A Final Look Back at EDLD 5306

     I hoped that, during this first course of my master's program, I would gain insight into the future of the American classroom and into what role I might play in bringing that future to students.  I knew that even in a district as advantaged in as many ways as my own, that there is much to learn and much to do, and the course did not disappoint. In spending time examining the LRPT and the National Educational Technology Plan, I was reminded that technology as applications in all areas of the classroom:  teaching, reinforcement, analysis, work product.  I took an important first step by walking through some basic pieces of 21^st century learning, including blogs, wikis, and multimedia presentations.  Analysis of the STaR Chart data for my campus brought the realization that while we have excellent resources for integration of technology, we lack some of the practical skills and professional development to bring these resources to life in our learning and teaching. (Texas Education Agency, 2009) What I find frustrating is that many of the concerns cited by the STaR Chart data actually have solutions available within the district.  This means that one of our primary hurdles as a district remains communication.  During the past weeks I have learned much about Web 2.0 practices and the enormous potential they have to open doors and change the way we communicate with colleagues, parents, and students.  However, I do wonder to what degree our district policies will restrict the techniques from this course that I hope to utilize with my own students and with other teachers on my campus.  Determining that level of accessibility and relevance is an essential next step for me in my internship. Because the beginning of this course coincided with the end of our school year, I felt acutely the absence of feedback from members of my own campus; some of my activities could not be developed in completely authentic ways because I could not use them in real-time situations with students and campus colleagues.  However, I accept these realities with equanimity; summer courses always present their own unique obstacles to be overcome.  I will continue to develop the internship plan over the course of the summer; it is my hope that the plan is a living document that can evolve as I grow in my internship and as needs and opportunities arise in my district. 

     I have truly enjoyed the experience of returning to the role of student.  I remember well the challenges that I experienced as a young college student:  time management, organization, prioritization, balance.  These challenges still exist; however, with age comes maturity, experience, and wisdom.  I have realized that, while I have the vision for how technology can and should function in the classroom, my own classroom has a long path from reality to that vision.  The discussion boards, blogs and wikis provide fascinating insights for me as a student, as an educator, and as a leader.  Maybe most important of the insight from this foundations course is that although we do not all share the same vision, we do share a passion for the process.  I am ideologically of the same world view as Marc Prensky, who speaks of an educational system that stubbornly refuses to see a reality that has changed fundamentally from the past. (Prensky, 2001)  At the outset of this course, I would have expected that the vast majority of my peer group felt similarly.  The discussions of the past few weeks have proven categorically, and with equal passion and articulation, that this is not the case.   I look forward to watching how my views and those of my cohort group evolve during the course of this program.  

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more." (Shakespeare, 1598)  Next stop - research.

Works Cited

Prensky, M. (2001, September/October). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon , pp. 1,3-6.

Shakespeare, W. (1598). Act III, Henry V.  London.

Texas Education Agency. (2009). STar Chart Search Results Wilshire Elementary. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from StarChartESC12.net: http://starchart2.esc12.net/campusSearchlist.aspx?foryear=20082009&district=&campus=wilshire

 

 

 

What Exactly is My Role on the Digital Divide?

My graduate cohort seems to be having a love/hate relationship with the writings of Marc Prensky.  In particular, some of my colleagues chafe at the idea that “Teachers must practice putting engagement before content when teaching." (p. 10) I am, quite frankly, a bit perplexed by the level of resistance to this idea.  I wonder if this statement evokes for them images of style without substance.  Armstrong and Warlick (2004) describe a whole new way of understanding curriculum and learning, where instead of simply writing, students must learn to express ideas compellingly (p. 26). It seems that Prensky is calling, in his own slightly irreverent way, for teachers to do the same. (2005, p. 10) I don’t walk away from Prensky’s writings with the impression that my expertise is not valued in the classroom; rather, I understand my responsibility to be both engagement and content. Gwen Solomon (2004) tells us, “To get people to read what you write or listen to what you present, the information has to be interesting, useful, and appealing.”(p.48) I know I had many bright, knowledgeable teachers as a student, and yet only a few stand out in my memory as exceptional educators. The difference: the most outstanding teachers reached in and called on my interests, passions, and experiences. As an undergraduate and student teacher, one of my lasting lessons of curriculum and instruction involved this same idea of engagement. I learned how student engagement plays a critical role in creating authentic learning. In my professional life, this truism continues year after year, class after class, lesson after lesson. Prensky (2005, p. 10) believes that teachers must “pay attention to how their students learn, and value and honor what their students know.” The National Educational Technology Plan (2010) believes much the same:
. . . effective teaching in the 21st century requires innovation, problem solving, creativity, continuous improvement, research, diagnostic use of data, and flexible and personalized approaches to meeting students’ diverse needs and strengths. As a result, the most effective educators are professionals with complex knowledge, expertise, and competencies, not merely deliverers of content and managers of well-behaved classrooms. (p. 39)

Although the tools and the techniques are evolving, what Prensky expects of teachers is not revolutionary, but long-established: to teach students, we must reach them.


Works Cited

Armstrong, S., & Warlick, D. (2004, September). The New Literacy: The 3R's Evolve into the 4E's. Technology and Learning , pp. 20-28.
Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Prensky, M. (2005, December). Listen to the Natives. Educational Leadership , pp. 9-13.
Solomon, G. (2004, June). E-Communications 101. Technology and Learning , pp. 48-60.

New Technology: Like Opening a Present

For one of this week's course assignments, we were asked to create a short personal introduction video using a service called Animoto.  I had visions of poor acting, poor lighting, poor product.  Now, 24 hours later, I am a zealot of the converted.  Working through every possible permutation of images, music, text, and video was like recieving a new gift every time.  It became more than simply an assignment; it became an evening of fun and excitement right along with the learning.  If I can create the same level of genuine enthusiasm among my students for an assignment, I think the results will be amazing. 

Reflections on Web Conference: June 8, 2010

Our class web conference this week was short, sweet, and informative.  It appears that most of the kinks are smoothing out of conference logistics, although apparently I was the source of a bit of feedback; I'll be looking into that before next week, to be sure.  Although the pace of the course is fast and furious, it is even more clear after yesterday's exchange that I will have to set aside some time very, very soon to go back over the internship handbook (Abernathy, 2010) with an even finer tooth comb.  The appendices in particular appear to require some in depth review, as they deal with the field-based experiences (Appendices E, F, and G) and course-imbedded experiences (Appendices H, I, and J).  I have a meeting scheduled with my principal next week, and also hope to be visiting with my mentor in the coming days, as well.  It appears to be a good idea to have these meetings right away, because there is no time to waste assembling a plan for the internship field hours.  I have begun looking at the 33 standards (Williamson and Redish, 2009), and the scope of the skills is vast.  The session gave me several excellent ideas for the plan, and I'm anxious to begin!


Works Cited:  


Williamson, J. and Redish, T. 2009.  ISTE's technology facilitation and leadership standards: what every K-12 leader should know and be able to do.  Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education. 
Abernathy, K. 2010. Educational technology leadership internship handbook.  Retrieved from Lamar University, Academic Partnerships EDLD Coursework: https://lamar.epiclms.net/Learn/Player.aspx?enrollmentid=1134773

The Path to a New American Education

Reflection on the National Educational Technology Plan 2010 – “Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology”


After having looked at both the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology and the National Educational Technology Plan, I was pleased to see how many basic tenets the two shared. The national plan deals with the same domains at the Texas LRPT and adds an additional area: assessment. (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. vi) Some of the similar goals included anywhere, anytime access; a focus on collaborative learning for both students and teachers; specific mention of the need for online instruction (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. xiii) (Texas Education Agency, 2008); and a 1:1 ratio for internet access devices (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. xiii) (Texas Education Agency, 2006, p. 15).


In the national report I was introduced to some new ideas: the first, redesigned schedule and class groupings based on competence and academic interests and needs rather than age, seat-time, and uniform class size. The idea is based on the concept of individualized learning for students that is generated by their interests, specific curriculum needs, and learning styles (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, pp. xii, 12). The report describes the idea of individualized instruction in this way:


For example, a student who learns Russian to read the works of Dostoevsky in their original form and another who orders a surgical kit on eBay to practice sutures on oranges are learning things we would never ask all students to do. But these things are important because they are driven by learners’ own passions. (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. 12)


Another idea new to me involves the term Universal Design for Learning, or UDL - instruction is designed to be adaptive to the unique needs of learners. It is varied and flexible in presentation, scenario, or student response. (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. 19) UDL can also be used to create authentic, formative assessment, a priority in the national plan. (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, pp. 28-33) This type of assessment is in direct contrast to summative based assessment, for which TAKS is an example. A significant barrier to this type of learning and assessment is inequitable access to online: the FCC term for this inequity is "digital exclusion" (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. 19). The FCC and the Department of Commerce are working in conjunction to develop programs which supply online-access infrastructure to all American families and communities. (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. 53)


I was inspired by the wonderful technologies and programs cited in the report. A class in Singapore utilizes a program called Group Scribbles (networked interactive white boards), and students in Worchester, Massachusetts are using a program called ASSISTment ( a combination of tutorial and assessment that learns about students strengths and needs, monitors progress, and creates data for teacher regarding their thought processes) (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, pp. 28-30). One amazing story involved the use of cell phones in a Virginia middle school. Originally allowed as a stopgap measure to combat a shortage of calculators on an exam, the visionary principal at this school created an environment where student could use a variety of functions on their phones. Students kept up with homework and assignments using the calendar function, took pictures of notes with the camera function, and generated work product through podcasting and video. Understanding the risks, the school had clear expectations and boundaries for students, and specific dialogue about those boundaries. (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. 54) This is a wonderful example of how students can use personal technology in real-time, real-life learning experiences.


As a teacher, I yearn for professional development that has authentic value to my teaching; that integrates my technology resources and my content areas; and that, most importantly, creates an ongoing collaboration with other teachers. I am pleased to see my values shared in the national plan. The plan calls specifically for creating career-long collaborative learning communities that focus on innovation, best practices, and true integration of real-life technology with real-life learning. (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, pp. 49-50) The report zeros in on the heart of the challenge for teachers:


Unfortunately, our education system often fails to give educators the tools to do their job well. We hold educators responsible for student achievement, but we do not support them with the latest technology the way we do professionals in other fields. The technology of everyday life has moved well beyond what educators regularly use to support student learning. (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. 39)


The report calls for partnership and collaboration between government and foremost innovators in the various fields of technology to solve” high-risk/high-gain R&D projects" (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. 76). To me, the most notable of these is the challenge to integrate the goals of individualized instruction, UDL, and real-time data tracking of concept attainment. It seems such a system would reduce the effects of high student mobility in a classroom, allow for more effective monitoring and interventions for at-risk students, and help to create an environment of personal, engaged learning for students who are desperate to find meaning in their education.


Secretary of Education Arne Duncan describes our current educational system “economically unsustainable and morally unacceptable.” (Office of Educational Technology, 2010, p. 2) The plan blazes a path for a brand new era in American education, if only we find the courage to follow it.


Works Cited

Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Texas Education Agency. (2006). Long Range Plan for Technology. Austin: Texas Education Agency.
Texas Education Agency. (2008). Progress Report on the Long Range Plan for Technology. Austin: Texas Education Agency.

The LRPT - A Two Year Report Card

I spent last evening reviewing the Progress Report to the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology (Texas Education Agency, 2008). At 180 pages, it is a lengthy report, touching on all of the domains of the original report, giving updates on progress and challenges, and spotlighting some particular successes. Some of the news was not good: The domain of Teaching and Learning in particular, which specifically deals with the implementation of the technology TEKS in the classroom and the mastery of those TEKS by students, did not fare well. The Teaching and Learning focus area online learning, or TL6, shows 25% of schools as ‘early tech’. (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 41) The progress in TEKS implementation (TL4) was also low: there was little change in the overall distribution of districts across the classifications for this area from 2006-08. (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 45) Approximately 80% of districts still received a classification of ‘Early Tech’ or ‘Developing Tech’ as a result of their STaR Chart data during this time.


However, the report highlights a number of pilot programs that are showing strong results. One of these programs is the Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP). This program works to change the cycle of piecemeal technology implementation that leaves schools constantly behind the curve in technology and teaching innovation. It works specifically to address the LRPT focus area TL4 (technology TEKS implementation), State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) Standards, and both student and teacher requirements in Title II, Part D of No Child Left Behind (Texas Education Agency, 2008, pp. 9-10). Six critical components of immersion: a wireless mobile computing device, productivity, communication and presentation software, online instructional resources, online diagnostic assessment tools, professional development, and technical support (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 21). The report states, “Equally as important, students are given the same tools as teachers. TIP creates an environment where technology becomes a partner to teaching and learning.” (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 10) I found both the goals and the data on this pilot extremely encouraging. Participating schools were given a ranking based on their levels of implementation, and data was disaggregated according to those levels. The evaluation found that immersion schools had more collaboration and collegiality between faculty members, more parent involvement, and fewer discipline issues. (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 12) In terms of state assessments, the report finds that:


- Technology immersion had a statistically significant effect on TAKS mathematics achievement, particularly for economically advantaged and higher achieving students.
- Students who had greater access to laptops and used laptops for learning to a greater extent, especially outside of school, had significantly higher TAKS reading and mathematics scores. (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 13)


This data acts as a strong endorsement for the tenets of TIP. However, most significant to me was the data surrounding level of implementation. The report shows that the benefits cited above increased 1) as time spent in the program increased, and 2) as level of implementation increased. (Texas Education Agency, 2008, pp. 15-20) I see this as a case study in how full and ongoing commitment to goals acts as a catalyst for success.


Another fascinating pilot begun since the adoption of the new LRPT is the Texas Virtual School Network (TxVSN). (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 27) TxVSN provides online coursework for students and professional development/online collaboration opportunities for teachers, which stands in response to the weaknesses revealed in the area of online learning by the STaR Chart data. (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 41) Online learning opens up more variety in depth and scope of coursework for students who, because of their geographic location, would not otherwise have access. It also works to ensure that curriculum is being equitably offered in the highest quality format by very highly qualified teachers to all students. (Texas Education Agency, 2008, pp. 30-33) A wide variety of courses is currently available, including art; AP math, English, and science courses; government and economics; and both AP French and AP Spanish (Texas Virtual School Network, 2009). Both high school and professional development courses for TxVSN are vetted though a multi-layer qualification process, including adherence to TEKS and standards set by the Southern Regional Education Board, instruction by trained, content-qualified teachers, and compliance with National Standards of Quality for Online Courses (enacted by iNACOL, the International Association for K-12 Online Learning) (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 29) While some challenges remain, including significant cost and equitable access to online (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 35), the program has opened up new and exciting educational opportunities for students and teachers across the state.


The final program that piqued my interest is the eCP: Electronic Course Pilot. Two school districts, Southwest ISD and to a lesser extent Houston ISD, participated in this program that offers “virtual school” off-site to students in grades 3-8. (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 89) The withdrawal rate for Virtual Learning program in Southwest ISD hovered at approximately 30%; the report states that “these numbers underscore the point made frequently in this report that online learning is not a good fit for every student. There is no one educational strategy that is right for every student; online education is no exception.” (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 91) An independent entity evaluated students entering the Southwest ISD program and found that approximately ¾ of the students had a serious deficit in at least one core subject area. Of the students who remained enrolled, almost 90% were promoted to the next grade level (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 92). These numbers offer compelling evidence that students can be effective in a non-traditional school setting, with technology as the centerpiece for learning.


Although there is much to admire, there is still much to be done. NCLB standards and the TEKS call for students to demonstrate technology literacy by eighth grade; however, there is no standardized assessment for technology literacy in Texas at this time. (Texas Education Agency, 2008, p. 51) In 2007 the state legislature authorized a pilot program for assessing technology literacy in eighth grade; the TechLiteracy assessment by Learning.com was selected as the instrument for this pilot program. In 2008 the state average scale score was 216.4; the minimum scale score to meet standards is 220. Although state data for the current school year is not yet available, HEB ISD participated in this pilot, and in 2009-2010, 73% of students in HEB ISD showed mastery on the assessment with an average scale score of 232 (Learning.com, 2010). While these scores exceed the state averages, I believe the technology facilitators in my district would find these results frustrating. The wide scope of ongoing professional development offered in my district does not seem to be translating to success in technology instruction and learning.


I take away from this report an acknowledgement that my classroom and my district, and my state are on the path towards the goals of the LRPT, but we have in no way arrived at our destination. The lessons learned are many, but in short, it will require leadership, vision, and ongoing commitment to create the target 21st century classroom for our students.


Works Cited
Learning.com. (2010). District Report - TechLiteracy Assessment. Portland: Learning.com.
Texas Education Agency. (2008). Progress Report on the Long Range Plan for Technology. Austin: Texas Education Agency.
Texas Virtual School Network. (2009). High School Course Catalog. Retrieved June 5, 2010, from TxVSN: Texas Virtual School Network: https://www.mytxvsn.org/CourseCatalogHighSchool.aspx

Teaching and Learning: Are we following the plan?

In May 2010, the Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD administered a Tech Literacy Assessment (Learning.com, 2010) to eighth grade students across the district. The intent was to assess their mastery of skills spelled out in the technology TEKS. Across the district, 73% of students met the Middle School Proficiency Standard; this passing rate is roughly in line with the state average on that same assessment. If this assessment had been TAKS or EOC, this performance would have received an ‘Acceptable’ AEIS Accountability rating. My district sets very specific goals for student achievement, and an ‘Acceptable’ rating would not be in line with those goals. The Texas Education Agency’s Long Range Plan for Technology 2006-2020, or LRPT, outlines the specific goals for different areas (‘domains’) of technological integration into public education. The LRPT introduces the Teaching and Learning domain by saying, “The key to success for all students is the assurance that they are all fully engaged in their learning processes and that there are opportunities in their schools, libraries, homes, and communities that stimulate and initiate this engagement.” (p.17) LRPT Teaching and Learning (T/L) goals state that all students will:

• have access to relevant technologies, tools, resources and services for individualized instruction 24 hours a day/7 days a week.
• use information and communication technologies to collaborate, construct knowledge and provide solutions to real-world problems and situations that are encountered.
• use research-based strategies in all subject areas to improve academic achievement.
• communicate effectively in a variety of formats for diverse audiences. (p.18)

This domain deals directly with student achievement on the technology TEKS, how the technology TEKS are imbedded in content areas, and what teachers, campuses, and districts are doing to improve student performance on the technology TEKS. In reviewing the STaR Chart data (the monitoring instrument for the LRPT) for both my campus and the state, I found that the domain of Teaching and Learning fell far short of target levels. In fact, in 2006 over 70% of reporting schools received a classification of either “early tech” or “developing tech” in the teaching and learning domain. This percentage almost directly reflects the level of tech literacy mastery among eighth graders. The connection that I make from this data: the less often students are afforded robust, dynamic opportunities for student-centered learning with technology in the content areas, the fewer students are exiting eighth grade with appropriate computer literacy.


Failure to take the needed steps forward begins at the top: Texas schools lost millions of dollars in technology funding in 2003 when the state legislature ended the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund and again in 2006 when the Technology Allotment was reduced from $30 to $27.14 per student ADA. (LRPT, 2006, pp. 63-65) Because having anywhere, anytime technology tools and resources available requires significant infrastructure, the loss of these funds severely impedes progress toward that goal. Without that reliable connectivity and access, the goal of complete student access and technology imbedded in all area of instruction simply cannot be realized.


And yet, at its core, the Teaching and Learning domain reflects the ‘boots on the ground’ in the battle to bring education and technology together. We need the supplies, resources and infrastructure; we need the professional training to develop skills and curriculum; we need leadership and tech support that enables new ideas. But in the end, this domain is the one where I can walk in tomorrow and make a difference. I can decide, right now, that in my classroom, the days of pencil and paper standing alone are numbered. 

 Resources: Learning.com (2010). District report – tech literacy assessment. Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD.

Texas Education Agency (2006). Long range plan for technology. Austin, Texas.
Texas Education Agency (2006). STaR chart letter. Austin: Instructional Materials and Education Technology Division.

E-Presentations 101

It's 1:15 AM, and I just posted a PowerPoint presentation to my blog.  How simple that sounds.  Just a few slides -- how difficult could that possibly be?


Incredibly, agonizingly so.  Three websites, five email/password combinations, and three hours:  that's how difficult it was.  Even now, two of my slides are inexplicably not where they were in the original presentation.  I know they haven't moved in the original - I checked.  Over and over again.  And yet, even after the hair pulling, the simultaneous opening of six browser windows and four different applications, the cursing at inanimate objects, and the headache from squinting at a screen expecting the correct icon to appear by magic, I feel the rush of victory.  I learned how to do something completely new this night.  I followed the paths, I turned around at the dead ends, I never gave up.  To the outsider, it may seem silly, even trite, to feel so victorious over 14 slides on a blog post.  Not for me.  I sit here in the quiet of early morning, and I know - I know how a student feels when the finally reach inside themselves and find it.  When they find the knowledge, the confidence, the connections they didn't even know were there.  I want that for them.  I want every one of my students to feel the power of owning their learning the way I own mine tonight, and I mourn for those who may have come in and out of my doors and never felt it.    In "Adopt and Adapt: Shaping Tech for the Classroom" (2008, Edutopia: The George Lucas Educational Foundation), Marc Prensky sums it up:


     So, let's not just adopt technology into our schools. Let's adapt it, push it, pull it, iterate with it, experiment with it, test it, and redo it, until we reach the point where we and our kids truly feel we've done our very best. Then, let's push it and pull it some more. And let's do it quickly, so the twenty-second century doesn't catch us by surprise with too much of our work undone.

     A big effort? Absolutely. But our kids deserve no less.


I concur.  Tonight, I go to sleep one step farther along the path to true technological literacy.  Another step tomorrow . . .

Week one web conference - a look back

From last week's web conference notes (May 27, 2010):


An interesting first try! Some technical difficulties to overcome; lots of working the bugs out of hardware and, “can you hear me now?” I suppose that is the purpose of a dress rehearsal. Although we didn’t spend much time on course content, the exposure to the technology alone made it worthwhile. I’m looking forward to next week’s attempt.  I wonder about the frustration level of the participants -- if we had this level of difficulty in the classroom, would the students have been able to wait patiently, or would we have had a hotbed of off-task behaviors?  Would one of them have been able to jump in and solve everyone's difficulties?  I suppose the only way to find that out is to give it a try - just like today.

Week 2 Web Conference Today

Well, the Week 2 web conference is in the books. We had a little bit of experience with “technology gremlins” as we continued to develop our skills, but all in all I think we saw a marked improvement over last week. I definitely felt somewhat intimidated listening to all of the requirements for the internship; I’ll need to remember that 18 months have a lot of days and take it one day at a time. I heard quite a bit about the “performance indicators” this evening, so I think that will be my reading for this evening!  The point Professor Borel couldn't stress enough - find a mentor right away.  I wonder if it is more beneficial to have a mentor who is more familiar with my campus or one who is more familiar with the technology.  I suppose that's a decision that will happen very soon.  My lesson learned for the day - stay ahead by a week.  The more you know going in, the more you get out.  As Professor Borel told us today, "Managing your time well will make you successful!"  So, back to the books. 

Welcome!

This is my first real entry into the world of blogging. It's a bit like the first day of middle school: "What should I say?" "What should I wear?" "Will they like me?" "What am I even doing here?" I hope that this blog will serve as a learning tool and a reality check for me (and maybe others) as I move through the graduate school process. I'm nervous . . . I'm excited . . . I'm ready. Here we go!