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.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Admongo
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.
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
Thursday, July 21, 2011
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
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
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
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.
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?
 |
| Photo by Bird Abroad |
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?
Sunday, July 17, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)