Recently a student reflected, "Talking to another school about the project was really cool. I am glad I got to hear what some members of my group thought about the work, and how we all collaborated with eachother. I think that this was also a great opportunity to let the teachers know what worked for us, and what can be improved for people working on it next year. I was surprised by what people had to say about everything and I am glad I got a chance to express how I felt too, and talk about the use of technology to improve our education."  

My topic for the net gen ed online project was about integrity and digital citizenship with tablets. This is a hard topic, as it has many issues that cannot be easily regulated. For example, when a student is misbehaving in class, you cannot simply take away the students tablet, because he then wouldn’t be able to participate in the class activity. Also, if a student is messaging another student in class, you can confiscate the tablet, as he was unjustly using the device. There are many different situations in which you can only do certain things, and this is the topic of digital citizenship. This is that a student should choose to do the right thing on a tablet and not have to worry about having the tablet taken away. And with having the student do the right thing, it won’t matter how you would resolve the situation, as it would never exist.

When it came to editing my wiki, I had a bit of a problem. First, my team was never online when I was, which is not any of our faults, but only bad timing. Secondly, I never got a chance to talk to my team, though I did leave a few messages asking what our plan of action was and what I had to do. This was obviously not achieved, as some of our topics ion the wiki are not even addressed, and still have the question in its place. I feel we adequately cited our sources for the places that we did have factual information.

When it came time to swap videos and such, I was a bit behind. I had not known about this or had known and forgotten, but either way I had a late start on making the video. I made one as soon as I could, but when I went to post this video, it was already taken by another person in between the time when I was making it and finished it. I also did not receive a video from anyone, but I guess that was just karma. Since I did not receive a video, I was forced to make one of my own, which had to be done at my house because I needed a tablet.

 The original intention of my video was to show how using a tablet in the wrong way was bad, and how to correct that with many useful tips and evidence from factual sources. This was changed however, when I was making the video, and I decided that I was going to have a second clip to show how the correct way of using a tablet was done. The quality of my video started out very simple and boring, because I had never used windows live movie maker and so I was unfamiliar with the formatting. I accidentally hit a button which made the slides look fancy, and so I then got a handle on the software and was able to make it look a lot better, well in my opinion anyway. A thing that I could have done better was take the time to make my slides look more in uniform, yet I did not because I was not sure how. Some videos that I think deserve recognition are the following: Haleigh H, because I like the use of xtranormal, and Ben H, as he used many game techniques to show that using games can really be educational. I likeMatt G’s from our class especially, as he has music in the background to help the video flow.

The Flat Classroom Project includes peer reviews by younger students called Sounding Boards.  The Sounding Board students post  a review to the wiki discussion board for those high school students in the project.  Feedback is given in a 3-2-1 format, first put into use by Kim Cofino on the projects. 

List 3 things that are very good about this wiki              project.

List 2 suggestions for improving the wiki page.

List 1 piece of new knowledge our group has obtained thanks to this wiki page. 

Recently, a peer reviewer wrote:Three things that I really thought was good about this wiki:

1.) There's a lot of good information on the wiki and it's well organized

2.) I like how there are pictures and visuals that just make it look nicer and help to catch attention

3.) I like the collaboration I see on the discussion threads, you guys are communicating a lot and talking about your information

Two things I think you guys can work on:

1.) I see some sources cited but not enough, you need to cite every source you get information and visuals from

2.) I think maybe some information is irrelevant and isn't needed and that you could take it out and just get rid of some.

One new piece of knowledge I was able to take away from this wiki: 

The world wide web is one of the most important things in our day and age in the 21st centruy