User:Owl Jr. Project: Difference between revisions

(13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 9:

This project was conducted in two parts. The first half of the semester, five teams conducted preliminary research and background investigations.

A link to the first half of the project can be found here:

[[User:Owl Jr. Project/semesterproject1]]

During the second half, the class was reconfigured into seven teams who produced reports, multi-media presentations, educational materials, a petition and game ideas. Links to each of these materials can be found in the following sections of this page.

Line 19:

Line 23:

''(Focus: Software / User / User Needs Assessment)''

~~Why peer review is so important~~:

The goals of this group were as follows:

~~Peer~~ review ~~is vital~~ in ~~all areas of industry~~ and in ~~nearly every~~ field or profession. Reviewing the work of peers allows for constructive criticism as well as allowing people to the share ideas through collaboration. It also prevents needless errors prior to sending a piece of work off for formal review.

• Walter Bender said he would love to see more peer review materials for writing in Sugar, and this is something that clearly aligns with best practices in our field

~~The value of peer review has been demonstrated, not only~~ in ~~the workplace, but within all levels of education. In fact,~~ peer review has been shown to have dramatically positive effects on student work. A 2008 study conducted by Cho, Cho & Hacker evaluated the writing of over 600 graduate and undergraduate students. “Students who developed successful SM [ie: self-monitoring by way of self-evaluation and peer evaluation] dramatically improved their writing compared with those who did not.” (Cho, Cho & Hacket, 2008). Thurmond affirms the value of students being able to “reflect and share with others” (1999). Likewise, Minsky points to the ability to identify “the most common mistakes” as a significant part of the writing process (~~2010~~).

• Investigate existing tools in sugar for peer review (if any)

~~Providing a feedback loop for students allows them to identify areas of weakness~~, ~~reflect on their approach and revise their work for correctness and clarity. Peer review provides that imperative feedback loop. Instituting~~ peer review ~~at the basic levels of education provides these benefits early on, to improve student work at the fundamental stages.~~

• Then, propose how we can integrate peer review into sugar

~~References:~~

• All suggestions should be rooted in current best practices for literacy education and be

supported with research

~~Cho, K., Cho, M. & Hacker, D. J. (2008). Self-monitoring support for learning to write. Interactive Learning Environments 18(2), 103-113.~~

~~Minsky, M. (2010). Questioning “General” Education. Retrieved from: http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/~~

~~Thurmond, A.M. (1999). Seymour Papert and Constructionism. Retrieved from:http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~foreman/itec800/finalprojects/annmariethurmond/home.html~~

Line 47:

• Investigate what teachers need to better use Sugar and come up with a list of recommendations and/or materials

• As per Walter Bender's suggestion, determine what/how lesson plans for teachers could help with classroom integration of Sugar resources

• Utilize Group 4's investigation of Sugar usage in Title 1 schools

• Root all suggestions in current best practices for literacy education and be supported with research

The following is the end-of-semester report for Fall 2011.

Line 59:

Line 64:

== Sugar / Literacy connection - Journaling / Diary activity and Writing to Learn ==

The following two documents contain 1) a report on the value of writing to learn and 2) a petition for Journal revision to be signed by teachers.

This group was instructed to:

• Investigate ways that we might take already existing sugar activities and encourage more literacy activities-based on our discussion with Walter Bender (This might include revamping the journal, writing lesson plans for teachers, etc.)

• Think of how we might encourage developers to implement peer review/reflection into the Journal activity by conveying 1) their importance and 2) teacher demand for these capabilities

• Root all suggestions in current best practices for literacy education and be supported with research

The following two documents contain 1) a report on the value of writing to learn and 2) a petition for Journal revision to be signed by teachers.

[[File:Journal Revision Report.pdf]]

Line 66:

Line 80:

----

== Resources for Teachers-OWL Jr. Materials ==

== Resources for Teachers-OWL Jr. Materials (grammar, writing to learn, journaling, etc.)==

''(Focus: Research, Educational Content Development)''

The goals of this group were as follows:

• Create a list of materials that would go into a writing resource targeted at the 3rd-4th grade

level (This resource will be available online and possibly through sugar)

• Once you've gotten the list (which already partially exists from previous group 3), begin

to create some resources

• All resources should be rooted in current best practices for literacy education

The following are the end-of-semester literacy materials developed for Fall 2011.

Line 79:

Line 104:

''(Focus: Web Development, Graphic Design, Multimedia)''

The following is a report discussing ~~our~~ options for creating an online presence for Owl Jr.

The goals of this group were as follows:

• Put all revised materials from original groups online; continue to investigate ways of publicizing our project

• All suggestions should be rooted in current best practices for digital communication and be supported with research

• Remember to focus on user-centered practices

The following is a report discussing options for creating an online presence for Owl Jr.

[[file:Face_of_the_Project_Report.pdf]]

Line 85:

Line 120:

== Face of the Project (Video / Multimedia)==

''(Focus: Graphic Design, Multimedia)''

The goals of this group were as follows:

• Continue to work on materials that promote our OWL Jr. Initiative online

• This will include making revisions to the original video and prezi, as well as material

from other groups as necessary

• Create one more multimedia/interactive piece to accompany the original two for

publicizing purposes

• Work closely with Face of the Project Group

The following contains links to the end-of-semester multimedia projects for Fall 2011.

Line 92:

Line 140:

== The Gaming Group ==

''(Focus: Graphic Design, Multimedia)''

The goals of this group were as follows:

• Continue Group 3's investigations into games as a possible sugar activity

• Design a literacy game that could be added to sugar

• The game needs to have clear goals, be clearly rooted in current research and pedagogy

on learning, etc.

The following contains screen shots of a proposed Sugar literacy activity, created Fall 2011.

[[File:Gaming Group-Screens.pdf]]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 This project was conducted in two parts. The first half of the semester, five teams conducted preliminary research and background investigations.
+A link to the first half of the project can be found here:
+[[User:Owl Jr. Project/semesterproject1]]
 During the second half, the class was reconfigured into seven teams who produced reports, multi-media presentations, educational materials, a petition and game ideas. Links to each of these materials can be found in the following sections of this page.
@@ Line 19: / Line 23: @@
 ''(Focus: Software / User / User Needs Assessment)''
-Why peer review is so important:
+The goals of this group were as follows:
-Peer review is vital in all areas of industry and in nearly every field or profession. Reviewing the work of peers allows for constructive criticism as well as allowing people to the share ideas through collaboration. It also prevents needless errors prior to sending a piece of work off for formal review.
+•	Walter Bender said he would love to see more peer review materials for writing in Sugar, and this is something that clearly aligns with best practices in our field
-The value of peer review has been demonstrated, not only in the workplace, but within all levels of education. In fact, peer review has been shown to have dramatically positive effects on student work. A 2008 study conducted by Cho, Cho & Hacker evaluated the writing of over 600 graduate and undergraduate students. “Students who developed successful SM [ie: self-monitoring by way of self-evaluation and peer evaluation] dramatically improved their writing compared with those who did not.” (Cho, Cho & Hacket, 2008). Thurmond affirms the value of students being able to “reflect and share with others” (1999). Likewise, Minsky points to the ability to identify “the most common mistakes” as a significant part of the writing process (2010).
+•	Investigate existing tools in sugar for peer review (if any)
-Providing a feedback loop for students allows them to identify areas of weakness, reflect on their approach and revise their work for correctness and clarity. Peer review provides that imperative feedback loop. Instituting peer review at the basic levels of education provides these benefits early on, to improve student work at the fundamental stages.
+•	Then, propose how we can integrate peer review into sugar
-References:
+•	All suggestions should be rooted in current best practices for literacy education and be
+supported with research
-Cho, K., Cho, M. & Hacker, D. J. (2008). Self-monitoring support for learning to write. Interactive Learning Environments 18(2), 103-113.
-Minsky, M. (2010). Questioning “General” Education. Retrieved from: http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/
-Thurmond, A.M. (1999). Seymour Papert and Constructionism. Retrieved from:http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~foreman/itec800/finalprojects/annmariethurmond/home.html
@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 •	Investigate what teachers need to better use Sugar and come up with a list of recommendations and/or materials
 •	As per  Walter Bender's suggestion, determine what/how lesson plans for teachers could help with classroom integration of Sugar resources
 •	Utilize Group 4's investigation of Sugar usage in Title 1 schools
 •	Root all suggestions in current best practices for literacy education and be supported with research
 The following is the end-of-semester report for Fall 2011.
@@ Line 59: / Line 64: @@
 == Sugar / Literacy connection - Journaling / Diary activity and Writing to Learn ==
-The following two documents contain 1) a report on the value of writing to learn and 2) a petition for Journal revision to be signed by teachers.
+This group was instructed to:
+•	Investigate ways that we might take already existing sugar activities and encourage more literacy activities-based on our discussion with Walter Bender (This might include revamping the journal, writing lesson plans for teachers, etc.)
+•      Think of how we might encourage developers to implement peer review/reflection into the Journal activity by conveying 1) their importance and 2) teacher demand for these capabilities
+•	Root all suggestions in current best practices for literacy education and be supported with research
+The following two documents contain 1) a report on the value of writing to learn and 2) a petition for Journal revision to be signed by teachers.
 [[File:Journal Revision Report.pdf]]
@@ Line 66: / Line 80: @@
 ----
-== Resources for Teachers-OWL Jr. Materials ==
+== Resources for Teachers-OWL Jr. Materials (grammar, writing to learn, journaling, etc.)==
 ''(Focus: Research, Educational Content Development)''
+The goals of this group were as follows:
+•      Create a list of materials that would go into a writing resource targeted at the 3rd-4th grade
+level (This resource will be available online and possibly through sugar)
+•	Once you've gotten the list (which already partially exists from previous group 3), begin
+to create some resources
+•	All resources should be rooted in current best practices for literacy education
 The following are the end-of-semester literacy materials developed for Fall 2011.
@@ Line 79: / Line 104: @@
 ''(Focus: Web Development, Graphic Design, Multimedia)''
-The following is a report discussing our options for creating an online presence for Owl Jr.
+The goals of this group were as follows:
+•      Put all revised materials from original groups online; continue to investigate ways of publicizing our project
+•	All suggestions should be rooted in current best practices for digital communication and be supported with research
+•	Remember to focus on user-centered practices
+The following is a report discussing options for creating an online presence for Owl Jr.
 [[file:Face_of_the_Project_Report.pdf]]
@@ Line 85: / Line 120: @@
 == Face of the Project (Video / Multimedia)==
 ''(Focus: Graphic Design, Multimedia)''
+The goals of this group were as follows:
+•	Continue to work on materials that promote our OWL Jr. Initiative online
+•	This will include making revisions to the original video and prezi, as well as material
+from other groups as necessary
+•	Create one more multimedia/interactive piece to accompany the original two for
+publicizing purposes
+•	Work closely with Face of the Project Group
 The following contains links to the end-of-semester multimedia projects for Fall 2011.
@@ Line 92: / Line 140: @@
 == The Gaming Group ==
 ''(Focus: Graphic Design, Multimedia)''
+The goals of this group were as follows:
+•	Continue Group 3's investigations into games as a possible sugar activity
+•	Design a literacy game that could be added to sugar
+•	The game needs to have clear goals, be clearly rooted in current research and pedagogy
+on learning, etc.
 The following contains screen shots of a proposed Sugar literacy activity, created Fall 2011.
 [[File:Gaming Group-Screens.pdf]]