The lessons behind the burger…

Part of the rationale for the project is developing guidelines and processes for the application of some of these Web 2.0 tools in a school setting, and simply trying how they can and will work in an appropriate way. Many of my colleagues, I know, are hesitant about using the technology for a start, and that is before they are sometimes aware of the potential issues with being truly immediate and online with your students. Here are some areas that were considered in advance:

Access

Managing passwords/access rights to the various Web 2.0 tools requires thought. Under the model for this project, each student needs ‘contributor’ rights to the blog so they can write posts directly, with me – the teacher – as ‘administrator’. This takes some setting up through edublogs, though the tutorial steps are adequate to get things rolling. The most difficult part of the process was getting each of the twenty-seven students an edublogs account that linked to their school webmail account, and then to have students log on and activate their account individually. Once that was done, each student had to be added to the BurgerLOG.

Access to the e-mail address behind the registrations, the Twitter, ustream and Google Analytics accounts are all kept and controlled centrally by me.

Moderation

Monitoring/moderating posts (outgoing posts and incoming comments) to the blog is one aspect, as is the intranet, portal-based discussion forum. I take on the role of approving blog comments before they are posted. The student discussion on the portal (initially relating to marketing ideas and forming ‘personality-based’ groups) did get a little out of hand. Students – having that ability to start new discussion threads, reply to posts and make announcements – did so! Off-topic posts and announcements were deleted and a ‘discussion’ (albeit one-way) held with the group to outline the purpose of, and processes for posting only relevant and task-oriented material to the forum. End of issue!

Privacy and anonymity

Conforming to safe practices regarding student images, names/identities and personal information is another consideration. For the sake of ease, images of student ‘at work’ will not include faces. Students will not be using their names on the blog, and in fact, are generally only identified by their group letter T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z. This is just one less thing to be worried about. Students are well aware that any private information will not be published.

Legalities

Avoiding direct identification of the source of the burger seemed a safe way to play things (no lawsuits, thanks!). Although this project is not about taking an anti-fast food, anti-corporate stand, some of the findings of the project may be incidentally ‘incriminating’.

A letter to parents of those involved outlining the activity and its safety considerations was contemplated, but in reality, to the extent things have gone thus far, this has not proved necessary. If, however, mobile blogging (via utterli) is to be used (utilising students’ own phones), a permission letter would be a must given there is a cost, if for not other reason.

Brainstorming at the outset of the project quickly developed a ‘wish list’ of (low/no cost) technology tools to employ. One aspect of this was the use of Web 2.0 wherever possible. A second – and more school-relevant aim – was to employ our portal facilities better.

There are many educators out there enthused by, and using Web 2.0 tools, but how many are seriously trying to make as many happen in one project?

So here is a list of what was intended from the outset (note: ‘intended’ and ‘actual’ might vary to some extent):

• A blog (edublogs) – for the publishing aspect of the project
• Social networking (Twitter) – to provide updates and information live (and to develop a ‘personality’ for The Burger
• RSS feeds – the facility for people to use RSS to provide updates on the project
• Live streamed video feed (ustream) – to allow for anyone to monitor the project (this to be embedded in the blog itself)
• Moderated discussion forum (portal, SharePoint-based [Scholaris]) – for school-side asynchronous planning
• Wiki (portal, SharePoint-based [Scholaris]) – to develop a corporate repository for information
• Integrated multimedia (podcast/vodcast) – to add rich media content to the project
• Tracking tools (Google Analytics, Clustrmap) – to visualise and analyse global reach statistics
• Mobile blogging (utterli) – to blog remotely (if a relevant context can be found!)

A note about what won’t (officially) occur as part of the project. Facebook/Myspace and YouTube are not available for student use at school due to existing policies. These aspects of social networking and multimedia distribution were, therefore, not considered as part of the project proper. That’s not to say that they haven’t been employed by individuals (at home, in their own time) to promote the project!

An additional tool that has ‘appeared’ during the project, which has added to student motivation has been Twitter Grader. This rates your Twitter profile against all of those already rated on a number of criteria including the number and ‘power’ of your network, how frequent your updates are and how informative your profile is. This is expressed as a percentage. Interestingly, during the first two weeks of the project, The Burger’s Twitter Grade went from 30% to 48% in the time the number of graded profiles rose from 90,000 to 180,000. Seeing this turned out to be a very exciting thing for students.

Another interesting tool that emerged early on during the project, relating to Google Analytics, is the Adobe air application called Analytics Reporting Suite. This allows application- rather than web-based access to the site statistics in a way that students could view and understand with ease. Incidentally The Burger’s Twitter account was mainly updated through the use of another air application: Twhirl.

Now two weeks into the project proper. It is going fairly well, though I’ll explore the issues encountered and considerations that should have been… well, considered, in later posts. I haven’t been back to this blog, which I intended to use to record my progress and thoughts partly as a function of the time required to keep The Burger itself on-track.

I will say that I was conscious from the outset (wearing my hat as the ‘Head of Academic Computing’ at the School) that I was taking ‘my curriculum’ and employing across that of others; even if some of those subjects I do actually myself as well. This was, in my mind, a definite aim anyway; to demonstrate, if not model how the technology could be applied to a variety of circumstances.

Tip 1: Ask for permission

In the case of this project, I was well aware that it just might become one of those freakish ‘Net phenomena that takes-off. This could in turn lead to attention from outside the school – even media attention. Not wanting to get ahead of myself, but it has been known to happen, and I didn’t want to be caught out. In fact, part of the project plan (brainstormed with students) was to undertake marketing and even to exploit student connections with the local media; very possible given we are based in a regional city. So following Tip 1 was a prudent move. The Headmaster and Director of Studies were both informed of the project in some detail and given an opportunity to seek clarification with issues and give approval. This in some ways was designed to head-off problems with others down the school food-chain deciding non-co-operation might be an option (an unfounded fear as it transpired).

Tip 2: Keep people informed

This relates more to the cross-curricular aspect. Given the application of the technology (my area) was going to merge into the content/concepts of other subjects, I made sure key people (Heads of Department/Faculty) were informed where necessary. This was an even greater imperative given the need to enlist the assistance and expertise of certain departments (for example Science’s laboratory and technical resources and Art’s equipment and know-how to build the “Burger Box”). This, I must say, has worked well. I should note at this point that I became aware that the degree to which the project might ‘hijack’ (perhaps too strong a word, but clearly the intended meaning) was question indirectly, and also that it was made clear in no uncertain terms that nothing should happen with this project at the expense of any of the regular curriculum. Duly warned, it was full speed ahead.

Going back, what did I intend to achieve in a cross-curricular sense? Here is the list of initial ideas – in no particular order – that were brainstormed by those involved, including the students themselves. Some have been done. Some might get done. Some possibly won’t happen at all during the life of this project.

• Mapping the burger’s location and travels (Google Earth/Maps, GPS) – Geography
• The background and development of the ham/cheeseburger – History
• Where do the burger’s constituent ingredients come from? (mapping/analysis) – Geography
• The nutritional/energy value of a burger (calorimeter experiments) – Health/Science
• What micro-organisms are present on a burger? (agar cultures) – Science
• Hypothesis development and scientific methodology – Science
• Measuring the rate of temperature loss of the burger – Maths/Science
• Monitoring change in mass of the burger over time (accurate to .001g, graphing) – Science/Maths
• Burger-inspired writing or poetry/prose – English
• Translating selected information into other languages – LOTE
• Multimedia capture, manipulation and publishing/broadcast – ICT
• Implementation and management of the Web 2.0-based technologies – ICT
• Construction of a case for the burger to allow for on-going monitoring – Art/design technology
• Development of marketing and advertising strategies for the project – Commerce

Within the context of these tasks, there is clearly scope for both qualitative and quantitative work. Skills such as collaboration, observation, data collection, analysis and presentation, research and writing for a specific purpose should all come to the fore. There should be enough variety, too, to enthuse all the students at some point.

The intention of the activity is to take a tongue-in-cheek idea, with an element of truth, and to see how far it can be promoted and facilitated via the Internet, in particular, using Web 2.0 technologies. Although the basis of the task my not appear to be entirely serious, the underlying educational potential offers many opportunities that would not be readily achieved through other means.

It is hoped to achieve several specific aims:

• To integrate as many Web 2.0 elements as possible, exposing students to them
• To create an original, engaging, different and yet truly educational task for students
• To assess the degree to which students are truly ‘Digital Natives’
• To investigate and model processes that use Web 2.0 technologies in an appropriate, safe way
• To foster collaboration and co-operation between students
• To provide an example and model for how others might use Web 2.0 technologies in a school
• To achieve genuine cross-curricular integration, sustained over an extended period
• To gauge the global uptake and reach of such a project using the Internet
• To achieve the outcomes using little-to-no cost means
• To employ the 16 Habits of Mind students have studied in Homeroom classes

As teacher across many subject areas, who might be termed an ‘early adopter’ of technologies, I have been looking long and hard at the moves the Web has made over the last few years in its transition from Web 1.0 (essentially ‘read-only’ – an information repository) to Web 2.0; the so-called ‘read-write’, or interactive Web. In my own mind I have been grappling with how to effectively use Web 2.0 tools or environments in teaching. In November 2004, I wrote a proposal for a ‘Year 7 class weblog project’ that would have come in with the ‘new’ (for our school) 2005 Year 7 Homeroom initiative. Perhaps the idea was a little ahead of its time at my school, perhaps there was too much else going on, but it never eventuated. I do remember thinking the top issue then was controlling both student access and how comments coming back might be screened. Since that time, I have seen further manifestations of the Web 2.0 phenomenon appearing, and have kept pondering how they might be used in a meaningful, effective, relevant and safe way.

In June this year at an Australian Council for Educational Research ‘Digital Education Revolution’ Conference in Melbourne, I heard Mark Pesce (an American-born, Australia-based ‘futurist’, technologist and inventor) giving a keynote entitled Those Wacky Kids (video/text). It summarised the advances the Web has made in the last five years and put it in the context of the current generation of students working differently to ‘us’ (ie, teachers) as a result of the technology. This has many parallels with ideas put forward by Marc Prensky (another America futurist), who coined the terms ‘Digital Natives’ and ‘Digital immigrants’ in 2001. The end result is that such commentators posit that our students are becoming less engaged as student expectations and modus operandi shift.

These ideas have been further reinforced at my school with a visit (sponsored by UK Trade & Investment) by Dr John Ingram, developer of the ‘Digital Excellence Awards’ scheme which has taken hold at several schools in Victoria. This program, in all likelihood, is destined to be in place at my school in the primary years for 2009. In addition to all the messages about ICT skill entitlements and competencies – an area I am passionate about – John Ingram was also talking a great deal about student engagement and changing the way technology is seen and delivered in schools.

Finally, my attendance at the Computerlec ‘Expanding Learning Horizons‘ (ELH) conference saw innumerable keynotes and presenters all repeating essentially the same messages; firstly, that teachers need to shift from their traditional way of doing business to keep students engaged, and secondly, that greater collaboration (teacher-teacher, teacher-student, student-student) is essential. Thrown into this mix relating to the first message was the notion that traditional schools are good at ‘killing creativity’.

At the ELH conference – as a reaction to a session I was sitting in at the time – I sent a Twitter (a Web 2.0 application) message outlining that my Homeroom class had a term-and-a-half old burger in the video cabinet at the front of the room. This ‘experiment’ was testing the urban myth that they are so full of preservatives that it will not deteriorate – true, as it turns out. A teacher and Twitter follower of mine – Concetta Gotlieb – who is employed by edna in New South Wales sent a message back asking where she could see the blog, or at least an image of the project. That request, and the kinds of ideas that I was seeing at the conference started me thinking. After some light-hearted discussions with my colleagues at the conference, and others, the idea to create a truly Web 2.0-enabled cross-curricular project took shape.

The sillier the ideas became, the more obvious it was that students would probably love it, that Web 2.0 made it possible with minimal effort and expence. Since that time a few weeks back, the project has taken on a life of its own.

This is a teaching project designed to take something ubiquitous and accessible, and to turn it into an Internet phenomenon using low/no-cost Web 2.0 tools. In the process, I hope to motivate and engage students, and also to see the degree to which the 14 year old of today (in a developed country) is really a ‘Digital Native‘.

As planned, this activity will involve acquiring and monitoring a cheeseburger. Due care will be taken not to identify the source of the burger – and this is irrelevant to the task anyway – nor to attack a brand (and I certainly don’t intend to be subject to any legal action!). Having said this, the fact that some cheesburgers are apparently so full of preservatives will work to our benefit.

The burger is destined to take on something of a personality, with the students representing it online directly, and also undertaking various subject-based qualitative and quantitative tasks. ‘The Burger’ has various accounts online and a location where writing, data and multimedia can be posted for all to see and comment upon: The BurgerLOG.

Several staff associated with my Year 8 Homeroom and beyond, have already been approached for thoughts on taking part in various ways, and are keen to be involved. The students are already informed about the activity, and indeed are extremely keen to pursue it. The class as a whole has already increased appreciably in enthusiasm and motivation.

The activity also marries well, coincidentally, with other initiatives going on in the school presently. The first is the Year 8 Homerooms’ focus on learning about and utilising the 16 Habits of Mind (HOM) developed by Costa and Kallick. We have been looking at these in one-at-a-time during a period per week. The final term task for the year is to be a reflection on the HOM and a presentation as a homeroom group. All of the requirements of this burger project are compatible with, if not enhanced by the application of HOM (which, in short, are sixteen means by which one knows how to behave intelligently when not knowing an answer).

The second school initiative is an investigation of how the application of technology can be beneficial and motivating, especially to boys. The ‘Boys Ed’ project at the school encompasses a couple of technology-intensive projects to see how the boys react and achieve though their course. Although my class is mixed gender, it will still be significantly different to the things we have done regularly throughout the year.

So for many reasons, this project will be an interesting experiment.