# data[].attributes.body
#Edtech Twitter Chat
A) The #Edtech Twitter Chat is an organic PD that evolves each week based off the perceived needs of its participants. As a result of its fluid nature, the only fixed goals of the PD is to provide opportunities for collaboration around the use of educational technology in schools.

B) Like most educational twitter chats, #Edtech is run by a set of moderators who pre-select a series of questions for the week's discussion. The chat, held Monday evenings, allows participants to answer questions and respond based off of their own interests. Moderators are informal gatekeepers, allowing for a true sense of equity and community building amongst those involved. Members may stay as long as they want or choose to continue the conversation outside the prescribed time limit using the chat's hashtag.

C) Participation based off of choice and networking are what made my #edchat experience overwhelmingly positive. The questions selected by the moderator provided flexible guidelines that allowed my discussions to remain focused but not stagnant.  I was awarded the space to freely explore with fellow educators the educational technology issues I faced in my classroom. Furthermore, I was able to connect with these educators in a way that allowed me to follow up during times that best fit my schedule.

D) As participation in this PD was not dictated by my district but through my own personal choice, any connection to larger issues or systematic approaches at work were through my own implementation. Consequently, I have joined quite a few other twitter chats and now co-moderate #sunchat.

-

# data[].attributes.body
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30gN4-pEZWg

# data[].attributes.body
NoRedInk PD
A) As every district mandated PD before it, the NoRedInk session began with a set of explicitly spelled-out goals. These goals were focused on the technical training of the NoRedInk platform so teachers could utilize the program in their classrooms. All district teachers would be expected to use the program for at least twenty minutes in their classroom, three times a week.

B) The PD was led by a representative from the company that produces the platform. It was held for all ELA teachers from the district during preservice week.

C) Like many of my ETPD experiences, this was largely focused on the technical components of the tech tool being showcased. Because the tech experience of the participants in the room varied, many of educators, including myself, were left feeling frustrated by mundane questions surrounding technology use that had less to do with the program and more to do with basic technology skills. Very little time was awarded to discussing how the program could be used and managed in the classroom beyond the basic "flyby" of "here are the tools the platform offers".

D) The training was a result of a district-wide initiative to improve scores on the state writing test. A follow up PD was held a year later, which incorporated much of the same information.

# data[].attributes.body
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iraPgcoOg2s

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A tutorial of NoRedInk, a summative assessment tool you can use in your classroom to help your students learn writing and grammar in a way that caters to their personal interests

# data[].attributes.body
The Paperless Classroom
A) A few years ago during our school's in-house PD series, I facilitated a session on using Google Classroom to create a paperless classroom. The goals of the session were to not only introduce the tools associated with Google Classroom but to collaborate in order to explore the potential benefits of going paperless. These goals were determined as a result of a tech interest survey I sent out before designing the PD.

B) Participants in the PD were there by choice, but it should be noted this was the only tech-based option during the time slot. Upon reflection, I would be interested to know if participants chose the session because they were interested in the concept, or were they merely drawn in by the allure of learning a new tech tool instead of learning about more traditional PD topics. I began with a brief overview of the program and the philosophy behind a paperless classroom before allowing the teachers to explore. During this phase of the PD, we held informal discussions about how this could benefit our classrooms and the possible obstacles.

C) I believe the PD was primarily effective because participants were there by choice. Also, as a teacher in their building and not an administrator, the PD felt more equitable and less prescribed. Relationships had already been built, making communication amongst the group more natural. Teachers also enjoyed that the majority of time was saved for exploration and discussion.

D) As the PD was offered as a choice, it was not connected to any larger systematic approaches connected to the district's vision. Informal followups on using the program were frequent, but no formal check-ins were setup.

# data[].attributes.body
STEAM in the English Classroom @VSTE

A) The primary goal of this session was to promote the use of STEAM in the English classroom by showcasing technologies associated with each of the concepts (science, technology, engineering, and math). The goals were determined by my own personal interests.

B) This PD took place at last year's VSTE conference, which was held at the Virginia Beach Convention Center. The majority of the PD was given lecture style. I used powerpoint to share my research on the need for STEAM in the English classroom and then proceeded to give a brief overview of a plethora of tech tools. It was attended by a few English teachers and quite a good number of Tech Specialists.

C) This PD was a disaster. I believe this was due to the fact that I did not truly understand the audience I would be presenting to. As a presenter, I should have been more flexible with my presentation once I understood the audience was less interested in pedagogy and more interested in tech exploration. Also, I offered very little time for discussion. Additionally, I failed to properly answer the HOW, instead focusing on the WHY.

D) The PD shared no connection to larger work other than my own continued adventures to bring STEAM into the ELA classrooms. It was a tech presentation at a tech conference. There was no follow up offered beyond supplying the participants with my contact info.

# data[].attributes.body
Source: https://thepensivesloth.com/tag/professional-development/

# data[].attributes.body
1) I know that Learning Forward has done some work on differentiating professional learning from training, but how does that apply to ETPD when it's inherently focused on something that often requires explicit training?
2) Since many of the ETPDs follow a take it or leave it model (I'll use this or I won't), what protocols can be put in place to ensure authentic and effective follow-up?
3) Have studies been done concerning the effectiveness of online learning communities such as twitter chats? How can we approach school systems to recognize these and reward PD points?