Reflection: The Nature of Learning and Knowledge

I recently posted about a new, improved KWL chart for educators called the KWHLAQ. And while I certainly did not systemically or consciously adopt the structure into my ongoing learning process, I'm coming to realize its value and how its components are shaping my thinking and writing.

The impact may be most visible here in my summer blogging or perhaps in the coming weeks when I am preparing to return to teaching classes this fall. I feel like I'm loaded to the brim with new ideas about my profession and practice, yet I'm also feeling uncertain without one clearly defined path to follow forward. Perhaps it's the reality that my view of technology and education is being expanded daily and the array of possibilities now seems greater than ever. [Sigh]

I've also learned to truly value the summer break, something that many people see as teaching's greatest perk. It's not what made me want to be a teacher, but I'm gaining a deeper understanding of the necessity of reflection and the opportunity that summer gives for this process. I also know that the season is passing, and as blessed as I have been to have had the opportunity to study daily without working, I received a letter in the mail just yesterday concerning the coming first week of school and the myriad of activities, meetings, and assemblies; a reminder that I must put these wonderful ideas into action for them to have value in this world.

And so, I definitely feel as though I'm positioned in the final two sections of the KWHLAQ process: Action and Question. Thankfully, I've gaining in the number of resources and colleagues, on and off line that can aid me in my decision making for pedagogical actions, chiming back with meaningful answers to my earnest questions. I hope to continue my social bookmarking and blogging throughout the coming school year as my thesis project comes into a clearer focus. I'm a big believer in our habits shaping our character, and through my habitual blogging, the person I am has certainly become more knowledgable and yet more inquisitive too. Funny how that happens. I've searched for a source for the following quote, but ironically, I have not yet found its author beyond a website stating, "[knowledge is] a condition in which the more we know, the more we know that we don't know."

At the end of the summer, I think that is all I know.

Image: Auguste Rodin's "The Thinker" photographed by d.Seneste.dk http://www.flickr.com/photos/dseneste/5912382808

1 to 1: Maintaining the Human Connection?

Dean Shareski's recent post on his "Ideas and Thoughts" blog seems to oddly question the push for a 1-to-1 ratio of students and computer devices. Shareski's work may lead one to assume he is in unanimously in favour of increased technological access in education, but he poses a question that I think is intended to keep technologically eager stakeholders in education vision and goals in check. And to me, it's a welcome question.


Given the flurry of comments to this post, I'm pretty sure that some people read this question as a questioning of educators working in a 1-to-1 situation. I do not believe this is the thrust of Shareski's post. He is neither attacking or second guessing the excellent work that can be done by professionals in such a setting. I think he's questioning the bigger picture of pushing so hard for a 1-to-1 environment that we lose sight of the importance in face to face interaction.


Speaking from my own recent (current) experience of pursuing my Masters degree in a completely online format, I feel the lost Shareski laments about. I have never met face to face with my classmates and as a result, I do not feel a strong kinship with them. Certainly we are undergoing similar trials under simultaneous deadlines, but connections that would be made in person cannot be relied upon. In some ways I think that has made this cohort more efficient. We don't "waste time" making small talk, but we also do not learn much about one another beyond a paragraph posted on the first week of class. Now don't get me wrong, this is a graduate level program and I'm confident that each and every one of my cohorts is a well-adjusted adult learner with at least one degree completed. We are not adolescents struggling with identity, popularity, sexuality, trends, and acceptance. But our students often are.


Just like Dean Shareski, I am not about to start lobbying my administration for less computers and old software, but I do want to keep my pursuit of advancing educational technologies in check. All technologies have great potential to bring people together or drive to them apart and fostering human connectedness is more the goal of education than the blind ambition of stuff.

Bring Your Own Device? Nice!

Darren Kuropatwa's recent post on his "A Difference" blog regarding his blueprint for a "BYOD" class really got me thinking about the coming September and the next five or so years, when I begin to assume that every student will have a personal electronic device with them in school. Instead of arguing when and why this should happen, I'll just dream along with Kuropatwa's wish list of apps and work flow.

Well, to be honest, I still don't follow the entire flow of the class, although I do suspect he teaches Math not a computer course per say. Having him outline the way he would like to see his class function if he where in a liberating BYOD situation makes me question why I am not more clear with my own work flow via technology plan in my media literacy course? Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the first generation iPads we have have given me a number of hiccups with regards to interaction with our school's Sharepoint portal. But that would be a simple excuse for the time I've been able to put in for work arounds. That said, as I read over Kuropatwa's ideal class, I feel further conviction to abandon the clunky and limited Sharepoint site and instead employ some of the vast number of free Web tools that are out there today. Well, to remain honest, that another of my issues. Yes the Internet is being swarmed with brilliant, free tools, but I almost wish that students would be able to bring their own devices in with them.

Allowing students to take possession of devices for our daily hour of class time is a positive response to their need for technology to be integrated into their education. However (and I do not begrudge the folks who funded our iPad program) the fact is that the devices stay at school and remain the property of the school in the same way a badminton racket is used for a purpose and shared so other can access it too. The big hold up here is that I'm really starting to see the importance of an individual really taking possession of a device to best work with it. I've been blessed with a laptop for the duration of this summer course and have made blogging and other Web 2.0 tools a daily thing. If I had to leave my house to access the Internet and could only do so for an hour a day, how much would I have learned this summer?

Bring your own device to class for technologically supported learning in school? I'm being very serious, quite optimistic, and in no way sarcastic when I say, "That will be the day!"

  

KWL 2.0?

I appreciate hearing new ideas, but I really truly appreciate hearing a new idea that is build upon a proven, sound idea. Such is the case with Silvia Rosenthal Tolisano's blogpost concerning the new, 21st century KWL chart. The KWL chart has been around for a while and as Rosenthal Tolisano suggests, it was certainly time for an "upgrade".

But what is gained? KWHLAQ infuses three processes to the learning process and while the ideas are not particularly new, the additions are welcome in my opinion. K still stands for what is known about the subject, acting as an anticipatory mode. W stands for what information you want to learn. H is a new addition and stands for how the information will be found. L remains to stand for what has been learned. A is a new addition and stands for what action will be taken, asking learners to apply their knowledge. And finally Q stands for questions, as in what new questions are generated by this inquiry.

The easy to memorize acronym is gone, but the additional components do reflect the information literacies that are increasingly necessary in the digital information age. What are your thoughts on this "upgrade"?

Rosenthal Tolisano suggests her new chart ought to hang on your classroom wall.

Flipping Education

I've been reading a lot more lately about the concepts of blended education and flipped classrooms. While the two processes are compatible, I'm really getting on board with the later and have begun aligning my classroom procedures considerably towards flipping. Recently reading Jonathan Bergmann's post retelling the genesis of the idea, I was captured by his earnest conversation with a co-worker that led to the idea's birth. I had a strikingly similar conversation this year past with a colleague that led him to screencasting a number of his lessons and demonstrations. He wasn't doing it to seek out a challenging new pedagogy, it was to save himself some time. While the capturing process is time-consuming at the initial on set, the payoff was immediate and well worth it.

Observing my colleague, I saw that him being freed up from repeatedly lecturing and demonstrating the same concepts and skills during class time to deal more directly one on one with students' concerns. This was an obvious win-win scenario. It was also awesome to see students arrive for class having viewed his tutorials the night previous. The learning had been offloaded, to become the students' responsibility and the teacher's role truly became supportive. That's when I really started thinking about the cleverness of the "flipped" moniker.

For whatever reason, this is the visual representation I see for the flipped model. Imagine an inverted triangle, with the teacher representing the bottom point and the many students sitting precariously above, relying on the teacher to make their learning experience equal to all the others balanced up on top. Now imagine the triangle sitting with the base (students) at the bottom. The teacher is now able to offer each and every student the same basic tutorial or lecture without being smothered by the needs of students to review and recap central concepts. Instead, students are in at the base-level and need to take the weight of ownership in their learning.

Perhaps this visual doesn't work for you, but to me it illustrates the freedom being offered to educators in adopting the inverted, perhaps counter-intuitive classroom procedure. Would it likely be challenging? Yes, myself and my students have to reconfigure the way we do learning and school. Does it mean throwing out everything that has worked in my classes? No, certainly not. Instead, it's a matter of capturing the traditionally repeated instructional elements of my classes and allowing students to view and review them in a take-away format. Am I likely to be "flipping" this semester? I'm certainly going to try the flipping practice in my media literacy course for starters, given the individualistic nature of the course and its employment of 1 to 1 technology. If this practice is successful for me like it was for Bergmann and my colleague, I'll be flipping my other more traditional English courses shortly after. That is, if my students are not "flipping out".

iPad @ Work

So, I'm actually on a short summer vacation at the moment. And I've snuck away from my sleeping children (and supportive, beautiful wife) to hit a cafe with wifi and do some blogging. I'm not that into public computing, but what choice do I have? I've bought a coffee and noticed that the server rung in my order using an iPad. I suppose she caught me staring at the device, because she quickly jumped into what I assume is an often-used little info chat informing customers that the iPad IS the cash register. I mumble something about having seen this sort of thing before, wander to find the coffee cream, and sit down.

So here I am... wondering how does an iPad become a cash register? I assume they have an app for that. And after a little digging, I find out that the app is called Poslavu.

Now I'd love to tell you that I used my mega-hyper Internet searching skills to pin-point this nugget of information, but I simply asked the guy restocking napkins, who it turns out is the owner/manager of the cafe. We quickly fell into a conversation of experiences of restaurants past and expensive order management systems with one or two exclusive, bulky input stations and serving personal line-up to punch orders in. Listening intently to the owner speak about his set-up and operating costs, I am again surprised to see a server attend a table and notify the kitchen of a new order at the adjoining table before pocketing her iPod.

Why am I so surprised to a multi-functional devices such as iPods and iPads being used in a workplace? I shouldn't be. I know that software developers are pushing the limits of such devices. With the Poslavu system carrying a cost of roughly 1/4 that of a traditional industry type, I'm excited to hear that not only is the wireless way to go more slick and quick, but it is quite economical as well. The owner continued to tell me how even a novice server can simply touch menu item's icons and the Poslavu system will lead them through all options applying to their menu item. He says that server and kitchen errors have been reduced to a minimum as deciphering unique server shorthand is no longer and accurate order summaries are at the fingertips of each server.

After the conversation with the innovative owner, I finished the luke-warm dregs of my medium-roast coffee, and recalled a few of my colleagues scoffing at my class’s use of iPads. They questioned me about the practicality of such devices and the skills associated with them. The coffee has me buzzing, but it was this stimulating café experience that has refueled my engine for exploring new uses for technology in (and out) of school.

Check out a quick demo of Poslavu's capabilities.

Social Media Arms Race in School? Seriously

An unnamed blogger who posts under the header "What's the PONT?" recently threw out a title that really caught my attention. And then it got me thinking. And then it got me researching who he or she was to make me think so. And then it led me to write the following sentence starter, which I shudder to think of how many times will be written.


According to Wikipedia, "The term arms race, in its original usage, describes a competition between two or more parties for the best armed forces. Each party competes to produce larger numbers ofweapons, greater armies, or superior military technology in a technological escalation. Nowadays the term is commonly used to describe any competition where there is no absolute goal, only the relative goal of staying ahead of the other competitors, essentially the goal of proving to be "better".


Now to jump back, I like to think that I am above my students with regards to critical thinking abilities, so when the aforementioned blog above ran the headline "Stop the Social Media Arms Race in School",  I needed to evaluate the accuracy of such a statement. The blog even went on to include a photo of Wikileaks leader Julian Assang, asking who is he the pupil of? At first I thought this may be another person advocating against social media because of its potential use in bullying, but upon further reading the author draws out an establishment vs. students vs. teachers scenario with some telling truthfulness. So I will examine this three sentence definition as I see it applying metaphorically to schools today.


First, is there a "competition between two or more parties for the best [technology]" in schools today? Certainly there is. Nearly all stakeholders in education are jockeying to get increased and improved technology into schools. Budgets are fiercely debated to maximize the coverage of technology, pilots programs are offered looking for innovative ways to leverage technology, teachers write proposals for new devices, and kids smuggle their often "against the rules" devices in daily.


Second, in our schools does, "Each party competes to produce larger numbers of [devices] greater armies, or superior military technology in a technological escalation"? No, but I almost wish this were the case. Imagine for a moment if students were able to use all the "weapons" at their disposal? I bet there would be some significant increases in engagement if students knew they could use any media platform and device to demonstrate their learning. I know many students can text blindfolded, but struggle with penmanship. Why not allow them to put the "weapon" they can brandish with frightening accuracy in their hands for learning? Rules that are counter-productive to the escalation of technology.


Lastly, "Nowadays the term is commonly used to describe any competition where there is no absolute goal, only the relative goal of staying ahead of the other competitors, essentially the goal of proving to be 'better'." Sadly I would say this applies in the reality that the "What's the PONT?" author cites noting that students are keenly aware how to get around blocked websites and rise to the challenge of accessing information of diverse sorts. I would also contest that staff often are in competition with one another, IT departments and administrators when trying to gain access to devices or install software. Again I believe this comes back to the outdated rules governing access to much of the emerging technology of the Internet and fear to change things.


So when all is said and done, is there something like an arms race occurring in schools today? Yes, I would say that metaphor is quite applicable. This doesn't make me particularly happy to write given the outcomes of historic arms races. But it does help me to identify the two areas in which I feel progress is needed with technology in our schools. One, remove barriers to students and staff possessing or seeking information technologies. And two, support those students and staff with relevant guidelines that clearly model and enforce the ethical use of technology.


Image "Late 50s Cold Warriors" by X-Ray Delta One http://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one/4142181603/sizes/m/in/photostream/

Google+ Video Review

Here's a quick but informative video review of the new Google+ UI (user interface) by IIJERiiCHOII. I suspect that many early adopters and soon to be immigrants from Facebook, will simply enjoy the "upgrades" to other social network's such as differentiating between friend groups (circles), group chatting (hangouts), and great feed update controls.


I'm still not invited to Google+, are you in? Drop me a line.


<


P.S. I've added Protonotes just as a tester. Please feel free to click the header and add a note!

Google+/-

So, what are the negatives of the new Google social network? Is it all pluses? Nothing is all positive. So, because I am not yet invited to the Google+ party, I started looking for those who are looking critically at the new cool kid on the block.

One such person I found was Ira Socol in his Eduptopia post on this matter. I found Socol's perspective to be interesting but not really where I would sit in the opinion camp. Socol's hesitation with celebrating a (soon-to be) new social media leader has largely to do with his concern for the groupings, Google+ calls "circles", Socol believes these could lead to greater segregation and elitism when he writes,

"Social networking sites like Google+ present powerful classroom opportunities, but they are also designed to create hierarchies... The power to "friend" and "unfriend," to draw groups which include and exclude, is a difficult thing to resist, online or off, for people who have very little power over any other part of their lives. And so I thought about bullying as I began to use Google+ over the last few weeks. I thought about it every time I dragged a name into one circle or another, or chose not to do that at all. I thought about it when I left a trail of who I'd been "hanging out" with."

While I share Socol's concern regarding the potentially harmful use of social networking, I am again newly motivated to guide and equip young people in skills of critical thinking instead of condemning new media. Google+ will boom or bust based on an incredible number of factors, very few of which are related to being nice or inclusive to all. This argument against social networks could also be made against books, they don't necessarily promote unity or understanding unless the author instills such messages.

While Socol does not condemn Google+ entirely based on the concept of grouping friends by circles, it seems to be the sticking point. He writes, "Circles have no sides, except inside and outside. And the students in your classrooms will be on one side or the other." I appreciate the poetic device here, but must contend that life does not have sides either. I think that human being DO in fact live in circles and Google+'s articulation of this is an opportunity for critical discussion and learning. In my media literacy course, we openly discuss the differences between the criteria used in choosing "friends" and "Facebook friends". I've enjoyed the puzzlement on students faces as they attempt to articulate their criteria, and the friendly debates that take place between students (friends or not).

I welcome the "new" circles component of Google+ as it simply asks people of all ages to reflect, choose, and practice different levels of relationship as opposed to "friend" or not. I think this can be a healthy, thoughtful action that students can learn, adopt, and apply to other spheres of life. Opps, I got 3 dimensional there.

Google+'s circles, much like any other media tool, need not be necessarily exclusive or bad. Circles can combine, overlap, and compliment one another to create a much richer realistic picture of life.

"Christmas Bokeh 2" image by "no3rdw" http://www.flickr.com/photos/no3rdw/3131851573/

Google+ or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the New Bomb

Online profiles...

How many do I need?
How many do I check regularly?
How do I know which one is best?

These questions come at dizzying speed as I try to grasp what Google+ really is in relation to me. And the questions really don't stop.

Is Google+ just another "next big thing" in a long line of things to come? Maybe.
Goes Google+ seem like it combines a number of awesome things into one big awesome thing? Yah.
Do I have the desire and time to change over to a new social network? I don't know.
Could I save time by being on an improved social network? I don't know.

I've been reading about Google+ most of the afternoon and still have a very limited grasp on whether I want to be on it. That said, instead of reading ad nauseum, it's possible that a more practical use of my time would be to sign-up and explore it? I'll give it 30 minutes, then 30 more, then...

Please post any comments you have regarding Google+, I am all ears.

Are You Listening?

It's an important question at times, "Are you listening?" It's also an important skill, as the old saying goes, "We've got one mouth and two ears because listening is twice as important as speaking."

As an ELA teacher I try to develop all 6 modes of communication: reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and representing. However I am keenly aware that I (and the world at large) have favourites communication modes. My students have their own favourite communication modes like texting and IM that are sometimes challenging to more traditional modes. And I dare say that across our society the mode of listening is largely undervalued. I must admit that in planning my courses, listening is often an underlying skill to others. By its nature, it does not compete for the attention of others like speaking or representing, but is more akin to reading and viewing. Interesting enough, listening is often a skill that people wish others were more proficient in, but how well do you know your listening abilities or care to improve them?

In a recent TED talk, Julian Treasure presents 5 exercises to improve the quality of listening. I found the video version to be thoughtful and an excellent resource for my classroom practice, but also for any person in any role as well.

The first of Treasure's exercises calls for 3 minutes of silence a day, to allow your listening abilities an intentional rest and recalibration. The second exercise he calls "channel listening", referring to the channels of an audio mixer. The goal of this exercise is to identify each sound on it own as if it were an individual channel. The third exercise Treasure calls savouring sounds or "the hidden choir", where an individual focusses on a commonly heard or mundane sound, but tries to delve deeply into the richness of that sound experience. The fourth exercise refers to changing listening positions, examples of which are active/passive, reductive/expansive, and critical/empathetic. These positions are like changing the intent or purpose of your listening. The final exercise involves the acronym RASA which stands for the 4 phases of quality listening: Receive, Appreciate, Summarize, and Ask.

If listening is an underlying skill that is required for success in countless other fields of skill and knowledge, we need to address and strengthen our students' listening. I am very interested in including some of these exercises in my classroom this coming semester, as they appear to be simple but are more so simply important.

Challenging for Change

I found Chris Lehmann's recent "Education is Broken" speech from TEDx Philly both inspiring and challenging. Lehmann's main beef is with the state of western education seems to be schools' institutionalization for the production of future workers, and the subsequent removal of individuals' interests and passions in favour of broad curriculum. While I haven't heard of any district heads specifically target the removal of passion for their schools, Lehmann focusses on this resulting from heavy curricula and an outdated assembly line modal. He suggests there are many well-meaning but ineffective teachers but that is not necessarily the fault of individuals involved with education, but the system itself. Here are a couple of my take away thoughts culled from Lehmann's presentation and other web presences: His blogPractical Theory and the school at which he is principal, Science Leadership Academy.

People want to follow their talents, interests, and strengths. I agree that this notion of individual choosing should be at the center of a modern education. Nearly everywhere else in our lives, people get to make their own choices. What do you want to be when you grow-up? Do you want fries with that? While school is a place where young people develop a general set of skills, the specific, specialized tasks that are often stressed when teachers merely "cover curriculum" do not apply to the vast majority of students' futures. Lehmann's S.L.A. school appears to avoid that pitfall quite well.

Creation is ownership of learning. Early education does a great job of creating learning products, then we begin to take our learning too seriously and focus on comprehension by recall and standardized testing. Creativity is supposedly one of the most important and sought-after employable skills and yet we reduce the opportunities for students to create, except for "the creative" (arts) types. Making students accountable for demonstrating their learning through the creation of "something" is another of Lehmann's school's central tenants.

Good stuff in my mind. Good, challenging, seemingly systematically opposed stuff. Well... if radically improving educational practices wasn't challenging, it probably also wouldn't be worth it either.

Admongo

Admongo is a real treat for teachers who want to discuss media literacy and advertising in their classrooms. One issue I often come up against in such an undertaking is students' diverse understandings and vocabularies relating to ads. The Admongo website was created by the Federal Trade Commission, which may sound boring, but is anything but. The Flash heavy interactive sight allows young people (or young at heart) to create a character/avatar to explore the land of Admongo. There are various areas and missions requiring students' characters to locate, read, and analyze a number of advertising media.

I think this site could be wildly popular in the classroom and the key is its game playability. The look and feel of the entire environment is a gamer's world and kids will likely be instantly able to jump into the action. Once the interface has kids hooked, the content is made much more accessible. Types of media, their varying purposes, techniques as well as vocabulary are all explored in a non-linear game format that is inherently challenging, but not too difficult to navigate.

The site's additional resources are offered to parents and teachers including a number of free lesson plans (see my previous post), videos and media examples. The media examples have to be my favourite add-on to the game, as the advertisements, ranging from print, web, and video, all are creative and well-developed ads for teens.

My only beef with the whole site is its heavy reliance on Flash content, which will not play on our class iPads. Still, with so much exploratory gaming and solid content for critical thinking I much prefer Admongo to Angry Birds anytime. Following some play time on this site, students would be better versed in the language and ideas of advertising. Thank-you FTC.

Check out one of the ads below (all are downloadable/embeddable at Admongo)

Collegiality Redefined, Scrutiny Maintained

Collegiality is something I truly value about the teaching profession. As a student teacher, I recall being amazed by the range and reach of collegiality. I would arrive at a school a novice and stranger, marvelling how many seasoned veterans would openly share their resources and insights. Occasionally I would also be confronted with a hoarder, someone determined to keep a good thing all to themselves. I quickly picked which side of the fence I would stand on and vowed to be a resource sharer for the entirety of my educational career. Being the father to two young boys, sharing is a topic I get reminded about a lot.

But until recently, my sharing practice has been relatively localized. Resources would be shared with teachers within my department, or acquaintances from within the division. Much to my delight our school division recently began the use of a portal site which allows teachers to post and exchange resources they have developed. But these days, I really have to ask myself if I want to limit my idea fishing to only my division? Why not cast an even larger net?

Well, the immediate response is that the Internet is swamped with things calling themselves "resources", many of which are bunk or simply not applicable to my instructional goals. As an example the query, "Teaching English" results in Google returning about 40,600,000 results (0.15 seconds), so that's a bit of an overload.

Thankfully Todd Finley's recent post on Edutopia entitled, Radical Curriculum Sharing at the Open High School of Utah, gathers a number of valuable links that promote what Finley calls, "drag-and-drop curriculum planning". And while I am excited about the lesson plan swap opportunities being highlighted, I feel like there's still no fast-track to classroom use. As much as I trust my department colleagues across the hall from me, I've never been able to take another teacher's lesson plan and use it verbatim. This I suppose is the part of sharing resources that will always be the same with me, I critically scrutinize everything (my own work included).

While completely re-inventing the wheel is sheerly redundant and overly time-consuming, tweaking and refining an existing wheel makes for a smoother ride. Looking out at the horizon of increasingly good educational resources, it seems to me there's a lot of wheels out there. Maybe they've always been out there rolling around, and the simple practice of sharing online seems to make it easier to kick tires and see which will work.

Photo by Mykl Roventine http://www.flickr.com/photos/myklroventine/3265009300

Old School Vs. New School

Martin Weller's recent Ed Techie posts build a strong argument for digital scholarship but still leaves me questioning whether the old guards of academia will really ever give equal footing to tweets and journal publications? At this year's EdMedia conference in Lisbon, Weller had ten minutes to argue for the following motion: "This house believes that in the next decade, digital scholarship (in open journals, blogs, and social media) will achieve the same status in academic settings as traditional scholarship".


As his narrated slideshow demonstrates smart graphics and thoroughly interesting ideas, it also relies entirely upon a great deal of imagination. Now don't get me wrong, I love imagination but if this was his side of a debate, his argument's thrust seems to be, "maybe it's possible?" Pretty light stuff for a debate.


To clarify, I am very much on board with the seven pressures supporting the presentation, I dare say even gung-ho about them. I just wish that Mr. Weller had come packing some heavy duty data set that would silence the staunch old critics. I know, ironically it may seem that I'm still drawing rather heavily on an old-fashioned scholarly model, but conclusive proof is not the sole property of traditional academics. I used to be a bit more radical with my ideas, but these days I would go against Audre Lorde's notion that "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House". I would even say that the publication of articles in support of digital scholarship in peer-reviewed academic journals would be a good idea for the cause. Perhaps this is beginning to become a splitting of theoretical hairs.


I think that the day will come when many in academic circles will recognize digital scholarship. Will it be in the next ten years? Will it be across the board? Based on Weller's argument and my own skepticism, I'd say probably not. Honestly I also think the debate is a moot point, as the critical mass for the digitalization of many traditions is building even in academic circles. When will the digital wave crash over all opposition? I can only say that it will be before some another wave rolls in to change the entire landscape once more.


Digital scholarship debate

View another webinar from Martin Weller

Economy Booming, Ethics Lagging Behind

I came across a blog post today that has me shaking my head only to stop and shake it even harder.

 Photo by Bird Abroad

 A Bird Abroad's post Are You Listening Steve Jobs? reports that the economic "progress" in China is at such a break-neck speed that it's capitalizing on Apple's exclusive image and enjoying a booming trade of knock-off electronic products. They're even being so bold as to open very convincing, but definitely fake Apple Stores.

I own and enjoy a few Apple products and regularly have to rationalize them to some people. I like many aspects of Apple's design and engineering and often lust after their latest "game-changing" piece of technology.

I mentioned to a friend last weekend that I've been considering finally purchasing the latest iPhone, and he replied that he's considering a Chinese knock-off. I laughed and he got really serious. He told me the deals being advertised and his strategy for a carrier plan and I got serious with questions. And at the end of the night, I went home and forgot to consider it, until I read the above article. Now I am left to wonder... would I buy a knock-off Apple product? Well, the answer is no, I wouldn't. Just like I wouldn't order a mail-order bride.

It's one thing to look for deals, it is another to look for "too good to be true" deals, and yet another thing again to actually support an illegal activity with your money. I'm not trying to come off as some sort of self-appointed deputy sheriff for the Internet, but there's a rule I often return to with my classes and in my own online activities: "If I wouldn't do this in real-life, why would I do it online?"

If nothing else, it appears I've got a new case study to discuss in my grade nine Media Literacy course. I wonder how long it will be until this sort of thing comes crashing into our society?

Blended Education?

Tom Vander Ark's recent article in Edreformer certainly gave me something to look into. While blended learning could easily be just another vessel on the sea of educational jargon, the idea of "a shift to an online environment for at least a portion of the student day made to improve learning and operating productivity" holds water with me for a number of reasons. Vander Ark offers "10 Reasons Why Teachers Love Blended Learning", with a number of links that I will be exploring further this week. However, instead of addressing all ten, I offer my own take simply on the above definition.


Shifting learning to an online environment for a portion of the day seems to me to be a more stable approach than throwing out all traditions of teaching in leu of 100% game-based learning or other approach. I have just experienced a rather challenging school year piloting a new iPad program in our school. I'm not about to whine about getting a class set of iPads, but the radical departure from paper-heavy tasks in my English class was clearly very challenging for a significant number of my students. A number of times I had students asking if they could just do things without doing them online, on a computer, the old fashioned way. 


It struck me as a bit odd and counter to what I've been reading about this generation. It also got me reconsidering claims being made by many that the employment skills of the future will be radically different that any previous generation. There certainly will be different careers with different skills, but society will still rest upon traditions (albeit some electronically enhanced).


I'll be reading more about blended education in the near future and hopefully come to evaluate the theory and practice in a more comprehensive fashion. Until then, it would be great to hear anyone's experiences, understandings, or opinions on the topic.

Library of My Dreams

All young people need a place to hangout and interact with peers. In these modern times, shopping malls and their dizzying array of attractions seem to be thee place for young people to spend time. Is this because young people are typically independently wealthy? Nope, I believe it's largely because it is a space that is rule-driven, also gives teens a lot of opportunities. Having spent enough time in malls myself, I understand the draw of teens to a bright, open space where they can meet, socialize, explore new trends and collaborate.

Now imagine if teenagers wanted to hangout as in a library as much as a mall! Okay, stop laughing and read on.

The Chicago Public Library in conjunction with the MacArthur Foundation have conceived and realized such a library. I dare say it's the library of my dreams. YouMedia is a space that offers all kinds of digital tools, mentors, and opportunities for young people to explore and collaborate on projects. The library space open to teenagers only, could be used for homework or school projects however purely creative, artistic, or individual interest projects seem to be the life blood on the space. It is not a quiet space, but not out of control either. It almost seems like the idealistic place of learning; students want to be there and take an active role in their learning.

I'm sure the YouMedia space has it's pros and cons. Perhaps teens have to book a recording studio well in advance to capture their band's music, or maybe imaginations wild too wild. I don't know the ins and outs of the place. I only wanted to mention this program as an example of what libraries could and should become; popular. Book heavy libraries used to be popular, but then the world evolved to value other methods of communicating knowledge in addition to the almighty book. Libraries can be relevant, but must allow for relevant media to be included and supported. I think YouMedia in Chicago has simple been quick to embrace and employ this realization.

A Silver Lining to Email and Texting?

As someone who feels the excitement of new communication methods, I have a hard time believing that texting and email are completely ruining our writing skills. Yet as a high school English teacher I also have a hard time believing that texting and email are the best thing for our writing abilities. Recently reading Christina McCarroll's article in The Christian Science MonitorI felt a peace that yes, email and texting as changing our abilities to write, and not necessarily for the worse.

McCarroll's article is centred on the institution of the S.A.T. and how new communications such as texting and email are influencing performances. Well performance is not really the focus of the article, in that no data is offered whether scores are up or down. Instead, (and this may be telling of why I found the article most pleasing) a variety of stakeholders' theories are presented to explain their respective feelings for and against claims that texting and email are harming communications abilities.

And while there certainly is no declarative conclusion, McCarroll's sources and tone suggest that different writing practices are just that, different. Not necessarily better or worse, just different. And while some interested parties are gung-ho to judge this better or worse verdict, I think through sheer popularity, I have to agree with the author's statement that "there's a genuine writing renaissance under way". With emailing, texting, and blogging, I now write more than I ever have before in my life, including during high school and my undergrad degrees. Am I a better writer now? Arguably yes, simply because of my daily practice. I recall some ancient saying about practice, "practice makes perfcet" (and spellcheck doesn't hurt either).

Why Do I Need to "Make a Case" for Relevant Tools?

Wesley Fryer's post "The Case For Instant Messaging In The Classroom", really left me with a strange, uppity feeling. Why is it that teachers have to make "a case" for providing opportunities for their students to use relevant media in the classroom? I may not be the most seasoned teacher under the sun, but it seems pretty clear to me that the world has changed from a book-driven model of disseminating knowledge. I love books. Books are good. But for a number of completely valid reasons, books are not the only, or the most popular medium out there.

I know when it comes to buying books, school budgets and spending procedures seem to have long established and predictable. But media such as instant messaging really shouldn't eat into the considerable budget put away for books. What are the software budget needs? Free! Hardware costs? Minimal! Students already largely have the devices and will continue to upgrade ad nauseum. We need not be concerned about a threat to our book money.

Why else do teachers need to "make a case"? Perhaps because some teachers are unfamiliar with new media? I don't see this as a valid reason to prevent others from doing so. There are teachers in my school that have knowledge and skills pertaining to their subject areas that I am completely lost to follow. If there is already a discrepancy between teachers, their methods, and their knowledge and skills, the "threat to those unfamiliar" argument ought to be a moot point.

I simply cannot find a valid argument for keeping a contemporary communications media out of my English class. Thanks for reading. I'm already feeling a little less uppity.

Teaching Then & Now: Video Juxtaposition

I feel these two Youtube videos serve as an illustration of how school has changed and not changed because of Youtube (and ironically both these "snapshots" were found on Youtube).

While the first video has a laugh at the many demands of teaching in a simpler time, the second video illustrates consequences of those demands in the present media-rich era. I often think about how many current societal issues existed but were closeted in "the good old days", and the progress of bringing things into the light of the public eye. I still remember a bully getting "the strap" from the principal in grade 3. Times have changed. I can't say that I have a further definitive thought or thesis on these two videos. I would love to hear any of your thoughts on their juxtaposition.

Past & Present Educational Dilemmas

In his Webblogg-ed post "Why Johnny's Professor Can't Read", Will Richardson lays out a couple serious conceptual challenges to educators and parents. A response to reading a recent article on "Innovate: Journal of Online Education", Richardson boils down the thesis to its essence then delivers his own alarming call.

The title of the post is an homage to Rudolph Flesch’s 1955 criticism of the American education system's deficiency in teaching phonics (Why Johnny Can't Read), and I think would best communicate the "problem" to stakeholders. Remember when we realized that children needed phonics to be successful learners? Well, these days children need something else! And we're in a position to give it to them. While this title tweaking may seem like a blame game, Richardson does not push that far. Instead he argues for educators at all levels to share the responsibility of responding appropriately to the need, just like in the past.

I think both authors rightfully employ a parallel between a past and a present educational dilemma because they both deal with somewhat intangible things, better described as paradigm shifts. Richardson's passionate argument is both as educator and parent, persuading the teachers and professors to consider and address the changing nature of knowledge demonstration. Inferring that we know better than to deny changes in learning. Richardson's post is not a call to arms, but a canary in the coal mine.

Integrated Studies: You Mean It's All One World?

I find many aspects of the Edutopia article "Schools That Work: Mixing Art + Politics - Integrated Studies in High School", to be breathtakingly simple but important in contemporary pedagogy.

First, I truly love to be reminded of the notion that subject areas are not separate in any way. I remember stumbling upon this thought as a high school student, and it making a world of difference in my studies. Seeing the real connections between French class, geography, and history made these topics suddenly come alive. Why then do we as high school teachers so often separate and divide our subject areas as if they did not influence and contribute to the same world?

I am inspired by the (sparring) use of technology to combine two seemingly dissimilar topics such as Government and Art. The collaboration between classes obviously took some time and effort by the teachers, but it obviously paid off. This sort of collaboration is often stressed by many as one of the most important skills of the future, and yet how often do we set the boundary of learning at our own subject or classroom?

While I often champion the subject I teach (English) to be beyond a hard and clear curriculum, I know that over the years, the focus of my class has often retreated into an insulated, safe-harbor of activity. Instead of blogging this afternoon, I think I’ll go try to convince a colleague in another subject area to collaborate next semester.

A Worthwhile Reminder: Practice Professionalism Always

I was recently reading an article in the "Globe and Mail" entitled "Ontario teachers told not to ‘friend’ or follow students on Twitter". Two things strike me immediately about this article and its message.

First, although this is only a single, short article regarding the use of Twitter in education I feel it is a significant reminder for all teachers. In the article professional educators are reminded that despite the genuine excitement concerning new learning opportunities via technologies such as Twitter and other social networking sites, teachers are always responsible for their conduct in all spheres of life. The "power" of such technologies are that they allow learning beyond the traditional means of a classroom, but with that expansion come the possible entrance into a teacher's private life. I appreciate that a number of my colleagues use tools such as Facebook to build understanding and community with their students, but with these types of media carry inherent risks that ought to be considered. Risks I do not wish to entertain.

The second thought that leaps to my mind in reading this article is, "What does MY union say about the matter?" With no specific update to our teacher's code of conduct regarding these media, I get the sense that we teachers are being left to make the judgment of risk for ourselves. Certainly teachers in my district are held to high standards of (traditional) professional conduct, but can teacher really be expected to simply make the best decision for themselves without guidance from our professional bodies? Given the large demographic of teachers on my staff that would classify as "digital immigrants" (Prensky), this seems like a bit of a risky assumption. For mine and everyone's sake at the conclusion of this post, I'll be emailing my union rep.

Type to you later.