The Web Institute for Teachers: Engaging Teachers in Developing Web-Based Curriculum

1. The Web Institute for Teachers:Engaging Teachers in Developing Web-Based Curriculum Craig A. Cunningham University of Chicago Frada Boxer Evanston Public Schools Ellen Dairyko Chicago Public Schools

2. Outline • Introduction • History of the Web Institute for Teachers • Curriculum and Instructional Plan • Sample Modules Produced by Participants • Improvements for WIT 2000 • Suggestions for Others

3. http://cuip.uchicago.edu/wit/talks/SITE2000.htm

4. Introduction The Web Institute for Teachers: • 4 weeks; 5 days per week professional development summer experience • Open to 80+ K-12 teachers in Chicagoland • Instruction by teacher mentors with prior experience in WIT • Focuses on curriculum development and web design

5. History of the Web Institute • Began in 1997 with “World Wide Web for Teachers: Tools and Techniques.” • Originally taught by university faculty • Expanded and revised for 1999 • Read more about the Web Institute history in the paper

6. Curriculum & Instructional Plan • Institute divided into 4+ homerooms; entire group met in once a week plenary and weekly lunch • Basic “homeroom” curriculum covering curriculum development process and web design http://cuip.uchicago.edu/wit/99/curriculum/homeroom • “Special Topics” curriculum covering additional technical topics http://cuip.uchicago.edu/wit/99/curriculum/specialtopics

7. Curriculum (continued) • Aim: Provide teachers with the training and experiences necessary for them to be able to design, create, and use web-enhanced curriculum modules with their students • Curriculum Module: A plan for a set of related teaching and learning activities together with the materials necessary to implement the plan • Curriculum includes notion of sustained learning over time (not just a lesson plan)

8. WIT Instructional Plan (continued) • Engaged Learning • Flexibility through web-enhanced group activities and self paced learning • Continued emphasis on philosophy and learning theory • Mentor pairs given responsibility for primary instruction and guidance of participants and their projects • Participants grouped themselves to work on curriculum modules

9. The Homeroom Experience • Attempt to group homerooms by prior computer and web experience • Mentors modified and adapted homeroom curriculum to meet the needs of the participants: http://cuip.uchicago.edu/wit/99/beta/betaschedule.htm • Mentors supported participants through their sense of being overwhelmed • Group instruction at the beginning evolved into small group and individual work time

10. Sample Modules Produced by Participants • The Portrait Gallery http://cuip.uchicago.edu/wit/99/teams/portraits/frontpage.htm • Bronzeville: Engine of Progress http://cuip.uchicago.edu/wit/99/teams/bronzeville/welcome.htm • CulturEconomics http://cuip.uchicago.edu/wit/99/teams/cultures/frontpage.html

11. Improvements for WIT 2000 • Assessment • Currently developing a rubric as collaborative tool for formative assessment by participants and mentors (http://cuip.uchicago.edu/wit/99/beta/rubric2.htm) • Range of participants’ computer skill levels • Despite our best efforts, range remains wide in homerooms • For WIT 2000, special mentor will be charged with teaching and reviewing basic skills

12. Suggestions for Others • Participants must “own” their projects • Mentor selection is crucial • Pairing mentors is crucial • Mentors must have means to adapt curriculum • Learning this stuff requires time • Stress curriculum development • Build multiple means of communication

13. The Endhttp://cuip.uchicago.edu/wit/talks/SITE2000.htm