Buerkett, 2/18/09, IST611, Collaborative Technology Progress Report 11 of 13

Collaborative Technology Project Final Report

Genetically Engineered Foods Skype Debate

Rebecca Buerkett

Syracuse University

Pam Berger,IST 611

April 19, 2009

1

Buerkett, 4/19/2009, IST611, Collaborative Technology Report1

Table of Contents

Project Summary

Project Team and Responsibilities

Needs Assessment

Goals and Learning Outcomes of the Project

Learning standards

Target Audience

Technologies Used to Complete This Project

Challenges Faced

Results: What Went Well

Results: What I Would Do Differently

Reflection on the Experience

Completed Project

Works Cited

1

Buerkett, 4/19/2009, IST611, Collaborative Technology Report1 of 15

Project Summary

This collaborative technology project took place at Lake Placid Middle/High School in Lake Placid, NY and Lafayette High School in Williamsburg, VA. The project was a debate about genetically engineered foods via Skype between a 9th grade biology class at Lake Placid High School and a 9/10th grade biology Class at Lafayette High School.The project included a research component and the development of a wiki with a pathfinder and video links.

During the planning phase of this project, I posted messages to our class informal message boards, the LM_NET listserv, and personal contacts in order to find a class with which to debate. I had several meetings with the classroom teacher, Lake Placid Middle/High School Library Media Specialist (Sara Johns), and the technology department to begin planning for the project. I gathered library resources and created a pathfinder for the project on a wikispaces page ( The wiki eventually included the pathfinder, general assignment information, links to debate videos from other schools for use as examples of the debate process, a survey for both schools to take to provide feedback (neither has yet, but it has been spring break so I’m still hoping they will), and some links to photo and video of the debate.

The Lake Placid class did several trial in-class debates prior to the Skype debate. The trial debates were videotaped, and the class watched the videos back so that the students could see how they came across in the debate, and get ideas for improvement. Based on their performance at the in-class debate, several students were chosen to participate in the Skype debate. The other students not participating in the Skype debate provided support during the debate.

The technology departments at each school assisted with setting up the computers, projectors, and room setup for the Skype debate. We had two separate trial runs where we tested the Skype connection and setup for the debate, to make sure that there would not be any technology issues on the day of the debate. On debate day, we began the connection approximately 30 minutes before the scheduled debate time. The students came in at the scheduled time (some had to get out of other classes, which they liked!), and we lined them up at a table so that everyone could be seen on the camera, the main spokesperson in front. We did not use a microphone on the Lake Placid end because the sound was adequate during the test run, but the Lafayette class used a microphone, which they passed around to each speaker. The debate was recorded using a flip video camera so that all the students in both classes could be recorded. We filmed the video at the Lake Placid end, and videotaped the projector screen whenever the Virginia team was speaking.

We decided ahead of time which school would be representing which side of the debate. Lake Placid represented “pro” genetically modified foods, and Lafayette represented “con.” The debate began with a five minute presentation by each side. Then we muted the Skype sound (while still running the videoconference), and each side had several minutes to formulate their rebuttals. Each school then presented rebuttals, another muted discussion ensued, and we finished with a back-and-forth question and answer session between the schools.

Project Team and Responsibilities

Project team members include the following:

  • Rebecca Buerkett, MLIS intern - project coordination;assistance with development and implementation of the project, including student research assistance (pathfinder), finding another school to debate, coordination between schools, wiki development, assistance on debate day, follow up post-debate, anddevelopment of user manual.
  • Christian Wissler, Biology Teacher – collaboration, instruction, research, debate organizer.
  • David Fahey, Biology Teacher – collaboration, instruction, research.
  • Sara Johns, LMS - advisor, project assistance, student research assistance, review of user manual.
  • Technology director –technology assistance and coordination.

Needs Assessment

The needs assessment for this project was twofold, assessing the LMS’s needs as well as the biology teacher’s needs. The LMS was interested in initiating a collaboration project with the biology teacher because the biology teacher is new to the school, and she wanted to get him involved in collaborating on research projects.Also, no one had ever done a Skype conference at LPMHS. The LMS strives to constantly incorporate new technologies into the library media center, and this project was a great opportunity to try something new.

The biology teacher’s needs involved engaging his students, who were many of them reluctant learners, by initiating a nontraditional project using new technology.The students in this class aregenerally unmotivated and uninterested in school. The project needed to teach research skills, and also stimulate student interest better than a traditional PowerPoint presentation. Because the students in this particular class have issues with low self esteem, learning difficulties, and behavior problems, it was assumed that a more authentic learning experience would stimulate interest and motivation. Asking the students to represent their school in a debate demonstrated trust and a belief in the students’ abilities on the part of the teacher and library staff. In addition, the students knew that they were participating in a cutting-edge technological educational experience that no one else in the school had ever done before. This was meant to be empowering for them.

Goals and Learning Outcomes of the Project

Goal: to familiarize students with the research and debate process.

  • Outcome: students will conduct research and find at least three sources on each side of the controversy over genetically modified foods.
  • Outcome: students will participate in a debate with another school.
  • Outcome: students will hone their debate skills via several practice sessions prior to the real debate.

Goal: to encourage critical thinking.

  • Outcome: students will formulate arguments on each side of a controversial issue.
  • Outcome: students will analyze and respond to their opponents’ points in a debate.
  • Students will successfully answer questions about their debate topic.

Goal: to add relevancy to student learning via communication between schools

  • Outcome: students will realize that other students learn and care about the same issues that they are learning about in school.
  • Outcome: students will learn about life in another part of the country.

Goal: to introduce a new information literacy technology to students, teachers, and administrators.

  • Students will recognize the value of Skype.
  • Teachers and administrators will consider Skype to be a valuable educational tool.
  • Students and teachers will learn to use Skype.
  • Teachers and staff at Lake Placid Middle/High School will begin using Skype for additional projects.

Learning standards

NYS Standards:

  • Standard 1: 1.1c Science provides knowledge, but values are also essential to making effective and ethical decisions about the application of scientific knowledge; 1.2a Inquiry involves asking questions and locating, interpreting, and processing information from a variety of sources.1.3b All scientific explanations are tentative and subject to change or improvement. Each new bit of evidence can create more questions than it answers. This leads to increasingly better understanding of how things work in the living world.
  • Standard 4:2.2b In recent years new varieties of farm plants and animals have been engineered by manipulating their genetic instructions to produce new characteristics. 7.3a Societies must decide on proposals which involve the introduction of new technologies. Individuals need to make decisions which will assess risks, costs, benefits, and trade-offs.

21st Century Information Literacy Standards:

  • 2.1.3: Use strategies to draw conclusions from information and apply knowledge to curricular areas, real world situations, and further investigations;
  • 3.1.2Participate and collaborate as members of a social and intellectual network of learners.
  • 3.3.1: Solicit and respect diverse perspectives while searching for information, collaborating with others, and participating as a member of the community;
  • 3.3.3: Use knowledge and information skills and dispositions to engage in public conversation and debate around issues of common concern.

ISTE National Educational Technology Standards:

  • 2: Communication and Collaboration - Students use digital media and environments to communicate and work collaboratively, including at a distance, to support individual learning and contribute to the learning of others.;
  • 4: Critical thinking, Problem Solving, and Decision Making - Students use critical thinking skills to plan and conduct research, manage projects, solve problems, and make informed decisions using appropriate digital tools and resources.

Target Audience

LP Middle/High School (LPMHS) is a public school in the rural Adirondack region of northern New York. The combination middle-high school serves approximately 430 students in grades 6-12, or between 60-70 students per grade. The school population is 98% white and the majority of households in the district are low-to middle-income. Just over 17 percent of students are eligible for free or reduced lunch (The University of the State of New York). The village of Lake Placid is very small, with a population of 2,608 (US Census Bureau 2000). In contrast, Lafayette High School serves approximately 1,200 students in grades 9-12, and is one of two high schools in the Williamsburg-James City Public School Division in Williamsburg, VA. Williamsburg has about 12,000 people (Virginia Department of Education). The two schools are very different in size, a fact which the Virginia students found very eye-opening!

LPMHS has one full time library media specialist, one teaching assistant that works in the library full time, and one library intern. The library media specialist, Sara Johns, is highly experienced, with 10 years at LPMHS and 27 years at another school. The library teaching assistant is also highly experienced with over 20 years at her current position. The library offers flexible scheduling, and students often get passes to come to the library for both school-related or entertainment purposes during study hall, lunch, or activity period.

The initial target audience for this project was a 9th grade biology class. This particular class was a lower level biology class that was completing the regent-level biology curriculum in two years instead of one. Most of the students have IEPs, and they tend to be reluctant learners with little motivation for school assignments. This particular class was ideally suited for a non-traditional, authentic learning experience.

Ultimately, the target audience will be expanded to the entire LPMHS, both students and teachers. After the Skype debate project, a manual was created for the technology department and teachers at LPMHS. This manual will serve to document the recommended settings, equipment, and considerations for a school-to-school Skype project, so that other projects can be easily implemented in the future.

Technologies Used to Complete This Project

  • Technology: Skype, wikispaces wiki:
  • Equipment: Skype account, computer with a digital projector, microphone for the debate, Flip video camera.
  • Technology issues: Both schools needed to have both Skype and wikispaces unblocked. We neededpermissions at each school for students’ images to appear on the video/webcam. Initially, we wanted students to communicate with each other via the wiki prior to the debate. The LPMHS biology teacher was concerned that his students might behave inappropriately via the wiki, so we decided not to use it that way. Instead, the wiki was used as a shared information resource between the two schools to post the pathfinder and some sample debate videos. Unfortunately, most of the videos ended up being blocked by both schools’ filtering software.

Challenges Faced

The biggest challenge with this project was finding a school with which to debate. Initially, I posted a message to the LM_NET listserv and the class message boards. We had a couple of interested schools, but none worked out. One was a seventh grade class, and we felt that debating younger students might negatively impact the self esteem of our students. Another class was in the Pacific time zone and would have been difficult to schedule, and yet another didn’t match our research topic timeframe. I began reaching out to some personal contacts via email and facebook, and ultimately made arrangements to debate with the class of a former colleague of mine, David Fahey, who is now a high school biology teacher in Williamsburg, Virginia. It turned out to be the perfect match.

Other challenges includedpotentialprivacy or administrative issues regarding the students communicating via Skype, and students misbehaving during the debate and misrepresenting our school, technology problems. Student privacy is of our utmost concern, so only first names were used on the wiki and during the debate. We addressed behavior problems by only allowing students who behaved well during the trial debate to participate in the Skype debate.

Results: What Went Well

We had no technological problems during the debate, for which I credit our excellent technology department and the fact that we did a couple of dry runs before the debate. Some technology issues did come up during the dry runs, so it was good that we had the opportunity to resolve them before the actual debate. Another thing that went well was the fact that our students were able to interact with students from another area of the country, and to realize that other students were learning about the same issues. Through this project, the students not only learned debate skills, they also learned the importance of adequate research in order to be prepared for the debate. It was a bit eye-opening for our students to realize just how much information they needed to gather in order to adequately answer the questions and counteract the points brought up by the other class. Our students had gathered many facts and sources, but they had not organized them very well, so they had trouble pulling out useful sources during the debate. I’ve included this under “what went well” instead of “what went wrong,” because I believe that the students learned from this small failure, and they will most likely be better prepared for research and debates in the future.

Results: What I Would Do Differently

One thing I would do differently in a future Skype project is to make better use of the wiki. I would include some information about each school and each town, such as pictures, links to each school website, and Google Earth maps. This would allow the students in each school to learn more about each other prior to the Skype event. I would also investigate the use of the wiki’s email feature for communication between students. For our event, the biology teacher was not confident in his students appropriate use of the feature so we didn’t use it, but as mentioned inAnne Mirtschin’s blog post, I think it would be beneficial for the students to have interacted prior to the debate so that they could get to know each other. Because we ran out of time for student interaction on debate day, we are hoping to have a follow-up session between the two schools on another project (for example, comparing environmental issues relevant to each state), so that the students will have time to talk with each other above and beyond the debate.

The other major thing I would do differently in the future would be to better match the classes in terms of ability level. The Lake Placid class was a lower level biology class than the Lafayette class. Because the classes were not evenly matched, the Lafayette class was much better at the debate, and this was very obvious to the Lake Placid class. As a result, the Lake Placid students did not experience the self-esteem boost we were hoping for. In the future, if the two classes were not evenly matched in ability, I would choose a non-competitive interaction rather than a debate for the Skype interaction.

Finally, in the future, I would record the Skype interaction using both call recording software and video. We did get a videotape of the debate, which allowed us to visually record both our students and the other school. However, the quality of the audio was not as good on the video as it would have been using a sound recorder like GarageBand or Audacity.