EdTechTrek

Value Beyond School

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?

A great deal has been swirling around in my brain over the past weeks. It has felt as if I have been pulled in way too many conceptual directions. This seems to be what is happening as access to resources and people who share ideas and resources (diigo, twitter, plurk, rss, blogs, elluminate sessions, UStreamed events, podcasts, Coveritlive live blogs…) continues to abound. It is wise advise to be able to filter all of that information, but somehow I have not quite gotten my filter to the point that I need it to be. It is all interesting. It is all relevant. I love it all. But, it reminds me of one of the toughest lessons that I had to learn as I went through the grueling dissertation process… narrowing and focusing in on a specific question/issue to be investigated. For me, that was the most difficult process. I wonder if I need to go back to that idea just a little in this fantastic information age…

So, in the sprit of that thought, I am returning to some ideas that I have been wrestling with as a result of reading Neil Postman’s book, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (1985). If you have not read it, I highly recommend it. Like anything else Postman writes, it is not an “easy” read. But you need to be doing this type of reading. Reading blogs has been wonderfully rewarding and challenging, but at times it can be a little synonymous with “quick mental snacks”. In these exciting times of immediacy of information and access to so much great public discourse, don’t rob yourself of the opportunity (and discipline) of getting lost in important ideas found in great books. Be certain to feed yourself in diverse ways that both feed and strengthen your noodle.

Here are two related quotations that I have yet to reconcile:

“…television clearly does impair the student’s freedom to read, and it does so with innocent hands, so to speak. Television does not ban books, it simply displaces them.” (p. 141)

We know that “screen time” has increased over the years with kids and adults alike (Pew1 Pew2). There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Yet, one can’t help to raise the question, “What’s being lost?”. And, to follow up on that question, “Is what’s being lost worth losing?”

Neither of these questions are easy to answer. The first question requires one to determine if indeed something is being lost, and secondly, if the answer is “yes”, then is the loss significant? Does it matter? Is increased screen time simply altering tools of reading (like the Kindle), or is it displacing valuable reading habits altogether? Although I have no statistics to support my hunch here, I tend to think that the Kindle and other such devices are not “the rage” with kids. Although great writing can be accessed and read online (not yet where it needs to be, though), I know that is not how most kids are spending their “on-line” screen time.

Here’s my next springboard in this thought stream:

“As a television show, and a good one, Sesame Street does not encourage children to love school or anything about school. It encourages them to love television.” (p. 144)

So, to extend Postman’s idea, is the Internet encouraging children to love learning or simply love the Internet?

No doubt, kids are learning on-line. However, it seems to me that the challenge to teachers is greater than ever. Kids are huge users of the Internet, but to generalize, they are not such great learners who are able to harness the incredible power of Internet resources and capabilities to connect to unparalleled learning networks and learning opportunities. They need teachers to show them this side. They need teachers to set them up to be part of powerful, meaningful, and relevant learning that takes advantage of the incredible resources just a few mouse clicks and browser plugins away. They need teachers to help them form (not give) worthy questions to pursue. They need teachers to help them organize their “plans of attack”. They need teachers to show them how to efficiently and effectively find relevant and valid information. They need teachers to make them think about the hard questions they are not thinking about or are avoiding. They need teachers to help them see that hard work is a worthy endeavor. They need teachers who understand multiple ways of collaborating, sharing and creating learning artifacts without compromising the quality of the learning outcomes. They need teachers who understand the great learning potential that can be harnessed with new tools and new ways to work and create and share. They need other leaders and administrators who understand all of this as well.

So where does this all leave us?  Where does it leave you? These ideas continually challenge me. They challenge my students and sometimes come from my students, which I love.

Photo credit: Cayusa

Addendum

This is NOT how we want kids to be using their network potential!

Well, it’s day two of the NYSCATE conference and I am just a little jaded. We KNOW that it is how teachers teach that makes learning meaningful and engaging for students, not the tools that they use. However, so much of the discussion about these things is about the tools. Granted, folks come to these things in large part just for that reason. But Here are some of the comments I have overheard while sitting down quietly eating lunch from Subway (not paying the $45 to sit at a table in the banquet hall).

– “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?