Web 2.0


In one of the more interesting current events this week, the US Congress announced 50 million dollar plans to back a National Center for Research in Advanced Information and Digital Technologies designed to reinvent American education for the 21st Century. 

Feeling the pressure to compete with developing economies in China and India, American senators--- including former Presidential candidate Christopher Dodd---recognize the importance of changing the nature of teaching and learning in our nation's classrooms.  As Dodd sees it, "America's reputation as an international leader rests in the hands of our youth.  It should be among our top priorities to provide
our students with the tools they need to maintain and build upon this
standing."

The thinking that resonated with me the most in this article came from the Federation of American Scientists, who argue that:

"The creativity that developed extraordinary new information
technologies has not focused on finding ways to make learning more
compelling, more personal and more productive in our nation's schools.  People assumed that the explosion of innovation in information
tools in business and service industries would automatically move into
classrooms."

I've worked in schools for 16 years now and I can honestly say that despite millions of dollars invested in digital infrastructure, tools, software and support, instruction remains largely unchanged.  Unlike many educators, though, I actually believe the reason for this frustrating stagnation is pretty simple:  Instruction in our classrooms isn't changing because few people seem to understand exactly what '21st Century learning' means. 

For most, 21st Century learning means nothing more than digital toys for teachers.  Entire schools invest in laptops for teachers, banks of computers for every classroom, and ceiling mounted LCD projectors.  Superintendents and principals argue passionately for one-to-one computing programs, believing that putting computers on every desktop will revolutionize learning.

Whiteboards and student responders are probably the best examples of wasted cash in most buildings.  Convinced that these devices are indicators of progressive teaching, a "keeping up with the Jones's" mentality has broken out across districts.  If a neighboring system installs whiteboards in every classroom and purchases sets of responders for students to use, passionate pleas are made before school boards for additional funding in order to "remain competitive."

Yet installing whiteboards and student responders rarely changes teaching and learning in classrooms.

Instead of getting a revolution in instruction, schools that blindly invest in these kinds of tools end up with nothing more than really expensive teacher-driven, broadcast model instruction---and lazy instructors who aren't forced to change their pedagogy----outside of learning which color digital pen they want to use when lecturing. 

I know that I'm painting a pretty dismal picture here---but it is a dismal picture supported by facts.  Check out some of the findings from Access, Adequacy and Equity in Educational Technology, a 2008 report from the National Education Association:

"Only one-third (32.0%) of the surveyed instructional staff required students to use technology to research or solve problems in class at least a few times a week, and substantially fewer (18.0%) required students to use computers to complete projects together at least a few times a week."

"Three-fourths (76.0%) of educators reported that they used technology at school daily to perform administrative tasks."

"Fewer than half used technology daily to monitor student progress, for research and information, to instruct students, and to plan and prepare instruction (40.7%, 36.8%, 32.0%, and 29.2%, respectively)."

"About two-thirds of the educators surveyed reported that they had been adequately trained by their schools to use the Internet for research and information; to use technology equipment; to use administrative-type software (e.g., word processing, PowerPoint, graphics, and spreadsheets); and to use instructional software packages (71.1%, 68.3%, 68.3%, and 61.3%, respectively."

Not too inspiring, huh?  From the looks of it, the majority of teachers surveyed by the NEA are using digital tools in pretty traditional ways.  It's difficult to be inspired when "adequate training" involves introduction to office automation software packages like PowerPoint and word processing tools. 

What's even more frightening, however, is that the teachers surveyed are generally satisfied with the kinds of digital training and tools available to them.  Consider these NEA statistics: 

More than three-quarters (79.3%) of the educators believed that the software for students’
use was adequate, and the vast majority (87.5%) also believed that the software for teachers and other staff was adequate

More than half (60.0%) of the educators reported their districts required them to participate in technology training, and more than three-fourths (76.4%) agreed that they were satisfied with their knowledge of how to use technology in their work.

How can we possibly see change when the practitioners closest to the problem seem blind to the need for reform and unready to embrace student-centered learning experiences facilitated by new digital tools?

What many teachers fail to recognize is that 21st Century learning is about far more than cash and computers. 

It's
about learning, unlearning and relearning.  It's about finding
connections between diverse subjects.  It's about communicating and
collaborating---and managing the massive amounts of information
generated in a world where publishing is possible for everyone.  It's
about setting one's own pace and pursuing one's own passions.

My hope is that the new National Center for Research in Advanced Information and Digital Technologies can begin to paint a clear picture of the kinds of skills that are
necessary for success
in this new and borderless world for policy makers, principals and parents.  I hope their work will take attention off of new digital tools and focus efforts on identifying pedagogical approaches that bring individualization, creativity and excitement back to our classrooms. 

Otherwise, we'll be stuck with another 50 million dollar failure!

(Image credit:  Lowe-Brenn Computer Lab by Laffy4K, licensed Creative Commons: Attribution)

I'm working on adding workshop content to several wikis...

This is what I have done so far:

mikefisher.wikispaces.com

fisher1000.wikispaces.com

There's quite a bit of content related to staff development I offer, including:

Web 2.0, Classroom Performance System, Brain Based Learning, Brainigami, Digital Storytelling, and other resources.

-Mike


One of the most common questions that teachers ask me about using Web 2.0 tools in teaching is, "How do you assess the work that your students produce in the different digital projects that they are involved in?" 

My first response is always, "Why do we have to assess everything?!  Can't there ever just be opportunities to create, collaborate and communicate for creation, collaboration or communication's sake?"

Then, I return to the real world---where assessment is the first step towards credibility---and work up grading opportunities that are student-centered, meaningful, and tailored for the unique skills emphasized by each tool that I use in my classroom. 

My first stab at assessing digital work started with wikis, where I use this set of criteria to rate the work my students produce.  When assessing blog work, I've chosen to use the ideas of Konrad Glogowski---who writes over at the Blog for Proximal Development and has developed this method for engaging students in reflective thought about their blogging efforts.   

Recently, I've tinkered with a system to assess my students' participation in Voicethread conversations.  Essentially mirroring the reflective aspects of Konrad's blogging handouts, I've decided to ask my students the following four questions while we're working with a new Voicethread:

  • Highlight a comment from our Voicethread conversation that closely matches your own thinking.   Why does this comment resonate---or make sense to---you?
  • Highlight a comment from our Voicethread conversation that you respectfully disagree with.  If you were to engage in a conversation with the commenter, what evidence/argument would you use to persuade them to change their point of view?
  • Highlight a comment from our Voicethread conversation that challenged your thinking in a good way and/or made you rethink one of your original ideas.  What about the new comment was challenging?  What are you going to do now that your original belief was challenged?  Will you change yoru mind?  Will you do more researching/thinking/talking with others?
  • <!--
    /* Font Definitions */
    @font-face
    {font-family:"Cambria Math";
    panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
    mso-font-charset:0;
    mso-generic-font-family:roman;
    mso-font-pitch:variable;
    mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;}
    @font-face
    {font-family:Calibri;
    panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
    mso-font-charset:0;
    mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
    mso-font-pitch:variable;
    mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;}
    /* Style Definitions */
    p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
    {mso-style-unhide:no;
    mso-style-qformat:yes;
    mso-style-parent:"";
    margin:0in;
    margin-bottom:.0001pt;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    font-size:11.0pt;
    font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
    mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
    .MsoChpDefault
    {mso-style-type:export-only;
    mso-default-props:yes;
    font-size:10.0pt;
    mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
    mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
    mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;}
    @page Section1
    {size:8.5in 11.0in;
    margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
    mso-header-margin:.5in;
    mso-footer-margin:.5in;
    mso-paper-source:0;}
    div.Section1
    {page:Section1;}
    -->

  • <!--
    /* Font Definitions */
    @font-face
    {font-family:"Cambria Math";
    panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
    mso-font-charset:0;
    mso-generic-font-family:roman;
    mso-font-pitch:variable;
    mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;}
    @font-face
    {font-family:Calibri;
    panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
    mso-font-charset:0;
    mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
    mso-font-pitch:variable;
    mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;}
    /* Style Definitions */
    p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
    {mso-style-unhide:no;
    mso-style-qformat:yes;
    mso-style-parent:"";
    margin:0in;
    margin-bottom:.0001pt;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    font-size:11.0pt;
    font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
    mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
    .MsoChpDefault
    {mso-style-type:export-only;
    mso-default-props:yes;
    font-size:10.0pt;
    mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
    mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
    mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;}
    @page Section1
    {size:8.5in 11.0in;
    margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
    mso-header-margin:.5in;
    mso-footer-margin:.5in;
    mso-paper-source:0;}
    div.Section1
    {page:Section1;}
    -->

  • <!--
    /* Font Definitions */
    @font-face
    {font-family:"Cambria Math";
    panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
    mso-font-charset:0;
    mso-generic-font-family:roman;
    mso-font-pitch:variable;
    mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;}
    @font-face
    {font-family:Calibri;
    panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
    mso-font-charset:0;
    mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
    mso-font-pitch:variable;
    mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;}
    /* Style Definitions */
    p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
    {mso-style-unhide:no;
    mso-style-qformat:yes;
    mso-style-parent:"";
    margin:0in;
    margin-bottom:.0001pt;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    font-size:11.0pt;
    font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
    mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
    .MsoChpDefault
    {mso-style-type:export-only;
    mso-default-props:yes;
    font-size:10.0pt;
    mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
    mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
    mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;}
    @page Section1
    {size:8.5in 11.0in;
    margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
    mso-header-margin:.5in;
    mso-footer-margin:.5in;
    mso-paper-source:0;}
    div.Section1
    {page:Section1;}
    -->
  • <!--
    /* Font Definitions */
    @font-face
    {font-family:"Cambria Math";
    panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
    mso-font-charset:0;
    mso-generic-font-family:roman;
    mso-font-pitch:variable;
    mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;}
    @font-face
    {font-family:Calibri;
    panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
    mso-font-charset:0;
    mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
    mso-font-pitch:variable;
    mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;}
    /* Style Definitions */
    p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
    {mso-style-unhide:no;
    mso-style-qformat:yes;
    mso-style-parent:"";
    margin:0in;
    margin-bottom:.0001pt;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    font-size:11.0pt;
    font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
    mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
    .MsoChpDefault
    {mso-style-type:export-only;
    mso-default-props:yes;
    font-size:10.0pt;
    mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
    mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
    mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;}
    @page Section1
    {size:8.5in 11.0in;
    margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
    mso-header-margin:.5in;
    mso-footer-margin:.5in;
    mso-paper-source:0;}
    div.Section1
    {page:Section1;}
    -->

  • Highlight the strand of
    conversation from our Voicethread conversation that was the most interesting or
    motivating to you. Which ideas would you
    like to have more time to talk about? Why? What new topics does this
    conversation make you want to study next?

Download VT_Scoring.doc

The cool part about assessing Voicethread presentations this way is that each question essenitally forces my students to interact with our conversation in a really meaningful way.  To craft careful answers, they must truly consider the comments of others---an essential skill for promoting collaborative versus competitive dialogue---and compare those comments against their own beliefs and preconceived notions. 

That's metacognition at its best!

What's even better is that when students know that these questions form the basis of our Voicethread assessment from the beginning of a conversation, participation level rise remarkably.  While students are looking for project reflection comments, they often end up highly motivated to share their thinking with peers. 

Whaddya' think?

(Image credit:  Speak Out by Chris Schuepp, licensed Creative Commons:  Attribution)


A really interesting conversation has broken out in the comment section of a Darren Draper blog post that spotlights a recent interaction between Arthus---a 14-year old digital superstar that has helped to shape thinking around Web 2.0---and several members of his learning network.

In the interaction, Arthus comes across as a bit unwilling to learn from others.  Drape's central concern is whether or not the attention that edubloggers have paid to Arthus has inflated his digital ego:

And let's talk about celebrity now. Arthus has become a poster-child for the 21st Century student. I've propped him up, I've defended him, I've even admitted that he's likely smarter that I am.  Is it too difficult to see that fame may have something to do with this?

Ryan Bretag wonders whether or not we've thought about the consequences of digital mistakes when pushing our students to become participants in online communities:

Let me throw this into the conversation as this highlights something to
ponder: the fact that participatory media does not allow K-12 students
to make mistakes within a smaller culture.

If someone had a
conversation with me like this when I was his age, you'd have a lot of
posts to write about. The thing is that my mistakes, heated situations,
odd conversations, etc. weren't there for the world to see. This
mistake (not really the best description of the situation but stick
with me) is now there for the world to see and is part of his virtual
footprint.

Arthus himself has learned a valuable lesson about the role that Twitter should play in a learning network:

There is a reason Twitter asks “What are you doing?” instead of “What
are you thinking?” and I learned it today. Twitter is good for many
things and I find it to be an invaluable part of my day, but its
greatest flaw is also its greatest strength: Twitter is simple. By
being so incredibly simple, great innovations and conversations can be
built on top of it. Unfortunately, its simplicity can also mask the
nuances of language and humanity. I discovered this the hard way:
through trial and error.

For me, this experience has highlighted an important realization that has sat beneath the surface of my digital work for a long while now---That teaching the skills of collaborative dialogue is essential in today's hyper-competitive world.  Here's what I wrote:

First, many thanks to @arthus for being willing to allow this conversation to go on!

Arthus,
whether or not you are the "poster boy" for 21st Century learning,
you're clearly doing all of education a huge service by allowing a
group of passionate teachers and thinkers to use your
development---both as a kid and as a kid in a digital, open,
participatory world---as a bit for reflection about what is happening
in our classrooms and in our schools.

That's huge.  Period.  We owe you one. 

As
far as the strand of conversation from Twitter goes, I think the only
lesson I'm going to take away is that all humans----but particularly
the students that we engage in ongoing digital conversations---need to
be taught the difference between competitive and collaborative
dialogue.

When I think about any conversation that I have in
the blogosphere/Twitterverse, I think of it as collaborative. I assume
that everyone I'm interacting with has good intentions and that we're
all learning together. Operating from that assumption changes the way
that I respond to anyone----whether it be in a Tweet or in a blog
comment.

And collaborative dialogue has an entirely different
language than competitive dialogue does. There are more questions asked
in collaborative dialogue. Challenges happen---but from the lens of
"How can we learn more about this together so we can come up with a new
understanding for both of us?" rather than "How can I show everyone
that my ideas are right? What evidence can I use to support my thinking
or to debunk my opponent?"

Our world tends to model competitive
dialogue all the time. We're surrounded by companies fighting for
market share, by politicians fighting for votes, by sports stars and
musicians fighting for attention. We see opponents
everywhere----instead of seeing allies.

That emphasis on
competitive dialogue isn't a result of participatory media----check out
the ads in the newspaper or the signs hanging in the local pizza shop
window. Competitive dialogue has been around for a whole lot longer
than blogs and Twitter.

The change that I think we need to see
in our classrooms and communities is a new emphasis on helping our
students----and our neighbors, colleagues and friends---to recognize
the appropriate times for competitive and collaborative dialogue----and
then to teach the skills for engaging in both to everyone.

Does this make any sense?
Bill Ferriter

So what do you make of this digital dust-up?  Are there any ideas here that resonate with you?  Should we walk away from this experience scratching our heads?  Discouraged by technology?  More determined than ever to teach children the skills necessary to "participate" in participatory media?

Interesting questions, huh?

And questions we need to consider as we move forward with digital efforts, that's for sure!

(Image credit:  Export_1 by Arundo, licensed Creative Commons:  Attribution)

Scott McLeod---the mind behind Dangerously Irrelevant---has started an interesting July 4th tradition designed to support the digital development of school administrators called Leadership Day.  To participate, Scott asks interested edubloggers to:

Blog about whatever you like
related to effective school technology leadership: successes,
challenges, reflections, needs. Write a letter to the administrators in
your area. Post a top ten list. Make a podcast or a video. Highlight a
local success or challenge. Recommend some readings. Do an interview of
a successful technology leader. Respond to some of the questions below
or make up your own.

Having had my own learning permanently changed by digital tools over the past few years, I can't imagine a more important project to get involved in.  I passionately believe that digital tools make learning easy for everyone---and that by failing to integrate them into our practice, we are leaving our children unprepared to grow as self-directed thinkers and at a competitive disadvantage in a knowledge-based society.   

Heavy stuff, huh?

What's most frightening, though, is that I just plain doubt the digital capacity of most educators.  Many have yet to master efficient learning in the 21st Century---and some struggle to even seem interested in change! 

Now, it's difficult to argue that the mental stagnation surrounding schools is completely our fault.  Anyone who has worked in education for any length of time knows that
adult learning has generally been pushed aside
as we sprint through
days in a state of panic about leaving no child behind. 

The few moments that we can steal for professional development
(typically beginning and ending in July OR starting at 3:45 after we've
wrestled with kids for eight hours
) are spent in sessions with
"experts" pitching the latest silver bullet.  We rarely get to self-select learning opportunities, pursue professional passions, or engage in meaningful, ongoing conversations about instruction. 

We end up jaded, literally groaning
when given "opportunities to learn."
 

How's that for ironic!

Heck, even Richard Elmore---Professor of Educational Leadership at Harvard and all-around educational policy rock star---has gone as far as to argue that school structures make learning for adults unlikely at best and nothing short of impossible at worse:

It would be difficult to invent a more dysfunctional organization
for a performance-based accountability system. In fact, the existing
structure and culture of schools seems better designed to resist
learning and improvement than to enable it.

As expectations for
increased student performance mount and the measurement and publication
of evidence about performance becomes part of the public discourse
about schools, there are few portals through which new knowledge about
teaching and learning can enter schools;

few structures or processes in
which teachers and administrators can assimilate, adapt and polish new
ideas and practices; and few sources of assistance for those who are
struggling to understand the connection between the academic
performance of their students and the practices in which they engage.

So
the brutal irony of our present circumstance is that schools are
hostile and inhospitable places for learning. They are hostile to the
learning of adults and, because of this, they are necessarily hostile
to the learning of students.

Amazing, huh? 

To argue that schools are hostile to learning is a bold statement---but if you're a school leader, chances are good that you were nodding your head in agreement as you read through Elmore's thoughts. 

Times have changed in two significant ways, however, since Elmore began describing the hostile learning environments that have held schools back.  First, a new emphasis has been placed on the importance of collaborative learning between members of close-knit teams in schools

Second, digital tools now provide new "portals through which new knowledge about
teaching and learning can enter schools."

Specifically, thousands of accomplished educators are now writing blogs about teaching and learning, bringing transparency to both the art and the science of their practice.  Coming from every content area, grade level, school size and geographical region, they are actively reflecting on instruction, challenging assumptions, questioning policies, offering advice, designing solutions, and learning together. 

And all of this collective knowledge and professional challenge is readily available to your faculty for free!

Not a bad deal, huh? 

With the investment of a bit of time and effort, you can expose your teachers to more interesting ideas in one day than you've been able to expose them to in the past ten years of high-dollar professional development!  Better yet, this learning has the potential to be authentic---driven by personal interests and connected to classroom realities. 

All that you need to do is introduce RSS feed readers to your faculty!

Feed readers are probably the most important digital tool for today's learner because they make sifting through the amazing amount of content added to the Internet easy.  Also known as aggregators, feed readers are free tools that can automatically check nearly any website for new content dozens of times a day---saving ridiculous amounts of time and customizing learning experiences for anyone. 

Imagine never having to go hunting for new information from your favorite sources again.  Learning goes from a frustrating search through thousands of marginal links written by questionable characters to quickly browsing the thoughts of writers that you trust and respect.

Sounds too good to be true, doesn't it?

It's not!  Here's a Commoncraft tutorial explaining RSS Feeds in Plain English:

Have I hooked you yet?  If so, then it's time to take action!  To get your faculty learning again, take the following 10 steps:

  1. Start by using a feed reader as a learning tool for a few weeks yourself.  If you're really brave, find a collection of blogs that target school administrators and organize them on your own with an aggregator of your choice.  If you're not quite sure where to begin, try this collection of educational leadership blogs that my buddy Adam Garry and I organized with our favorite feed reader
  2. Dedicate a few minutes each day to browsing the content in your aggregator.  Notice how new posts are added automatically.  Make a commitment to reading two or three entries a week.  Find topics that you're motivated by and let your thinking be challenged.  Leave comments for the authors and see whether or not they respond.  Engage other readers in conversations or friendly debate. 
  3. Remember that all of this learning is completely free! 
  4. Smile profusely. 
  5. Tell others how much you enjoy having your thinking challenged by the blogs you are reading.  Share a few posts that you find with peers.  Ramble on about the beauty of RSS.  Use your enthusiasm to generate a buzz about the potential for professional learning to be fun again.
  6. If you're really brave, use a feed reader to create a collection of blogs for your teachers to explore.  Remember to find writers from different content areas and grade levels.  Focus on writers that offer specific, practical advice or model the kind of reflective thinking that you'd like to see more frequently in your building. 
  7. If you're not sure where to begin, use my personal feed reader.  I read the blogs in this collection all the time.  Some leave me challenged.  Some leave me angry.  Some leave me jazzed.  All leave me energized and ready to learn more.   
  8. Ask your teachers to share the most interesting articles that they find with you.  Read what they're sending and then extend conversations every chance that you get!  Make it a point to talk with a teacher about a shared blog post at least twice a week. 
  9. Remember that all of this learning is completely free.
  10. Smile profusely! 

Over time, you'll start to see a real change in the quality of the conversations in your faculty workroom.  No longer will teachers be sharing war stories or groaning about students.  Instead, they'll be debating the merits of the new instructional practices or the challenging ideas that they've stumbled across online. 

Better yet, you'll start to see RSS feeds finding their way into classroom instruction as well.  Teachers, driven to show others how to learn, will begin creating collections of student blogs for their kids to explore or designing automatically updating pages of resources on topics connected to their curriculum

To put it simply, you will have used a free digital tool to make individualized learning a part of the very fabric of your organization!

Shouldn't that be the ultimate goal of every school leader?

(Image credit:  Computer by Guillermo Esteves, licensed Creative Commons:  Attribution)


I had an interesting opportunity recently to have a structured debate about the role that digital tools can play in teaching and learning with Nancy Flanagan---one of my favorite critical friends and the mind behind Teacher in a Strange Land

We tackled the topic as a part of a project for the Learning First Alliance.  Stop by and check out our thinking---and consider jumping in the conversation. 

My favorite quotes from both of our entries are listed below.  Can you tell which are from Nancy and which are from me?  After guessing, stop by the original post and see if you were right:


The foundational step in meeting our future challenges revolves around
this question: What does it mean to be an educated person-what should
we expect of our schools?  We need to re-examine our very American assumption that we can meet all educational goals faster and better through technology.

Classrooms are filled with interactive whiteboards and LCD
projectors that cost thousands of dollars. Laptops are purchased for
everyone. Educators are swamped by student responders, web cams,
document cameras, digital cameras and streaming video.
Yet teaching and learning doesn't ever change because we wrongly
believe that simply investing in technology will improve the chances of
our children!

My response? Facility in using digital tools does make some things
easier. If our goals include fostering democracy, equity and a just
society, or nurturing curiosity and imaginative problem-solving,
however, we must pay attention to who is readily able to acquire both
hardware and capacity, and to what real ends these skills are used.

Digital tools alone are about as effective at
making students more successful, creative or collaborative as they were
at bringing peace to the Middle East. What they can do, however, is
facilitate the kinds of learning experiences built on creation,
communication and collaboration that I'd learned to avoid earlier in my
teaching career.

Looking forward to seeing what thoughts you can add to our ongoing conversation!

(Image credit:  Mouse_5 by  Alvimann, licensed Creative Commons:  Attribution)

I've got a bit of a confession to make, y'all:  I still haven't gotten over the unexpected criticism that Brett and the boys of Kitchen Table Math laid on me last week over my confession that I struggle with evaluating the impact of my instruction. 

And while I'm certainly comfortable with my responses to the gang about accountability, I haven't had a chance yet to reply to their other assertion:  That the time I spend advocating for digital tools in the classroom is wasted. 

Brett writes:

His blog focuses
on incorporating new technology (wikis, Twitter, etc.) into
instruction, and he argues forcefully for the use of these tools. But
you have to ask the question - to what end? Why would you advocate so
strongly for the use of technology - or the use of any other
instructional tool - when you admit up front that you have no idea
whatsoever whether it helps students learn...

He's incorporating technology because he likes it;
there's no other explanation. If he cared whether students were
learning, he'd make an effort to learn how to assess that learning, and
tailor his instruction based on their progress.

Clearly that's not
going to happen - not, at least, until he retires.

Actually, Brett, I'm incorporating technology because it facilitates learning the required curriculum for my students, delivers instruction in a highly motivating format and prepares students for the workplaces of tomorrow

You see, technology has the potential to make all learning easier.  Students today have access to information in ways that you and I never had access to information.  They can almost immediately find content that would have taken us hours to hunt down---and that information is far more engaging than any of the traditional resources that schools provide for classrooms.

Which means that one of the greatest challenges facing kids today is learning to manage the amazing amount of information that is available to them. 

They need to learn to identify resources that are reliable and to streamline their searches for content that connects to personal and professional interests.  If I were to allow my students to leave my classroom without a developing foundation of strategies for working with online information, they would be hopelessly inefficient learners (and employees), wouldn't they?

I also incorporate technology into my classroom because I know my students---and they are completely driven by communication with peers.  This innate and unrelenting desire to interact was probably best defined by Danah Boyd--a PhD student at the University of California-Berkeley studying the networks developing between digital youth--in a 2008 blog post when she wrote:

They are desperately craving an opportunity to connect with their friends; not surprisingly, their use of anything that enables socialization while at school is deeply desired.  [The value of social networks] is about the kinds of informal social learning that is required for maturation -- understanding your community, learning to communicate with others, working through status games, building and maintaining friendships, working through personal values, etc...

We need to recognize that not all learning is about book learning -- brains mature through experience, including social experiences.

So I'm decidedly unapologetic about creating opportunities for my kids to communicate around ideas related to our curriculum.  I see each of these conversations as motivating places for my students to wrestle with content together.  They polish their core beliefs, have their thinking challenged by peers, and revise notions that they once held as true. 

Need proof? 

Then take some time to poke through the thinking in this Voicethread presentation where my students wrestled with political cartoons on the genocide occurring in Darfur. 

Interpreting political cartoons allowed me to address several of the required elements of my language arts curriculum (identifying bias, making inferences, challenging the thinking of peers) and of my social studies curriculum (identifying how governments treat their people, recognizing how culture joins and separates people, understanding how countries wrestle with issues of justice and injustice). 

Oh yeah---and while viewing, remember that the 85 UNGRADED comments you're looking at were ALL done out of class.  My students found this digital forum motivating enough to willingly engage in an ongoing conversation about classroom content without any formal assessment needed.  It was the social nature of the learning experience that mattered to them. 

When was the last time that you've gotten students to willingly engage in an ongoing conversation about classroom content without attaching a grade to the final product?

For me, it happens all the time. 

Here's a follow-up conversation with over 250 comments that we had with a group of eighth graders on the idea of hatred after studying the cultural elements of conflicts that have divided the US, the Balkan countries and Northern Europe---also a part of our required curriculum.

Brett and the gang specifically mentioned wikis in their criticism, so I wanted to explain why wikis matter:

Wikis are tools that are designed to promote digital collaboration between individuals in an organization.  Easily editable websites, wikis can be used to develop shared final products by groups of people regardless of location or time. 

In education, wikis are largely being used by students to create repositories of knowledge about topics connected to the curriculum.  Two of my favorite examples of classroom wikis include the Carbon Fighters (a collection of jointly created letters to the Governor of North Carolina advocating for alternative energies) and The Flat Classroom Project (a collaborative project between students in Dhaka, Bangladesh and Camilla, Georgia). 

Like the wikis that I use in my own classroom, both of these projects engaged students in the process of peer production.  Teams of students used digital tools to create content together while studying the required elements of their curriculum. 

And while the learning outcomes of both of these projects are significant in and of themselves, I'd argue that teaching students the skills necessary for peer production are far more important.  You see, major industries are embracing peer production and creating work environments that are driven by digital collaboration. 

Don't believe me? 

Then pick up Wikinomics someday

Written by Dan Tapscott and Anthony Williams, Wikinomics works to explain how digital tools are changing today's workplace.  In it, Tapscott and Williams highlight how industry giants like Proctor and Gamble are opening their companies and encouraging digital collaboration across borders, primarily because they recognize that the human capital beyond an organization will ALWAYS be greater than the human capital within an organization.

To Tapscott, Williams and other business leaders, this can only mean one thing:

"A power shift is underway and a tough new business rule is emerging:  Harness the new collaboration or perish.  Those who fail to grasp this will find themselves ever more isolated---cut off from the networks that are sharing, adapting, and updating knowledge to create value."

Heck, even IBM has recognized the importance of joining digital communities that are creating knowledge together.  They've released tons and tons of their proprietary information to the loose programming network building Linux---a free online operating system that probably best represents the new business marketplace. 

IBM has also assigned hundreds of their programmers to work on the Linux project full-time.  That means IBM engineers are being paid by IBM to collaborate with dozens of volunteer programmers across the globe to create a free operating system. 

Crazy, huh?

Why would a company join collaborative communities creating products that run in direct competition with their primary product line? 

Simple.  It saves them HUGE amounts of cash:

IBM spends about $100 million per year on general Linux development.  If the Linux community puts in $1 billion of effort, and even half of that is useful to IBM customers, the company gets $500 million of software development for an investment of $100 million.

(Kindle location 1493)

So I guess what I figure, Brett, is that if companies like IBM and Proctor + Gamble are embracing peer production and open collaboration across borders today---and making huge amounts of money doing so!--- more companies are likely to follow in the future. 

Does this make sense?

Which means the skills necessary to be efficient digital collaborators will be of great value in the corporations of tomorrow.  If one of my charges is to prepare students for the workplace of the 21st Century (and it is---check out the State Board of Education's recent mission and vision statements), then using collaborative tools like wikis is entirely appropriate, don't you think?

Whew!  Glad I got that off my chest. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that digital tools have a well thought out place in my classroom.  They're far more than just novelties that make me feel good.  Instead, they're essential for delivering content, for engaging students, and for preparing kids for tomorrow. 

If any of these goals are essential outcomes for education, then I guess I'm doing the right thing.

Push back, anyone?

(Image credit:  Scented Acre Chicken by Kristine Kisky, licensed Creative Commons:  Attribution)

 

 


Scott McLeod---the brains behind Dangerously Irrelevant---wrote an interesting post recently titled Ed Tech Quarantine.  In it, Scott argues that educational technology groupies often chase new teachers away from technology with our digital giddiness. 

He writes:

One of the most common
refrains heard from teachers or administrators who listen to us talk or blog
about all of these new cool tools is “Why do I care about this as an
educator?
” In our eagerness to share our nearly-palpable glee and
excitement, we often struggle to adequately answer the “So what?” question in
ways that are substantive and meaningful to the average teacher or
administrator.

Scott goes on to propose a plan that he believes might make introducing educational technology to teachers easier that includes extensive piloting and perfection of classroom applications of new tools before advocacy with others begins.  He writes:

I believe that an emphasis on pilot testing, experimentation, and
identification of both mainstream educator use(s) and optimal training
mechanisms before introduction to other educators
often would help us quite a bit. Instead of turning off the very educators that
we want using many of these tools, some time spent in the ed tech
quarantine
might go a long way toward facilitating our overall
goal of greater technology adoption in K-12 classrooms.

Scott's ideas definitely ring true to me, primarily because I live on the digital edge and I've seen time and again how my acceptance of new digital tools actually chases my peers away!  They truly believe that I'm an odd bird who knows things about technology that they couldn't possibly know---so the tools that I embrace must automatically be beyond their own comfort and ability level

In that sense, I'm not particularly influential when it comes to pushing new uses for instructional technologies because I just don't look like the average teacher! 

Now, I'm also savvy enough to recognize the impact that I'm having on my peers---and I realized long ago that to be influential, I was going to have to do a bit of work on the digital dark-side.  So when pushing instructional technologies, I seek out progressive teachers that are seen as the electronic equals of their peers and work to introduce them to new applications for tools that can help to facilitate collaborative work with colleagues. 

Yup.  You read that right.  In my early conversations with teachers, I actually try to AVOID classroom uses of new tools!  While my ultimate goal is to see instruction change in classrooms because of digital tools, I'm also a full-time classroom teacher.  I know full well that changing instruction is an incredibly time-consuming process---and time is the resource that teachers just plain don't have enough of in our schools.

Instead, my singular focus is to show teachers how
to use new digital tools to save time or add value to their
professional lives.  I start with things like shared bookmarking between members of a
learning team
to reduce cross-team email and to make resource sharing fluent and easy.  I also introduce tools like Google Docs to create
shared lesson plans and team documents
.

Here's the handout that I use when putting the sell-job on faculties.  It lists several possible "first-steps" that teachers can take to begin exploring digital tools:

Download Handout_Choices_Web.doc

Notice how the tasks listed across the top of the web (where teachers are likely to look first) are all oriented towards facilitating collaboration and professional learning?  These are tasks that teachers are already responsible for and consumed by. 

If I can show teachers how to use digital tools to make this work easier, I'm sure to find an ally or two, aren't I?

Sometimes I feel guilty about my approach because it doesn't
immediately result in more student-centered instructional practices.
Teachers continue teaching in the same way they've always taught.

But the way I see it, teachers' number one concern is always
time
---so if they can see value in digital tools as professional time
savers, they'll be more likely to embed those tools completely into
their own lives.  And once those tools become a natural part of their daily work
and learning patterns, they're more likely to incorporate them into
their instruction.

Here's an example:

I've got a buddy who tells me about twice a week that he couldn't
live without the feed reader I helped him to set up because it helps him to find current event
titles that he uses in daily instruction
.  He's also jazzed because he's stumbled upon a collection of blogs by
librarians that are pushing his professional growth and knowledge of
his content area.

Now, he's yet to try to introduce RSS feeds to students at all---and
he's not using blogs in class either. His instruction has remained
largely unchanged.  But I believe that with time, he's likely to start to show his
students how RSS feeds can change their own learning too---simply
because it's so important to his own growth.

Does this make sense to you?

I guess what I'm wrestling with is should we even focus on the
instructional applications of digital tools when working with peers who've yet to dive into the digital waters?

Can we trust that a person who has their own learning and work
patterns changed by digital tools will naturally translate those new
patterns into their classrooms?

Is the trickle-down theory of digital professional development that I've been pushing productive?

Bill, who is saddened by the destruction of a digital generation.

(Image credit:  IMG_0982 by Karen Castens, licensed Creative Commons:  Attribution)


My girl Dina pointed me towards an Atlantic Magazine article titled Is Google Making Us Stupid that has caused quite an uproar this week.  Author Nicholas Carr's central premise is that internet reading has changed the way our brains work for the worse. 

Here's a quote that I think encapsulates Carr's assertion:

It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional
sense; indeed there are signs that new forms of “reading” are emerging
as users “power browse” horizontally through titles, contents pages and
abstracts going for quick wins. It almost seems that they go online to
avoid reading in the traditional sense.

I sense a bit of bias in these words because they suggest that the
“power browsing through horizontal titles” is inherently negative.  Is it possible that this kind of "horizontal reading" is actually more
sophisticated because it allows readers to easily make connections
between topics of related interest?

Here’s what I mean: 

A central element of my daily lessons are current event readings from the Internet. Because
each event includes extensive collections of related links, my students
can “power browse” through a topic at great depth with little hassle.  They can often find "time line articles" that show how a particular event has gradually developed, Q+A bits that lay out the central issues in each event, and external websites that provide additional resources on the topic of study. 

Need an example?

Here's a current event that we studied earlier this year about a group of hostages taken by FARC, a rebel group in Colombia that has been fighting against the government for decades:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7188509.stm

We'd been studying the different ways that people stand up to power all year---and South America is one of the required elements of our curriculum----so learning a bit about FARC was important.  Besides, middle schoolers are naturally drawn to rebel groups!  Any time that you can talk about justice and injustice with preteens, you'll have a captive audience. 

(Pardon the pun)

Now, the challenge is that issues like the rebellion in Colombia are complex times ten.  There are often multiple perspectives, causes and characters that you need to sift through to get a good understanding of what is really going on. 

In a web-free world, this sifting would be so cumbersome that no one would ever do it!  Heck, when I was twelve, I would have had to pull out about 67 encyclopedia volumes to learn enough to totally get what was going on in Colombia----either that, or I would have read a short summary from page 63 of the Social Studies book. 

Sound familiar?

But check out the "Features and Analysis" sidebar on this current event.  Amazing, isn't it? 

With a bit of Carr's "horizontal reading," my kids can easily investigate beyond the initial article they're introduced to.  They can read background information about the leaders of FARC.  They can get a country guide that introduces them to Colombia, view pictures and short video clips about the crisis, and read articles about related events that took place both before the article we're studying and that have taken place since our article was written.

All of this extra information scaffolds learning for my students.  Kids that aren't comfortable with the reading level of current events can build a background of knowledge through images and video before reading.  Kids that are completely driven by a topic can explore it in great depth quickly and easily. 

As a reading teacher, I’m just not sure that’s a bad thing.

So what do you think? 

Are digital opportunities for reading inherently bad?  Are we all becoming a nation of scatterbrains that can't focus for more than two or three mouse clicks before losing interest? 

Or is it possible that digital reading might just be a better experience for students?  Has digital content made accessing knowledge easier for your kids---and thereby made deep investigation more likely than ever before?

Most importantly, what actions can we take to ensure that the internet-based
reading experiences don't "make our kids stupid?"

After all, the internet ain't going away anytime soon!

(Image Credit:  113227976816.jpg by Southernfried, licensed Creative Commons:  Attribution)

One of my favorite teaching moments happened early during my second year.  I caught a child using a racial slur in an argument with another child.  Obviously upset, but recognizing that this nine-year old didn't understand the consequences of his words, I punished him by taking recess away for a week----a huge deal to an athletic third grader

Before the end of the day was out, I received an angry phone call from his father.  "What in the world are you doing?!"  he shouted, "You can't punish my child so severely for something so small.  Are you out of your mind---or do you just hate my son?"

Nothing seemed to help him understand that throwing racial slurs around was simply unacceptable.  He was convinced that I'd misunderstood the situation and administered a consequence that was too severe.  "Mr. Ahmad," I explained, "I'm a teacher...I know children..."

Before I could finish, he roared the ridiculous:  "Well, I'm a heart surgeon and I know children better!"

This was my first experience with what Dan Lortie calls "the transparency of teaching."  Because nearly everyone has spent the better part of 15 years sitting in classrooms---and because many have worked with children beyond the schoolhouse door---most people believe that they know exactly what teachers do each day.  That false awareness causes painful assumptions that teachers wrestle with from the beginning of their careers until the end.

False transparency has been nothing short of miserable for me.  You see, I'm a  guy that has been motivated by elevating his voice into powerful conversations for almost a decade.  I'm a deep thinker who wants to help translate what I know about the classroom into the decisions that guide the direction of education. 

The greatest challenge, however, has been elbowing my way into those same conversations!

Early on, I did a lot of talking, but no one seemed particularly interested in listening  Several educational leaders saw me as nothing more than a nuisance.  While they appreciated what I was doing with students, they weren't interested in anything that I had to add to conversations beyond my classroom.  Their typical response to one of my suggestions went something like this:

"That's nice, Bill, but it will never work.  You see, you just don't understand the bigger picture."

I couldn't have been more discouraged---and I thought about leaving teaching time and again. 

Then along came the internet!

Seems like a simple change, right?  After all, what exactly could the internet do to elevate the voice of a frustrated young educator looking for the opportunity to be heard?

The answer:  Almost everything. 

First, I stumbled across my digital friends here at the Teacher Leaders Network.  A pretty impressive group of provocative thinkers, TLN started as nothing more than an ongoing email conversation between teachers focused on what mattered in education.

The difference was that John Norton---TLN's formal moderator and digital community pioneer---was taking elements of our conversations and summarizing them to provide content for the Teacher Leaders Network website.  Understanding that the key to any website is a never-ending stream of new material, John began to beg members to write diary entries or book reviews that he could use on our growing site. 

And I jumped in feet first!

In the span of two years, I'd written almost 40 book reviews and 15 diary entries for TLN.  Writing became a passion.  It gave me the opportunity to have an audience for the first time.  I was crafting a place for myself at the digital table without an invitation.

That's the beauty of what Clay Shirky--in his new book Here Comes Everybody---describes as the "Publish, then Filter" world that we live in today.  No longer does anyone have to be tapped by a formal publisher---powerful because they own a printing press and have extensive connections with a broader audience and distribution network---to have ideas recognized.

Instead, everyone can publish using free digital tools.  Everyone can build an audience and have a voice, whether they're writing about rugrats, racing or religion.  Like no time in history, publishing is universal----and for me, that changed everything

Almost immediately, my writing was linked in other locations.  Authors were citing me in research reports.  eBlast newsletters from major organizations were referencing my columns.  Eventually, editors from formal publications started to find me.  They recognized that my writing had resonance and wanted to add teacher voice to their magazines. 

Five years later, that snowball continues to build. 

I've had ideas published by Threshold magazine, the National Staff Development Council, Education Leadership and Edutopia.  I've been contacted by the National Middle School Association, Solution Tree, Corwin Press and Teacher's College Press about potential book projects.  Other education blogs, including Teacher Magazine, Horn Book and the Learning First Alliance have offered me opportunities to write.

In just under two years, I've gone from a guy struggling to have any audience at all to a guy who is humbled every day by the fact that people read my work---regardless of forum or format---regularly.

How's that for influence? 

I've finally earned the credibility that I couldn't seem to find early in my career---and it had nothing to do with me.  I'm the same guy today as I was 10 years ago.  The only thing that's changed is that digital tools now allow me to be a publisher.

They can do the same thing for you!  All you need is a willingness to write and a sense for the kinds of tools that make this work easy.  Here's what I'd recommend:

For Advanced Writers:

If you're already confident in your ability as a writer, consider starting your own blog.  I know, I know--it sounds intimidating, doesn't it?  How can you possibly figure out how to post information on the internet?  You're not one of those die-hard techie-types that eats and breathes HTML, XML or HTTPs. 

The good news is that you don't have to be!  Most blog services are ridiculously easy to use.  After you create an account, you'll be working in windows that look like any word processing application that you've ever explored.  You'll see comfortable toolbars that allow you to change your fonts, add links, and center your content.  When you're done writing, click on a "publish" button and your work is automatically posted to the web.

How's that for easy?

Choosing a blog service is mainly about personal tastes.  I'm a Typepad user, even though it means I have to pay an annual fee.  I chose Typepad a long time ago---before most blog services were free---and I'm comfortable with it.  It's easy to use and offers tons of tech support if I need it.

Many of my peers have jumped on the Blogger train.  Blogger is a Google product, so it's not going away anytime soon.  Better yet, you can access Blogger blogs with the same username and password that you use for any Google service---so if you have a Gmail or Google Docs account, Blogger may be a logical choice for you.   

And I'd be remiss if I didn't remind you about Edublogs.  Edublogs is the premier blogging service for educators.  The advantage of creating your own digital home with Edublogs is that you'll be instantly connected to a community of like-minded writers who you might just be able to convert into readers!

For Intermediate Writers:

If you're just beginning to dip your toes into the digital waters, consider working with peers on a collaborative writing wiki.  Wikis are editable websites, and like blogs, they require very little technical skill to master.  Wiki toolbars also look just like common word processing programs---and when you're finished saving a contribution to a wiki page, your work is posted online automatically.

The difference between a wiki and a blog is that wikis are designed for collaboration between a group of users.  The content on a wiki can be edited at any time by anyone with the shared wiki password.  Wikis also provide discussion boards for every page, allowing users to engage in ongoing conversations with one another about the quality of their developing project.

For novice writers, these features can be invaluable.  Consider finding a few peers and writing bits about teaching and learning together.  Divide selections into sections and have each member of your collaborative writing group take responsibility for small contributions.  Allow users fluent with language to polish your final text.  Find members that are sticklers for spelling and grammar and turn them loose!

By doing so, the writing process becomes far less intimidating because you're not responsible for an entire selection all by yourself.  Instead, you'll be reflecting together---which in and of itself is a powerful form of professional growth. 

Almost every wiki service provides the same tools and features, so you'll just have to find a service that you feel good about.  I'm a fan of PB Wiki because I've been using it forever.  What I like the best about PB Wiki is that it allows users to create a "My PBWiki" account that provides immediate access to any wiki a user has created from one login screen. 

For a guy like me who is currently using 9 different wikis for work with teachers and students, this is a pretty important feature!

Wikispaces is another popular wiki service.  It was one of the first wiki services to be embraced by educators, so there are thousands of Wikispaces that you can check out as samples.  Wikispaces also has some unique features that will resonate with teachers who want to use wikis with their students---including automatic account creation for students without email addresses.

The service I'm most intrigued by right now would have to be Wet Paint.  Wet Paint is a slick little wiki service that caught my eye because its templates (the frame that goes around one's content) are super professional looking.  Wet Paint also puts more emphasis on facilitating and promoting the collaborative elements of wikis than any of the other services combined.  What really has me hooked, though, is that Jeff Utecht---and educational technology writer who I've followed for years---has started working with Wet Paint.

With his help, Wet Paint is bound to be the wiki service of choice before long!

Does any of this make sense to you?  Essentially, I've grown convinced that teachers---like anyone living in the 21st Century---can take advantage of free tools for content creation and collaboration to elevate their voice.  No longer do we have to sit unsatisfied, wishing that we had more of an influence over our profession. 

Instead, we can write about what we know.  We can help others to see exactly what it is that makes our work so challenging.  We can offer advice and guidance to one another.  We can speak the truth about testing, look for support with classroom management, make suggestions about educational policy, comment on trends that we see in our communities and testify on behalf of our students.

And most importantly, we don't have to wait to be asked what we think!

(Image credit:  Elbow by L. Marie, licensed Creative Commons:  Attribution)

   
   

Syndicate content