Architecture of Ideas

Don't Touch The Mouse

"Tie your arm behind your back if you have to, but try not to take over mousing... This is one of the hardest things for me to do, but also one of the most important. When people mouse they learn to do things themselves, when I do it for them they learn to watch me do it."- Liz Davis, Director of Academic Technology, Belmont Hill School, Massachusetts

Making the shift from "teaching to" to "educating" or more "student-centered learning" can be hard for some of us. And, as much as I believe in--and have learned best from being in the company of those who do this so well--I recognize more and more how my enthusiasm for what I know either a) intimidates or b) robs one of the opportunity to discover and become enthused for themselves. I see a huge growth opportunity for me to "let go of the mouse." I mean, after all, the mice keep changing...




Learning is about discovery. It is a process. And I will not let my own eagerness and excitement, all that I know, get in the way of what I can learn, and what others can learn, together. Will you?

When You Can't Build From the Ground Up

Finally last evening I completed my first read through of Chris Dede's 2007 White Paper for North Caroline State University's Friday Institute. As someone who is feeling ever more comfortable with my own understanding of what good education looks like and what learning environments provide the best opportunity for students to think, create, collaborate, and contribute, I have to say this paper on Tranforming Education for the 21st Century : New Pedagogies that Help All Students Attain Sophisticated Learning Outcomes (Download Dede_21stC-skills_semi-final) makes me think any "chip at the traditional school block" is light years from what it will take for our students to thrive and compete in the 21st century. Why? Because on par, I don't see enough rigor, sophisticated problem-solving, or complex communication in our classrooms--even with some of the "world to the desktop" methods employed-- that Dede argues are fundamental for a 21st century worker and citizen.  And, if I have a  pretty good understanding of the current information and communication technologies relative to an average teacher or administrator and feel a little overwhelmed by the shift required, then is it reasonable to assume any school can make the kind of transformational shift recommended in Dede's paper? 

Don't get me wrong. I am just a little overwhelmed. But, in agreement? Yes. Absolutely. Just for starters, here are a few key points/observations Dede makes I agree with:

1. "(E)ducational systems must transform their objectives, curricula, pedagogies, and assessments to help all students attain the sophisticated outcomes requisite for a prosperous, attractive lifestyle based on contributions in work and citizenship." (Dede, 3) (Emphasis mine.)
   
2. Knowledge and skills are intertwined and we must teach content knowledge and process skills together; we must teach "understandings" with the actualization of those understandings being "performances." (Dede, 4)
   
3. Technology integration in schools has been very basic-mostly an emphasis on productivity (email), access (broadband Internet) and asynchronous communication (email and discussion boards).
   
4. The rich opportunity innovations in ICT afford businesses and schools  are indeed relatively untapped, especially in light of the power for "individual and collective expressions, experience and interpretation."  (Dede, 6) 
5. The sociological shifts underway because of ICT innovation-"distributed thought, action, and sociability"--are producing "electronic nomads wandering among virtual campfires" (Mitchell, 2003). Rightly or wrongly, but certainly without abate,  our personal interactions are delocalizing. (Dede, 7)
6. The capacity of machines to manage routine tasks implores us to develop expert thinking and complex communication skills. (Note: Dede notes rightly this does not mean that the development of routine cognitive skills is unnecessary. Rather, he argues this foundational knowledge should not be the end goal but a means to a more sophisticated end. (Dede, 8)
7. The current school framework, with its emphasis on high-stakes tests, 45 minute classes and discrete knowledge and skills development, will need to change with the more 20th-century methods deemphasized and the expert, problem-solving skills intertwined with content promoted. (Dede, 23)
   

But. I come back to the question:

How do we shift the environment our students need to learn and prosper in the 21st century if it is a) s0 foreign from what we have right now and b) most achievable with a heavy infusion of ICT skills and correlated pedagogy that so many teachers lack? (Note: The powerful opportunity that River City and Alien Contact!*  he presents alongside our current experimentation with "world to desktop" learning excite me to no end, and yet will be so intimidating to so many teachers!)

As a school leader, and someone who is helping guide the work of a 21st century classroom PLC, I struggle with how to best prepare our schools--not just my own school's, but all schools'-- for the shift required. For the kind of transformation Dede argues for, and I support, you need teachers, administrators, parents, college admission offices, and our government to "get smart." They need to understand where we are headed, come to some consensus on how to get there, and--since ICT is at the route of so much of the change--then all stakeholders need some understanding of the tools we'll use to get there. How do we propel this vision when all we read about are the new "National Standards" and hear that AP and the College Board are helping design "new tests" of the "new standards"? I cringe to think where we are headed. How will these new standards and correlating tests assess whether our kids can think, collaborate, and communicate as they navigate face to face and via  mediated discourses with a diverse population to solve complex problems? There is nothing routine about where we are and where we need to go. Again, I agree with Dede.

So, although I find myself lamenting the huge mountain in front of us, I'm asking myself what my next step will be. If I cannot "build from the ground up" then how can I chip away most effectively?

• I will be looking at River City MUVE and Alien Contact! as examples of immersive, virtual learning environments to see how they might fit into a traditional school's effort to shift towards more "21st century learning." These are middle school platforms, and therefore there is a little more openness to experimentation than our high school teachers hanging by APs and SAT scores. (Although, Dede argues well that what we've taught in a 20th century modality, and as distinct knowledge and skills, will be learned more efficiently and effectively in such immersive environments.)
  
• I will continue to look at other non-virtual learning environments like Science Leadership Academy- a place that has all the access to "the world" but has built such a rich, immersive community of inquiry, critical-thinking, communication, collaboration, and problem-solving among its faculty and students.
• I will continue to look for opportunities with our own faculty to explore new ideas and pedagogies as well as different, and differentiated, means of building their comfort with the ever innovating realm of ICT. As Curby Alexander so aptly noted in his recent comment on Banning Pencils:

"In education, we talk a lot about differentiating instruction for students, yet teacher professional development is rarely, if ever, differentiated based on where teachers are in their careers, background with technology or teaching style. Perhaps a place to start is to thoughtfully consider the different reasons for teachers’ resistance to technology and meet them wherever they are."

• I will keep visionary and practical articles in front of our academic team, headmaster, and technology department so we can continue to address the shift, what learning needs to look like, and build a dynamic approach in partnership with our faculty.
  
• I will continue to share and learn alongside the 21st Century Dobbs Fellows and my virtual (sometimes face to face) learning network, and write and reflect more regularly.
  

   

What do you think? Does this shift overwhelm you? What do you think of Dede's argument and the role of ICT? What are your next steps-for yourself, your school, your learning?

Not many of us get to start from the ground up. So, where will we start?

*River City is a MUVE (multi-user virtual environment). Alien Contact! is an AR, augmented reality, game.

Image Credit: We may just go where no one's been before by toastforbrekkie under Creative Commons License 2.0, accessed on September 23, 2009

What We Do Not Know

"We fear things in proportion to our ignorance of them."-Titus Livius

Less is not more when it comes to constructing knowledge. What I know, or do not know, informs what questions I ask, what ideas I have to share, what choices I make, what pathways I forge with the world-pathways for myself and sometimes for others. Educators carry a great burden "to know" as we are responsible for helping forge pathways for so many.

 In his post Banning Pencils? Willy Kjellstrom presents a situation where that which we do not know forces decision-making based on fear and worst case scenarios. Specifically, he asks us to consider how schools can make effective policy decisions around the adoption of emerging technologies if they focus only on how the tools might be misused. What are the considerations then for adopting or banning certain technologies? And, in light of the "often unrecognizable, misunderstood, or unrealized"  curricular/pedagogical benefits, how can a proper vetting of the opportunity be assured? Here is my quick take on some important considerations. However, I want to emphasize the most important consideration is approaching the choices confidently as "educated educators," not as narrow-minded, limited view, fearful people. It is the construction of knowledge we model alongside the other stakeholders that will lead to thoughtful, reasoned policy decisions.


Considerations

• Access
  
  • For whom is the technology intended?
    
  • Are there age restrictions or developmental issues relative to student use?
  • Is ubiquitous access required? At home? At school? 1:1?
  
  
• Risk Tolerance
  • What is the mission of the school? How progressive is the institution? 
  • What is the attitude towards experimentation? What happens if it fails?
    
  • What are expectations of the stakeholders?
    
  • Could the adoption be piloted with a discrete subset of the school population?
    

• Cost
  • What is the cost to the school? To the student? Hard dollars? Time? 

• Management and Assessment
  • Who will be responsible for the adoption and roll-out?
  • How will that process be managed?
  • How will implementation and use be assessed? What will be assessed? Who will access it? When?

• Tool and Transformative Use
  
  • What do all the stakeholders know about the technology?
  • How has the technology been used to date? (Inside and outside education) By whom? Where? What purpose? What conditions?
  • How would adopting the technology be consistent with the school's mission/philosophy and strategic vision?
  • Where in the curriculum might this technology "fit"?
  • What is the pedagogy required to support its use as a learning tool?
  • What education (or as applicable, professional development) is required a) of the teachers, b) of the parents, c) of the administrators, d) of the students to support the use of the tool such that the affordances are demonstrated and drawbacks minimized? 
  • How can we educate our community to tip the scales in favor of transformative use?

Some recent local policy decisions are good examples of generally thoughtful, reasoned approaches.  One case involves the use of Facebook by middle school students. Though sound educational uses of the tool (or others like it*) could be identified, the decision was made not to support its use in middle school based on the stated terms of service. (Their age limitation is a minimum of 13 years old and in high school.) Another case revolved around student cell phone use with the decision to generally prohibit it during the school day. The obvious drawbacks reigned high in this decision (the pervasive "fear" of potential cheating, student distraction, and classroom disruption); however, the decision rested largely on the school's current inability to support and utilize the tool productively in an educational context. In spite of this general ban, the door is open for discrete opportunities when the phones can serve an educational purpose. For example, teachers wanted to gather concrete data from students at the end of a unit on Africa about what students believed were the most important issues facing Africa and what organizations were worthy of their time and support. With support of the principal we were able to employ a relevant, emerging technology application (cell phone as clicker) to collect this data. Therefore, in addition to 150 30-second reflections on a Voicethread, we used Poll Everywhere and cell phones to "text our vote" and get a clear picture of their collective mindset. Needless to say, the students were engaged and voiced their appreciation to the principal for days...

The list of emerging technologies (not the least of which are the myriad of connective and social web 2.0 tools) and vast innovation present educators with unlimited opportunities for educational use and challenging decisions to make. If educators will choose to model an educated mindset-one where we do the hard work of being aware of the technologies;committing the time to learn and practice;and  approaching each situation with a reasoned approach;-then we will honor the charge we have as educators "to know" and lessen the chance we forge pathways fueled by ignorance based on fear.

*Learning to communicate safely, appropriately, and effectively in an online network is valued. The school is employing Ning networks as age limitations permit and examining other networks for pre-13 engagement.