EdTechTrek

Creativity is important, but neglected in schools, the headline reads.

Tell us something that we don’t know. Imagine, a general conclusion was that it is best to foster creativity among students at school, “not only to produce a competitive workforce, but also to help all students succeed in life”. This report is yet one more example of not doing what we know is best - about obstacles that get in the way of best practices, solid learning theory, and curriculum. What will it take to bring about real change… and I emphasize “real” - no window dressing or politically charged policies.

During candidate interviews of employers seeking creative employees, characteristics were ranked as follows, from highest to lowest:

1. candidate’s ability to look spontaneously beyond the specifics of a question (78%)

2. responses to hypothetical scenarios (70 %)

3. elaboration on extracurricular activities or volunteer work (40 %)

4. appearance (27 %).

Also, employers noted that “problem identification or articulation” was of paramount importance in creative employees. Even with problem-based learning, teachers can’t resist defining the problems for their students and guiding them to solve pre-established problems with pre-determined solutions - Neither what employers see as all that valuable… nor realistic in real-world problem-solving contexts. Perhaps the solution is to test creativity (can you see the sarcasm dripping here?).
So, where do these types of reports leave educators. Where to they leave policy makers?

Where do they leave you?

A few weeks back teacher, Carl Chew, made the headlines for receiving a 2 week without pay suspension for refusing to give the WASL (Washington Assessment of Student Learning) standardized test in his Washington State classroom. Here is a reposting of his response explaining his actions. It is a MUST READ!! I am going to continue to process his detailed, response. It is not a political response. It is not a research-based or scholarly response. It is a response grounded in reality, in the personal, social, emotional, and physical learning environment.

Maybe it’s just me, but I have seen one too many of these videos now that depict the learning divide (or digital disconnect) that is occurring in this country soley due to the lack of technology’s use in the classroom. But it’s more than that. What is being depicted is a negative view of any learning that does not include technology. I just watched this remix of A Vision of Students Today by Mike Wesch, Did You Know; Shift Happens and Did You Know 2.0 by Karl Fisch and Scott McLeod titled, A Vision of K-12 Students Today. In it are unhappy student learners communicating that they simply cannot learn… can not be happy learning, demanding digital learning with the exclusion of any other form of learning. What follows is the script of the video (in italics) and some of my frustration. Please exucse the high degree of sarcasm in places.

Students will use engaging technologies in collaborative, inquiry-based learning environments with teachers who are willing and able to use technology’s power to assist them in transforming knowledge and skills into products, solutions, and new information.

• I am a 21st century learner
• I game 3/5 hours a week
• I will spend 16.5 hours watching TV this week
• 5.5 hours on the computer
• 2 hours reading a book
• I listened to 5 hours of Harry Potter on my ipod this week
• We expect to be able to create, consume, remix, and share information with each other
• My parents us email
• I text, instant message, blog

Well, we know that many kids are not reading books much (Books are what my parents read, not me! What good can come out of reading a book?), still watch a lot of television, and spend more time than ever with the computer and other media-rich devices. It used to be that good teachers expected students to create and share information with each other. Now, suddenly it is the student that is expecting this - but only with technology, of course. There is no way that they could create and share meaningful learning artifacts without technology, right? Here is part of the problem, I think. It is that schools became too passive in their pedagogy, too textbook driven, too teacher centered and too assessment driven. And, in the end, the result is boring classrooms and lessons, seemingly irrelevant learning, and disconnected students.

• 76% of my teachers have never used wikis, blogs, podcasts
• At least once a week 14% of my teachers let me create something new with technology. 63 % never do.
• 61% of my reading teachers never use digital storytelling software
• If we learn by doing, what are we learning sitting here?
• How do you learn?

According to this video, it really doesn’t matter how I learn. But this I do know. The concept of learning by doing is nothing new! The true crime here is that teachers and educational systems are making it hard to allow students to learn through the creation of relevant and meaningful artifacts. To imply that students today are incapable of learning anything while sitting and listening to someone else is just irresponsible. Perhaps 61% of reading teachers never use digital storytelling software, but does this mean that these same 61% are terrible reading teachers? What is the percentage of reading teachers who do very little at all with storytelling? I would guess it is also up there.

• What kind of education would you want me to have if I were your son, your daughter,
• By the year 2016, the largest English speaking country will be China.
• There are more honor students in China than there are people in North America
• But only 1/2 of us will graduate from high school. Will I?
• I will have 14 jobs before I am 38 years old.
• Most of those jobs do not exist today
• How will this (referring sullenly to a notebook with writing in it) help me?
• How could this help me? (holding and iPod or laptop in hand)

Yes, the state of US education is in trouble. But to imply that a book and pencil has no use in the learning process flies directly in the face of countries like China and India who are still learning with books, pencils, pens, and excellent listening and thinking skills, and disciplined minds. Of course, they also use newer technologies, as so should we all. But the tone here is such that unless we are using these newer technologies all the time, we are failing as teachers, that unless we are blogging or using wikis and creating digital stories, we are hopelessly defunct.

• Teach me to think, to create, to analyze, to evaluate, to apply. Teach me to think.
• Let me use the WWW… Whatever, Whenever, Wherever
• Let me tell a story… digitally
• Engage me! (repeated by 15 different bored students)
• We are digital learners.

Once again, engaging students and teaching them to think, to create, to analyze, to evaluate, to applly… is nothing new! But to imply that the solution alone here is to let students use technology and the internet whenever, whereve, for whatever,… is just plain nutty. The bigger failure here is that we, as educators, have often failed at helping students think, analyze, evaluate, apply, and create meaningful and relevant learning artifacts. Of couse, technology today can play a powerful role. Of course we need to embrace new cultural tools and new forms of learning. But the mere act of doing so does not guarantee improved thinking, analytic, and evaluatory skills. Excellent teachers are still required. This video discounts the power of an excellent teacher, with or without the use of newer technologies. It attributes all learning power to new technologies. Just let kids have at it with all the tools that they love to use, and learning will result (and in some cases, it certainly can).

This video implies quite strongly that learners today (“digital natives”) are ONLY digital learners and that learning any other way (meaning without new technology) is simply a waste of time… it doesn’t work any more. To embrace such a view that throws away books, pencils and othe more traditional learning technologies, and discounts the ability to listen and process relevant information, that writing in an analog world is not writing and has no value, that the only form of social learning is the digital form, that public speaking is a dying artform,… is a huge mistake. To buy into this idea that this digital generation cannot learn unless digitally connected is wrong. The learning community in general would be much better served by videos that depict best practices and strong rationales for any technologies rather than gloom-and-doom, woe is me, China is going to take over the world types of messages. For, I think, these types of messages as in this particular video serve only to “preach to the choir” and get played mostly by the very communities that aspouse the inherent values and ideas presented in the video. Yes, this generation thinks, socializes, and learns in new ways. Yes, we need to harness these new forms of learning in a very digital world. Learning networks. Social learning. Creation tools. Creative tools. Tools to facilitate collaboration beyond physical space…. There are so many fantastic learning tools and opportunities out here like never before. We should be using them in the classroom. But, at no point should we be communicating to both kids and the educational community at large that unless we are using ALL of these tools ALL the time, we are somehow flawed…. educational fuddy duddies. And, there is no reason why kids cannot and should not learn by listening to a developmentally appropriate “lecture”, from reading a book or textbook, by writing with a pen or pencil… on paper, by participating in a community project or apprenticeship,… The heart of the issue really is engaging students in meaningful learning, both with and without technology. Be a great teacher! And yes,  to be relevant and meaningful today, technology must be used to a new level. Teachers must stay fresh and current in all that they do - not only with technology.

Just please stop making and promoting these kinds of videos that portray a distorted and flawed view of learning.

I just got back from my son’s first baseball practice of the season. The kids were quite excited and jittery. But, here’s the kicker. When the coach called them all over, they came. When he spoke, for the most part they listened attentively. When he have the rule about sportsmanship (any insults or unsportsmanlike conduct, you’re out of the game or practice), everyone understood. Then, we broke up into groups for small group work - infielding, batting, pitching, outfielding, catching. Coaches modeled, guided practice, and left time for independent practice, with small cycles of reteaching and modeling continually interspersed where needed. The kids were engaged, challenged, and having a good time learning and playing the game. We finished with a short game to put all of the skills to practice. That is when I was reminded of a poster that I used to have up on my office door. It was by Alison Gopnik. It reads,

“…But routinized learning is not an end in itself. A good coach may well make his players throw the ball to first base 50 times or swing again and again in the batting cage. That will help, but by itself it won’t make a strong player. The game itself — reacting to different pitches, strategizing about base running — requires thought, flexibility and inventiveness.

Children would never tolerate baseball if all they did was practice. No coach would evaluate a child, and no society would evaluate a coach, based on performance in the batting cage. What makes for learning is the right balance of both learning processes, allowing children to retain their native brilliance as they grow up…”

So, what does this all mean? Well, for one thing, unless we make learning relevant and give it practical application, students will never experience the true love of learning - love of the game. For, without practical and authentic application, all that remains is information and decontextualized skill acquisition. Students need to experience the thrill of the game and its inherent skillset, strategies, problem-solving, creativity, inventiveness, flexibility, teamwork…

So, ask yourself anew - are your students experiencing authentic information and skill acquisition situated in larger context of “the game”? Are they getting a chance to play the game, or is it just practice, practice, practice? Are we preparing our students to be successful at “school”, or are we preparing them to be successful at [the game of] life? And, ask yourself if the “game” has changed over the years since you were in school. Are there new technologies to prepare for and play the game? Are there new ways to facilitate the playing of the game? Are there virtual ways to experience the game and take part in it like never before? If there are, then it stands to reason that the game can be kept fresh and real if we embrace these new and powerful tools for becoming better players of the game. But, yes, if the game is not important, then we can just be happy with learning about the game and practicing the skills that were needed for the game a few decades ago.

Oh yes - there has to be assessment, right? The test….  In baseball, the true test is what one does on the field… in the game. Imagine if baseball players, or any athlete for that matter, where assessed primarily by their performance on a written test on the rules and strategies of the game. Would  such performance ensure excellent players and a winning team?

I never thought that tonight’s practice would bring up so many things to think about. Play Ball!

What did your child do at school today?

In a recent news report from the UK, an informal poll uncovered that students at UK laptop schools are spending class/lesson time on social network sites.

“Global Secure Systems (GSS) – “an IT security consultancy, has uncovered the alarming reality that UK school children are studying social networking websites during their lessons instead of what they should be concentrating on. In its survey, conducted through Facebook, to discover just how widespread the issue of children visiting sites of this nature at inappropriate times is, a staggering 52 per cent of the 1000 children aged between 13 and 17 who participated, confessed that they did so during lessons. Over a quarter admitted they were doing so for in excess of 30 minutes a day!”

And then, another issue is raised in this article:

“Kids are potentially wasting as much as two and a half hours a week of lessons on Facebook. I recognise that there is a place for social networking, with a whole new generation now relying on it to communicate, but not at the expense of an education. Schools could learn a lesson from industry and ensure school children productively use the internet. Through the deployment of software, access to inappropriate websites can either be completely blocked, or limited to break time, economically and efficiently.”

And then finally…

“In a separate GSS poll, conducted with Infosecurity Europe 2008, it discovered that the recent popularity of social networking sites, such as Facebook, MySpace and Bebo, is costing UK corporations close to £6.5 billion annually in lost productivity. GSS itself as a company recently clamped down on social networking during working hours. When faced with the need for additional bandwidth, David Hobson their MD, analysed why and discovered that by simply restricting the times that sites of this nature could be accessed to lunchtimes and after close of business there was no longer the need to increase bandwidth and so saved thousands of pounds.”

So, here’s what I have been thinking about lately in relation to this. It is no doubt that filtering at school is problematic. Sites teachers and students need are often blocked. There is a great deal of red tape in order to get needed sites unblocked. Some sites never get unblocked because the powers on high decide that they are not worthy of being unblocked. Blocking of needed sites and reasonable keyword searches severely interferes with learning on a day to day basis. It interferes with teachers trying to use current and valuable resources in their classrooms. If forces unreasonable planning in order to get needed sites unblocked before they are to be used in the classroom. It undermines just-in-time use of Internet resources. And, it communicates to teachers that they are not professional enough to manage filter settings on their own. I am sure that there are other issues at play here.

But, the business world has had to check employee personal use of network usage due to loss in productivity. A great deal of on-the-clock time has been wasted on personal Internet usage and communication (browsing, email, video, booking trips, making personal purchases….). I have no doubt that employers have every right to make sure that their employees are spending their paid time working for the employer and not conducting personal business. And, as David Hobson suggests, it would be fine for employers to pause such restriction during lunch times and after hours. Yet Clarence Fisher over on Remote Access has a recent post about Google successfully allowing its employees 10-20% of their job time to persue their own interests and what if we did this similar thing in education. However, this is different from “class time” where students do have specific tasks to be attending to. It is interesting to consider, nonetheless.

So, is it then acceptable to do the same in education? It it acceptable for students to shun instructional and learning time in lieu of personal network communication and browsing… regardless of the reason?? Would parents support such decisions? Would it be acceptable for an employee to rationalize such wasted productivity time with the reason that they were not particularly engaged in their work and were not really enjoying the tasks that were set before them to accomplish?

Now, I am not in any way excusing poor instruction or lack of relevant learning opportunities in classrooms. I am not excusing the lack of vision and creativity that often occurs. However, I do feel that students are losing their ability to attend to verbal information and to complete tasks that perhaps are not of their preference. Of course, this is nothing new. There have always been students who doodle, pass notes, daydream, and have bad attitudes when they are not particularly engaged in the learning tasks set for them. And, teachers are obligated to read such behavior and body language and adapt their instruction so that they are meeting the needs of their students. But, the “discipline of learning” (see Neil Postman’s book Amusing Ourselves to Death) seems to be undermined as students have unfettered access to Internet resources during instructional time. There have been countless reports by educators at all levels on this topic (laptops in the classroom/lecture hall), so I am not going to summarize all of those here. Due to this issue, guidelines are being established my many institutions.

My question is this, though. What is the balance point between effective teaching along with expectations for student learning and excusing students’ lack of ability to learn, be interested and attend (drifting off into cyberspace instead) - on learning that does not meet their “style” or interest level? At what point do we expect students to learn content and learn it in ways that those with experience know (teachers) are still very valuable, but perhaps not so sexy or appealing… and just plain hard work? I am not talking about differentiation, learning styles or multiple intelligences here. I think sometimes we are communicating that if we are not using podcasts, blogs, wikis, laptops, and the like… that we somehow cannot be effective teachers - that students will choose to ignore us if we don’t use the tools that they like. Again, I am not arguing against the use of these tools and their related practices… I support them wholeheartedly. But when students cannot sit and listen to an intelligent, developmentally appropriate and compelling (and I stress all three of these attributes) “lecture” and take an active part in related discussion (or even pose relevant questions) for more than a few minutes without losing interest or comprehension, then perhaps the tools and media that “speak to them” so much are actually diminishing their capacity to think and learn at more abstract levels. Are these students truly multitaskers who can have 2 or more tasks going on simultaneously (listening and answering email for example) while achieving a level of excellence on all of them? Or, is quality somehow compromised as a result of the multitasking (like the inability to seriously consider what is being discusses and participate in discussion and question generation)? Personally, some of the “backchanneling” that I have been a part of has either been a distraction to fully listening to the presenter or a distraction due to the tangential and even off-topic chatter going on. Of course, there has also been some great backchanneling as well. Would we accept off-task backchanneling in our classrooms? We don’t in the physical sense. So, should we in the virtual sense? Is student lack of interest and inability to attend ALWAYS the product of poor teaching? Sorry for the rhetorical question here.

Anyway, at the risk of being called an technological heretic, these are all of the issues that this article brought to mind for me. Sorry for the rambling nature of the post. I am certainly not arguing against technological and educational innovation, creativity, and socially-mediated meaning-making. I just don’t think that the issues around education, filtering, new tools, network access, and cultural shifts are all that simple. We are quick to blame teachers who are not adapting quickly enough. But could it be that this type of shift is much messier, harder to make and more complex than others? Please set me straight if I am way off here.