Email to XTimeline

After review of XTimeline, I emailed the site creators at info@xtimeline.com to make them aware of some features that might be beneficial to educators. Although I am waiting to hear back from the site, below is the text of my email to them. 


To whom it may concern,


I am a current registered user of XTimeline and a high school educator. Because the main purpose for using XTimeline is to have my students create informational timelines related to classroom content, I have a few suggestions to help make your site more educationally friendly. The main suggestion I have is to provide users with a tutorial of some sort to help students more easily create a timeline. A video tutorial would be even better, so students could visually see where to go on the site and what links to click on. I also think it would be beneficial to make your timeline categories and lists more visible on your site, as currently, your ads are more visible than these items. Lastly, I really like that students can insert photos into their timelines, but it would also be beneficial for students if they could easily embed videos related to events directly to the timelines as well.  Would it be possible to make these features available? I appreciate all that your site has to offer to students, but wanted to offer these suggestions to further improve XTimeline's functionality for students and educators. 


Thank you for your time and consideration!


Sincerely, 
Shanna Lentz
English Teacher

Research and Analyze Web 2.0 Tools

After using human filters to narrow my search results, I have found a few Web 2.0 tools to analyze closely with a rubric to determine their usefulness within my own classroom. Below is a rubric score for 3 different Web 2.0 tools and a brief summary analyzing each tool's score. 

Tool #1: Pixton 

Analysis of Score: Pixton scored a 24/28 on the rubric. Pixton is a cartoon creator that allows students to create their own cartoons. Unlike some other less functional cartoon creators, Pixton allows users to choose the number of panels and layout of the cartoon, add characters, props, background, and other images. Users can save their cartoons to the site, embed them in other sites, save them on Facebook, or print them. Users can collaborate by giving constructive criticism to other comics, and even by remixing comics. Because of these functions, Pixton scored very well in User-Friendliness, Collaboration, and Final Products. It also scored well in Higher-Order Learning because of the potential to create a comic and analyze and evaluate course material within a comic. However age appropriate, Pixton scored a 3 in this category because inappropriate content can still be published on the site until it is reported, so some monitoring may be required. Edu-Friendliness also scored a 3, due to the need for students to sign up individually, unless under a teacher-created account, which requires additional cost. Pixton scored a 2 for Cost, because, in order to fully access all of Pixton's features, teachers must pay roughly $100 for 50 students for 4 months. The features included in the subscription are highly useful for educators, such as rubrics for scoring student-created comics, the ability to create entire comic books, project-based activities, classroom settings, and teacher moderation. 

Criteria	4	3	2	1
Age appropriateness	Tool is age appropriate for the selected students. Meets all CIPA, COPPA and School Regulations. Content, access online, and student information leave few risks. No visible objectionable content	Tool is mostly age appropriate for the selected students. Meets CIPA, COPPA and school regulations. Content, access online, and student information require some additional monitoring and some risks. Potential to view objectionable content through site search.	Tool is minimally age appropriate for the selected students. Meets some CIPA, COPPA and school regulations. Content, access online, and student information require monitoring. Site contains gallery of user created content that may be objectionable.	Tool is not age appropriate for the selected students. Does not meet CIPA, COPPA and school regulations. Content, access online, and student information require to much additional monitoring and has high risks.  Site contains highly visible gallery of recently created items.  High potential of objectionable content.
Cost	Site has no cost and allows unlimited users, or the cost can be justified by the usefulness of the tool in furthering educational objectives.	Most services are free; only advanced services require purchase (freemium).	Site is free for limited number of users, but can be upgraded for minimal cost (<$3/student) to cover all students, and is worth a trial to determine if it is useful for furthering educational objectives.  .	Site has significant cost per student to use (>$5/student), and its use to further educational objectives has not been determined.
User Friendliness	Main page is free of clutter (ads, etc.) and navigation buttons and site areas are easy for students to navigate.  .  Little to no learning curve involved.	Main page contains some clutter (ads, etc.) and navigation buttons and site areas are somewhat easy for students to navigate.  Minimal time needed to learn how to make use of site.	Main page contains quite a bit of clutter and site areas are not clearly laid out. Instruction required touse site with students.	Main page contains too much clutter (ads, etc.) and navigation buttons and site areas are difficult for students to navigate.  Extensive direction required to make use of site.
Collaboration	Allows teachers and students to collaborate with other site users	Allows teachers, but not students to collaborate with other site users	Site allows minimal collaborative opportunities between users.	Does not allow teachers or students to collaborate with other site users.
Final Products	Final products that can be created have educational purpose, are interesting to students, demonstrate mastery, and are aesthetically pleasing.  Options available to publish privately, save offline, or embed in other web sites.	Final products that can be created have educational purpose and demonstrate mastery.  Options available to publish privately, but online only, on site or embedded.	Final products that can be created have some educational purpose.  Content is saved and viewable only on that site.	Final products cannot be created or do not serve an educational purpose.  Content not shareable with others.
Higher-Order Learning	Use of the Web 2.0 tool encourages use of higher-order thinking skills (analyzing, evaluating, creating).	Use of the Web 2.0 tool encourages use of 2 out of 3 higher-order thinking skills (analyzing, evaluating, creating).	Use of the Web 2.0 tool encourages use of 1 out of 3 higher-order thinking skills (analyzing, evaluating, creating).	Use of the Web 2.0 tool does not encourage use of higher-order thinking skills (analyzing, evaluating, creating).
Edu-Friendly Features	Site is intended for education or provides education portal.  No registration required, and/or teachers can create accounts for students/classes. Does not contain a search box.  Does not post most recent items on home page.	Educational nature of site is obvious.  Requires students to sign up individually, but can be associated with class/teacher account.  Contains search box on main page, but searchable content is safe for students.  May post favorite items on home page, not most recent items.	Individual logins with unique email addresses required, but information is kept private. Contains unfiltered search box on main page. Posts recent items, but none seem to have questionable content.	Individual logins with unique email addresses required.  Information supplied is visible within profile. Contains search box on all or most pages.  Posts unfiltered recent items on home page.
Total Points	24/28

Tool #2: XTimeline

Analysis of Score: XTimeline is a tool that educators and students can use to create web-based timelines about a variety of topics. Although no inappropriate content is visible through most recent posts or searches at first glance, additional monitoring may be necessary, considering that students could post about an inappropriate topic without it being caught and reported for a few days. Cost is free; however, the site is not as user-friendly as some others I've seen, so it scored a 3. The site has ads, and some time is needed to determine how to navigate the site effectively. The site also scored a 3 for final products, because timeline creators are only given the option to publish electronically, rather than printing. Higher-order learning only earned a 3 as well, because timelines do require some evaluation and analysis of material, but perhaps not at as deep of a level as other products. XTimeline only scored a 2 for edu-friendliness, because users are required to log in, a search box is present on the main page, and most recent items are viewable on the main page as well. Some positives are that the site promotes "folksonomies" through student-created tags, and teachers can create class lists, providing a central for students to post their timelines. 

Criteria	4	3	2	1
Age appropriateness	Tool is age appropriate for the selected students. Meets all CIPA, COPPA and School Regulations. Content, access online, and student information leave few risks. No visible objectionable content	Tool is mostly age appropriate for the selected students. Meets CIPA, COPPA and school regulations. Content, access online, and student information require some additional monitoring and some risks. Potential to view objectionable content through site search.	Tool is minimally age appropriate for the selected students. Meets some CIPA, COPPA and school regulations. Content, access online, and student information require monitoring. Site contains gallery of user created content that may be objectionable.	Tool is not age appropriate for the selected students. Does not meet CIPA, COPPA and school regulations. Content, access online, and student information require to much additional monitoring and has high risks.  Site contains highly visible gallery of recently created items.  High potential of objectionable content.
Cost	Site has no cost and allows unlimited users, or the cost can be justified by the usefulness of the tool in furthering educational objectives.	Most services are free; only advanced services require purchase (freemium).	Site is free for limited number of users, but can be upgraded for minimal cost (<$3/student) to cover all students, and is worth a trial to determine if it is useful for furthering educational objectives.  .	Site has significant cost per student to use (>$5/student), and its use to further educational objectives has not been determined.
User Friendliness	Main page is free of clutter (ads, etc.) and navigation buttons and site areas are easy for students to navigate.  .  Little to no learning curve involved.	Main page contains some clutter (ads, etc.) and navigation buttons and site areas are somewhat easy for students to navigate.  Minimal time needed to learn how to make use of site.	Main page contains quite a bit of clutter and site areas are not clearly laid out. Instruction required touse site with students.	Main page contains too much clutter (ads, etc.) and navigation buttons and site areas are difficult for students to navigate.  Extensive direction required to make use of site.
Collaboration	Allows teachers and students to collaborate with other site users	Allows teachers, but not students to collaborate with other site users	Site allows minimal collaborative opportunities between users.	Does not allow teachers or students to collaborate with other site users.
Final Products	Final products that can be created have educational purpose, are interesting to students, demonstrate mastery, and are aesthetically pleasing.  Options available to publish privately, save offline, or embed in other web sites.	Final products that can be created have educational purpose and demonstrate mastery.  Options available to publish privately, but online only, on site or embedded.	Final products that can be created have some educational purpose.  Content is saved and viewable only on that site.	Final products cannot be created or do not serve an educational purpose.  Content not shareable with others.
Higher-Order Learning	Use of the Web 2.0 tool encourages use of higher-order thinking skills (analyzing, evaluating, creating).	Use of the Web 2.0 tool encourages use of 2 out of 3 higher-order thinking skills (analyzing, evaluating, creating).	Use of the Web 2.0 tool encourages use of 1 out of 3 higher-order thinking skills (analyzing, evaluating, creating).	Use of the Web 2.0 tool does not encourage use of higher-order thinking skills (analyzing, evaluating, creating).
Edu-Friendly Features	Site is intended for education or provides education portal.  No registration required, and/or teachers can create accounts for students/classes. Does not contain a search box.  Does not post most recent items on home page.	Educational nature of site is obvious.  Requires students to sign up individually, but can be associated with class/teacher account.  Contains search box on main page, but searchable content is safe for students.  May post favorite items on home page, not most recent items.	Individual logins with unique email addresses required, but information is kept private. Contains unfiltered search box on main page. Posts recent items, but none seem to have questionable content.	Individual logins with unique email addresses required.  Information supplied is visible within profile. Contains search box on all or most pages.  Posts unfiltered recent items on home page.
Total Points	22/28

Tool #3: Letterpop


Analysis of Score: Letterpop is an interactive site that allows students to create their own professional-looking publications using a variety of templates and backgrounds. Students can create, publish, and share their work, but must pay an individual cost to register, or must be registered under a teacher account, which costs $40 per year. The site is organized, and provides step-by-step instructions for creating products. Tutorial videos are also easily accessible. Site content does not appear to include inappropriate material after extensive searching, though, since any user with an account can publish content, teachers may wish to monitor content for propriety to be sure that CIPA standards are being followed. Creation of final products can easily include evaluation and analysis of instructional content, since teachers can dictate to students the content to be published in their final products. 

Criteria	4	3	2	1
Age appropriateness	Tool is age appropriate for the selected students. Meets all CIPA, COPPA and School Regulations. Content, access online, and student information leave few risks. No visible objectionable content	Tool is mostly age appropriate for the selected students. Meets CIPA, COPPA and school regulations. Content, access online, and student information require some additional monitoring and some risks. Potential to view objectionable content through site search.	Tool is minimally age appropriate for the selected students. Meets some CIPA, COPPA and school regulations. Content, access online, and student information require monitoring. Site contains gallery of user created content that may be objectionable.	Tool is not age appropriate for the selected students. Does not meet CIPA, COPPA and school regulations. Content, access online, and student information require to much additional monitoring and has high risks.  Site contains highly visible gallery of recently created items.  High potential of objectionable content.
Cost	Site has no cost and allows unlimited users, or the cost can be justified by the usefulness of the tool in furthering educational objectives.	Most services are free; only advanced services require purchase (freemium).	Site is free for limited number of users, but can be upgraded for minimal cost (<$3/student) to cover all students, and is worth a trial to determine if it is useful for furthering educational objectives.  .	Site has significant cost per student to use (>$5/student), and its use to further educational objectives has not been determined.
User Friendliness	Main page is free of clutter (ads, etc.) and navigation buttons and site areas are easy for students to navigate.  .  Little to no learning curve involved.	Main page contains some clutter (ads, etc.) and navigation buttons and site areas are somewhat easy for students to navigate.  Minimal time needed to learn how to make use of site.	Main page contains quite a bit of clutter and site areas are not clearly laid out. Instruction required touse site with students.	Main page contains too much clutter (ads, etc.) and navigation buttons and site areas are difficult for students to navigate.  Extensive direction required to make use of site.
Collaboration	Allows teachers and students to collaborate with other site users	Allows teachers, but not students to collaborate with other site users	Site allows minimal collaborative opportunities between users.	Does not allow teachers or students to collaborate with other site users.
Final Products	Final products that can be created have educational purpose, are interesting to students, demonstrate mastery, and are aesthetically pleasing.  Options available to publish privately, save offline, or embed in other web sites.	Final products that can be created have educational purpose and demonstrate mastery.  Options available to publish privately, but online only, on site or embedded.	Final products that can be created have some educational purpose.  Content is saved and viewable only on that site.	Final products cannot be created or do not serve an educational purpose.  Content not shareable with others.
Higher-Order Learning	Use of the Web 2.0 tool encourages use of higher-order thinking skills (analyzing, evaluating, creating).	Use of the Web 2.0 tool encourages use of 2 out of 3 higher-order thinking skills (analyzing, evaluating, creating).	Use of the Web 2.0 tool encourages use of 1 out of 3 higher-order thinking skills (analyzing, evaluating, creating).	Use of the Web 2.0 tool does not encourage use of higher-order thinking skills (analyzing, evaluating, creating).
Edu-Friendly Features	Site is intended for education or provides education portal.  No registration required, and/or teachers can create accounts for students/classes. Does not contain a search box.  Does not post most recent items on home page.	Educational nature of site is obvious.  Requires students to sign up individually, but can be associated with class/teacher account.  Contains search box on main page, but searchable content is safe for students.  May post favorite items on home page, not most recent items.	Individual logins with unique email addresses required, but information is kept private. Contains unfiltered search box on main page. Posts recent items, but none seem to have questionable content.	Individual logins with unique email addresses required.  Information supplied is visible within profile. Contains search box on all or most pages.  Posts unfiltered recent items on home page.
Total Points	24/28

Human Filters

When trying to find useful Web 2.0 tools to use in my classroom, the search can become rather daunting. Especially when trying to simply search for "Web 2.0 tools" in Google or other search engines, scanning through results and evaluating countless tools can be an overwhelming task. This is why using human filters can be beneficial for teachers who want to implement Web 2.0 tools in their classrooms. One of the greatest human filters I have found has been my district's technology coordinator, Carol Roth. Carol was an educator first, so she knows the importance of finding tools that have some sort of subject-area use, and are not simply implemented for the sake of using technology. Carol constantly updates a "Tech Support Wiki" for teachers of all grade levels, and devotes a page specific to Web 2.0 tools.

The second human filter I've found to be of benefit has been my colleagues at my high school. Our district sets aside specific teacher collaboration days, during which time teachers can share experiences with technology use and discuss successes or ask each other questions and suggest improvements. Through these sessions, I have learned about various Web 2. 0 tools and have been able to ask my colleagues questions about how to use them and discuss the purpose and usefulness of each tool. This is one of the most valuable human filters I have found, especially when I am able to collaborate with teachers in my own department (English), because I am likely to be interested in many of the same tools they are using in their classrooms.

Lastly, I have also used other members of the field of education as human filters. These members may include administrators, presenters, teachers, and even other students who may have used Web 2.0 tools and have experiences to share. I've often learned of new tools when attending workshops hosted by administrators and fellow teachers across the country. Often, I've found use for such tools in my own classroom. My own students, having used Web 2.0 tools in their other classes, are reliable filters, as they can share their own personal experiences with using the technology productively. Professors and students in graduate courses in education (such as this one!) are also reliable human filters for Web 2.0 tools for the classroom.

I have used all of these human filters in my search for useful classroom technology, and they have helped me to tremendously narrow down my search results to what I might deem to be the "better" Web 2.0 tools for my English classes. Once I've narrowed my results, however, I must closely evaluate the tools I've found to ultimately decide whether or not I will be able to use them effectively. For this task, a rubric for evaluating these tools is helpful. Check my next post for a closer evaluation of some Web 2.0 tools with a rubric.

Creative Commons Media Libraries

As a teacher and as a student, it can often become difficult knowing when you can or cannot use a piece of media as part of one's newly created work. Even if one thinks he can use the media, there may be terms of use that are difficult to understand, leaving the person questioning how he can use it. One way to avoid confusion and potential legal ramifications is to use works licensed by Creative Commons. These licenses are specific, yet easy to understand, and works using the license will often clearly have the license description posted on the site. Below you will find a link to my Diigo Library, where I have posted bookmarks to five media libraries housing photos, sound clips, songs, and textbooks all licensed by Creative Commons. These licenses all vary, and are described in detail with each bookmark in my library. For further information about each media library and/or its license, click on the links to go directly to the source. Enjoy!

http://www.diigo.com/user/shannalentz

License

EDIM 514 by Shanna Lentz is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

I chose to license my blog based off of a few criteria. First, I wanted an
"Attribution" license, which allows others to use my work, if they give credit to me or my blog as the source. Since I will be posting a multitude of reflections on my blog, it is the text itself I am licensing. I have no problem with others referencing or using my text, as long as they give me credit for my work.

The second part of my license is "Noncommercial." It stipulates that a person cannot make a profit from using my work. While I have no problem with others using my work and crediting me for it, I am not comfortable with others profiting from my work. For example, if someone wants to use my blog text in an article they write, they may not publish that article in a for-profit magazine, for which they would get paid; however, they may use my blog text in an informational booklet used for educational purposes.

While I don't want others making a profit off of my work, I don't mind if someone uses my blog text to create a derivative of my work. Using the example above, if someone wants to use my text as a part of an article they write, they may do so, but they must give me credit for my work. They must also license their own derivative of my work (in this example, their article) under the same kind of license I am using. This "Share-Alike" option was especially important to me, considering the fact that my work could circulate through a variety of sources once someone publishes a derivative of it. Since I still want credit for my work, and since I don't want anyone making a profit off of it, this share-alike option is best, because it forces the user of my work to use the same license, thereby continuing to protect my work in the same manner.

If suggesting to my students that they use a license for any of their work, I would need to consider their own wishes, as well as the format in which the work was published. No matter what format their work is in, I would, at the very least, suggest an attribution and share-alike combination license, so they still receive credit for their work, no matter who uses it and passes it along. I think encouraging students to license their work in this way might help instill in them a sense of pride in their work, as they are claiming ownership of it. In terms of creating derivatives of their work, the students would have to consider the format to decide if they wanted the original work to be used in a different way. For example, if students created an original movie, they would have to decide if they would allow others to use clips of their movie as part of a newly created one. In this instance, they might also want to consider whether they would want someone to make a profit from using that clip in this new derivative of their original work. These two options, I think, are based on personal preference, but I think educating students about the potential outcomes of each type of license is extremely important, so that students have a true understanding about what users could do with their work.

Introduction

Hello! My name is Shanna Lentz and I am an English teacher at Central York High School. I currently teach English II and Graduation Exit Project. At the end of this year, I will have finished my third year of teaching. I began my master's program through Wilkes this past year, and am currently enrolled in my second course in the Master's in Instructional Media program. I have also taken Globalization and Advocacy, which I found to be very eye-opening. I am excited to learn about some valuable internet tools to use in my classroom after taking this course. As an educator, I feel that I have many roles. One is to facilitate an environment that fosters learning. Another is to instill knowledge within my students, and to help to hone my students' critical thinking skills so that they can create new things with the knowledge gained. Lastly, I must continue to educate myself so that I stay current and relevant in the delivery and application of my curriculum. That is one reason I am continuing my education now!