Talk:Utah Writing Project

Audioblog Introduction (draft)
For our first podcast, each of you will introduce yourself by stating your name, where you live, and other information that best describes who you are. Talk mostly about the things you think about a lot and the things you care about the most.

It might help you to think about the other students across the country who will be writing, reading, and responding here. What details are you curious about? What would you like to learn about them? They are probably wondering the same things about you. Be sure to include details in your introduction that will hook their interest and make them want to get to know you better, right from the very first sentence.

This piece of writing should be approximately 100-200 words, and the recommended recording time should be 45-60 seconds.

When you are ready to record, the first step is to just relax. Talk in your normal conversational voice as if you were introducing yourself to a bunch of friendly-looking people you've just met. Don't rush, but don't talk too fast either. Just be yourself!

audioblog introduction brainstorm
In order to write the audioblog introduction for the students, I think I need to do one myself. Some considerations: Since you're introducing yourself to teenagers from around the country that you've never met, how is that different than how you might introduce yourself to a more local community (for instance, the opening day introductions that we do in class)? Or are they any different?

What can you tell someone in 30-60 seconds that will inform this particular project? Name, place of residence, relevent background, what I think/care about a lot, personal interests/hobbies.

Chris Sloan
My name is Chris Sloan. I'm a high school English teacher in Salt Lake City, Utah. I've been teaching for 20-some years. I'm married with four kids, ages 10, 12, 17, and 20 (three boys, one girl). I think a lot about parenting. First of all I think it's difficult and rewarding at the same time, and that makes it interesting. I don't think it's easy being a teenager today, but it wasn't when I was growing up either. So what's new? I also think about communication too. I've long been interested in how to communicate better. I think if people communicated better, the world would be better off. I'm an optimist. I really do think the world can be better off. One of my favorite pasttimes is playing music with my friends. I have another theory about world betterment; I think if more people played music together the world would be better off too. (155 words, 1:10 minutes when read)

Paul Allison
My name is Paul Allison, and I live in New York City, up by the George Washington Bridge in Washington Heights. I have two sons, one in 7th grade, the other in 9th grade this year. Wow, my boys are the same age as my students! I teach technology at a small school on the Lower East Side of Manhattan called East Side Community High School. What do I get passionate about? My family, the sky, running, biking, digital poetry, and now, podcasting! But as soon as I made this list, I thought of another one: Things that started in high school and are still in my life: 1) I was in high school when I first subscribed to The Nation. I still subscribe. 2) I was in high school when I first listened to John Cage's music. I still love American esoteric composers, like Lou Harrison and Steve Reich, but John Cage's music has a special place. 3)In high school, I was known as a photographer, and recently I got myself a small digital camera. I take it with me everywhere. So that's a bit about me. I look forward to hearing your introductions. Good luck on keeping them to 60 seconds! [[media:IntroductionOgg.ogg]]

Mini-grant Application
Mini-grant application in collapsed format

[Your site letterhead here]

Technology Matters Minigrant Application

I. Cover Page

Minigrant Title: “Our Voice: A bi-coastal audial collaboration between teachers and students.”

Contact Information: [Your site name & address here]

Minigrant Personnel: Project Director: [name, email address & ph#] Technology Liaison: [name, email address & ph#]

Abstract: This minigrant proposes to pilot the use of specific communication technologies, primarily podcasting paired with weblogging, to facilitate a collaborative project between Writing Project Technology Liaisons of the Utah, Maine, Central California, and New York City Writing Project sites and their students. This project will investigate the impact audio posting has on student writing through the development of an online community with an authentic audience and purpose.

Signatures:

[name], Director	Date

[name], TL	Date

II. Description of Project

Inquiry Question The funds from this grant will seek to research the inquiry, “How can the use of audio technology in the form of student-generated audioblogs and podcasts posted to a communal weblog serve to help students make connections, find their “voice,” and strengthen their written expression?”

Background Birth of this concept occurred at the Tech Matters 2005 institute in West Virginia. All 4 TLs involved (Dave Boardman, Chris Sloan, Paul Allison, and Natalie Bernasconi) were participants. Each of us brought an aspect of inquiry / interest / and experience into the institute. Chris was interested in pursuing the impact of students’ reading aloud their own writing on their writing. Natalie was seeking ways to use communication technology to support her English Language Learners. Paul was fascinated by the organic nature of podcasting, and Dave had participated in a powerful collaboration entitled “From Maine to California” this past year and was interested in pursuing another collaboration project using the new component of podcasting. The idea for the “Bi-coastal Audio Collaboration” was born.

Project Design A dedicated blogsite (http://blogs.writingproject.org/blogwrite265/), “Our Voice, Coast to Coast” has been set up to serve as our communal posting point. Each teacher will pilot this program with one class each of students, grade 7-9. All 4 teachers will be managing editors, and each student will have their own “department” on the blogsite. All student postings will be created following the writing process of brainstorm>>first-draft>>revision>>further drafts. The text version of each audioblog will be posted along with the sound file. Response group teams will be created to mix up students from each of the schools. Students will listen and respond to each member of their response group team, and may choose to respond to other students’ postings as well. It is expected that students will revisit and revise previous postings in response to feedback received.

Initially, the project will have 3 components: 1. Community building: to launch the project, students will begin by posting 45-60 second audioblogs in which they introduce themselves to their listeners. Response groups will listen and respond to each other. 2. Community invitations to write/speak: a theme-based prompt bank will be created to which both teachers and students can post their invitations to the community for a response. Each teacher will determine, as part of their classroom curriculum design, the level of participation required by students in this area. Examples of thematic prompts include, a. “My Neighborhood,” an invitation to write from place-based consciousness. b. “Mix-It-Up” prompts drawn from the National Mix-It-Up Day’s storytelling contest which addresses issues of inclusion and exclusion c. “I believe…” in conjunction with the NPR series. 3. Open Forum: a place for students (and teachers) to express themselves in their own words – and their own voice on a self-selected (appropriate) topic.

Assessment

How will we know if this use of technology has made a meaningful, measurable difference in student writing achievement?

Without this documentation, podcasting will appear to be just another bell & whistle and will not merit replication. This aspect requires a carefully designed structure, which will vary for each participating teacher but may include some or all of the following: ∑ A pre- and post measurement of student attitudes toward writing both through observation and student commentary. ∑ A required (minimum) number of postings and responses per student (amount set by individual teacher). ∑ Development of a rubric measuring the quality of the posting on both a technical (audio) basis, as well as on content (ala 6-traits) ∑ Development of a rubric measuring the quality of students’ responses to other’s postings. ∑ A tracking of several target (e.g. high, medium, low) students’ postings/writings over time with an analysis of change in both quantity and quality. ∑ Regular debriefings scheduled between the participating teachers to discuss issues, growth within our classrooms (see Timeline for specifics). ∑ Regular guided reflection and self-assessment worksheets for each student as they review their portfolio of postings and responses.

III. How Project Meets Grant Criteria ∑ Integration of technology into the core work and priorities of our sites (the ISI, teacher leadership structures, continuity programs, technology, and site-sponsored inservice programs):  One of the litmus tests of our success will be in our ability to mentor other teachers, both at our school sites and at our WP sites, to replicate our collaborative model of creating and maintaining a podcasting community of writers. The keywords are collaboration and community. Each one of us could have created a podblog for the (closed) community of our own classrooms. Where we feel our project innovates is to create collaboration between 4 disparate communities over 3,000 miles and get them “talking” to each other, thereby creating a new sense of community that transcends geography and regional cultural differences. We envision incorporating training of our methods and protocols into our ISI and inservice technology offerings. We believe (and plan to document) that when teachers collaborate across school-sites and create for students an authentic audience and a purpose, the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In this way, we propose to strengthen our home sites. ∑ Support of TL as local site leader: The tools and strategies that the four of us have had to employ to achieve meaningful communication and collaboration has already begun to serve us well in providing leadership back at our sites. For example, in order to collaboratively design our project and draft this mini-grant proposal, we moved from posting and discussing on the blogsite to revising and discussing on a wikicities site. This same process can be replicated as WP leadership works to build consensus for decision-making, as well as collaboratively working on grants, the NWP annual report, promotion brochures, etc. What this technology project is giving us, among many other things, is a dynamic model of using technology to meet our collaborative needs most efficiently. It should also be noted that a good leader is one who recognizes the important talents and contributions that each person on the team is able to make. Our team of four has come to greatly appreciate the individual contributions that each of us has uniquely been able to bring to the table. To mix metaphors, the result has been a “rising tide that floats all boats.”

∑ Support of national TL network’s knowledge base: The connections that were launched at the Tech Matters ’05 institute will only continue to get stronger the deeper we get into this project. Already, we have begun to identify other TLs whose interests intersect with our project. Through regular postings to the Tech Matters googlegroup, the NWP Help site, and the TL Network listserv inviting others to visit our podblog, we anticipate an ever-widening ripple effect of our work. See also our Dissemination Plan below for more details.

IV. Timeline of Activities and Division of Responsibilities

Description	Due by date	Person responsible Aesthetic visuals of weblog	Sept 1, 2006	Chris Blogsite technical layout -schools & categories set-up 	Sept 1, 2006	Paul and Dave Student “department” setup	Sept 15, 2006	Each teacher does own class Response group members assigned	Oct 15, 2006	All 4 teachers Students’ 60-second introductory podcasts all posted to blog	Oct 15, 2006	All students, with teacher support Response group members respond to each other’s intros	Oct 25, 2006	All students Debrief & reflection of first launch and prep for 2nd posting	Oct 25, 2006	All 4 teachers (synchronous Tapped In discussion) 2nd postings made in response to either a thematic prompt from prompt bank or Open Forum. Nov 5, 2006	All students, with teacher support Response group members respond to each other’s posting	Nov 15, 2006	All students Interim coordination and evaluation meeting during NWP annual meeting	Nov 17-19, 2006	All 4 teachers 3rd postings (either structured prompt or unstructured) 	Dec 5	All students Response groups respond	Dec 15	All students Debrief to determine course for next 5 months. Coordinate mid-year progress report to NWP by Jan 15	Jan 5, 2006	All 4 teachers (synchronous Tapped In discussion) Progress report posted to NWP 	Jan 31	Natalie More student postings- both thematic and Open Forum 	Ongoing throughout spring	All students Follow-up coordination meeting online to analyze results to date	April 15, 2006	All 4 teachers (synchronous Tapped In discussion) Tentative: In spring, have a best-of category judged by jury of peers who read and vote for “best” podcaster in various genres. Winner gets fat kudos on blogsite. May 1, 2006	Students End-of-year analysis of project results	June 1, 2006	All 4 teachers (synchronous Tapped In discussion) Optional: participate in (2nd annual) Technology + Writing Institute (Nebraska) for write-up of project for professional publication	1st week of August (?)	Any / all of 4 participating 4 teachers. Final report generated to NWP	Sept 1, 2006	Natalie (with all teachers’ input) Present results at NWP annual meeting 	Nov 2006 	All 4 teachers

V. Dissemination Plan As mentioned above, there are numerous forums for the dissemination of our work here. A quick recap: through regular postings to the Tech Matters googlegroup, the NWP Help site, and the TL Network listserv, we will be regularly inviting other NWP fellows to visit our podblog to view and respond to our work. In addition, we plan to present the result of our data analysis at the November 2006 annual meeting. Lastly, if any of us are able to attend the Tech + Writing Institute in August 2006, it is expected that a professional piece of writing about the project will be generated for publication in an educational journal.

VI. Budget

Technology Liaisons Network Technology Matters Minigrant 2005-2006 Grant Budget Request National Writing Project Due August 26, 2005 In column A, request new funds, not to exceed $3000 Master Budget Match Check here if Matching Funds are met in overall site match amount and leave Column B on this page blank. Remember to include donor letters of commitment if you are raising new funds for your match. A Funds requested	B Matching funds (if not included in overall site grant) 	C Total funds 1.	Salaries 	0	0	0 2.	Benefits	0	0	0 3.	Supplies & Expense	0	0	0 Jump drives	 $30 each x n Digital Voice Recorders (iAudio, 1GB)	 $175 each x n Microphones	 $ Radio shack headsets	$18.95 each x n 4.	Stipends	0	0	0 5.	Travel	0	0	0 [Optional] Nebraska Tech + Writing institute (flight)	$450 [Optional] Participation in Tech Matter 06 Institute to replicate collaboration	 $450 6.	Other	0	0	0 Printing / publication costs for write-up and presentation(s) of project results. $100	 	 	Totals	$0 	$0 	$0

07:37, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)07:37, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)07:37, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)07:37, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)07:37, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)07:37, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)69.109.142.201 07:37, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC) ~NOTES FROM COLLABORATIVE SESSION FROM WHICH GRANT APP EMERGED~

Collaboration Notes from first session (courtesy of chris)

Initial concerns

Filtering. Can Natalie access the blog space. Dave doesn't think it will be blocked because his school blocks things like Google image, but allows blogs. She's also worried about being able to download software because of restrictions, so we need jump drives for Natalie.

Money talked about pricing. $1000 to spend on equipment. DVRs and headsets. radio shack headsets 18.95; Digital voice recorder $150-200 (iAudio, 1GB)

what to do with the other $2000. Stipends for Dave, Natalie and Chris, also for additional teachers, or for visiting writers or NPR people. Give an iPod to the student whose story is voted by the students in other projects.

anticipate the school tech person's objections

success measurements. How will we know if we have a successful project. 1. expand our blog/podcast program by mentoring other teachers in your school but also at your own writing site. It should be be able to be replicated. 2. building connections between sites with other TLs. 3. students writing shows growth 4. students attitude toward writing

Guidelines for good recordings - quality of the recording - appropriateness of content (read NWP guidelines) - original student writing - podcasts are oral narration of original student writing that have gone through the process of revision

how to organize the postings. will teachers log on and post or will students log on and do their own? Each student is a department so that they can be archived easier. Natalie feels more comfortable posting all her students. Many of her students don't have computers. Lab time is limited too.

Natalie showed us Mix it Up. It looks like those prompts would work for some meaningful writing for Podcasts. In November Mix it Up will be notified of some of the podcasts.

possible title for the project: Our Voice

More notes woven into the “Narrative” guidelines” Use the following guidelines to develop your proposal narrative. We recommend that you also refer to the evaluation criteria when developing your project plans. 1. A description of your project plan, including its goals and corresponding activities. This description should also contain background or context for the proposed project.

2. An explicit account of how your project meets the criteria outlined for this Technology Matters Minigrant RFP: ∑	How does the project further your local site’s goal of integrating technology into its core work and priorities? (If you are considering an innovation, what might you learn?) ∑	How does the project support my position as a leader at my writing project site? ∑	How might the project broaden the knowledge base of the Technology Liaisons Network nationally? 3. A timeline that shows the following information: 1.	Artwork / visuals of weblog: chris 2.	School / category set-up : talk with Paul. 3.	Department set-up= each individ teacher sets-up their own students 4.	Tentative: In spring, have a best-of category judged by anonymous jury of peers. 5.	 ∑	Blogsite layout designed by August 15. ∑	Students names (departments) input by Sept 15 ∑	Sample podcasts posted by students by November 15 ∑	Interim coordination meeting during NWP national conference. ∑	Online discussion to prep for mid-year progress report by Jan 15 ∑	Progress report posted to NWP Jan 31 ∑	Follow-up coordination meeting online by April 15 to analyze results to date ∑	Final report generated by Sept 1, 2006 ∑	Present at NWP national conference Nov 2006
 * activities/ individuals responsible for the activities
 * anticipated date of completion.

4. A dissemination plan that includes a presentation at an upcoming conference (e.g., the 2006 NWP Annual Meeting, one of the spring 2007 network conferences, or an upcoming regional networking event). 5. A summary of your project will also be required upon submission of your application. If your project is funded, the summary may be used in whole or in part on NWP's website or in NWP's newsletter, The Voice. Budget Document Include a budget of $3,000 or less that meets the federal matching requirement and uses a maximum of one-third of its funds ($1,000 or less) on equipment purchases. Please use the Technology Matters Minigrant project budget form to provide budget details. Dates to Remember August 26, 2005:Proposals due. September 30, 2005:Site awards announced. October 2005:Minigrant award money distributed to sites. January 31, 2006:Three-month progress report due. September 1, 2006:Final report due.

chris sloan - notes from 7/23 blueArrow 7/23/2005; 11:08:52 AM (reads: 6, responses: 0)

Natalie will put together the generic grant proposal we can all adapt. We'll still have to use our own site specific language, etc.

We'll confer with Paul.

Schools will be listed as departments.

look at e-anthology (day in the life, open mic, writing to theme, audio blog, podcast, etc.). Idea rejected as being a bit too complicated for this pilot. Natalie suggests a forum for teacher generated prompts

What's the required number of responses? Dave says not everyone in his class had to read aloud because some don't want to, etc. They have to do 40 entries per student, a maximum of 30 are online.

I'll write about the collaboration process.

departments are podcasts and audio essay. We need to ask Paul about navigation.

home page navigation Insert non-formatted text here Insert non-formatted text here