1. Children are adaptable.
2. G00d [muppets] take time to evolve.
3. Change is unavoidable.
4. “C” is for competition (not just cookie).
5. Freshen up.
6. Learn from your mistakes.
7. Keep it simple.
8. Push the envelope.

I am not going to make this a long narrative, but just simply want to quickly reflect on each of these lessons.

Children are adaptable: The certainly are. What comes to mind here though, is that children both adapt to good things in their environment as well as to not so good things. In schools, my concern is that children have adapted all too much to our didactic, passive, rote methods of teaching. I see this when they arrive at the college/university level. Many are struggling to battle this all-too familiar adaptation they have masterfully undergone for 12 or so years. Although, I must say many gladly rise to the challenge and move from the “feed me” “hoop jumping” and “minimum criteria” types of environments when relevant opportunities are placed before them, but it can be a struggle, nonetheless.

Good [muppets] take time to evolve: The evolutionary process can be indeed slow. Many of us get frustrated with the lack of evolutionary speed in schools. However, one key principle of evolution is that of natural selection. Wikipedia defines this as “is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations.” So, what are those traits (often influenced by environment, not just heredity) in education that seem most dominant and lead to their survival, while others just don’t seem to gain a significant foothold? Why is it that the progressive vision for education conceptualized by the likes of John Dewey, Johann Pestalozzi, Friedrich Froebel, Jerome Bruner… and their contemporaries like Herb Kohl, Deborah Meier, Ted Sizer, and others… seem so hard to achieve?

Change is unavoidable: So why does education spend so much of its efforts on avoiding change, not the superficial window dressing kind of change, but substantial, revolutionary change? It seems that we are living the axiom, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” Coming back to evolution, what are those most dominant traits that keep us from substantial change?

“C” is for competition: We have moved to this very competitive model of education over the past years. We are competing and ranking internationally on assessments like TIMSS. We rank and compete internally (NAEP)with one another for the top districts, top schools, top scores, quickest to meet AYP, top students,… We are competing for federal dollars that get dangled like carrots in front of hungry rabbits (Race to the Top, NCLB,…). (If you haven’t watched this lecture given by Yong Zhao, especially the first part of it, it is worth your time.) Competition often serves to make us better. But it is in defining “better” and “success” that we have become lost. As with Faust, have we make a bargain with the devil that has robbed us of what Dewey and other progressives understood as being most valuable?

“Jefferson told us where to look to see if a nation is a success. He did not say to look at test scores. Instead, he said to look at ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ ” (Keith Baker, 2007)

And then, Alfie Kohn and  Dean Shareski remind us all of the importance of joy in learning, both for teachers and students. Is that one of those traits that will selectively be extinguished if we let it?

Freshen Up: Who can argue with giving things a fresh look. However, too often we have giving things in education a “fresh look” in the name of meaningful change. Many folks see the addition of the interactive white board, for example, as a symbol of the 21st century classroom – a needed facelift to the aging chalkboard. They are nice and the technology is impressive. However, when major budget dollars are allocated to “fresh look” kinds of changes without any meaningful change or innovation ever happening, the result can often be no more than expensive window dressing. And then there are the schools that really need freshen up… paint, roof, air conditioning, pencil sharpeners that work, desks that aren’t broken, computers that run, physical education, art, and music equipment,… What are we doing?

Learn from your mistakes: In education, and elsewhere, we love to report on mistakes, humiliate and criticize those who make mistakes, and grade mistakes as a form of punishment rather than constructive feedback. Many have learned to avoid taking risks for fear of the consequences of making mistakes. The fact is, we learn best through our mistakes when a grade is not the end of the learning cycle. Programers understand this. Debugging is a powerful and critical part of the programming process, as it is in the learning process. Seymour Papert, Gary Stager, and others have been and continue to be passionate proponents of children learning through programming, through meaningful projects, and learning by doing meaningful, relevant, and therefore engaging things. Somehow, with current educational policy, we are not learning from our mistakes. Instead, we seem to be making the same ones over and over again. This brings me back to evolution and natural selection. What’s driving this perpetuation of the same?

Keep it simple (stupid): Embrace and keep what works. There is no need to make things overly complicated. Some of the most effective pedagogies and learning principles are not all that complicated when it comes down to it. Often, it is the limiting structures, policies, roadblocks, and other expectations that over-complicate things.

Push the envelope: To me, this is my daily challenge when it comes to growth. I try to convey this to my students ad nauseum. The opposite of this is status quo. Don’t rock the boat. Do what’s familiar. Keep things comfortable… all the enemies of business… and education. It’s about growth – becoming and remaining a professional. I am so appreciative of the countless people in my personal learning network (PLN) that share evidence of this every day. One thing that my learning network has done for me is that it has broken down the walls of isolation and has connected me to educators and experts who are truly doing great things around the globe with their students. We do not have to feel (and be) limited by those within our physical circles of influence. Too often, teachers feel isolated and become tunnel-visioned, thinking that what they see and experience around them is indeed reality on a larger scale. I am thankful to say that it isn’t. My students are beginning to understand this – that they don’t have to limit their imagination – that they can connect with inspiring, passionate and excellent teachers and experts in so many ways never before possible – that they indeed have a voice that can make a difference.

As I conclude, what has struck me in writing this morning is that many of these lessons are interrelated, making meaningful and substantial change difficult. As such, I have certainly not done each justice in my narrative here. Are we really learning from these lessons? How do these lessons resonate with you? I’d love to hear what you think.

Who would your Big Bird, Oscar the Grouch, Cookie Monster, Ernie, Bert, or Snuffleupagus of education be?

There have been so many challenging messages that I have been chewing on over the past months. The latest is David Perkins’ new book, Making Learning Whole: How Seven Principles of Teaching Can Transform Education, has really hammered some things home for me. I am not even half way through it and I am seriously convicted. He discusses how learning is most effective and relevant when students have the opportunity to apply learning within the context of “the game” – situating learning in relevant, meaningful and authentic contexts.

Tonight in class my students were to learn about WebQuests. With a limited amount of time, I struggled with how best to approach this. A number of very good ideas came to mind, all of which would have taken a great deal more time than was available. Then I stumbled upon WebQuests about WebQuests by Bernie Dodge. After a very short overview, I decided to have my students, in groups of 4, complete a webquest of their choice listed on this page. It was almost magical to watch them engage… engage in ways not possible when I am “waxing poetic” at the front of the classroom. They managed various roles/perspectives, evaluated 5 webquests on a number of domains, compared notes and perspectives, discussed what made some webquests “better” than others, negotiated a winner and loser, and justified their positions with each other. They were deeply engaged in a high level of discourse and evaluation that I hadn’t seen before.

Then it occurred to me that they were, as David Perkins describes it, playing the game. In his book, he outlines seven principles of learning by wholes. They are:
1. Play the whole game
2. Make the game worth playing
3. Work on the hard parts
4. Play out of town.
5. Uncover the hidden game
6. Learn from the team… and other teams
7. Learn the game of learning

But there are different kinds of games. Perkins writes,

“Schools and other settings of learning ask us to do many things that aren’t all that enthralling. We feel as though we are playing the school game and not the real game.” – the whole game.

This reminded me of a sign I used to have on my office door:

I have so much more I’d like to share about Perkins’ book… and will. But we… I need to let students play the game – the whole game whenever possible. Focusing on the small components is fine and essential at times, just like getting in the batting cage. But the real excitement and passion is cultivated when the teams take to the field, the crowds are in the stands, and the pitch is thrown toward home plate. It gives practice meaning. Purpose. Relevance. Authenticity.

I don’t know about you, but I have to get my students playing the game more often… And I will.

Of course, I asked @TeachKidd if I could use her tweet.

So, what is “it”?

“It” has been that elusive thing that changes everything for all learners. But somehow, we have equated “it” with tools. They can take any form, from chalk, quill & ink, paper/pencil, overhead projector, dry erase boards, television and video-on-demand, document cameras, interactive white boards, semantic webbing software, data search tools, graphing and calculator tools, web 2.0 social learning and collaborative tools, synchronous communication and instructional courseware,… I don’t need to finish this list. The point is, that tools are a moving target. I say this because the tools represent the potential of something larger, much more important, much more significant.

Or not.

The idea of technology bringing about efficiency and educational reform is often spoken of by futurists, politicians, policy makers, researchers, edtech evangelists and computer hardware and software vendors. Pressures from all sides to technologize have resulted in the steady increase in the presence of computer technologies in America’s K-12 schools. Despite impressive increases in the amount of computer technology in America’s K-12 schools, boundless access to vast stores of information, and the undeniable reality that computer technologies have had a positive impact on schools and schooling, the impact that computer technologies have had in K-12 schools has been difficult to assess and concrete answers still remain elusive in many respects. For certain, widespread educational benefits as a result of new technologies have been quite elusive.

If we have learned anything from research in education and computing technologies, it is that change is slow and dependent upon many interrelated and complex factors (ACOT, 1995; Byrom & Bingham, 2001; Cuban, 2001; Marcinkiewicz, 1993-94; Means & Olson, 1995; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). There is no easy answer or simple solution. The solution is not computers alone, that much we do know. But critics of current investments and improvements in access to computing technologies in America’s K-12 schools are divided as to why we continue to see such fragmented positive outcomes as a result of computing technologies.

While some believe that we have invested far too much in technologies that have yielded far too little of any value (and perhaps have caused more harm than good) (Armstrong & Casement, 2000; Baines, 1997; Cuban, 2001; Lightfoot, 2000; Oppenheimer, 1997; Postman, 1993), others believe that despite the massive investments we have made toward improving technological infrastructures in schools, we will continue to see little educational return on those investments until computing technologies become ubiquitous.

There have been major problems with quantifying positive impacts of the investment of computer technologies in K-12 schooling. Although there have been many studies that have been able to demonstrate significant positive learning outcomes as a result of computer technologies (Kulik & Kulik, 1991; Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1985), such favorable outcomes do not appear to be the norm and are the result of very specific technology use (i.e. computer-based instruction). Roschelle and others (2000) provide three primary reasons to explain this paucity of conclusive research in the field of educational technology:
(1) hardware and software vary among schools and how such software is implemented varies even more
(2) successful use of technology is always accompanied by concurrent reforms in other areas such as curriculum, assessment, and teacher professional development, so the gains in learning cannot be attributed to use of technology alone, and
(3) rigorously structured longitudinal studies that document the isolated effects of technology are expensive and difficult to implement in public schools, so few have been conducted. In actuality, computer use in most school settings is inconsistent at best.
Although we are continually realizing our national imperative of infusing schools with more computers and more internet access, there continues to be little consensus on how those computers and internet connectivity are to be used. There is also little evidence that this increased technological capital has improved education at all

Cuban (2001) tries to explain this problem by claiming that despite theoretical and hypothetical promises of educational technology as a vehicle to transform teaching and learning, what is seen most prevalently are computers used to sustain rather than transform teaching practices. This phenomenon may be partly due to pressures from policy maker and software and hardware vendors to embrace new technologies now and consider how they are most effectively used later. The problem is that with rapid growth and change in the computer industry, ‘now’ is always here and ‘later’ never comes. Until we address issues of effective pedagogy (Clark, 1994; Cuban, 1997, 2001) with or without the help of technology, effective teachers will continue being effective while less effective teachers will continue as they always have, even with the addition of technology.

Jonassen, Peck, and Wilson (1999) write:
“The most productive and meaningful uses of technology will not occur if technologies are used in traditional ways – as delivery vehicles for instructional lessons. Technology cannot teach students. Rather, learners should use the technologies to teach themselves and others. They learn through teaching with technologies. Meaningful learning will result when technologies engage learners in: (a) knowledge construction, not reproduction, (b) conversation, not reception, (c) articulation, not repetition, (d) collaboration, not competition, and (e) reflection, not prescription.” (p. 16)

Of course, tools can be put into taxonomies that somewhat delineate their use – and usefulness.

Jonassen (2000) organizes them by (a) semantic organization tools (databases, semantic networks) for organizing what one knows, (b) dynamic modeling tools (expert systems, spreadsheets, systems modeling tools), (c) microworlds for exploring and experimenting with phenomena (i.e. SimCity or Oregon Trail), (d) synchronous and asynchronous conferencing environments (chat rooms, conferencing, discussion boards, e-mail) for socially co-constructing meaning, (e) knowledge construction tools (hypermedia, multimedia, Web publishing), (f) information interpretation tools (visualization tools, information search engines) for better understanding information encountered, and (g) video for visualizing the range of ideas that students generate. The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV, 1996) categorize technology tools into (a) tutorial environments, (b) exploratory environments, (c) computer programming environments, (d) application tools, and (e) communication and telecommunication tools. Perkins (1992) organizes them this way: (a) information banks (tools that provide instant access to vast databases of information), (b) symbol pads (word processors, drawing programs, and schematic mapping tools that serve to support learners’ short term memories as they record ideas, develop outlines, formulate and manipulate equations), (c) construction kits (programming tools and simulations), (d) phenomenaria (microworlds that can be manipulated), and (e) task managers (computer-aided instruction, intelligent tutors and trouble-shooters). However one chooses to label and categorize these tools, Vygotsky’s concept of mental tools (external and internal), and what Jonassen calls ‘mindtools’, are at the learner’s disposal that can assist learners in engaging in constructive, higher-order, critical thinking about the subjects they are studying as well has function as external mediators that provide essential scaffolding for the building of understanding.

Mental tools or mindtools are dependent upon learners’ mindfulness, which in turn is dependent upon the learning materials used and the context within which those materials are used. When technological mindtools are used as intellectual partners in the learning process (Jonassen, 1996), they can help in the creation and organization of personal understanding as well as in the representation and communication of individuals’ understanding. Of course, just as any tool can be used in many ways, the mere presence of a tool is no guarantee that it will be used effectively. How a tool is used is subject to the user’s understanding of the purpose and function of that tool (McDonald & Ingvarson, 1997). It is for this reason that learning opportunities need to be organized to allow for these potentially powerful tools to be used to their fullest. Many schools are in an almost panicked state as they rush to get classrooms and labs wired and fitted with the latest hardware and software, but too often they continue to use these new tools and infrastructure in very traditional ways, doing what they have always done – only with new sophisticated tools.

In all teachers’ defense, implementing more authentic, user-centered, student-centered, meaning making forms of pedagogy is no easy task and there are many infrastructural and political policies that make pulling this off problematic. John Dewey back in 1938 addressed the difficulties of constructivist learning environments and acknowledged the need to situate learning in actual social experience that involved a larger culture than that of the classroom – both local and global communities – in order to use them as educational resources that would bring meaning to skills and concepts. He believed that one reason why traditional education remained so favorable is because it did not have to face such problems of connecting education with experience. I would argue that even today, although aspects of [social] constructivist and constructionist theory are slowly appearing in mainstream teaching and learning practices, teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders continue to struggle with these issues for a dizzying number of reasons.

So, what’s the point of all of this. Well, if we continue pointing to the tools, explicitly or implicitly, as “it”, we are missing out and are not seeing the larger context. We end up being more of a distraction than a focal force in educational reform. What I have been noticing is that there is more and more emphasis being being put on the tools. Edtech conferences have been toolapaloozas. And, to compound this problem, the rate at which the tools are changing is dizzying. By and large, the preponderance of discussion that seems to be taking place in the educational/technology community are focused on tools… new tools. Yes, these new tools bring about exciting new learning opportunities, but teachers are getting lost in the tidal wave of new tools that afford new learning opportunities. I support the notion that in this day and age, the teacher/learner needs to be flexible and adaptable as new tools become passé and get replaced by even newer, better tools. However, in our exuberance for staying on top of the tool wave, we leave most teachers to deal with the wave in whatever way they can. Often, to survive, it means to stay out of the water altogether. Or, they dabble in the waters by using tools in insignificant or trivial ways, knowing that before they can get comfortable with the current tools, they will be replaced, or left unsupported. But in our efforts to get teachers to become tool specialists, we fail miserably in the higher goal of helping teachers become learning specialists. The end result often leaves the teacher frustrated and disappointed. The target is just too elusive. Just when they master PowerPoint they are told that PowerPoint is a bad tool. Just when they master web page authoring using one software package, the district replaces it with another better one. Just when they get their mind around Delicious social bookmarking, everyone starts crying “Diigo Diigo”. A few months after they sit through the workshop on Audacity, 11 other new tools that can produce audio-based content are being touted. Just as they finally figure out what Ning is and find one to join, everyone begins to heed the siren’s call, “Twitter Twitter Tweet Tweet”. Wordpress, Blogmeister, Edublogs, or Blogger? Zoho Docs or GoogleDocs? Wikispaces or PBwiki? Moodle? MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn? PDAs? Cell phones? Document cameras? SmartBoard, PolyVision, Wacom, or Promethean? Clickers and other forms of personal response systems? Podcasting? Netbooks? Ebooks? I’m stressing myself out just trying to brainstorm some of the current trends and tools out there now. Over the next year alone, hundreds of new tools will emerge.

To bring back this earlier statement: This phenomenon may be partly due to pressures from policy maker and software and hardware vendors to embrace new technologies now and consider how they are most effectively used later. The problem is that with rapid growth and change in the computer industry, ‘now’ is always here and ‘later’ never comes.

So, what is “it”? Will we ever find “it”? Or, should we be focusing better on targets that don’t move so much; enduring targets… and in turn, help teachers and students consistently achieve great things?

Seymour Papert, Gary Stager , David Perkins, Diane Ravitch, and a handful of others are the few voices out there who have consistently promoted such ideas for years… often with tools that have been around for years.

The geek in me loves the quest for “it”.

The teacher in me knows that “it” remains firmly built on the shoulders of giants.

The educational technology community needs to continually reevaluate the definition of “it” that it communicates.

References
ACOT. (1995). Changing the conversation about teaching, learning, and technology: A report on 10 years of ACOT research. Cupertino: Apple Computers, Inc.

Armstrong, A., & Casement, C. (2000). The Child and the Machine: How Computers Put Our Children’s Education at Risk. Beltsville: Robins Lane Press.

Baines, L. (1997). Future schlock: Using fabricated data and politically correct platitudes in the name of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(7), 492.

Byrom, E., & Bingham, M. (2001). Factors influencing the effective use of technology for teaching and learning: Lessons learned from the SEIR*TEC intensive site schools (second). SERVE. Available:http://www.seirtec.org/leader.html

CTGV. (1996). Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding technology and education research. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 807-840). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Cuban, L. (1997). High-tech schools and low-tech teaching: A commentary. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 14(2), 6-7.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning With Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Transforming learning with technology: beyond modernism and post-modernism or whoever controls the technology creates the reality. Educational Technology, 40(2), 21-25.

Kulik, C.-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7(1-2), 75-94.

Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C.-L. C., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1985). Effectiveness of computer-based education in elementary schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 1, 59-74.

Lightfoot, J. (2000). Laptops in the classroom: A bad idea whose time has come. Available:http://www.homestead.com/judy_lightfoot/files/Laptops_in_the_Classroom.html

Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1993-94). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220-237.

McDonald, H., & Ingvarson, L. (1997). Technology: A catalyst for educational change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(5), 513-527.

Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology’s role in education reform: Findings from a national study of innovating schools (RR91172010). Washington, DC: SRI International.

Oppenheimer, T. (1997). The computer delusion. The Atlantic OnLine. Available: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jul/computer.htm

Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books.

Roschelle, J. M., Pea, R. D., Hoadley, C. M., Gordin, D. N., & Means, B. M. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 76-91.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Pedagogical leaders are calling upon the schools to free themselves from tradition and subject matter. Whatever students learn should be relevant to their future lives and work. It is it foolish to saturate them with a mass of knowledge that can have little application for the lives which most of them must inevitably lead. They are sure to become disappointed and discontented, and who knows where all this discontent might lead. Abandon your antiquated academic ideals and instead adapt education to the real life and real needs of your students.

So, who’s making such claims?

Ellwood P. Cubberley, dean of the education school at Stanford…

….. 1911!

(Adapted from Diane Ravitch’s post, 21st Century Skills: An Old Familiar Song

To quote Ravitch some more:

“The problem with skills-driven approaches to learning is that there are so many things we need to know that cannot be learned by hand-on experiences. The educated person learns not only from his or her own experience, but from the hard-earned experience of others. We do not restart the world anew in each generation. We stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. What matters most in the use of our brains is our capacity to make generalizations, to see beyond our own immediate experience. The intelligent person, the one who truly is a practitioner of critical thinking, has the learned capacity to understand the lessons of history, to engage in the adventures of literature, to grasp the inner logic of science and mathematics, and to realize the meaning of philosophical debates by studying them. Through literature, for example, we have the opportunity to see the world through the eyes of another person, to walk in their shoes, to experience life as it was lived in another century and another culture, to live vicariously beyond the bounds of our own time and family and place. What a gift! How sad to refuse it!

Until we teach our teachers and our students to love knowledge and to love learning, we cannot expect them to use their minds well.“

I could quote it all, but instead, go read Diane Ravitch’s entire statement. It is time well spent.

I have been reading and re-reading some of the ideas found in the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow 2 (ACOT2) document and this idea struck me as quite relevant. In the section that discusses the concepts of authenticity and relevance, they site the work of Fred Newmann (1995) from University of Wisconsin who has defined a set of standards for Authentic Instruction, Authentic Student Performance, and Authentic Assessment Tasks which are organized into the following three areas:

-Construction of Knowledge
-Disciplined Inquiry
-Value Beyond School

To quote the section on Value Beyond School,

“The performance must have value beyond the school; that is, the work must have meaning or value that transcends the student-teacher relationship and is not simply used to rate the performance of the student for grading purposes. This value may be a result of sharing the work in a meaningful way with an audience outside the classroom. It may also have value simply because the topic and product are personally valued by the student. Or it may be that the product or task closely mirrors the kind of work done in the real world and that relationship is clearly evident to the student.”

The authors of the ACOT2 document state that of Newmann’s three areas listed above , this one has been the most difficult to realize. But with the addition of so many new publishing tools like blogs and wikis, it has become much easier to realize.

This is where I began to see things differently. The implication here is that it is the tools that bring value to student work beyond school. Granted, these new Internet-based publishing and collaborative tools make student work and thinking more accessible to a global audience, but the work of the students must still be important, relevant, and worthy of a global audience. I remember a while back when Gary Stager was criticizing (scroll down to post titled, “Mind-mapping What?”) the zeal of teachers who were putting up student-created “mind maps” generated with Inspiration. At first I reacted quite defensively, but then I began to understand what he was getting at. Students were creating “mind candy” with this potentially powerful tool. The tool’s strength lies in one’s ability to semantically map out and represent a concept or idea in detail. To produce documents that have the word apple in the middle with three adjectives stemming outward does not even come close to the potential power of this tool to make one’s thinking visible and to expose flaws or misconceptions in understanding or thinking.

The same holds true in the use of new publishing and collaborative tools like blogs and wikis. Students can share shallow thinking and contrived work or share valuable, meaningful, relevant and powerful ideas. The tools used to publish and share do not discriminate. It is up to the teacher to guide students and demand high-quality work and critical thinking.

And THAT is still just as hard to realize in a web 2.0 world. I think the authors of ACOT2 missed this critical idea in relating it to web 2.0 tools in this section. However, they more than redeem themselves a little later on in the document when they introduce the importance of “Deep Learning”:

“Deep Learning requires deep teaching. Teachers must give students challenging tasks that require them to wrestle with core concepts in the curriculum and the time to do so.”

To me, this is the linch pin upon which all else hinges. To learn well means to teach well. Effective and meaningful pedagogies have not really changed all that much over the years, but there are a great many new tools and new learning opportunities that can be harnessed and found via new technologies. Deep teaching is still required.

And, part of relevance is not just content of the concepts, but the tools used to express ideas.

To quote,

“If student work is to be truly authentic, the tools and methodologies that are used to do that work need to be authentic as well.”

Authenticity and relevance are certainly at risk in schools today…
So is deep teaching/learning. Can we have one without the other?

– “I just heard the greatest idea… have kids write haikus in PowerPoint!”

– “Did you know that we shouldn’t use serif fonts in our presentations… we should use “sans-serif” (teacher struggling with the pronunciation here)”. Colleague asks, “Why?” Response: “I think it’s harder to read?… and did you know, using Comic Sans is illegal?”

-”I went to two of the Troxell presentations yesterday trying to win a document camera.” (Troxell and other vendor-driven sessions rob attendees of potential professional knowledge they could gain from sessions that actually might make a difference).

Then, to top it off, Marc Prensky’s keynote… sigh. Here it is in a nutshell:
-YouTube rules the world.
-Let kids make “YouTubes” and the world will be a better place.
-All you need to do is use digital tools and wisdom will abound.
-Digital tools somehow make age old, good teaching pedagogy built on the shoulders of giants like Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner, Papert… somehow new and sexy.
-I am a digital immigrant… a 21st century retard.
-He invites up a panel of “digital natives”, of which only two are in high school and one is 38 with children of her own. Then he asks the hundred million dollar question: “How many of you have cell phones and how many of you use Facebook?” Gary Stager tweets out that his 92 year old grandmother has one and so what?

Granted, he did make some good points, but by and large, I wanted to stand up and scream. Perhaps I should have. I could have competed with his obnoxious beeps that he had strategically placed in his linear 197 slide presentation to keep the audience awake.

After that keynote, I tried to find a presentation that was not solely about cool tools or cool stuff. I tried one, then another. A third sounded hopeful, but the presentation was dreadful. If you’re going to talk about assessment, you’d better be relevant and engaging – that’s all I have to say about that. Thankfully, I ended up in Sylvia Martinez’s session on GenYes. And thankfully, she set Prensky straight on his failure to realize that good has always been good teaching – teaching engages and creates valuable and relevant learning opportunity, not the tools. The tools help… that good teaching is not easy and that it requires more than YouTube and cellphones. Gary Stager talks a great deal about using computers for powerful ideas, but I don’t hear much about powerful ideas

Anyway, I’m really not trying to complain… although I guess that I am. Oh, how I am wishing for sessions that couch new tools within teaching excellence. How I wish I could sense an atmosphere of hungering to improve one’s own teaching craft. Oh, to overhear conversations about how new ideas on more effective teaching have been gleaned rather than which font should be used or isn’t ________ (you fill in the blank) so cool. We all need help… but not help in how to create stunning. gimmicky Powerpoints, flashy podcasts, “interactive” white board lessons, fancy document camera acrobatics, cool videos, clicker quizzes, … We (myself included here) need help on teaching our students in powerful ways and learning how to relinquish some of the control in order to empower them as learners, creators, communicators, problem-solvers, collaborators, meaning-makers,… students who make a difference and who feel empowered.

What if… what if we did away altogether with technology professional development/training and focused solely on effective and meaningful pedagogies while embedding in those pedagogies the necessary tools both teachers and students can use to make learning meaningful, relevant, and powerful?

The day ended with some good conversation in a session with Peter Riley and other leaders in their own right… conversation that needs to continue as we all struggle with how to best negotiate this new digital landscape and continue (or perhaps begin?) to meet the needs of students. I’m hoping that I will find more of these little nuggets – these types of conversations that I missed when the podcasts are available.

My fear is that these conferences do as much (if not more) to preserve the status quo as they do challenge it.

Am I off base here?

“The playful synergy of science and art is novel, and makes Phun as educational as it is entertaining.”

and

“Phun is a fantastic toy for children, where they can learn and appreciate physics, science and simulations in an open ended gameplay with rich creative and artistic freedom, including colorful freehand drawing.”

But, the name is so well chosen because it is just so much fun! My son has now spent a great deal of time trying to design creations that work according to his ideas. Because he has had no formal lessons in how to use Phun, it is all trial-and-error and studying some of the predesigned scenes that come with Phun. Through his creative exploration and problem-solving, he is wrestling with concepts that drive the physical world, like gravity, surface tension of water, how water takes the shape of it’s container, how motors can drive actions that get work done, cause and effect – and I could never list them all. We have also been working at things together because I have been so engaged with it as well and want to figure out how to design things that I can conceive in my mind. The social and collaborative aspect of this has been fantastic as we learn together. He shows me as much as I show him. However, my knowledge and experience allows me to ask him the questions he need to be thinking about and considering as he builds… a perfect scaffolding opportunity and chance to make metacognition explicit.

So, how much will happen like this in school this year? How much room is there in the tightly controlled curriculum with preparation for the myriad of tests he will have to take this year for creative problem-solving and strategic opportunities for social, collaborative metacognitive problem-solving and scaffolding? I like the following quoation found on NCREL’s website:

“Recognizing what you do know in a problem, as well as what you don’t yet understand, are aspects of metacognition in problem solving that are similar to a scaffolding approach. Perkins & Solomon (1989) point out that an expert’s behavior appears to be strongly driven by prior knowledge. When faced with an unfamiliar problem, he or she may construct a similar but simpler problem. In this way, the expert learner manages his/her own gradual self-regulation and enables him/herself to grow to meet the new task successfully.”

So, watch the video below, and, if you can indulge yourself, download it and have some Phun. Challenge your students, your children, your neighbors… to have some Phun. It may be the only opportunity for this type of learning they get all year.

There have been a number of critics (here, here, here) who have critiqued the commonly used term, “21st century skills” to represent a new skillset that students and workers must possess in this global and highly digital society and economy.

But from this article, it is pretty clear that Obama does not have a clue what 21st century skills really entails. In ths Eschoolnews article, he is quoted as saying (my thoughts in red):

“Without a workforce trained in math, science and technology, and the other skills of the 21st century (so now math and science are skills of the 21st century?), our companies will innovate less, our economy will grow less, and our nation will be less competitive. If we want to out-compete the world tomorrow, we must out-educate (test?) the world today,” Obama said. He added: “While technology has transformed just about every aspect of our lives–from the way we travel, to the way we communicate, to the way we look after our health–one of the places where we’ve failed to seize its full potential is in the classroom. (This is quite true. I have no problem with this statement.)

“Imagine a future where our children are more motivated because they aren’t just learning on blackboards, but on new whiteboards with digital touch screens (So, simply replacing chalkboards…(they aren’t all black these days, senator) with digital whiteboards will revolutionize education. Huh.); where every student in a classroom has a laptop at [his or her] desk; where [students] don’t just do book reports but design PowerPoint presentations (Great! Let’s spend all of that money on technology infrastructure, software, and hardware so students can do PowerPoint book report presentations from their laptops. There’s innovation for you!) ; where they don’t just write papers, but they build web sites (with text copied and pasted from the Internet and from textbooks?); where research isn’t done just by taking a book out of the library, but by eMailing experts in the field (Okay…that’s actually a great idea.); and where teachers are less a source of knowledge than a coach for how best to use it and obtain knowledge(Again, a great idea, but not new in the 21st century either.). By fostering innovation (But what’s the innovation in all of this?), we can help make sure every school in America is a school of the future.

“And that’s what we’re going to do when I’m president. We will help schools integrate technology into their curriculum, so we can make sure public school students are fluent in the digital language of the 21st-century economy. We’ll teach our students not only math and science, but teamwork and critical thinking and communication skills (I hate to be a party pooper here, but these are not new in the 21st century.), because that’s how we’ll make sure they’re prepared for today’s workplace.”

So, what are we left with here? A plug for digital whiteboards, laptops, authoring websites, PowerPoint ad nauseum, and a little constructivist philosophy thrown in the mix. Oh yes, math and science is important. This is not the stuff that great speeches are made of. This is not the rhetoric of an informed politician. And the biggest slap is the subheading to the article: “GOP largely silent on 21st-century skills”. I guess they need to throw some of these terms around as well to make us all happy. Well, I certainly am not happy about what I read. I hope you are not, either. We have been struggling with these learning issues for decades now. Throwing technology into the mix is not the silver bullet. We know that. And funny, but there is no mention of any (with the exception of math and science and the hint of technology-based standardized testing) of this on his webpage regarding educational policy.

So, Mr. Obama (you should read through this), what really needs to happen to see teaching and learning innovation in our nation’s schools? Unless you have that figured out, all of the money you allocate to your “plan for change” will just be more of the same. At least we can use a digital white board to project PowerPoint presentations, right?

.

Why do we learn? Many learn because they have to. It’s the law up to a certain age in this country. Others learn because they are expected to. Yet others learn because they are interested or even passionate about a topic. Some learning is a by-product of other life activities.

While reading the latest issue (August 2008) of Learning & Leading with Technology, I ran across something that made me think. If you are not familiar with this periodical, for a while now they have had a current issue in educational technology where opposing views are represented. This issue’s topic: “Is educational technology shortening student attention span?” (PDF)

David Marcovitz, an associate professor at Loyola College in Maryland presents the “Yes” argument (I suggest you read it. He has worded it quite well) while the CIO of a school district and VP of that state’s association of technology coordinators presents the opposing view.

Now, there is no doubt that the use of current tools by students in schools is a motivating factor for them. For some reason, when a traditional worksheet is digitized and put on line for students to complete with a few glitzy animated graphics and a little feedback, it is a whole new experience for students. They attend better and persist longer. However, this form of learning is no more meaningful and certainly no more powerful than the paper/pencil activity done at their desks. So much with educational technologies can be described this way… simply digitizing traditional forms of learning and calling it innovation – 21st Century Learning… Blah! Is it just about controlling students… getting them to do what we want in the easiest way possible… even if that way is inferior to others, less messy… almost “effortless”?

What bothers me most about the “NO” view presented here is the following quotation:

“Technology has the power to capture our children’s attention by making learning interactive and fun. I have walked into classrooms where students were using technology to share, create, and explore. Those students were excited and engaged in the content being presented to them.”

The latter part of the quotation has some merit in the right contexts. However, the first part of the quotation is what does not sit well with me. Yes – technology does have the power to capture children’s attention by making learning interactive and fun. But what worries me is the seductive nature of this. Let me add a few words to this statement:

Technology has the power to capture our children’s attention by making (disguising) disconnected, rote learning interactive and fun.

The result – we are able to maintain the status quo and change very little simply by making it more fun and interactive.

Later in in this same issue, there is an article on Mathcasts. To make this contrast even greater, a quotation from this piece states:

“Perhaps the greatest motivation for your students will be their increasing self-confidence and improving attitude toward math. Students who regularly create mathcasts take ownership of the math concepts they explain. Mathematical ideas become more meaningful to students…”

So, what do you think? Is motivation best when it results from increased self-confidence and improved attitude that comes from meaningful learning? Or, do we just shoot for “interactive and fun”, keeping kids entertained?

Back to the initial arguments about technology and shortening attention spans… which type of learning described above may lead more to shortened attention spans? As David Marcovitz and Neil Postman suggest (in Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business), that every technology is a Faustian Bargain (and here)- “for every positive benefit, there is an often unseen and very serious downside”.

So, how best are we to motivate children? With technology or with powerful, meaningful, relevant learning opportunities (that may or may not involve newer technologies). Sorry, I know the question is redundant. I have always told my preservice college students who want to put “fun” first in their lessons that “fun” is a result of developmentally-appropriate, relevant and meaningful learning. Engagement comes from that. Fun is a by-product – not a goal.

I would really like to hear your thoughts on all of this, as I am thinking out loud here.