A.4.2+Technology+Planning+Communications+Page


 * Kathleen McKim **


 * Carol N. **


 * Eva Price **

Best,  Kathleen  ||   || Email || Hi Ladies, Great to be working with both of you again! I prefer MS over HS if that's okay with both of you. I'll add my school's AUP to the wiki. It needs updating and the school is working on that this spring in preparation for unblocking social networking next year (convenient timing, huh?) Kathleen, I like the idea of using blogs but I need to reread the assignment with your questions in mind. Wednesday, Thursday, Friday I'll be traveling and will have limited Internet access. According to Eva's email, I think we're on opposite schedules! Let's "meet" here in the wiki for a start and we can do the real time thing in a few days if we need to. Carol ||  || That all sounds good to me. I'm fine working with either MS or HS, but most of the work I've done with this program is through MS, so that is what I'm most comfortable with. If we were to look at HS, my field is primarily English (but I'm flexible). I like the idea of blogs. I was actually thinking about wikis, too, since I've learned so much about them and they are such a great tool for classroom use. There seems to be a lot of parts to this, and I'm still sorting them all out. I hope the links are ok on the homepage. I just like to have all of the info in one spot. If not, feel free to move them. I'm not currently working at a school, but I DID work at the school where I did the interview, if you'd like to use that one. My first thought is that the AUP that is being adapted that Carol uploaded might be an interesting one to use, as we're supposed to be adapting and thinking about that kind of thing anyway. Maybe it would be a useful tool? I'll be looking at some policies over the next few days. From what I understand, we need a scenario first. Should we focus on that? Also, the plan says:  Read and make notes on national, state, and district-level technology plan objectives as assigned in Modules 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 (individual work).  Do you know what format those "notes" are supposed to be in? I know they are individual, but I was a bit confused.  I'm actually around for the next few days. We're in the middle of a storm here, so I'm internet tethering from my tent. How odd. But tomorrow I'll be heading back into Sydney for a few days and then back out on Friday. Even if we can't meet real time, I should be online a bit so we can all touch base.  Let me know what you think!  Oh, and I have subscribed to get edits on the wiki, but for some reason it's not letting me know when the page changes. Am I missing something? I went under "tools" "notifications" and it looks something like this:  Is that right? Why haven't I gotten those notifications?  Anyway, have a great day and talk to you soon.  *Eva ||   || I just added a BUNCH of good AUPs to the AUP page. I think we have plenty now. Take a look when you have a chance. I chose them from a wide variety of US districts as well as schools overseas. If you like, we can base the scenario on my school. I can fill that section out if you like. Just let me know. ||  || actually happy we decided to communicate here. Much easier and saves a volley of emails to all of your accounts as I wasn't sure which ones to use. Sorry about that. Anyway, take a look at the blog thing I did. I think it's good. I need to edit the fonts and put in some hyperlinks, but what do you think of it in general? Full mark-type work or not? If it's okay, I'd like to do one of the PD sessions on teaching teachers how to incorporate blogging (is it boring--I still wonder?). For me, it's practical, as we still have plenty of teachers who could use this training. Also, let's just base the scenario on Carol's school. Thanks for the offer. As far as the "edits" on the blog, Eva. I don't really know what you mean. I don't think I've ever used that function before. If I figure it out, I'll let you know. That's all for tonight. I've been online for 2 hours and need to get to bed. ||  || from 71 different countries, but I'm not sure how many are represented in the middle school so I estimated 65. Also, our middle school is Grades 5 - 8 but most schools are 6 - 8, so I made it 6 - 8. That will suit most standards better and may be easier for AUPs. Kathleen, I like what you did with the blogs and I think PD about blogging is perfect. I'm going to send you both (via email) a video booktalk my daughter made. The 6th grade language arts teacher and I worked together to have kids make booktalks and post them on the Intranet so students could share what they are reading and find out what their friends are reading. Would something like this be another good technology integration possibility? We didn't use Web 2.0 tools for it. ||  ||  That's just fun! I don't think the assignment stipulates Web 2.0. In my opinion, we should go with it, and the PD on video editing would be quite useful as well. Carol, do you want to take care of putting all of that on the wikispace? I would be glad to help you with the standards. Just let me know. The scenario page is great. Do you guys have a website? Eva, that just leaves one thing for you to come up with as far as technology integration. Did you mention wikis at one point? That would be great, but whatever you want is fine. It's starting to shape up! -Kathleen ||   || Wikispaces || Sounds great. I'll write up the technology integration assignment for video booktalks and PD related to filming and editing video. Chapter 10 in our textbook had some really good ideas about integrating video into lessons. We do have a website, but the scenario is only loosely based on my school. I wonder what people who create a completely fictitious school do for their website? I'll be offline this afternoon and tomorrow but I'll be back on Friday. We're doing well! Carol ||  || I'm going to take a big chunk of my day tomorrow and make some progress.I was thinking about incorperating wikis, but I'm rethinking it now. I'll solidify that tomorrow. Also, after a lot of researching, I've found out that, although I get verification emails from gmail, my mseprice account is not forwarding to my TWU account. I DID get all of those notifications, but to the wrong email. It should be all switched now, but try not to use the mseprice@gmail.com, as it's having some technical difficulties at the moment. (I wonder if TWU has forwarding blocked?) I've updated wikispaces, too. (I was wondering about the edits on the wiki and recieving notifications when things change, but that should be all set now.) I was assuming that we could use a fictitious website for this assignment, but I'm not sure. I know it can be fictitious information, so I would assume that making up a website would work as well. We could always use an easy wiki page if a link is required. Thanks for all of the work you have done so far. It looks great! I had thought of doing a section on wikis, but I'm reevaluating at the moment... hopefully I'll have a concrete idea tomorrow. It looks great so far! More later, Eva ||  || I've been using Century Middle School as a go-to fictional name, because it seems to have a focus on the 21st century learner. Would that be ok with you ladies? I'm going to add it in for now, but feel free to change it around. Also, I used social studies courses as my target, because I thought it would be nice to be able to focus on specific departments for each goal. I'm not very familiar with the social studies curriculum, but I'm not sure that's important for this assignment. Let me know what you think. (Sorry.. I'm going to add notes to this as I go, so please forgive the multiple emails you might get...) I've decided to go with collaborative group work via wikis and Cacoo. The focus on the top is clearly curriculum-based, but I know the bottom section ** #1 ** **Planning for Staff Development for the Effective Use of Technology** only has two required sections. I was thinking that we could use the wiki / cacoo / documenting student collaborative work as one of those sections, maybe along with using blogs? What do you think? *Eva ||  || Technology Plan #2: I'm sorry about the formatting chaos. I'm used to PBWorks, and I didn't realize that the highlights didn't transfer. If we could focus on the content right now, I can concentrate on the formatting later if there's no easier way than re-highlighting everything. I hope that the wiki/cacoo lessons are ok with you. I'm not 100% sure about the alignment to the different standards, as some seem to overlap. Also, are we supposed to put in the specifics of the TEKS social studies (in this case) standards? I referenced the technology bit, but didn't focus on what the course content was in each subsection (history, geography, etc...). The main point, I thought, was to address that it was a continuous lesson that happened once each unit in different ways. Feel free to revise as you see fit. Staff Development: I started brainstorming an idea, but I didn't add the standards, etc... I wanted to make sure that I had the right one, as I didn't see an example for the staff standards. Is that a different sub-section of the standards for the curriculum content? (Also, I wasn't sure if you liked that idea... what do you think?) I THINK that's it for now. Let me know your thoughts and what you'd like to tackle next (and how). I'm here for the next 24 hours or so (mid-day on Friday, Sydney time), and then I'm off camping again until Sunday evening. I can check in if need be, but I'm not positive what the internet will be like.... I'm a little confused about what is due when, but I'm about to go look at the module for about the millionth time, so hopefully I'll understand better. For some reason I feel like we have a lot of things going on in a lot of different places for the next few modules.... It's a bit hard to keep track! Talk to you soon! It's certainly coming along! *Eva ps- When the rubric says (under technology planning) The plan is **thoroughly described**. **Two or more citations** (MLA format) **with keywords** are provided.. Do either of you know what the keywords are and also, do we need to use direct quotes or just ideas? ||  || (cont'd again) || wikispaces- focus on AUP || Thoughts on AUP I really like the way that the Columbus School for Girls phrases things, especially outlining the policy under “With these new privileges come additional responsibilities:”. I would like to see a “kid friendly” AUP that they might have to read through and then summarize in a grade-appropriate way. Maybe getting the kids/parents involved and not just making it another document to sign at the beginning of the year? (Duxbury’s is good for this, but maybe even LESS?) I think since it is a policy that people aren’t going to WANT to read and, sadly, will usually skim and sign, the use of formatting (bold print, bullets, notes…) is especially important. I think that if we can find a way to have a brief one and then an extended version perhaps referenced, then it might get read more often? I think that The Hague school (yay Carol) is actually quite good at that. It makes it easy to read and focused. What are they revising? How might you want to go about this part? Pick one and revise or take bits and pieces from a bunch? I tend to think that taking a simple one and adding to it might be the most effective and focused way, but I’m certainly up for anything. There’s lot to be said for detail, too. Ok, I’m REALLY signing off now. Sorry for the huge amount of text to read suddenly! Have a good day, Eva ||  || Don’t get too confused. What needs to be done by the end of the week is the tech integration and the tech planning page. BUT, it’s a mini-deadline. The entire thing isn’t due until April 29. Forget about the AUP for now. That part of the assignment isn’t due until April 22 in Module 4.1. Right now, we have satisfied all of this module’s requirements about the AUP. As far as the TEKS standards. Looking at Dr. M’s sample, you need the content area standard AND a technology standard. Just be careful not to give too many standards. I would only do 2 Social studies standards if I were you. I think we should stick with the name of Carol’s school for the planning. All of our planning is supposed to be based on the scenario school. In looking at what she has written about the technology available at her school, I am probably going to go back in and tighten up what I say about the technology that is available to the students when we do the instruction part of the curriculum integration pieces, just to make the whole thing tighter. As far as the key words for the articles, I believe the idea is to offer some key words regarding the topics covered in the article. Whatever topics are in the article should match the standards for the part of the plan you are working on and you highlight that accordingly. If the key words (or topic) of your article didn’t match your standards, that wouldn’t be evidence-based planning. It would be picking some random article to add to the wiki. The references and keywords are for all parts of the planning Integration AND PD. I’m sorry about the highlighting on the wiki. It’s not too difficult to do, but tedious anyway. How to do it? It works the same way as changing the font color. In edit mode, select the text you want to highlight. Click on the color palette at the top left corner. Instead of text color, click on background color. Colors for highlighting will appear and you choose the color you want. As far as the PD planning, Carol has stated that she will do one related to editing and filming video. I had said I was going to do one related to blogs. I REALLY liked what you wrote up as far as how the librarian will handle the teacher training, so I modified it to reflect teaching BLOGS instead of Cacoo. I think it works and the fact that it is your framework makes it a truly collaborative part of the plan. See what you think. If you don't agree, we can change it, no problem. Note also that the standards are slightly different for the Integration pieces versus the PD pieces. What’s helped me the most is looking at the sample on [] Hope this helps and makes sense. Kathleen ||  || As far as AUP, I think we should go with Carol's school as well. It fits our scenario. Please let me know what you need from me over the weekend. I feel I'm done with the bulk of the content I needed to enter, but will check in on Friday or Saturday evening to see if you all have made suggestions or if anything needs to be edited. Carol, I failed to say congrats on your portfolio success! Yay for you! ||  || As you probably both saw, the highlighted sections have been entered and all of the keywords added. I think it looks good, but let me know if you notice anything that needs changing around. I'm happy to tweak it. I really like how the PD part came together. I think it really works nicely. Just to clarify, when you mentioned my additional integration piece, what were you referring to? I thought that #3 was going to be Carol's video book-talk piece. Just let me know if I'm missing anything else or if I should add anything at the moment. Hope all is well with you ladies. Enjoy the day, Eva ||  || I was away as well as write up the video integration and PD. Thanks for working so hard on this! You'll see that I started putting in Standards for the video book talk. Yes, I know, I've got too many. After I finish writing up the description I'll narrow down the standards. Carol ||  || more this evening to make it more concise. I need to do the highlighting too. Right now, my son is forcing me to go outside and play kickball! Carol ||  || a look when you have a chance. I'm not sure about my highlighting and my description may still be too long. Feel free to cut! I'll work on the PD piece tomorrow. I hope all is well with you both! Carol ||  || I think that it all looks great. What a cool idea, and I really like that it gave our planning a different kind of project. I actually learned a lot reading it, and it got me thinking about this new program I'm trying to develop. Awesome! Quick question... do we put full stops at the end of standards? I put them in, but I'm not sure that it's right. I just want to make sure we're consistant either way. I'm unpacking and trying to get organized for the week, but I'll look everything over more closely tomorrow. It's really coming along! I love it when big projects make such great progress... it's gratifying :-) Talk to you soon,  Eva ||   ||
 * Date || Means of Communication || Discussion || Action Plan ||
 * March 4 || gmail and wikispaces || Carol contacted Kathleen re: Partnership for Technology Planning Assignment(A.4.2) || Kathleen and Carol will be happy to work again, and will ask Eva to join them. Kathleen will set up the wiki space. ||
 * March 5 || BB Discussion Board || partnership || Carol posted to BB Discussion Board as well as BB Wiki Partnerships Page ||
 * March 6 || wikispaces || Invite to wiki/wikispace set-up || Kathleen sent a wikispaces invitation to Eva. Informed Carol that the wiki had been set up for A.4.2. ||
 * March 26 || wikispaces || Posted link to SBEC Teacher Technology Application Standards || [[file:SBEC Teacher Technology Application Standards.pdf]] ||
 * April 9 || gmail || I have added some Acceptable Use Policies to the wiki in prep for A.4.2. Feel free to add yours. The first one is from my school (newly adopted). The next pair are from Great Britain.   How do we want to go about filling in the scenario part of the template? Do we want to do a Middle- or High School?   Also, I added one idea I have about integrating technology into the curriculum. It's about integrating blogs. Is that to0 boring?   I have one question now that I am looking at the assignment in earnest. Can we tie the integration pieces to the professional development pieces? In other words, can we plan the PD to be teaching teachers how to use blogs? That would make some sense, I think.   Hope to hear from both of you soon.
 * April 9 || Wikispaces
 * April 10 || Wikispaces email || Hi Ladies,
 * April 10 || Wikispaces || I'm not sure why you aren't receiving the notifications, Eva. Hmm... do you know, Kathleen?
 * April 10 || WIkispaces & Email || FIne with anything you decide on the AUP. That's due next week anyway. I sent you all emails before I read this page, so I'm
 * April 10 || Wikispaces || Check out what I wrote on the scenario page. It is based on my school but isn't exactly my school. We actually have students
 * April 11 || TWU email/wikispaces || Hello,
 * April 11 || TWU email
 * April 11 || wikispaces || I LOVE that video that you send, Carol. It looks great, and what a fantastic idea! Also wonderful that it can align with this project. And congrats on passing your final! Hooray!!! That must be such a relief.
 * April 12 || wikispaces || School Name:
 * April 12 (cont'd) || wikispaces || I thought I'd begin a different section about the work I just did:
 * April 12
 * April 12 (Kuwait) || wikispaces || Hi, Eva,
 * 12 April || wikispaces || I finished up with the PD plan related to blogs, using the wording Eva had come up with for her original PD plan for Cacoo. I might be totally delusional, but I am happy with what it looks like. Now, we await Carol's integration and PD pieces, and Eva's additional integration piece. What do you both think? I see a lot of overlap, but I think that's natural and not surprising, especially given that we are hooking the PD to the actual integration, which makes sense. I'm pretty sure Dr. M. is going to see that as well. She's fond of keeping it real, I believe.
 * April 12 (Sydney) || wikispaces || Hi there,
 * April 13 || Wikispaces || Wow! You two have been BUSY! We're back now and it's going to take me a day or two to catch up on everything you did while
 * April 14 || Wikispaces || Still working... I have a draft of the video book talk unit on the Technology Plan page. It's too long and I will work on it some
 * April 14 || Wikispaces || I'm finished writing the video book talk integration piece. I've included the standards and done the highlighting. Would you take
 * April 15 || wikispaces || Nicely done, Carol!!

I just wrote up the PD for integrating video production into the curriculum. Please take a look when you have a chance. Again, it's long. I tend to write things up the way I would if I were presenting them to my principal. She's a fan of details. Feel free to edit. Check my Standards and highlighting too. I included Digital Citizenship from the NETS-A standards because I think any training related to video production should include information and discussion about copyright and information privacy. That makes 2 of those standards. Do you think that's a problem? By the way, I just reread the section above about AUPs. I'm fine going with the one from my school as a start but it doesn't say anything about social networking or handheld devices. Those are the parts that the school is looking at changing. Currently, our filter blocks most Social Networking (including Facebook, but not YouTube) The IT teachers have asked the Leadership Team to unblock the category "Social networking." So, the AUP needs some adjusting. Interesting timing on this assignment, huh? The rubric for the AUP section says: It includes considerations for **current and emerging technologies** and students’ **personal communications devices**. Carol ||  || Wow. This is looking great! The PD part that you added is fantastic, and I think it compliments our other pieces nicely. Go team! I changed a few of the highlights. I really thought that the part about people having a "beginner, intermediate or advanced" choice should be highlighted, because it's important for staff differentiation and effective development. The thing is, I'm not sure it fits in to that section perfectly. What do you think? Other than that, I think it looks awesome and good to go. Is there anything on that section that we're missing? As for the AUP, I agree with you. I love the one from your school, but it needs the currency. On the 12th my thoughts were: How might you want to go about this part? Pick one and revise or take bits and pieces from a bunch? I tend to think that taking a simple one and adding to it might be the most effective and focused way, but I’m certainly up for anything. There’s lot to be said for detail, too. Maybe we could use yours as the basic outline with all of the key parts that it DOES have, and then take the more current parts that we like from the others and add them in. Is that how it works? We basically put it together using ones that we've found? (So we don't have to actually write anything???? That seems odd....) What's next? This is great! We're an awesome team :-) *Eva ||   || @https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T4MXBbCBVr4JuhBbEHYEDV9c1hWfrTS53AaTq_rSln8/edit  The one I had posted to the wiki was a .png file and wasn't editable. The formatting is gone on the GoogleDoc version so it looks really ugly but at least we can edit it now. I think we should add in parts that we think are missing and comment on parts that we think should be deleted or changed. When we add pieces in, maybe we should color-code them to the sources. I'll create a citation for the original document and leave that one black.
 * April15 || Wikispaces || Hi, Carol. Your integration piece is strong. It's detailed, but I don't see that as a bad thing. It matches the standards you've chosen. And there's a logical sequence to the plan. Eva, your piece is great. As far as the additional integration piece. Sorry, I misspoke. I also added some key words to your references. -K PS. Eva and I were on at the same time (real-time collaboration). I'm a fan of the full stop, so I went and put them in just now. ||  ||
 * April 15 || Wikispaces || Hi ladies,
 * April 16 (sydney) || wikispaces || Hi ladies,
 * 16 April || wikispaces || Hi, Carol and Eva. Nice job on the PD. Brilliant, actually. Thanks. I have one concerm for us. In the whole class feedback for the ASSURE lesson plan, she said to watch for redundancy when selecting standards from different sources. Many of ours overlap, and I thought that was a good thing. Now, I'm not so sure. I just send her a question about it. Waiting to see what she says. As far as the AUP, do we want to clean it up a bit and get rid of some of them that don't help. I'm in favor of keeping anything on that has pieces which address handheld devices. There may be some wording we can use. If we each go through what we posted and remove the info that isn't necessary, that might be a good start. ||  ||
 * 16 April || Wikispaces || When in doubt... use GoogleDocs! I just pasted the AUP from my school in a GoogleDoc that both of you should have access to:

Kathleen, let us know what Dr. M. says about the standard redundancy. I love our team! Carol ||  || For everyone's benefit, I am quoting from the A.4.2 Assignment Sheet: I am unsure if I understand your first question. I have provided an example on the student wiki at: [] If you develop an AUP from several sources, then "yes" you will need to indicate which parts of your AUP are from one or the other. My suggestion would be to use different font colors in the text and match them to the citations, but you can determine the best way to do that.
 * 16 April || Wikispaces || 1. I thought it was worth putting here what Dr. M. said about the assignment. Carol, you['re right on with the color coding.
 * Create an AUP or adapt one you found on the Web to cover current and emerging technologies as well as students’ use of personal communication devices.
 *  Highlight information related to personal communication devices in ONE color.
 *  Highlight your additions or substitutions in ANOTHER color and if appropriate, show your deletions by striking through the text.
 * Cite the source(s) from which you adapted your AUP.

2. Here's what she said about the redundancy thing. I think we're okay. I interpret this as she is talking about redundancy in the standards for the students, not about the use of tech in general per district and national standards. See what you think.

<span style="font-family: 'Segoe UI',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;">I applaud you for thinking deeply about the standards that frame this curriculum development work. Since you are using the ISTE NETS*A, I am assuming this list of standards is for a student unit plan. Yes?

<span style="font-family: 'Segoe UI',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;">Without knowing the goals/objectives of your initiative, it is impossible for me to say which of these"redundant" standards could be replaced by a different standard related to your unit.

<span style="font-family: 'Segoe UI',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;">???

<span style="font-family: 'Segoe UI',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;">Yes, there will be some overlap. The two technology aspects are probably unavoidable. But I suspect you plan to measure more than students' ability to collaborate. Yes? Are there other standards that apply? ||  ||
 * 16 April || Wikispaces || Thanks for posting that, Kathleen. Based on what Dr. M. said, I agree that we're okay with our standards. The problem would be if we used redundant information from AASL and ISTE and TEKS and the district **within** the descriptions.

So, about the AUP... would you like to do the editing/highlighting on GoogleDocs or would you rather have it be on the wiki? I prefer GoogleDocs since all three of us can simultaneously edit a page without deleting each other's work. The highlights carry over from GoogleDocs to the wiki, I just checked. But, if you think it's important to have our edits trackable on the wiki for Dr. M. I'm happy to do it on the wiki instead.

"Talk" to you tomorrow!

Carol ||  || google docs || Hi team,
 * 17 April (sydney) || wikispaces/

I hope I didn't just confuse things, because looking at what I did to the Google Doc at the end might look like that.

I was trying to include some information on personal communication devices, and I liked a lot of what Duxbury said, so I put the document in. Then I realized that it was basically repeating what we'd said with The Hague and so I blacked a lot of it out. I DID keep the section that I thought was relevent, but I think it might need cutting down. I thought I'd see what you ladies thought before continuing. (it's on page 3. ignore p. 2)

In short, I think it might be a good idea to include a specific usage guildeline about the personal communication devices. Also, I'm not sure there's that much to add or revise w/The Hague's. It looks good! (Is that a bad thing? Should we be revising a lot?) I did add some comments in the document.

Please let me know if you're confused. I just didn't want to lose any information at this point. I figured it might be handy to have it all there. (But obviously feel free to cut it down and take stuff out, too!)

*Eva ||  || Carol ||  ||
 * 18 April || Wikispaces || I read your comments, Eva, but I haven't had a chance to comment back or make changes. I'm thinking it will be Friday before I really have time to think about the AUP, is that okay? We're on track with the deadlines, right?
 * April 18 (sydney) || wikispaces || Hi Carol,

No worries. We're early (as usual? hooray!). Good luck with the return to school. Hope it all goes as smoothly as possible!

*Eva ||  || I added some pieces from the South West Grid for Learning Trust that specifically spoke to the use of handheld devices. I framed it under the "Respect for Network Security" clause in the the original ISH document. I put the all of the wording in LIME GREEN, along with the citation. Then, I highlighted a portion related to personal communication devices, like Eva did, in traditional yellow. So, I think the best thing would be to take the framework of Carol's original document as an outline and stick pieces in where they are relevant, highlighting each text according to its sources. And then anytime it is related to the use of personal communication devices, highlight it in yellow. So, the final document will be very colorful as far as the text, but the actual highlighted pieces about personal communication devices will only be in yellow. Once we are finished with putting pieces in here and there, we can go through and clean up the formatting a bit. Does that sound like a good plan? -K P.S. Eva, I left you a note on the Google Doc. And I color-coded Duxbery as purple and moved the Messaging and Blogging Parts up to the Netiquette section. See what you think. I think they would fit there with some editing OR we might want to consider a separate section. ||  || GoogleDocs || Hi Ladies, I made some revisions to the Google Doc. I added some information to the top and tried to re-word some parts. I think you'll get the email of the changes, and I've also made some comments in the document itself. I know that in a past assignment there was a bit of confusion about how to document GoogleDocs conversations/collaboration. Has Dr M said it's ok if we just use the revision history option? should we invite her to the document?
 * April 19 || wikispaces || Hello,
 * April 21 (sydney) || wikispaces/

I think it's looking really good. Where do we go from here... is our technology plan page finished? one we're finished with the AUP is that it? (!!)

Have a good day, Eva ||  ||
 * April 21 || Wikispaces || Hi ladies,

I just posted this in the "Ask Dr. M forum:"

// Dear Dr. M, // // Eva, Kathleen, and I have done most of the work for the Technology Planning assignment in the wiki and our communication is well-documented there. We decided to work on our AUP in GoogleDocs because we can all be editing in the same place at the same time. The commenting and chat features are helpful with this kind of work, too. Do you want us to add you to the GoogleDoc so you can see our revision history there, or is it enough for you to just see the final product of the AUP? // // Thanks, // // Carol // ||  || GoogleDocs || I like what we have so far on the AUP. Does it matter that some of it is written in 1st person and some is written as commands? Example: I left comments in the Google Doc and made a few changes but I think we'll need to decide as a team whether we need to write everything in the same "voice." Does that make sense? Maybe voice isn't the word. Carol ||  || (sydney) || wikispaces/ GoogleDocs || Hi there,
 * April 21 || Wikispaces
 * » Respect Property: Treat all IT equipment and the network carefully **
 * I understand that everyone has equal rights to use technology as a resource and: **
 * April 22

I've looked over the GoogleDoc, and I've made some changes. I took out the section on the 1:1 because we seemed to be in agreement. Hope that's ok.

Good catch on the inconsistencies with the 1st person, Carol. I've done a trial on that first section and switched it around w/out the first person. I do like the sound of it, and I think it works, but this formatting is making it really confusing. I'm not really liking the strikethroughs and colours and highlighting and it makes my brain (and eyes) hurt. I just wanted to check that it was right and that you ladies agreed before continuing.

What do you think? Feel free to edit it if you'd like.

Anyway, that's all for now!

Making progress...

*Eva ||  ||
 * April 22 || wikispaces/GoogleDocs || I had the same question about the formatting. I guess we should make sure we have all of the parts that we want to include, and then one person can go back and make sure the wording/voice is consistent. I would be happy to do that later on in the week.

Yes, it does seem confusing with all of the highlighting and strikethroughs. It's not very readable. I was even thinking to do a clean final draft sometime later in the week to see what it looks like. What do you think of that?

Also, I'm a little bit concerned that we've added a lot to certain sections but nothing to others. For example, we don't have anything on respecting copyright. Should we find some explanatory stuff and add it just to add it? I don't think so. My favorite documents are the ones that are short and simple, not long and drawn out. So, I don't really know what to do. I guess we need to decide if we want to go into as many details as we already have or just keep it simple.

That being said, I added some stuff on the Respect the Environment part that we use in our library. -K ||  || Google Docs || Hi there,
 * April 22 || Wikispaces

I agree... we should try to keep it as simple as possible. My dream AUP would be one that is so simple that the kids know they are violating it without having to check the document! BUT for the purposes of this assignment, we need certain details. We just have to be careful not to put too many.

I'm in favor of not adding more but just working with what we have now. I checked the rubric and we're very close. The formatting is making my head spin as well. It's hard for it to seem like it's a cohesive document with so many different colors.

Do we need to get together in real time to do this? I can do it this afternoon, tonight, tomorrow morning? Just let me know. ||  || e-Mail || Hi again,
 * April 22 || TWU discussion forum

Dr. M replied to our question on the discussion forum. I sent you her reply via email. She doesn't need to be added to the Google Doc. We just need to post the completed AUP on the wiki with the proper highlighting. ||  ||
 * April 22 || Wikispaces/Google Doc/twu email || I started going through and making bullet points for each of the sections, adding bullets for what we have added. I think it is starting to "read" a little bit better. See what you all think. Also, check my reply to Carol's twu email. ||  ||
 * April 22 || Wikispaces/Google Doc/twu email || Kathleen, the bullets help a lot. You're right, it's much clearer now.

Eva, there's a big block of yellow that is struck-through. You have a comment next to it that asks if we should delete that text. It's about blogs, etc. and it helps us meet the criteria for the rubric, so I think we need to keep it. Also, you asked earlier if the "trial" you did for getting everything in one voice works. I think it works really well! ||  || GoogleDocs/Email || Yay! It seems like we're pretty much done. I know what you mean about the blog part. I'm just not sure how to rephrase it and if it needs the detail. I'm happy to keep it in, but would one of you mind looking at how to rephrase it and what we need to keep in. I tried to get it compact. Is it ok as is? If not, feel free to revise as you see fit.
 * April 23 || wikispaces/

I did some more reworking on the voice taking out the first person stuff (but left it at the very end where it has to be signed).

Aside from those little things, I think we're DONE!

(Is that the whole assignment?!? Amazing!)

We're a great team!!

*Eva ||  ||
 * April 23 || Wikispaces/GoogleDocs || I went back through the bullet points and put semi-colons after each point, just to make it look a little bit better. I also just made an executive decision on that blogging thing and merged it into the section as a bullet point. I'm happy with it now, and I don't think I'm going to have to do a neat copy after all. :) It cleaned up well and makes sense to me. At this point, I guess we're waiting for Carol to give her final "ok." After that, should someone copy/paste the GoogleDoc onto the wiki? And should we get rid of our resources which are already on the wiki or just put this final AUP at the top of that page? -K ||  ||
 * April 23 || wikispaces || Hooray! Thanks for tightening that up. It looks great. I think it's good to go!

I think maybe we could clump our resources that are already there into one folder and then put the two documents at the top.

And we're done! Hooray!

(do we submit separate rubrics for this?)

I couldn't be more thrilled! We're a great team!! It's been a pleasure, ladies!

*Eva ||  || Google Docs || Hi ladies, What a difference a day makes! The document looks awesome! There's only one section that I'm not comfortable with:
 * April 23 || wikispaces

It's the rewording of this in a different voice : * **<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: medium; text-decoration: line-through; vertical-align: baseline;">If I arrange to meet people off-line that I have communicated with on-line, I will do so in a public place and take an adult with me. ** But by changing the voice it makes it sound like we are encouraging the kids to arrange for meeting with strangers! Can we strike this section all together? In digital citizenship discussions we have with MS kids, we discourage any face to face meetings with strangers, adult or no adult. The school can't forbid it because it's something that would happen in students' free time. We can teach about what a bad idea it is, but we couldn't enforce the rule by giving detention, etc.
 * <span style="background-color: #00ffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">Arrange for off-line meetings with those met online only in public places, accompanied by an adult; **

I'll move the Google Doc text to the wiki and we can change it from there if we all agree. Carol ||  || The wiki created links in the Sources Cited section. When I try to remove them, it shows as not BEING linked. (?) The only case where it really matters is this one because part of the link is not linked:
 * April 23 || Wikispaces || The AUP is in the wiki and the formatting transferred over pretty well. I put the initial resource list at the bottom of the page.


 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #00ff00; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline;">South West Grid for Learning Trust. Student/Pupil Acceptable Use Policy Agreement ****<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #00ff00; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline;">Template. Exeter, Great Britain: SWGLT, 2009. PDF. 19 Apr. 2012. ****<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #00ff00; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline;"><[] ****<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #00ff00; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline;">policy--Where-do-you-start- >. **

Yes, Eva, we each turn in a separate rubric. I feel really good about our work and I love our team! Carol ||  ||
 * April 24 || wikispaces || What a pain in formatting! I got it all set to go, too... then I hit save and it went back to those weird links (and added other weird links to the ones that were good before.) Ugh!

So I decided to do it as a screenshot to keep the good formatting. I still left the original in for now in case one of you objected, it's still easy to find. But if you think the screenshot looks ok, please delete that.

I also reworked the homepage a bit. Feel free to revise or scrap my changes. I just wanted to make it a bit more condensed.

Other than that... we're good!

Woohoo!!

Other final thoughts?

*Eva

ps- I just was double checking the rubric and I know it said to use keywords in the works cited. Do we need to do that for the AUP or only for the Tech Plan?


 * Works Cited (MLA Format):**

If you cite our course textbooks, you must cite a specific page in the book. **Note:** You must also provide **keywords** related to the research or practice you are referring to in each citation. ||  ||
 * 24 April || wikispaces || Thanks, Eva. I deleted the Works Cited with the funky formatting. As for the keywords, I thought it was just for the Tech Planning, and I added some to yours a few weeks back.

EVA!!! I just caught something. The rubric says if you cite a course textbook, as you did in Tech Plan #2 (wikis), you have to include the page number. This is the example from the rubric:

Smaldino, Sharon E., Deborah L. Lowther, and James D. Russell, //Instructional Technology and Media for Learning//. 10th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2011: 257. (collaborative learning, present information in a new way)

I would do it for you, but I don't have the print text, so I don't know what pages are needed, but you might want to put a number in there.

You guys are awesome!

-Kathleen ||  ||
 * 24 April || wikispaces || Hi you two,

Eva, I believe the keywords are only for the tech plan.

I added one small thing at the bottom of the scenario page:

**Note**: International School of The Netherlands is a fictitious school. The links above do not lead anywhere.

I think our wiki will eventually show up on Google searches unless we delete it. I don't want to give people the impression that there's an awesome school called ISTN with a fantastic, forward thinking AUP and Tech Plan. ;-)

I took a course a few summers ago and the instructor had us write our reflections on a class wiki. Things I wrote for that course still show up in Google searches when I look for my name. I find it a little creepy, but at least I didn't say anything that I wouldn't want the whole world to know. It's a great example to show students when I talk about digital footprints.

Anyway, all our work looks great and I'm going to post my rubric now. Thanks for being such fantastic teammates. I loved working with you both and I hope we'll stay in touch.

Carol ||  ||
 * April 25 || wikispaces || Hi there,

Thanks for adding that in, Carol. I think we're done! I'm about to post my rubric.

Thanks for letting me know about that citation, Kathleen. Good spotting! It's actually a Kindle edition, which I'm also glad you pointed out. Most of the information is from Chapter 6, so I looked back at the old Blackboard post and added Ch 6 like it was suggested. I didn't find any other contridicting info about Kindle citations, but feel free to change it if it's not the correct formatting.

Thanks again for being such great partners, ladies. If it's ok with you I might take out the personal info (names, schools, etc...) and put it on my learning wiki, but it wouldn't have any specific personal info. I can also keep it as a file on my desktop if you'd prefer, so let me know.

Ok! Handing in my rubric now. WooHoo!!

Thanks again for everything, and keep in touch!

*Eva ||  ||