assist them in working towards, actually attaining some of those learning outcomes and maybe moving them closer to becoming information literacit or technology, not literacit, sorry, information literate or technology literate. So it should be an interesting experiment in not only seeing where are these different literacies headed as far as how are they changing. And especially how are they merging? Because a lot of literacies used to be very much unto themselves. And really they’re all blending together now. And which makes it easier to attain, I think, a level of competency in a way because you can have projects that crossover literacies. But at the same time it makes it more challenging for students and maybe more daunting for instructors too who say, I just want to focus on one thing. So hopefully we’re gonna develop a good model that we can use with other instructors in the future who are working with the Digital Commons and with the libraries. I wanted to touch on the question of I think it was related to one of the question that’s up there on the got eight votes, about how do you create student buy in and it’s related to what Stuart I think was talking about with regard to what we can learn from students. I mean one of the things that I was struck by last spring with my the way that I use the blog as a kind of co-edited document and the way that I was conceptualizing that as a kind of co-authored document that we were all working on together. A dynamic one that ran over the course of the semester. Was that in a certain way I had to and maybe relinquishing control isn’t really the right way to think about it, because it’s a controlling in a different way. You’re not completely sort of opening the flood gates. There’s certain things and put in place as a faculty member to ensure that the kinds of contributions that you’re getting are academically rigorous and then are of a certain kind of quality. And yet it is a different kind of control. It’s a control that allows I think for the students to have a voice of their own and respects the voice of the students in a certain kind of way and that’s from my perspective how you get buy in. When students see that, you know, that post that I made on the blog at 2:00 am, you know, two days ago, is now actually the center piece of this discussion we’re having in class because we’ve brought it up online and now we’re talking about it. And I’ve now been asked in class to expound upon it in certain kinds of ways. And the comments that were made on it are now being valued in the classroom. There’s a buy in that happens that I was surprised to see. I was really moved to see the way in which students then felt an ability to turn the class to certain kinds of issues. That I, and this is where it is an issue of relinquishing certain kind of control, because I then had to go out and do a lot more work because it was a much more dynamic situation. I wasn’t able to say, ok, it’s Friday and now I’ve got this lecture. I’m going in to do this lecture. I’ve gotta say, ok, what’s been happening the last few days on the blog and what are we talking about? How is this related to the reading that we’re doing? How is this related to the wider social political culture that we’re embedded in. So from my perspective that’s how student buy in happens when they are, when they feel heard. And when what they say in this media is respected and made a vital part of the experience. So I think that’s one strategy that I think is really important. I’m just going to connect to something that Chris was talking about and to a comment that I made on Twitter earlier today during the disrupted technologies piece. You have to have the stance that student voice matters before any of this is gonna happen. I feel like I’ve been Kool-Aid too long. I hang out with people that are talking about this and pushing the envelope on this. And it’s really great and exciting, but the reality and seldom mentioned and it was clear in the talk, the panel this morning, that is not the norm even at Penn State. And while Penn State maybe ahead in some spaces with this regard. Overwhelmingly, students are still, you know, there’s this thing are they passive, are they bored? They’re conditioned. They’re used to giving a right answer. It’s not the answer they have. It’s the answer we have or the book holds. Or that the field holds. You know there’s sort of this reconditioning them as these risk takers. So yes, one way to do that is for us to be explicit about our risk taking. So I’m gonna try something new. I’ve never done this before. I’m out of my safety zone. But having that sort of discourse with the students or I’m at a juncture now and I’m not really sure. Or this taking a lot longer than I thought. How do we make this more manageable. Engage the students in the problem solving. Now again, you’ve created that context in which there’s a problem of practice related to teaching and learning that you’re trying to solve together. And it doesn’t all reside in one space or another. And I don’t know how that you solve the problem of doing that in large lecture courses or if you’re an untenured person who’s not in a position of power. But at the end of the day there’s a part of going out and taking those risks and helping students understand why there are valuable things to do even when they don’t work out the way that you intended them to or even when they fall short. Which they’ve done plenty of times. And we have this big thing we do in our program with our students where it’s literally if you screw up you go, woo hoo and you stand up and everybody claps for you because it’s evidence that you’ve stuck your neck out. You’ve taken a risk. And so what you’ve screwed up. At least you learned something from that and that’s just as valuable. And so that becoming sort of the thread of conversation that’s happening around whatever the content of learning was supposed to be. Can be sort of an interesting side dialogue if you’re in a position to able to foster that kind conversation in your class. One of the things just to add to that is to ask yourselves what are we modeling for our students. What kinds of pedagogical practices are we embodying as we go about doing our teaching. And so I like that idea of being explicit about your risk taking and you know the blog allowed me to be just as involved online and making comments and directing in certain kinds of ways. But also just participating in the dialogue that was going on that I think modeled what a good post, what I hope a good post would like. What a good response would look like. That does move the conversation forward. One of the in terms of the sort of blow back that I got I was surprised in certain kinds of ways by the this was an honors course so I had a number of very type A personality students who had been conditioned, this goes to your condition, just you know they seek laser seeking missiles. Find out what that teacher wants and give that to them. That’s the kind of student I think I was. I was like, ok, I just figure it’s a game. What’s the syllabus say they want and let’s give it to them. And so when I would say well, I don’t have a number of posts that you make You know I don’t have exact assignments that you have to submit on this date, at this time. I do have four times a semester a qualitative evaluations. You did see the participation on the blog go up as that date came closer. Ok, I understand that. There’s a dimension of coercion involved. But it was those type A student who were conditioned to seek out what the faculty wanted and to respond to that. That we’re having somewhat of frustration. They also ended up doing very well. They adapt well but what we doing? What kind of students are we cultivating when our best students are the ones that just know how to obey the syllabus. So I have a memory of when I taught middle school of always the kid with their hand up in the front row like for every single question who are probably the kids your talking about.
So did you find yourself sort of kind of pushing aside the blog posts from those kids and going towards the ones that may not be thinking as much about your motives for the class but just thinking more creatively? Well sometimes, I mean, that was a great thing about I was teaching in a technology class where I could pull up specific posts and highlight ones. So what I noticed and this is something you know is gonna be different with different people some students needed to get their feel for the media by commenting only. They weren’t real comfortable about posting. And then in the comments, in my evaluation, I had to sort of try and push them to that. But you could see over the course of the semester some of them really coming into their own and finding their voice and beginning to move from commenting to posting.
So I think you have to have some flexibility in your assessment of students in that regard. But yeah, I mean, you’re gonna have the same students that you have that talk to much in class, to talk to much online. And the nice thing is you can direct things to the people who are saying interesting things who are not participating in that way. And also there are those people who don’t feel comfortable talking in class at all, but like to be able to work out their ideas online and think about them and then post them once they get it all worked out. That was an important part of that. I wanted just to, I mean I think there’s a lot of ways in which we’re talking about how these technologies revolutionize things, but there’s also a lot of dynamics that are the same as they’ve always been in all teaching. I mean this is just another mode of communication and dynamic and interesting ways. Disruptive and interesting ways. It’s another mode on top of a whole bunch of other modes. I mean this is all much more additive than substitutive. So thirty years ago if you’re teaching in a college classroom and you’re thinking about the kind of writing that’s associated with your course.
An English, a Philosophy course, a Science Education course, a library course, it’s pretty much the print essay. And we still have the print essay and all it’s complexities. Lots of people can’t write a print essay today. Lots of people can’t write like a sentence today. I’m talking about faculty, not students. But none of that has like gone away. And so add to that responsibilities of teaching like writing effective email messages. Composing in multi-media. Productive blogging. The role of Twittering. Cell phone use. So I now see the role of the composition program. As helping students understand when it’s most productive to reach for one literacy technology rather than another. So we’re not all about essay anymore. When does make sense to use the essay form and all it’s tradition? And you could probably answer that fairly easily. Although we could complicate it. When does it make sense to work by cell phone? When does it make sense to Twitter versus blog? What about sticky notes, how do they fit in? I see them as like the most flexible literacy technology we kind of have. Because they can attach themselves in very dynamic ways to sort of print artifact. When you look at the landscape of literacy technologies and all the possibilities and configurations and hybrids, students don’t even know like when to turn to what and for what purposes. And you look at the whole range of online services and Web 2.0 technologies, people don’t even know how to sort out these things. And again, for what purposes and for what audiences. And in many ways I see that as the role of higher education. More specifically of a composition class is to help people learn how to kind of surf the field of possibilities. Make productive decisions. Understanding that there’s probably more than one answer to the question. But then they should be able to defend whatever answer that they come up with in an intelligent way. And then in an ongoing way continue to learn about these technologies. And in that way I think it’s much more evolutionary. Even if we see some practices that we maybe haven’t really seen before. They still get embedded in something of a traditional context. I mean if academia is anything, it is a traditional context. And it serves to both and encourage and constrain our uses of these literacy technologies. They’re not neutral in any kind of way. They’re not neutral in their design. They’re not neutral in their use. And that’s not a criticism, they’re human artifacts. They’re cultural artifacts. So how do we get students to understand that these are not sort of pure neutral modes for communication, but rather they’re communication modes invested by designers and users with meaning. How do we first situate them in that kind of tricky interesting and very real way and then get them to sort through like what they can do with those invested, biased, political technologies. Political, by political, I simply mean that they’re designed to do certain things and not other things. They have a tendency to them. And so how do people choose among those tendencies and possibilities. That’s not currently a part of the curriculum. That’s not currently a part of any kind of standards. And yet students face, they wait for their teachers to tell them what they’re going to do. They wait for their teacher to say, give me a print essay, but that’s not how the worlds gonna work after the class. [inaudible question] I think we’re inventing it. Sort of currently. I don’t think it’s a, I don’t think you’ll exactly find it as conventional thinking. You know take my course, I’m very guilty of this. Students there are six assignments and probably four of the six assignments are traditional essays. That’s just kind of how it looks. And again, I would change that relatively quickly if I had the infrastructural support which Cole’s is beginning to provide. But also if we had the on the research side and the pedagogy side we had a much better understanding of how to assess these kinds of assignments and pitch them in kind of a broader way to the university community that has some oversight. You want to get something to the Faculty Senate, I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to do that. It’s like an exercise in brutality. It is unbelievable. That’s why nobody ever takes their course off the books. Even if it’s never been taught. Because getting it on was extremely painful. We have like fifty courses in English that have never been taken off the books. They’ve never been taught in twenty years. Try to get something new through with some unusual thinking and you’re gonna get a whole bunch of old fashioned questions. And we still have to ask hard questions about assessment. We still have to ask very hard questions about what are the objectives of this course? What are students learning? What do we want them to be able to do when they’re finished? How does it fit in? Those are all fair questions. But the different answers to those questions we’re that we’re trying to generate here will not ring very true to many folks. And we have to begin to make the case for why a different kind of assignment with a different kind of rubric grading rubric might make some sense. I mean you know about seven or eight years ago there was a real problem that I was having with plagiarism. And for some reason one semester just students were just, you know, I had like four or five papers plagiarized. And it was because I had the end of my modern philosophy class I had a paper on DeCarte that I was assigning and they’re not but a thousand courses out there in the world that have modern philosophy courses assigned a paper on DeCarte. And at that point I decided, ok, I can’t really what I need to start doing is teaching the process of research rather than the product. Rather than just saying, ok, give me a research paper at the end. And I think one of the things that these technologies allow us to do is, and I think you were talking about this Carla, and I think the portfolio allows you to do this, which is to make the process part of the product that you’re assessing. And so it’s not just that you’ve written a beautifully constructed paper, that’s terrific, but how did you get to that? Can I look back on your portfolio or wherever and see the process that you came through to get this. Can I see how you responded to critical comments that you were getting. Did you take those as opportunities to learn something new or did you close them off as just ridiculous things that you don’t want to deal with. These are, I mean, ok, that’s all part of writing a good research paper, but that’s also part of being a good manager in an institutional setting, at a job that you might ultimately get. I mean my students even if they major in philosophy a lot of them won’t go into academic philosophy, they might become part of a non government organization. Or they might go into other kinds of work. And so what are the skills that we’re giving them. And not just skills, but skills is too skills still seem to me to be too oriented toward product. What are the excellences we’re cultivating in them. The character that they’re getting by virtue of going through this process where they’re exposed to criticism in the way that we’re trying to expose them to it in a relatively comfortable environment where we can jump in there and say, ok, that was not very helpfully put when you said this comment was stupid. You know that’s not how we respond to each other.
But we have more constructive ways of doing it. And so we have more constructive ways of responding to one another. So I think a lot that goes to how to make our students successful participants in the world in which they live. I think that goes across all kinds of disciplines. And the piece for me about the tools that helps that happen is the openness. So when it’s public scholarship and you can point to something and say, that’s not a view that I hold or I disagree with that idea, but here’s why. So here’s what happens in the space between.
What the curriculum is. What the hidden curriculum is, whatever. You have to get it out there. And it maybe because
I work with people who are going to be elementary teachers. They want everybody to hold hands and get along.
They don’t want to disagree. They want to come to consensus on everything. And so a big hurdle is how do you help people see that it’s actually through the process of articulating and then saying, I thought I agreed with you, but then you said this and then I’m not really sure what you mean about this.
Tell me more about this. And this kind of conversation that emerges around where we don’t fit neatly together that’s very difficult for students to participate in. That that’s where the meaning making happens and so the fact that that can be partially captured. I mean Chris said something in sort of his opening statement about the writing versus remembering and the strength of that. And so now we have not just writing, but artifacts. So it’s not that I’m posting my paper, it’s that I wrote a paper and now I’m thinking about how’d that paper help me grow as a professional and part of that maybe that you responded to my paper or my thinking and you asked me a question that I hadn’t thought about and now it’s moved me into a different space. So again, the openness is part of the power. And if we can harness that as a way to see that making our thinking explicit, being able to justify. Being able to use evidence. And being able to disagree professionally actually helps us move forward as a community in our thinking. And I keep coming back to the moving forward as a community because I think ultimately whatever professional space we’re working in that’s what we want. That’s one of the excellences, to use your terminology, that we want to be able to foster. Is how do our contributions move the community forward. It’s not just I’m making a contribution just to make a contribution. Which I have to say this sort of feels like up here because it’s really weird to look out there and everybody looking at us. They’re talking. They’re talking. I think places that institutionalize openness and institutionalize shared student learning outcomes are the places that are most successful in all the things that we’re talking about. I don’t know if that’s happened really locally here yet. Well, and I think plagiarism is a great that sort of brings all of this into a relief really. In liberal arts we’re in sort of ground zero for plagiarism. All right the first year composition course. And plagiarism is, there are two categories I have a paper in front of me, there are two categories that it can go into for plagiarism. One is plagiarism, which is a student taking somebody else’s work, putting their name on it and handing it in. Basically stealing. Get your roommates paper. Put your name on it. Hand it in for credit. That’s wrong. Everybody agrees that that’s wrong. And that’s the kind of plagiarism that we don’t want to tolerate. I rarely see that. I see that, out of the ten thousand students here, we see a handful of cases of that kind of plagiarism. They’re pretty clear. We can typically prove them with a few web searches and that’s that. But the other thing that we see all the time is what my college loves to call academic incompetence. That’s the phrase. I kid you not. And what that means is that a student has in fact plagiarized, according to the college, but they didn’t really intend to do it. And what that really means is that they haven’t worked with their sources in the very good way. And so they’ve handed in something that kind of mixes up sources, but there was no intention to sort of get away with anything. Now the college will kind of see past that if the student, again, with this outdated notion of originality college wants the student to be able to sort out what’s original, theirs from the sources they used, somebody else’s work. But there are whole disciplines that are based on plagiarism. Web design, architecture, they don’t call it plagiarism, they call it modeling. And we don’t even, I mean, you’re gonna design a web page, what do you do? You start looking at web pages. You’re gonna put up a building, what do you do? You start looking at buildings that are like the one that you want to do. It’s a very generative form of invention that somehow is not allowed in many college classrooms sort of across the disciplines. And we’re still not very good at helping people understand that that kind of collective intelligence is you know leveraging that kind of collective intelligence is exactly what you want to do. Not a no, no. And it’s still very much a no, no. You know on the college campus. And I think until we kind of work through that we’re gonna be dealing with a lot of foolishness. These outdate notions of originality. Of plagiarism. I mean we plagiarize in the composition office. I have thirty new teacher coming in this fall to teach. They’re all new to the English graduate program.
None of them have taught before. What are we gonna do? We’ re gonna give them a syllabus and we’re gonna tell them to put their name on it. There is a plagiarism statement on that syllabus, which I wrote. They’re plagiarizing my plagiarism statement. I mean that’s a kind of ethical plagiarism that we engage in for the purposes of educating our community. And there’s really no other good way to do it. And it makes perfect sense. But we can’t seem to sort of tolerate ethical plagiarism among student learners. Yet we tolerate all the time in kind of our teaching ranks. And in our administrative documents. When an administrator has to write something at Penn State, they go write to the boiler plate. They don’t think twice about it. And no way in a million years could a student go to some kind of a model. We would never encourage that. We’d ask them for not a fifty percent revision of an existing thing for a new context, which would be a good remix, but rather you’re working in a vacuum. You can’t look at all of that stuff. Give me your original essay. And it’s like a 1950’s or 60’s view of academia. Well we are just about out of time here so, was there a single burning question that anybody wants to ask or maybe the panel wants to ask each other before we go on a break? No! I mean honestly it’s been an honor to sit up here with you guys. I think the conversation has been excellent. And I look forward to working with you for the rest of the summer. So, thank you! Thank you very much! [ applause ] We now have a break until about 3:00 and then at that point Brett, where are you at? Oh, there you are. Brett’s going to start the next session on educational gaming. Thank you!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *