Group items tagged

The Reflective Principal: A Taxonomy of Reflection (Part IV) Reflection can be a challenging endeavor. It's not something that's fostered in school - typically someone else tells you how you're doing! Principals (and instructional leaders) are often so caught up in the meeting the demands of the day, that they rarely have the luxury to muse on how things went. Self-assessment is clouded by the need to meet competing demands from multiple stakeholders. In an effort to help schools become more reflective learning environments, I've developed this "Taxonomy of Reflection" - modeled on Bloom's approach. It's posted in four installments: 1. A Taxonomy of Reflection 2. The Reflective Student 3. The Reflective Teacher 4. The Reflective Principal It's very much a work in progress, and I invite your comments and suggestions. I'm especially interested in whether you think the parallel construction to Bloom holds up through each of the three examples - student, teacher, and principal. I think we have something to learn from each perspective. 4. The Reflective Principal Each level of reflection is structured to parallel Bloom's taxonomy. (See installment 1 for more on the model) Assume that a principal (or instructional leader) looked back on an initiative (or program, decision, project, etc) they have just implemented. What sample questions might they ask themselves as they move from lower to higher order reflection? (Note: I'm not suggesting that all questions are asked after every initiative - feel free to pick a few that work for you.) Bloom's Remembering : What did I do? Principal Reflection: What role did I play in implementing this program? What role did others play? What steps did I take? Is the program now operational and being implemented? Was it completed on time? Are assessment measures in place? Bloom's Understanding: What was

It's time for Online Safety 3.0. Why 3.0 and why now? The online-safety messages most Americans are getting are still pretty much one-size-fits-all and focused largely on adult-to-child crime, rather than on what the growing bodies of both Net-safety and social-media research have found. Online Safety 2.0 began to develop messaging around the peer-to-peer part of online safety, mostly harassment and cyberbullying and, increasingly, sexting by cellphones, but it still focuses on technology not behavior as the primary risk and characterizes youth almost without exception as potential victims. Version 2.0 fails to recognize youth agency: young people as participants, stakeholders, and leaders in an increasingly participatory environment online and offline. To be relevant to young people, its intended beneficiaries, Net safety needs to respect youth agency, embrace the technologies they love, use social media in the instruction process, and address the positive reasons for safe use of social technology. It's not safety from bad outcomes but safety for positive ones. ... Safety is essential but only part of what we want for the people who are going to run this world! Online Safety 3.0 enables youth enrichment and empowerment. Its main components - new media literacy and digital citizenship - are both protective and enabling. Ideally from the moment they first use computers and cellphones, children are learning how to function mindfully, safely and effectively as individuals and community members, as consumers, producers, and stakeholders.

Online Safety 3.0 - safety and good citizenship while using the internet and participating in social networking. A "watershed" moment, says Bonnie Bracey Sutton (at http://www.mercurynews.com/fdcp?1257974940062).

How do you talk to stakeholders?

Traditional computing labs need to transform into flexible, technology-enhanced learning spaces. Initial research into space use and future needs can guide design and resource decisions. Involving all the stakeholders invests them in the outcome and optimizes design choices. Small changes can have big effects in redesign of existing spaces.

Students Want the 21st Century Classroom, but Schools Not Meeting Student Expectations, According to Latest National Study

Coaches' leadership skills that communicate trust building will increase teacher vulnerability and therefore teacher growth.