I am sitting at a wonderful little coffee shop in Austin, located on Lake Austin, enjoying a cup of Salvadorian java, toasted bagle and a little slice of each of my favorite blogs. The view is wonderful and the weather is beyond gorgeous (my wife is in Chicago right now, where it’s -9 degrees on a good day without the wind chill factor… ha!). The wireless is free (none of that corporate-we-charge-for-everything type attitude), my iPod is running with my favorite tunes/podcasts and my phone/messenger are at the ready to converse with those on the network.

You see, I am here for the annual TCEA (Texas Computer Education Association) convention - it has been a full week with robotics, presentations and other TCEA related events - and I needed to get away to a place where I can LEARN.

‘You needed to leave the convention to get to a place to learn?’ That’s right - I admit it… and I’d like to take a few moments to justify my actions. Ready? Here we go:

Let me first outline my points of contention before going into further detail.

• I see behavior from educators at the convention that causes me to question what they are getting out of it
• The big name presenters typically have a standard message that changes only a little from year-to-year
• I have my own personal learning network that has, in the past year and a half, had much greater impact on my knowledge, thinking and professional growth than anything else. Ever.
• The convention is separate from my professional environment and not a place that I can immediately implement my new knowledge to take it for a trial run.
• And finally, would a cost/benefit analysis really show that the money spent is worth the results in the classroom?

Each year, the pattern grows, getting worse in my opinion. My concerns started about four years back and I’ve noticed the trend gaining momentum from year to year. It happens both while I attend sessions and while I have presented/co-presented sessions - people get up and walk out/walk in at various points. While I understand that there will be some sessions that do not meet participants needs, it appalls me that, while I am sitting in a quality presentation about any given topic, people get up and walk out. At this point, we are not talking about one or two people. No, we’re talking about ten to twenty people walking out and in to a session throughout its presentation time. Apart from being flat out rude, I question how much the participants that left took away from that session - and can only come to the conclusion (due to their leaving that session or coming in from another one that they just left) that they did not gain any new knowledge and decided to move on. This seems like a waste of valuable personal time (time where their students are sitting in their classrooms back home with a substitute) and happens on a frequent basis across all of the presentations. A wise colleague once said that, ‘as long as you get one good recipe out of a cookbook, it is worth the buy,’ and I believe the same to be true of any session that is attended at a convention. There is always something new I can learn, if only the perspective of the presenter sharing information. If attendees are wasting their time (either because they did not select the right presentation or just lost interest), why are they there? Does that make TCEA obsolete?

Next, and I’ll be quick on this one, I typically have enjoyed listening to the big name presenters, but am now at the point where I would rather buy the book that they are promoting than sit in their template driven presentation. It sure is fun the first time around, but when you hear it the second time and realize it is the EXACT same thing (and that, no, you really weren’t as special as you felt), you - or I should say ‘I’ - feel a ‘lil stoopid. No offense - they do need to sell their books. Does that make TCEA obsolete?

For me, the biggest influence on my feelings about things like TCEA is the personal learning network that I have developed for myself over the past year-and-a-half. I read blogs that challenge my thinking, I participate in the conversation, respond to people who write (not as much as I should) and do it at my own pace and as my energy allows (in between sets on the wakeboard ;). In addition, I have developed a firm belief that the ONLY time we learn is when we have the opportunity to REFLECT on our experiences. That is what learning is all about, isn’t it? If the only time we have is allocated to isolated bits during the year, then I don’t feel that we are doing our best. What is even more, educational conferences have no reason to stay away from an online environment with the success of the K-12 Online Conference. So, does that make TCEA obsolete?

One of the components of my new(ish) personal learning network that I love so much is that I am in my professional environment where I can get feedback, immediately try new things and see if they do or do not work (are or are not effective). I can not help but question how many of the large number of TCEA attendees go back and make real changes in their classroom. I know there are isolated cases, but are new ideas really put into practice? If they are, it has to wait a week, and real-life sets in by the next Thursday when Marcus is somehow back on that last nerve of yours that you thought had just calmed down after a relaxing week on 6th street. And if the implementation of those ideas survives Marcus, then does that teacher wait until next year to get feedback or new ways of integrating technology in the classroom? How ’bout that one - does it make TCEA obsolete?

Finally, what would happen if we could do a full blown cost/benefit analysis on TCEA? I have no clue how much money is spent, how many hours that could have gone to teaching kids or service projects at schools or how many physical resources that could have been allocated to a classroom in Longview, TX. I have a very difficult time imagining that the money spent on my hotel wouldn’t be better used by putting it in a fund to benefit kids (and not the kind of fund that supports TAKS in any way!!). So, does that make TCEA obsolete?

Oh, did I forget to mention how much I can’t stand 98.6% of vendors? There’s also that…

It is time to take responsibility for our own learning, and do it on a daily basis. We need to put that learning into action each and every day and we need to challenge those who do the same thing day-after-day; even after they get back from a week in Austin. But, you’re a blog reader, though, so you already know that. I propose that we still utilize time away, kind of like a sabbatical for a short period of time, to reflect in groups and dialog within our own learning networks. After all, I am still sitting in this wonderful little coffee shop after assimilating a whole new chunk of knowledge while I reflected on this single, little thought. With my new proposal verbalized, it is now time for the big question…
If people aren’t getting out of it what they could, the message from the big name presenters can be found in their books, we have our own personal learning network that blows away the current system of continuing education, our reflection is separated from our real-world experience and a cost/benefit analysis didn’t put us out on top - does that make TCEA obsolete?

As long as we’re willing to ask the question, then we’re in the correct lane - the one that ends up the road…

We know from the rules that a survivor will be on the line, so how does that help your robot find it? Follow these steps to learn about line following (you’ll have to use your own programming knowledge to figure out how this helps you rescue a survivor):

1. Go to this 9th Graders report on line following and look through it.
2. Start at the bottom of page two (2) and read through the description of his 6 different programs
3. Go to the bottom of page seven (7) and pick one program that is highly accurate and one that is quick.
4. Starting on page nine (9), he has a screenshot of his programs. If you picked program one, find ‘Algorithm 1′ to match it up. Locate the two programs you selected
5. Recreate the programs for your robot. REMEMBER: your robot’s inputs and outputs MUST match the program - you’ll need to use your programing knowledge to make sure that the program is appropriate for your robot (some programs require one light sensor, and some require two).
6. Test the accurate versus the quick line following program and write down what you found out in your team journal.

Now you can incorporate line following into one of your tasks! Think about all of the different ways that it can help you in this competition…

Often times, teams will build a robot based on a set of instructions or even with no clear purpose in mind. Try building (or re-building) your next robot with these instructions:

1. List all of the important abilities that your robot needs to have - we’ll call these ‘qualifiers’
2. Start an ‘Ability Needs’ list in your robotics journal. Keep it simple - does your robot need the ability to move forward? If so, add it to the list you just started in your team robotics journal. Does it need to be able to turn? How does it need to be able to turn? Tightly? Broadly? What other abilities does it need to complete the competition? Strength? Simple actions? Speed? Continue making the list of your robotics abilities.
3. Finish your list. Once you are done listing abilities, NOW is the time to start thinking about building, and build with the end in mind. If you are a novice builder, start with a set of instructions that meet most of the abilities you need - you can always make adjustments. If you are an intermediate builder - BEWARE! Don’t jump into a model without thinking through where you want to go - think ahead to how you can make sure you have a sturdy chasis.

Hint: Advanced builders may want to search the internet for some new ideas. Start at this website with different models, then try different combinations of the following search terms when you search:

• mindstorm or mindstorms
• lego
• “building instructions” (in quotes)
• rcx
• robolab

Creating a list of tasks and ordering them according to priority can be a very beneficial way to focus your efforts. Time is running short with preparation, so if your team is struggling, follow these steps to make the most out of the time you have left!

1. List the tasks that your robot has to perform and give them names/titles (write these in your team journal, which you should have already started!)
2. Leave space between the different tasks so you can identify the different steps for each of them
3. Prioritize the tasks: which is most important and why? what gets you the most points? what requires the least work from your robot? which task can get you closer to the ‘first touch’ tie breaker faster than your opponent? (Write down your answers in your robotics journal)

Check out this video of a team member talking through their identified tasks. Which one do you think will be the highest priority?

Hint: Complete ONE task at a time. Do NOT try to combine the tasks until you can do them separate and independently of each other. This will greatly help your team focus on one aspect of the competition without getting bogged down with more complex operations.

SETUP:

For this activity, you will need to setup a play board (an arena) with three (3) to five (5) spam cans placed a little behind the line (dead zone).

The arena surface is a 4′ x 4′ white Melamine (Mel-am-in-ae) board which can be purchased at your local hardware store. It typically comes in a 4′ x 8′ sheet, which the hardware store may cut in half for you. The black dead zone is made with ‘Avery 4Year Vinyl’ and can be ordered from Sign Warehouse in Sherman, TX (http://www.signwarehouse.com ** A direct link to the black vinyl is: http://www.signwarehouse.com/VAVA4O2410-p-VA4-2410-090-O.html). You can also use two strips of electrical tape to mark the 8″ dead zone, or get full sheet label paper and print an 8″ path with a laser printer.

ACTIVITY OVERVIEW:
Once you have setup your sample arena and placed the debris as shown, program your robot to push all of the spam cans across the line. Do not worry about pushing the spam cans over to your opponents side, just push them so that they are all the way across your line.

ACTIVITY::PATTERN FOCUS:

How do patterns help you program your robotics? Many times, you will want to develop a pattern that you can loop over-and-over so that you only create a small piece of programming that you repeat. This is easier to program, and thinking in patterns can make your robot’s performance more effective. So, where do you start?

1. Physically take your robot (or any model of a robot will work) and move it with your hand in the pattern that you want it to do on the play board. Talk through the steps as you move your robot (forward, back, right, forward, left, forward, back, right, forward…). These movements must be programmable in RoboLab (or whatever you are using to program).
2. Write down the pattern (represent the movements/actions with letters).
3. Block out the piece that is repeated.
4. Look at how you can loop that pattern in your programming.

Look at this video that shows a team going through this process :

What pattern would THIS program below make your robot perform?

ACTIVITY::PATTERN REVISION

Once you develop a pattern, the next step is to watch your robot perform the pattern and look for ways to improve it. Watch this student () look at his robot’s pattern.

• How is he looking at making changes in his pattern?
• What needs improvement in his robot’s pattern?
• What changes would you make to the pattern his robot is performing?

Now, watch the changes he made () to his robot’s pattern to improve how it performed.

JOURNALING:

Journaling is the most important part of what you do with your team! Use these prompts to add to your team journal:

1. What is more important? Rescuing survivors or clearing debris? Which one should our team focus on first? Why? Should our team try to do one or both? What we think other teams will do? How can we best prepare for what other teams will be doing?
2. What patterns does our robot need to do in order to clear debris?
3. What patterns does our robot need to do in order to rescue survivors?
4. What new programming concepts did I learn?
5. How can we build our robot or change its construction to make it more efficient?

NEXT STEPS:

• Make your robot faster at clearing debris - how can you program differently to do this and how can you build it differently to do this?
• Develop a second pattern that is different from your first one - test each one five (5) times. Which one is better? Which one is faster? Which one is more accurate?

Don’t you think we have ENOUGH problems in education as it is? Our textbook companies don’t, and I doubt they care. This isn’t news to me - I’ve never had a positive view on these political and financial powerhouses. BUT. I’m reviewing different options tonight for our upcoming Math adoption and just had to share my experiences. I’ll share it in three stories:

Story number one (1):

I started my merri-go-round sampling with a presentation by McDougal Littell. This was what you might consider a standard sales pitch, one that wasn’t super flashy but was fairly well put together. The pace of the presentation didn’t make we dizzy and I had time to reflect on what the company was offering. As the session progressed (I walked in a little late), my eyes began to open. I began realizing that textbook companies have started to ‘get it’. They are now at a point where they ‘get’ what technology can do for them! (beware - the next sentence is long and meant to be said in one breath) It can SELL more books and grab a little bit more out of that state pot of money that is just sitting there waiting for the next sucker of a district to sign the papers which allow the big corporations (that have very little real interest in the state of our education system!!!!!!) to snatch a little more money because they convinced a teacher that THEY, lowly little teacher that they may be, will get a PEN DRIVE if they vote for this adoption. And not ONLY do they get a pen drive, but EVERY campus will receive software that will PRINT A TEST ON PAPER and a scanner that will scan those paper tests and GRADE THEM FOR THE TEACHERS! THIS, my friends, is the point where I began biting a hole in my right cheek, and not just one of those little nibble, nibble holes… a FULL OUT hole in my right cheek! While I understand that this might be really beneficial to some districts out there, I truly believe that benefiting education is not the purpose of putting these gimmicks into the textbook packages. The content is the same ‘ole stuff - except it now has TAKS questions on each page so that we can further bore our students even faster than we do now.

Story number two (2):

I swear, if I had any used cars to sell or needed a salesman for my crappy used car lot down the street - I would have IMMEDIATELY hired this guy to do the job. I popped into a packed room of math teachers who were anxiously waiting for the next words to come out of this Prentice Hall’s presenters mouth. In fact, I didn’t really know if I was in a Prentice Hall presentation as I saw eInstruction clickers distributed around the room. I seriously thought I stepped into a third party sales pitch on using these units in a math classroom. No worries, though, folks - it was definitely full out Prentice Hall. Keeping in mind that I had already had my eyes opened to the fact that these companies are simply using technology to sell their product, I thought I was ready for mentally handling the next presentation without delving down into my inner sanctum of sarcasm. Then my shoulders slumped and my face shrunk into a dis-connected, furrowed brow mask. You see, not only was this presenter pushing the gimmicks, but his ENTIRE presentation was about the gimmicks! He didn’t delve into the textbook (aside from the quick excerpts flashed across the screen) and said NOTHING (I think I broke a few keys typing that word) about the actual content of the material. WHAT?!?! Teachers that I KNOW do not use technology on anywhere CLOSE to a regular basis were CHEERING for the clickers that did the assessments for them! We have MORE THAN ONE SYSTEM IN OUR DISTRICT THAT AUTOMATICALLY GRADES ASSESSMENTS (have had for more than 5 years now) AND THESE PEOPLE WERE CHEERING! Oh, and it was all aligned to TAKS … how on earth could I leave that part out? I couldn’t resist jotting down a quote: ‘You don’t ever have to worry about going a day without the students practicing for TAKS.’ Oh thank the supreme diety for THAT one. It was in this session that I realized the next point I would learn tonight: We’re in trouble. We’re in trouble because the textbook companies are demonstrating to the political powers in Austin that they are using technology to do worksheets and TAKS practice on line - and Austin WILL fall for it. We are further in trouble because our teachers will adopt this company’s book (I can almost guarantee it… I’ll post when they do) and think that this kind of gimmick technology integration is the end-all/be-all. Ouch. I may just go grab one of those crappy used cars off my lot down the street and drive it off a cliff - that is if Mr. Prentice Hall hasn’t sold it first.

Story number three (3): 

By this time I’m beat down. I have a hole bitten in both my right and left cheeks, have pondered driving a car off of a cliff and look … well, just plain haggard. Surely, this last publisher will have SOMEthing reasonable to offer - right? The last spin on my merri-go-round adventure is with Thomson Learning. I should probably preface this by saying how much I do NOT like sales people. Too often, they do not know their product, are boring to listen to, don’t even have a product worth listening to, aren’t engaging and care only about the sale. Unfortunately, this guy did NOT know his product, was boring as heck to listen to (READ THE DANG SLIDE SHOW!), couldn’t show that his product was worthy, had a non-engaging PowerPoint with mainly a white background and a bunch of black text in Arial font, and … well, I didn’t stick around long enough to hear if he only cared about the sale. My job, as I am in Instructional Technology, was to find out the positives and negatives about the technology offered components from each company. You know, does the company offer an electronic copy of their book? Nope. Ok then, I’ll check THAT off my list. Does the company offer an assessment bank? Well, I can print Word .doc’s with Thompson to hand out to my kids. Yeah, right. Check. Does the company offer engaging content? Their included PowerPoint’s used a standard Microsoft Template. *sigh*. And, check. The third lesson of the night? Once you get your questions answered, don’t give your time to someone who isn’t on a path to help kids in your district learn in a more effective and engaging way. I was really a bit baffled - how does this big company not ‘get it’ (you know, get the fact that technology gimmicks can sell their product)?? Thompson may not have turned me off in the same way that the other two did, but they came nowhere close to impressing me with what they offered.

So, my venting comes to a close. To recap, I learned three very important things tonight:

1. Big textbook companies are finally ‘getting it’ in regards to technology. They ‘get’ gimmicky technology add-ons will woo teachers and sell more of their product
2. Big textbook companies are fooling the political powers that they are leading the path in technology integration … with gimmicky technology add-ons.
3. The ones that don’t ‘get it’ yet are nowhere close to where we need them to be and will sooner or later get on board with the rest of the technology gimmick train.

I’ve never seen a textbook presentation that focused solely around the technology components that it offered and not around the content of the book. These companies have too much control in the content that our kids are fed to be scamming teachers into thinking they are doing the right thing with technology integration into their classrooms.

And folks, that gimmicky integration ain’t nowhere close to where the Left Lane Ends.

Looking for a place to start with building your robot? Let’s begin with the basics:

First, build a robot that:

• can make sharp/accurate turns - left and right (and how can you test this??)
• has a light sensor that is mounted close to the floor and at the front of the robot
• Has a touch sensor mounted on the front (you’ll probably want to have some kind of activator instead of putting a touch sensor out front all by its lonesome)

HINT: If you have trouble getting started on the building task, you can build the model on page 16 of the Lego Constructopedia (it is the second model after the very basic first one). Keep in mind that this robot has different build-out ‘options’. You can build it with treads or tires and even build different sensor modules for the front of it. You’ll have to do your own tweaking to get a touch AND a light sensor on the front.

HINT: If you have your own robot design, look in the back of your Contructopedia for different ways to add on light sensors and touch sensors.

HINT: Looking for a new design? Try building this tank bot. OR, take a look at THIS site with a lot of new/different robot designs!

HINT: If you have more than one kit in your group, build two different robots to compare how they function (for example, one with treads and one with wheels).

Finally, and this is VERY VERY IMPORTANT, start a team journal with a section for building, programming and brainstorming. Take time to stop and reflect after doing small steps. Write down descriptions and/or drawings about what you build and program so that you can reference what you have done in the past. Update your team journal as often as possible - use it as a working document so you do not forget your ideas. Make predictions and write down theories that you think might work!

So, you have decided to participate in the 2007 TCEA Robotics competition? Congratulations, and welcome!

I want to take a few lines of text here to explain the purpose behind this year’s competition and throw out a few notes about its development. You may have noticed that we are repeating the same competition (for the most part) from last year. There are several main reasons for doing this:

1. We want to see a higher level of play at the state level - this year, teams will have more experience and have had a longer time to think about solving the competition.
2. We wanted to refine rules we had experience with to streamline how the competition is carried out. (In other words, improve on what we learned from last year)
3. We want to release the 2008 competition information AT the February 2007 competition in order to give teams a full year to prepare for a new challenge.

With that in mind, I would like to review what is different in this year’s rules:

• Cleaner play board: we felt that there was just a little too much ’stuff’ on the play board last year. So, we have: 1) reduced the number of debris; and 2) reduced the number of lines on the board. Less debris makes for easier navigation (while still keeping the level of challenge) and creating a solid, 8″ dead zone reduces confusion on the part of the robots.
• More lenient DQ rules: there were too many DQ’s last year, and that is just NO fun! So, we have made the DQ rules a little more lenient and added a penalty for those robots that cross the line. While we’ll be discussing how the DQ’s are assessed on the TCEA competition discussion forum, the basic premise will be:
• A robot that crosses into it’s opponents territory will receive a penalty. It is up the the judges on how many penalties to apply (for example, a robot that is twitching back and forth across their opponents line will not be assessed 30 penalties).
• A robot that alters the path or course of their opponent while on their opponents side will be DQ’d.
• A robot that alters the position of their opponents objects while on their opponents side will be DQ’d.
• Plain and simple, stay on your side!
• Easier tie breaker: Last year, it was ‘first rescue’. This year, it is ‘first contact’! Whoever touches a survivor first will receive the mark for breaking a tie. We had too many coin tosses last year, and this rule should help eliminate a large majority of those. How will YOU take this new rule into account to assure that YOU win in the event of a tie? Our judges will have to be on their toes to watch for first contact!

So, with all that in mind, it should be a great competition! It is imperative that students get on the TCEA message board, create an account and participate in the discussions from now until February. Also, keep an eye on this tag (TCEARobotics2007) as I continue to post team activities that will help prepare you for the 2007 TCEA State Robotics Competition!

Jerram Froese
TCEA Robotics Competition Coordinator

So, the argument goes that if we don’t block YouTube, our students will go home and video tape themselves going for a ride in the dryer like the video that they saw online. Point taken. But, there are fallacies to that argument:

1. The same ‘ride in the dryer‘ video is available on multiple sites, not just YouTube.com
2. Students were creating these videos the day after they got their hands on a camera - well before the creation of YouTube or other social video sites. (we’ve seen some creative ones here in our 1:1 environment that is going on its 6th year)
3. Even a block of the general category (video sites or social networking or network file storage/backup) will not prevent someone from creating their own website (like back in the olden days … remember those days??) and posting the video there

At this point, you may be asking ‘what’s the point?’. Well, the real power of sites like YouTube are demonstrated at places like Global Voices Online (go ahead - check out the chinese demonstration video that their government is trying to erradicate from the online world!!). I just don’t see how it could NOT be powerful education to draw similarities and differences between a current demonstration video in China and our American system of government. How can our students participate in this live history that is taking place before our lives if we block them out of it? Or is the simplistic history as outlined in a textbook the real way to go?

So, I’m in training for a new system that allows us to assess students (online!!! oooh, yea!!!!) on how they are doing regarding the TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills). To get us into the system and give us an idea for how it works, we’re taking the 5th Grade test.

No wonder I got C’s in school… I’m merely reminded of the ridiculous state we have woken up and found ourselves in within education, how much I hated these things as a kid and how I haven’t used the skills I was taught in 5th grade in the way they are tested EVER.

I don’t mind the occasional test to assess where our students are at. But another system to test our kids on top of the current local testing that is on top of the current state testing? Really?

*sigh*