It's That Easy?

I’ve been playing guitar for about fifteen years. It’s a hobby, if it can be even called that when I dust it off infrequently. My first guitar was a Christmas gift and rather than taking lessons I began with a self-teaching set of booklets and CD’s. After abandoning that mode once I got through the first booklet, I decided I could advance myself further by picking up a book of popular sheet music with the guitar tabs in it. I rapidly learned my first real song, comprised of chords I knew I could play - “No One Needs to Know” by Shania Twain. 

Many who know me may laugh when they read that hidden gem of personal history, because, despite my eclectic personal music selection, I’m known favor classic rock. To justify my beginnings as a “musician” and restore my credibility, it should be stated that Twain used to be married to John “Mutt” Lange, the very producer of albums for The Cars, AC/DC, Def Leppard, and Foreigner (and Shania Twain). 

The reason for my introduction as a “musician” and its following departure is due to a comparison I’d like to share. I have recently rekindled my engagement in playing by performing a few songs during worship services at our church. While practicing this week, I was strumming a few very simple chords in a pattern and noticed that it aligned with a Marshall Tucker Band song, so I began to sing “Can’t You See”. Personally, I believe that song to be one of the most appreciated and well-known songs ever recorded. While its expression and mood promote a deep sense of despair, loss of hope, resulting in a compelling musical performance, it can’t be ignored that “Can’t You See” is comprised of three simple chords in a simple pattern.

What’s more is that many of the “greats” are equally simple. Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Sweet Home Alabama” and “Simple Man” are only three chords, Zeppelin’s “Babe, I’m Gonna Leave You” has four, Aerosmith’s “Amazing” has four, and Bob Seger’s “Night Moves” is essentially two. In my limited experience, the songs I play that are most appreciated share this same characteristic (that’s why I play them). If they’re so simple what makes these songs so great?

Now the translation and the point to all this. Where do these songs become great? Hopefully we can all agree that their greatness comes from the artists that wrote/recorded them, with particular emphasis on the performers. It is no mistake that the concert performance of any musical work is more valuable than the recorded album version. Similarly, a cover of a song can be more riveting than the original. We thrive on the performance. 

Lately, a significant emphasis has been placed on the perceived and debated value of the teacher in a classroom. Conversations are abuzz with talk of value-added evaluations and their role in the improvement of the system of education on state and federal scales as a ticket to promote good teachers and weed out bad. For many, the importance of the teacher is clear and needs no additional explanation. However, for others the individuals in front of students are deemed easily replaceable by technologies and individualized curricula. 

And speaking of curriculum, there are administrators leading an ambush of micromanagement demanding that teachers co-write shared curriculum in order to ensure that they are teaching the exact same lessons at the exact same pace the exact same way in order to assess using the exact same tests. Although this practice may serve some practical purposes, I’d like to witness a “success” story - I can only imagine the automated droids reading from a scripted lesson. In fact, I can attest to an experience where a co-written, co-designed unit was taught in multiple classes in very different ways. Through a lesson-study experience funded and promoted through a Teaching American History Grant awarded to and administered by the Battle Creek Schools Consortium, I was able to see how different teaching styles executed a meticulously planned set of lessons very distinctively. The results were equally positive, but still quite different.

The performance is what makes the teacher a teacher. But it is also what makes a professional a professional. Just as the great musicians with simple tunes, even the most mundane lesson can be brought to life by a skilled professional who understands the content, their students, and the methods that can bring the two together (even more so with purposefully integrated technology). 

This evaluation and comparison is not intended to promote the practices of an inept teacher. The performance is part of what makes teaching a thrill - taking the edge off of a stressful class period, dodging the monotony of teaching the same class three or more hours per day, or handling the constructive criticisms of the building administrator. Every performance has its share of critics. Musicians know this well. Skilled professionals know the difference between critiques that are valuable and those that are just noise and are able to adjust their practice accordingly. If you are not professional enough to handle the parameters of the job, perhaps this profession is not for you. 

As for me, I still love going to school every day - rockin’ out the same three chords.

The Crime of Education

As a U.S. History teacher I strive to produce lessons and procure content that stirs my students to feel history as much as possible. Historical empathy is not an easy thing to conjure up. For help I have often turned to Howard Zinn and his “Voices from a People’s History of the United States” and other sources that provide a voice for those whom were cast aside in the history books to make room for presidents and senators. While looking ahead to the consequences of the American Industrial Revolution, I came across a timeless reflection on the social roots of poverty and it got me thinking about the appropriation of technology today.

In 1885 Henry George addressed a crowd in Burlington, Iowa. As a 19^th century human rights activist, George worked to debunk the contention that poverty was the fault of the individual. His poignant message from last century floored me. In “The Crime of Poverty” George proclaimed that with all of the enormous powers of the human brain, people are still subject to toil and work all day, all week, and still fall short of the promise of humanity, or rather, they are being robbed of that promise. He states:

“Think how invention enables us to do with the power of one man what not long ago could not be done by the power of a thousand… We have not yet utilized all that has already been invented and discovered… In every direction as we look new resources seem to open. Man’s ability to produce wealth seems almost infinite -- we can set no bounds to it.”

Now, where George takes this is where paradigms diverge. George’s solution rested in the socialist view of an equal distribution of wealth and resources. However, we all can agree with the utter truth he speaks on the vastness of human potential. And yet there’s a problem. His message is 135 years old. Haven’t we continued to surpass great achievements and redefine society through innovation and technology? Every generation trumps the achievements of their parents. Americans have witnessed the greatest century technologically in human history, and yet we can’t seem to figure out how to proceed in educating our children for our future.

The problems and questions regarding the American educational system is complicated by multiple opposing parties and special interests that all claim to have the highest stake in education. All the while, the voices of those who fall victim to the poverty of education remain silenced. If we as an advanced society have learned anything it is that we can communicate. Students in our classrooms “deviantly” text, email, post and reply to status updates on Facebook, and network through multiple sources for a variety of reasons. They have been appropriating resources toward these ends naturally while academics and policymakers hash out theories of learning in the 21^st century. The ecology of the school system changes some when teachers fear about how they are referred to on Facebook. A student recently told me he advocated on my behalf in response to a Facebook post regarding my class. What surprised me most about this is that the student shared his behavior, not that those conversations exist, because they do more than we know.

I’d like to see what would happen if students became “self-aware” like SkyNet from The Terminator. We all know that the tools exist to allow them to launch a coordinated effort, yet this does not happen. What would it take to empower them to take control? 

We all know we are better than what we’ve become, yet we can’t reach a consensus as to exactly what that is or how to proceed from here. As a result, a century later, we are still robbing individuals from the promise of humanity. It seems educating for our future has us all tied up.

I Predict That...

Humans have been projecting into the future forever. Prophecy, fortune-telling, divination, and the like have been staples of every society in human history. Whether it has been divine intervention or simple prognostication, we seem to be enamored with people who claim to have a prediction of future events. Contemporarily, much of what has been expected of our futures have been related to the role technology plays in society.

Consider the innovations throughout recent history that have purported to “revolutionize” aspects of daily life. The automotive industry is ripe with examples of innovations that were way ahead of their time. Electric cars were made and sold as early as 1899 (PBS Nova, http://goo.gl/5Hh6), but never revolutionized automobiles, or travel. These technologies were “contextually constrained”, as coined by Larry Cuban. If we look into why these innovative designs for automobiles failed to make a lasting impact on the industry and our travel, we see factors of preference (speed, reliability, price, weight, function, technology, etc.) dynamically altering the innovation’s ability to establish a foothold in the market. Today, these innovations are making a comeback due to the contextual changes in society that allows for them to exist and be somewhat popular. 

Similar statements of the purported impact of an innovation on a society have been made regarding learning and education. For instance, when motion pictures became mainstream through the 1920’s, documentaries were a fixture of the purposes for this new media. Moving images had a way of powerfully relating content to large audiences. Some claimed that these films would revolutionize education by removing the need for experts in the classrooms and thereby reducing the cost of education, allowing students to learn from a single, standard source. While making sense in theory, it never panned out (no pun intended) in practice. Again, a number of contextual factors disabled this innovation from revolutionizing a system of learning. The dynamic interaction of these forces continue to mar educational progress today.

This is not meant to state that educational film was indeed the best solution for streamlining education. Without it the system has been achieving some of the high marks that America has enjoyed intermittently since the 1920’s. Rather, it is meant to serve as an example that when experts insist a technology will transform education and learning, they have often been wrong. Extending this into the 21^st century, we see this same pattern emerging as a significant abundance of technology in classrooms failing to result in a transformation of teaching and learning.

Over ten years ago, Larry Cuban and a team of “investigators” looked into this issue to identify the impact that computers have had, locally and nationally, on teaching and learning. The thought driving the study was that with the rapid and expensive increase in available technology, education would be transformed through it and would result in deeper learning and higher achievement. The unanticipated finding was that this was not the case. With too few exceptions, technology, even where it was most pervasive (intentional use of the adjective), sustained traditionally held teaching and learning practices.

The outcomes and predictions that Cuban identified (Oversold and Underused, 2000) were in bitter contrast with popular movements then and are even more contrasting today. However, the idea that entrenched historical and contextual factors work to inhibit that which has potential to severely alter education in America is a complex matter. Cuban dismisses technophobia and teacher resistance as reasons why technological innovations don’t result in what is expected. Are we just not convinced that it works? Is it a lack of perception? A shallow near-sightedness? Regardless, technology continues to pour into schools at rates presumably unimaginable to Cuban ten years ago. It is anticipated that spending on educational technologies exceed $65 billion this year (THE Journal, http://goo.gl/33KI). If no marked change in teaching and learning exists through increased resources, what is all this for?

Really, that’s the question that should drive all educational spending. Perhaps it does. When money is spent, don’t you always have a purpose? However, external pressures have led to increases in technology spending, which in turn have reduced the focus of purpose. Public officials, corporate executives, marketing agencies, parents, and media all share in influencing schools to increase spending on technology. Pressures stemming from competitive marketing across districts lead to increased budget items for technology (and better resources in general). These amount to technology being acquired and provided without purpose. Cuban asserted that when considering whether or not to provide technologies, policy makers should ask “to what ends?” 

There is a power in the purpose of a technology. I’ve often stated that it is not the tool that matters, but rather in the leveraging. What this means is that a tool’s effectiveness relies upon the human use of it. Despite our advancements in science technology depends upon the human. In 1968, Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke captivated audiences with 2001: A Space Odyssey. The theme that was challenged through the story was that of man’s battle with the technology he created. Similar themes have existed in contemporary film, such as iRobot, where assistive artificial intelligence determines that humans are endangering themselves, and must therefore be controlled, or the Terminator series, a war of man against machine after a defense system called SkyNet becomes self-aware.

Back on track, we can see that these fabrications exist only in imagination. Without the human the tool exists only as an artifact. Bringing this concept back into teaching and learning, technologies have powerful potential. But these can only be executed through the gatekeepers of the classroom: teachers. Reform movements of all kinds fail in large part due to lack of support or “buy-in” by these gatekeepers. This suggests that teachers have to be coerced, manipulated, bribed, or otherwise convinced that something is good for them. In a recent email conversation with Sean Nash, he said “making change by telling folks what to do is rather old and busted.” So true.

When people ask why is education policy at the forefront of national issues today, my response is typically the assertion that schools need to be told what to do, because for too long they have failed to do so on their own. Within a school, faculty often complain about increasing demands on their practice that is imposed by an administrator. Again, my response is that if they had been serving as a professional on their own, such top-down measures would not be needed. Regarding education and technology, a recent assertion from Will Richardson says it best: “We should all be innovating, testing new models, failing, reflecting, trying anew, sharing the learning with others who are working on the edges in their own classrooms and projects.” (http://goo.gl/7Si6) If we do not, we fail to progress.

This extends beyond the classroom, beyond the schools, and into communities. Clayton Christensen, in Disrupting Class (2008) identified his predictions for the future role of technology in learning. The feature element of his work was to prove that “head-on attacks almost never work.” Rather the true power for educational change lies within those whose individual stake is at risk through disruptive innovations that challenge the status quo and provide reasonable alternatives to non-consumption:

“...when disruptive innovators begin forming user networks through which professionals and amateurs -- students, parents, and teachers -- circumvent the existing value chain and instead market their product directly to each other as described above, the balance of power in education will shift.” (p. 142)

When schools fail to provide the learning that students demand, Christensen predicts, it will be a disruptive innovation, a user driven network, afforded by technology that will reform education. Is this already happening? Such networks already exist, such as the Personal Learning Environments Networks and Knowledge (connect.downes.ca/index.html), which organizes Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC). These inherently participatory networks are possibly at the forefront of what is yet to come.

Combining these somewhat disparate ideas offers a bit of a complexity. The true link between technology being ineffective in transforming education and technology being a driving force behind education is the idea of purpose. How can purpose be wrestled away from simply social, communicative, entertainment, and gaming devices back into a meaningful path of collective advancement? Can our youth learn to re-purpose innovations that they’ve already purposed for the aforementioned uses toward the ends of collaborative, collective advancement and problem-solving tools? Within these questions lay the foundation for prediction.

Crystal Castles, by Frogman

Evolution and Technology

At what point does an idea, innovation, or action become technology? The simplicities within the question may rest upon one’s definition of technology. The term refers to the application of knowledge for some practical purpose (New Oxford American Dictionary). The reason for the question is to pursue a different path for seeking reasons why technology comes slow to education, fails to transform learning, and to propose new methods for integrating technology in the classroom. 

Jared Diamond, in Guns, Germs, and Steel, examined technology’s role in human societies by addressing the maxim “Necessity is the mother of invention”.  Diamond spun this notion that technology exists not simply as a matter of necessity, but rather as a product of innovation, trial-and-error, and the opportunity to do so; making invention the mother of necessity. When some innovation is applied to practice and alters the course of how that practice is done, things change, and needs arise. Diffusion occurs and the impact of the innovation ripples through society. Societies, Diamond claims, that offer the most opportunities for individual and group engagement in innovative exploration will be the most advanced societies. 

As a society, for example, we’ve become enamored with the gadgetry behind electronic tools that some corporation has purposed for us. Technology as it is “seen” today generally exists in the mobile devices, e-readers, social- and multi-media consuming electronics that flood consumer markets. These devices are both the supply and demand of themselves. Marketing seems to be a very simple business for these products; people are told what they want, and then the are shown a product that is tailored to be everything they’re told they want. This perspective is quite ingenious, because to sell a new product, all companies have to do is either make a product that does those things better, or re-define what people want. But is that all we are? Are we really a society comprised of mindless, thoughtless consumers? Do people always jump on board with technologies for their transformative qualities?

Of course… Sometimes… Well, not really. Actually, its pretty rare that innovative concepts are employed, even though that their use may revolutionize current activities, behaviors, and practices. My daughter, Carmen, who is three years old, loves A Bug’s Life. This Disney/Pixar animation is one of my favorite as well, due to the masterful story and the messages that can be gleaned from the characters. A favorite scene is the opening harvest showing every ant in the colony (except the royal family) engaged in harvesting the way it had always been done, marching inline to deliver seeds to the collecting spot. Meanwhile,   Flick (main character) is harvesting grass seeds at a rate that is obviously 10+ times greater than his fellow citizens of the colony using a homemade contraption constructed for this purpose. However, when his machine ejects the stem of the grass, it launches directly at the princess, knocking her down. Flick, unaware of his actions comes scurrying apologetically. 

The lessons from this story are applicable to all audiences and consecutive viewings can be rewarded by discovery of new messages. This theme that technology is not always accepted and appreciated, regardless of the societal implications it may offer, catches us off guard. Flick was rebuked for being innovative, eventually being cast out of the colony. Humans (or ants) can be dumb, stubborn, and so rooted in the status quo or the powers that be, that the most obvious benefits to mankind can be overlooked for a change in practice. Is there evidence of innovators being cast out of society -- or worse -- because of an innovation? History abounds in examples!

It is possible that this definition has become something different; something less complex. Despite the sophistication that exists within the design of Web 2.0 applications, interactive whiteboards, and especially the hand-held supercomputers that many of us wave around, this is not technology. Even though the tools are complex, the definition has become too simple.

Without being overly critical of people’s use of technology, the reason for the statement is to reflect the underlying nature of technology and the role humans play in it’s deployment and employment. Presumably, if a product fails to meet expectations of consumers, it fails to establish a market, or even a share of a market. This process of consumer selection can be likened to Darwinian evolution, where the weak and poorly adaptable fall away and only the most fit technologies survive for the 2.0 version. But is the same true for speciation? Have new technologies arisen out of consumer demand for a certain attribute of technology? 

Music has been central to society since societies began forming. In recent centuries, the value of musicians, composers, and concert performances arose out of the advancement of the value of music and its ability to create shared experiences. Since Edison’s phonograph, it has been the people’s demand for music that has driven the pursuit of more mobile forms of music availability. Technological innovation regarding people’s desire for music is an interwoven path of selection and speciation, with live performances fading away in preference for DJ’d music spun from records, to 8-track players in cars, to the Sony Walkman, to the iPod. Yes, there are several jumps within and across the stages that are missing, but the point is that people drove the rise and fall of innovation by adopting and dismissing technologies based on the purpose behind how they wanted to consume music. However, “I want to listen to Zeppelin anywhere I am” has not diminished the “I would love to see Zeppelin in concert”. People’s desire for music holds onto the social value of the availability of music. Music serves a purpose in society and culture.

The central idea here is that without purpose, there is no need for a tool. If there were no need to drive nails, there would be no need for a hammer, nor any other power implement that does that function. Similarly, without a desire for social networking, there would be no need for the vast array of electronic and web based devices that serve that purpose. So despite the seemingly mindless engagement in social media and consumption of devices that enable this, humans do still retain control over themselves in light of a technology-driven perception.

This perception, especially prevalent in high schools across the country, is that people (teenagers) are so connected to their technology and mobile devices that they cannot act on what is of highest importance: sleep is lost, family is discarded, school and academics are devalued. Instead the purpose that technology has imposed upon their socially-wired brains has consumed them. If this statement seems off, watch as a high school is being dismissed for the day, and every student clambers for their cell phones, iPods, smart phones, etc. There is something amiss regarding what is known to be true about technology and what is happening in reality: even though people determine the purpose of a tool, and therefore determine its value and success in the ecology of technology in a society people continue to instead be directed by technology.

Consider another avenue, the classroom. Despite the role technology plays in our culture, it has left learning intact. Technology has forever been shoo’d by school teachers, administrators, and experts who claimed that certain technologies would lead to a diminished academic experience. An example of this was the resistance to the ball-point pen resulting in decreased retention due to the reliance upon notes. However, even though most educators would agree that learning is much more than consumption of content and subsequent recall, the pedagogy has not progressed very far to meet that consensus.

Educators who recognized that the purpose of the pen could be for more than writing down things that should be remembered, began using it to allow for thought projection and development. Written thoughts are expressed thoughts. Expressed thoughts demonstrate growth of learning and understanding. The purpose of the tool transformed learning. The sea of examples containing implications of technology on learning is as vast as it is deep. As technology continues to develop down paths of strict market consumption, we must consider the role purpose plays.

As schools continue to resist innovations, technology is purposed based on the superficial desires of society. Students cannot fathom the ways in which cell phones can be used in the classroom. To them and most adults, their purpose is for texting, photo sharing, Facebook, and, to a lesser degree, talking. These things have been purposed by the culture in which they grew up in, and it is nearly irreversible. As tools become more available to schools and classrooms, the lack of a purpose centered on learning becomes the bulwark of integration -- for students, teachers, and parents. 

A recent push for technology in learning is the concept of educational gaming. Researchers such as James Paul Gee have placed a significant emphasis on the potential for learning in an environment to which children so naturally ascribe their focus, attention, and energy. However, at its core, educational gaming is an effort to repurpose technology for something for which it was not intended. Young children recognize the superficiality of educational games and will not perform as well there as they would in HALO 4 (or whatever). 

If purpose is the reason for the existence of technology, then it also determines the value of the technology. Not to be misconstrued for demand, purpose is simply how the technology is leveraged. Using this as a construct provides insight into that point at which technology takes it’s place in society, and therefore insight into the selection and speciation of technology. It is there that we can begin to unfold the layers of difficulty educators and administrators have had trying to transform learning through integration into the classroom. It seems many questions have gone unanswered at the conclusion of this critique. This is by design. The hope is that more questions arise and lead to academic pursuits which will hopefully lead to more directed approaches to technology integration and development within classrooms.

YouTube Search Stories

Perhaps one of the neatest things I've seen Google/YouTube do recently. I'd like to see every teacher in my building create one of these for their introductions on Tuesday. I might make a few of these...

Obstacles to the 21st Century Education

So I received a comment on a previous blog post. When I started to address the question it posed, the response kinda ran away from me. I’ve regained control and have provided the product here as a new post. I should be careful; if I address every comment like this 1) I’ll never get anything done and 2) I’ll never get another comment... 

In response to posting a video introducing my research goals, a good friend of mine asked a very good question:

“So...What do you see as the biggest road blocks to giving the students of America this dynamic education. Funding? Pedagogy? Resistance to status quo (by adults of course?) Government interference? University teacher preparation? The technology gap?”

There are many very viable, substantial, and compounding obstacles in the way of providing an education fitting of the 21st century. No single road block stated can be taken alone. Additionally, the research base for drawing conclusions to these issues are underdeveloped. My response will be somewhat opinionated, but driven by what is available.

Funding is rarely not an issue. However, given the availability of free and very-low-cost tools such as Wikispaces (PBWorks and WetPaint are others), Google Docs, Ning, and others, the investment is not the major concern. The concern of funding is more appropriately directed to the equipment needed to facilitate these hybrid or completely online environments. Computers are expensive and districts are currently unable to structure budgets to account for technology tools. Renovation of education is inevitable, however. The way in which schools distribute money will change. How this occurs and how money is repurposed leads to the next road block.

Race to the Top, the new and improved form of No Child Left Behind, may not be well-received in the hearts of practicing educators. This interference certainly places restrictions on education that will be felt for years. Its implications are being felt quite heavily in New York City and New York State with the recent fiasco regarding the trumpeted-then-retracted success of mayoral control and assessment-based accountability (see here, here, and here). Truly, the concept of racing to the top with one (maybe a few) winners with everyone else being losers might not be the best model for education reform. However, this all ensures that schools reconsider where and how their dollars are spent. This does not occur in a vacuum, away from external influence. School government allows for voice and expression of community values as the school is a derivative of the community and responsible for the education and development of the community’s children. Whose voice will be heard, if any at all, when schools redefine spending? 

This leads us to the next set of obstacles. There are three blocks mentioned that I’d like to take collectively: teacher preparation, pedagogy, and resistance of the status quo. I will assume that by “status quo”, this is referring to the held belief of many that technology was not used in their education, so it is unnecessary for the education of their children. This view employs a very narrow definition of the term technology (application of knowledge for practical purposes - New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd ed.) as technology has always been employed in instruction. There is, within this definition, a skepticism about the impact certain technologies have been assumed to have. Electronic textbooks are a recent “big deal” that haven’t had much influence, and the laptop initiatives are yet to produce a complete model of success. If that is the case, the status quo must have a source. Where does this skepticism originate?

I contend that the origin of this skepticism is in the deep-rooted practical nature of pedagogy. When concerning ourselves with the method and practice of teaching, is it assumed that pedagogy is static and unchanging? Is there a specific practice of teaching that has proven to ultimately lead to a set of “learned” students? The nature of diversity, especially seen when entering the classroom, assumes that pedagogy is dynamic and relative to the class of students such that the learner dictates the method with which they are taught. If this is a statement that can be agreed upon, then I shall proceed by applying it to the purpose of this comment reply. 

Teachers are known to reluctantly and pertinaciously maintain the instructional methods that have sustained them throughout their career to the point of stereotype. Modifications are often made to accommodate district/state mandates (electronic grade-book or assessments). Consider that the teachers renowned for success are those whom emphasize order and procedure as opposed to learning (see “The Six-Lesson Schoolteacher”). Is this odd? The primary instruction found in schools today is an outdated pedagogy that fails to account for the technology and technological content knowledge necessary to educate 21st century students. When there is no impetus to change, no change will occur. In the video is a quote from Gary Stager that can’t be ignored, despite the generalization: “Teachers tend to become dependent on teacher-proof systems and stop exercising professional judgement” (“The Games Teachers Play”). The education of our preservice teachers is an area in which these needs can be addressed, and they are in institutions around the nation, but reliance upon this slow, generational transition of instruction cannot be the only place in which to hold hope. 

Therefore, pedagogy is the major obstacle to the educational environments that best serve the needs of our students. The instructional methods of millions of teachers must be awakened to accurately reflect the term pedagogy: a changing, dynamic understanding of what it takes to educate, adequately accompanied by knowledge of content and technology in order to reach students where they are (www.tpack.org). In a school comprised of teachers that fit this model, the technology gap will cease to exist, administrators and community will no longer fuss about assessments and accountability, and students will exercise their full potential, becoming successful and responsible members of the civic body.

The teachers ultimately hold the balance of power to restore faith and trust in the institution of education through their oath as a professional in the art of pedagogy. If teachers continue to passively surrender the power over their profession to makers of policy - those that know little, if anything about education - who expects to be satisfied with the result? Not I.

Research Interests

When I set out to begin a PhD in Educational Psychology and Educational Technology, my aim was to explore the educational and academic possibilites of online collaborative environments toward the development of a blueprint of sorts for their proper employment in classrooms. Education has been historically slow in realizing the potential that many tools have for classroom use and as a result, technology must be repurposed in order for it to be used effectively in schools. What I mean by this is technology has been received with skepticism, as being unnecessary, and an inhibitor to learning over the last several decades. In a technology-infused society, tools with the capability to bridge distances and connect people in ways never before possible, it is unwise and negligent to keep them out of the classroom. However, these technologies have already been purposed in society as a means of social networking for entertainment and correspondence. When the potential exists for them to be used for greater functions such as addressing academic and educational concerns, teachers, administrators, and parents, resist their ability to serve those capacities. The result is a generation of individuals who are unable to see how powerful technologies can be used differently.

If online collaborative tools are employed in younger grades and used during the formative years of education, children will develop an understanding of the full function and capabilities of powerful forms of networking, collaboration, cooperation, and collective abilities. Resistance to such simply extends the unfocused purposing of this technology and perpetuates the generational inability to realize the potential of online collaborative environments toward social, economic, and political issues plaguing our society.

How Do You Know What You Know?

My daughter, almost three years, has reached the stage in her cognition where she is always asking "Why?" Sometimes, she's questioning authority or a statement or even a reality and I respond with an assertion such as "because that's the way it is". Often it's a good question, and I respond with what I can in order to take this simple question and produce a bit of true understanding for her. I want her to grow up curious about her world. I want her to explore it and build understanding that leads her toward an increasingly successful future. But it's what she says after I provide a response that leads me to the following: "Why?"

How do we know what we know? Seems like an odd question, but there is not a consensus about the answer. You're not likely to ever really consider what this question entails, or pursue it through to it's end. But follow me as I try to capture some of my thinking as I ponder the implications of this question, specifically related to educational technology. 

Constructivism is a theory that states that the way we learn is through a process of building understanding as a result of an active cognitive encounter with a new learning experience. The understanding we have about our world changes, but it may or may not change significantly depending on how a learning experiences challenge the way we understand something to be. We we add into this process, the people with whom we learn, directly or indirectly, we have social constructivism - building or constructing knowledge together through our shared experiences and understandings. 

Recently I was engaged in a conversation regarding the debate over how we know what we know. The other camp in opposition to constructivism asserts a very objective position. What this means is that scientific research and the scholars that have participated in building this body of knowledge we rely upon and teach to our children is truth, fact, and larger than humanity. This knowledge of the world is bigger than just "how we see it". They state that if we cease to exist, our understanding of the world would live on. This differs from the subjective camp in that constructivists claim that our knowledge is dependent upon culture and the people that have created that understanding. 

The conversation I was engaged in was focused on educational technology. Regardless of where individuals stand, the way in which we employ technology has always had an impact on this debate. So, where does educational technology fit?

Educational technology is critical to the subjective camp - at least it is inherently associated. This is so because never before have participants to the construction of knowledge been so superfluous and involved. No longer is information so tightly controlled by aristocratic academics. Some may see this as decreasing the aggregated wealth of knowledge and understanding, but civilizations have known the cost of knowledge being too limited (Dark Ages). Society rests upon the accumulated wealth of understanding we all build every single day. Students are the future of this wealth and it is the station of educational technology to continue it's advance through investment in it rather than deposits from it. 

We have the chance to become participants and to allow our students to become participants as well. Are we controlled by the body of knowledge or do we take part in controlling it? How do you know what you know?

Educational Technology and Constructivism

		My daughter, almost three years, has reached the stage in her cognition where she is always asking "Why?" Sometimes, she's questioning authority or a statement or even a reality and I respond with an assertion such as "because that's the way it is". Often it's a good question, and I respond with what I can in order to take this simple question and produce a bit of true understanding for her. I want her to grow up curious about her world. I want her to explore it and build understanding that leads her toward an increasingly successful future. But it's what she says after I provide a response that leads me to the following: "Why?" How do we know what we know? Seems like an odd question, but there is not a consensus about the answer. You're not likely to ever really consider what this question entails, or pursue it through to it's end. But follow me as I try to capture some of my thinking as I ponder the implications of this question, specifically related to educational technology.  Constructivism is a theory that states that the way we learn is through a process of building understanding as a result of an active cognitive encounter with a new learning experience. The understanding we have about our world changes, but it may or may not change significantly depending on how a learning experiences challenge the way we understand something to be. We we add into this process, the people with whom we learn, directly or indirectly, we have social constructivism - building or constructing knowledge together through our shared experiences and understandings.  Recently I was engaged in a conversation regarding the debate over how we know what we know. The other camp in opposition to constructivism asserts a very objective position. What this means is that scientific research and the scholars that have participated in building this body of knowledge we rely upon and teach to our children is truth, fact, and larger than humanity. This knowledge of the world is bigger than just "how we see it". They state that if we cease to exist, our understanding of the world would live on. This differs from the subjective camp in that constructivists claim that our knowledge is dependent upon culture and the people that have created that understanding.  The conversation I was engaged in was focused on educational technology. Regardless of where individuals stand, the way in which we employ technology has always had an impact on this debate. So, where does educational technology fit? Educational technology is critical to the subjective camp - at least it is inherently associated. This is so because never before have participants to the construction of knowledge been so superfluous and involved. No longer is information so tightly controlled by aristocratic academics. Some may see this as decreasing the aggregated wealth of knowledge and understanding, but civilizations have known the cost of knowledge being too limited (Dark Ages). Society rests upon the accumulated wealth of understanding we all build every single day. Students are the future of this wealth and it is the station of educational technology to continue it's advance through investment in it rather than deposits from it.  We have the chance to become participants and to allow our students to become participants as well. Are we controlled by the body of knowledge or do we take part in controlling it? How do you know what you know?

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Stresses on Education - Learning Abilities, Culture, and the Brain

I've been asked to describe the role of education on intelligence. It appears as though education may not have a “role” in any of the differing views on what intelligence is, how to measure it, or how to increase it. Considering the inability to generate a consensus as to what intelligence is or how to classify, categorize, and interpret different types of intelligences, this tells us that we may never understand it to the point of developing structures and environments to “produce” it. Intelligence is elusive. Unfortunately, so much pressure and stake is placed on that which we are unable to describe. Our institutionalized educational practices such as grading provides little to no insight into one’s intelligence. This could be a product of flawed grading methods used by the teacher, low motivation but high efficacy of the student, and many other alternatives. However, it still stands that education has long had a problem of identifying, producing, and increasing intelligence. That all sounds a bit paradoxical.

What then of the great push toward free, compulsory education? Our culture has developed from the simple melting pot into what has become a “mixing bowl”, consisting of a greater diversity than America has ever seen. The statistic that was striking was that by 2050 (within our lifetime) there will be no majority race or ethnicity. A nation that prides itself in the great maxim that “out of many, we are one” (E Pluribus Unum) has never been farther from it. We’re not one of anything. Since WWII, our society (I can’t even say “our culture”) has increasingly become more accepting of ethnic and cultural differences - almost, it seems, against our will. In the golden ages of public education, when the government first started funding millions of dollars to education in order to produce scientists and engineers to combat communism, the classroom was not diverse; at least the segregated schools weren’t diverse. SInce the Civil Rights Movement (and the subsequent spin-off equal rights movements) and through the 70s, American society has pushed public education to serve the greater needs of all demographics, no one is expected to assimilate. Johnson’s Great Society ushered in a wave of ideological reforms to close the income gap and increase the likelihood of a chance to succeed, putting American society on the path toward multiculturalism.

Since then, schools have grown into the provider of all things. It seems that every piece of educational legislation passed since has increased the demands of schools, and none of them have made teaching students any easier. While this all certainly makes a strong case for civic education, the effects of diversity on education is difficult to grasp. To do so involves conversations on motivation, expectations, stereotyping, gender differences and bias, and language acquisition and barriers. These effects exact a staggering toll on the teachers and students. Consider the perspective of a Hispanic girl, whose parents speak no English, and are unable to overcome unemployment - the odds stacked against her are seemingly insurmountable! What if she is labeled as having a learning disability, what then? This is not a far-fetched scenario. As we have been frighteningly unable to educate children out of poverty (meaning the cycle of poverty continues despite increased educational opportunities), how are we to educate the whole packages?

This makes us wonder, do we even stand a chance? Does education hold the promise for our future?

Final Thoughts on Motivation

There are few things that are as perplexing and complex in the study of psychology as motivation. In the educational setting the factors that influence student learning behaviors are interwoven and dynamic, changing from classroom to classroom, hour to hour. A good question for the teacher, parent, administrator, or ed psych student may be “How can teachers possibly make a difference?” The first step to identifying an answer for that question is to look into the role schools play on affecting student motivation. Fortunately, as complex as motivation is, it is also well-studied. Learning environments play a significant role in the students’ ability to sustain efforts in the classroom. However, this role is too often negative. This is not likely to be intentional, therefore making understanding motivation even more important.

Students’ need to belong, defined by Maslow, generates a strong pull for students to become engaged intensely within a community of learners. The concept of legitimate peripheral participation suggests that even novices are motivated to participate in order to acquire and maintain their membership and identity. In this sense, online communities can effectively motivate learners to become involved in ways they may not be able to in face-to-face settings. Consider communities such as Classroom 2.0, or the MACULSpace, two Ning networks where teachers are encouraged to join to learn more about the role technologies play in learning. By creating an environment where learning is important, teachers can take great strides toward increasing students motivation. Additionally, self determination theory asserts that motivation is high among students who feel a sense of relatedness to teachers, peers, and parents.

Within the realm of learning, students’ personal needs are greatly overlooked, underestimated, and ignored. Often, parents and students alike tend to prefer teachers and classrooms that are controlling. These classrooms have the appearance of order and focus, but may instead be decreasing students’ need for autonomy. Rules, deadlines, schedules, orders, and limits are all external controls that students struggle against. Increasing the pressures beyond these elements may allow teachers and classrooms to increase students’ self determination.

Goals are a very common source of motivation. Regardless of size or scope, they can provide the necessary impetus to achieve. There are many aspects of the school setting that alter the kinds of goals students make. Although performance and competition are often very motivating forces, these kinds of activities can lead students to become ego-involved learners, setting goals that focuses on the performance rather than the learning. Additionally, teacher feedback can assist students to relate positively to goal achievement. By providing feedback appropriately and timely, student achievement toward that goal, and therefore their motivation in the task, can be greatly improved.

School has a significant influence in the self-efficacy of students. Every time a student receives feedback on work, tests and quizzes, comments, and other interactions, this feedback likely alters the student’s beliefs about his or her abilities. Taken together, these can create students who are empowered to achieve and students who believe that their abilities are fixed and uncontrollable. The differences between these are vast and generate the complex environment in which we teach.

Schools, therefore, are both the cause and the promise for creating and sustaining motivated learners. The solution is in the increased understanding of the impacts that teachers have on motivation and learning.

Be sure to read the post that came before this one: "Understanding Motivation"

Understanding Motivation

If you were asked what motivated you, what would you say? My wife would say she is motivated by competition, which explains a lot of things; particularly it explains why I have never beaten her in a game of "Horse". Often, our motivations extend much deeper into our cognition and who we really are as an individual.

I sought out to explore this in response to an assignment called "Understanding Motivation" given this past week for my graduate proseminar. The task was to interview someone to seek what motivates them to learn. Funny how that assignment seems so simple, yet within it reside two of the broadest terms in all of psychology - motivate and learn. Truly, these provided for a vast amount of freedom within the task, but also made it nearly impossible to determine what I wanted to produce as a result of this activity. I decided to put a few notes on paper, but to really let my interview determine the outcome of my final product; perhaps as a journalist would proceed.

 

For my interview subject, I wanted a student whom I knew was available, but would also provide the best responses without worrying about the content of his/her answers. I teach freshman U.S. History in a public school, so finding an adolescent who fit this description isn't as easy as it sounds. However, I probably picked the best subject imaginable for this interview.

 

Chris is a fifteen year old who is as teenage male as it gets. I was able to secure a few hours with him between practices and games, as this is the intense part of his summer baseball schedule. I sent him a text message asking him if he'd honor me with his time, and, upon agreeing, I asked him to give me a call when he had the chance so I could relate to him a few of my questions and allow him a chance to prepare. This was on Sunday, and we agreed from the phone conversation to meet Tuesday. He sent a text Monday evening saying "Mr. Bruce, Is there anyway you can make that interview Wednesday? I won't be ready tomorrow. Thank you much :)" I knew then I had the right person.

 

We spoke for over two hours Wednesday afternoon, discussing his passions for math and physics, baseball, football, how those interests inspire him, the role that his passions affect his relationships with friends and family, etc. He related examples of times when he was particularly challenged, and how, after a test on which he did poorly over a topic that he could not comprehend, he pursued understanding because of the challenge. With no reward, the challenge motivated him. He explained the difference between loving something because you are good at it and being good at it because you love it. His drives to learn and achieve are powerful, deep, and intensely intrinsic.

 

I had over two hours of audio to sort through, but the experience was great. He shed light on aspects of motivation I had not considered. When the conversation moved into work - something he does almost strictly for money - he motivated himself by making it personal, to advance himself for his future by having this to refer to when applying for more rewarding work later on. However, once he was at work (cooking in a restaurant) his motivations had a very moral and ethical flavor. The desire to do his best at this task, one in which has consequences far greater than many occupations, Chris competes with himself to serve the best dish possible. And if he wouldn't eat it, he won't serve it. 

 

Where else can morality and ethics play a role in motivation? In our conversation about sports, Chris related a situation where he was expected to play basketball, almost solely because he is good. He decided against it because his enjoyment for it did not exist and he would not allow himself to take the position of someone who really does enjoy it. By stating this, he provided insight into the question "can you love something because you're good at it?" However, his decision follows an unwritten social code. By not playing, his considerations for unknown, unaware classmates are unthanked. His decision to do what he felt was right is a profound motivator.

 

The study of motivation continues to explore the interplay between internal and external forces. As sure as we are about why we act or behave, a little digging can reveal hidden motivations. Aspects of personality, morality, social constructs, and situations all affect our behavior - all at once. On the surface, Chris may have been considered lazy by some classmates (potential teammates) by not playing basketball, but within, he made a decision that affected unknown others. He may mope his way to work, but once there, you'd never see it in the intensity of his efforts in the kitchen. On the field, he performs as though he has been coached from birth, but really it's the aspiration of overcoming greater talent. In the classroom, his teachers can revel in their success, but their PowerPoint is scratching the surface of what is possible.

  
Download now or listen on posterous

Understanding_Motivation.m4a (6080 KB)

Testing the Waters

Below is a piece written as part of a debate regarding the "Bowling Alone" post from last week. In this particular step in the debate, I assume the position of the other side in this argument that technology will continue to drain our social capital. Essentially, "The way I understand your side is..."

By increasing the quantity of communication and reducing the substance of conversations that once challenged people’s beliefs and intellectual structures, technology has watered-down the interactions that once built and sustained the social capital necessary for a self-governed people.

Interactions among and between humans in a society is a necessary part of American political culture. The conversations, discussions, and arguments that occur as a result of gatherings, conferences, leagues, and church potlucks (a few of the many examples), create a social capital that exists within and among the civic body. This capital is comprised of the ideas, understandings, opinions, and debates that, taken collectively, drive engagement in civic responsibilities and allow a population to self-govern. When identifying the underlying factor to a significant, threatening decline in social capital, there is no need to look any further than television.

The ferocious rate at which Americans purchased televisions through the 1950s created a generation of children wired for the consumption of television. As this generation trickled into adulthood, comprising an increasing quantity of the population, their values began to impact and upset social capital. The consumption of television programming created a demand met by broadcasting corporations set in motion a vacuum of social capital, the impacts of which still resonate and will continue to do so.

The interaction and discourse necessary to increase or even sustain social capital cannot be achieved through technology-based communities. The connections that are created are often superficial and will not lead to the substantive exchanges as were commonplace in the pre-television bowling alley. Additionally, the political or cultural activism that sparks from time to time built in a social networking platform may seem hopeful. However, this is a collection of like-minded individuals who are uninterested in discourse that challenges them to defend a position and, therefore, perpetuates the decline. 

As people disengage from social experiences, so goes with it the construction of our world as it were. As technology advances beyond the television into an era in which social communication and interaction has been relegated to vapid exchanges devoid of substance and worth, the reservoir of social capital will continue to drain.

 

So what's the verdict? Are there pieces to this controversy that have been neglected? From the "Bowling Alone" post to this one, have all considerations been made?

A.V. Undercover | The A.V. Club

via avclub.com

If you know me, then you know I enjoy The Onion for it's socio-political satire. Disregarding this for a moment, I'd like to share a great break from whatever consumes you for a moment, coincidentally brought to us through The Onion.

As a music lover, I've sought a variety of resources that provides insight into music that breaks the mold, transcends the old, and serves as a refuge from the trash that often pollutes the radio waves and, too often, the inter-tubes. Enter A.V. Club.

This source is a great way to discover or uncover "new" music. My favorite thing they do is invite and challenge bands to cover songs that they've chosen for whatever reason that week. What is produced is remarkable and speaks to those of us studying the limits of creativity.

So for those of you in my EPET cohort: Take a break! That goes for the rest of you, too.

Bowling Alone

It's warm. Our heat index is somewhere in the upper nineties and I's not even reached the hottest part of the day. A good thing to do on a day like today is to sit; relax, rest, do that which requires almost no physical movement at all. The best part about this is that while you sit, you can also read. 

That's right. There's no better opportunity for some cognitive stimulation than when it's 90+ outside (and perhaps inside for those unfortunate souls without air conditioning). 

I've taken this opportunity to read a 1995 work from Robert Putnam called "Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strage Disappearance of Social Capital in America". This lecture was actually a precursor to a book Putnam later wrote called Bowling Alone. His work seeks to identify the factors that are responsible for the significant decline in social capital in America. 

He identifies social capital as the civic "engagement in community affairs" (p. 664), or the networks created by the engagement in groups or possibly created for specific purposes or to achieve a goal. This social interaction produces a civic efficacy that leads to a more productive civic body; Putnam concludes with a quote from his predecessor, Ithiel de Sola Pool, stating that the decline, caused by technology, "will promote individualism and will make it harder, not easier, to govern and organize a coherent society."

The question that struck me comes from his assertion that technology will reinforce a generational trend that has produced a society very detached from each other. I question, "How can the socially charged, connection-dependent technology of today - becoming increasingly ubiquitous - be responsible for continuing a trend toward individualism and a decline in social capital?"

First, some observations. Recent elections, national and state, have produced results that do not demonstrate a significant degree of disparity between candidates. Runoff elections, manually recounting ballots, and elections in which official's seats remain unfilled due to the prolonged nature of elections that are essentially 50-50 suggest a trend that Putnam was getting after. In teaching social studies to high school students, I have proposed this inquiry as a public policy issue. What does it mean when popular elections fail to choose a candidate? Is it because the candidates have attributes that are equally appealing across ideologies? Or, rather, is it suggestive of the apathetic nature of the civic body? With a population that has become disengaged civically, elections (regardless of how many people actually vote) become a coin-toss. See John Stossel's 20/20 report on why it may be unfruitful for some to vote.

The trend identified by Putnam pointed to the television as the single most responsible culprit in causing the loss of social capital. Television, as a technology, has forever changed society in many ways, particularly through the mass communication mode. It is responsible for delivering the realities of a distant war in Vietnam and for demonstrating the power of intellectual achievements when the approximately 600 million people around the world watched Niel Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin dance on the Moon. Can television really have also caused the disengagement of citizens from their civic nature?

Putnam's arguments are compelling, specifically his assertions regarding the role of television on time displacement (time spent watching TV is irrevocably removed from the available 24 hours of the day) and the effects on children (TV consumes as much time as all other discretionary activities combined, effectively de-socializing youth).

However, the question remains, "What about the technologies we enjoy today?" Certainly these technologies cannot be compared to the "brain-drain" nature of the TV. Putnam suggested that the current social capital "low" is a generational effect caused by television. There is no way to alter or counter such a significant social change or development. This suggests that it will be a half century before the current generation imprinted with current socially-driven technologies can counter this effect. However, are we sure that this generation of youths, the Y-Generation (weird calling them that, because I don't get much inquiry from them in the classroom...) are using the technology in a way that will produce an increase in social capital? I am not so sure that the social nature of the technology they use is inherently creating a more engaged civic body. 

This opens up opportunities for further research to see what conclusions, if any, have been made regarding a generational shift back toward civic engagement due in part to social technologies. Keith Hampton from MIT, along with Barry Wellman from the University of Toronto, has attempted to tackle this very question. In his publication, "Neighboring in Netville" (2003), Hampton concluded that a wired, "always-on" community demonstrated a reversal of the trend observed by Putnam and "intensified the volume and range of neighborly relations" (p.305). 

Much has changed since 2003. A major shift in the community nature of social networking sites has exponentially increased the contacts we have. These may or may not be substantive affiliations, but they do speak to the work to be done in analyzing the impact of technology in society. 

Order in Chaos

My dad was a man who appreciated hobbies. He wasn’t the kind to collect stuff, but rather he was a man of construction. He knew what he could do with his hands. It seems that you never appreciate things until after it’s gone, and this knack that dad had I am only beginning to understand in the years since his passing.

 

Dad grew up as a logger. Timber was his trade, but in his late twenties, he took a job in the booming mining industry in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. He would work at the Empire Mine excavating iron ore from what would become the world’s largest open iron ore pit. By the end of his career, he became the General Foreman of Pit Operations, overseeing everything that would come in and go out of this hole in the ground that measured two miles long, a mile wide, and a mile deep (a roughly 7.7 billion cubic meter hole - See it here). 

 

Of the many things he was good at, I’ve come to recognize that masonry may have been his favorite craft. I believe that he recognized that masonry was more than a trade but rather an art. Our home began as a rather modest pre-manufactured log home, but grew with the family (my parents would have 8 children). At the front of the house, dad built a four-foot stone facade that served simply for aesthetics. This low wall was comprised of huge flat stones carefully selected to fit like puzzle pieces and held together with only enough mortar to keep them in place. For me, it was largely under-appreciated and taken for granted. His masonry work can be seen all over the small rural community in which I grew up; the most recent of which is the stone chimney in my brother's house.

 

In 1963, Bernard K. Forscher had a letter published in Science, titled “Chaos in the Brickyard”. In this letter, Forscher told a story about the relationship between builders and brickmaking and the consequences of building bricks without concern for the edifice. His story describes how “once upon a time” builders would design and build edifices using bricks they themselves made in order to specifically meet the needs of the edifice. In this story the builders were analogous to scientists, the bricks facts, and the edifices laws or explanations. The story falls apart when Forscher describes how, in the interest of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, the making of bricks was a task assigned to someone who could specialize in that area (junior scientists). Serving their own interests, the brickmakers created such a plethora of bricks of every different shape, size, color, and purpose, that the builders would have the flexibility to pick and choose from the multitude, rather than special-order kinds of brick.

 

As a result, the story concludes:

 

“Unfortunately, the builders were almost destroyed. It became difficult to find the proper bricks for a task because one had to hunt among so many. It became difficult to find a suitable plot for construction of an edifice because the ground was covered with loose bricks. It became difficult to complete a useful edifice because, as soon as the foundations were discernible, they were buried under an avalanche of random bricks. And, saddest of all, sometimes no effort was made even to maintain the distinction between a pile of bricks and a true edifice.”

 

It is understandable how this applies to science -- medical research in particular -- and the pitfalls of losing sight of what is important in the work of constructing “edifices”. However, I see a very contemporary relevance to a rather unrelated aspect of our society and culture. 

 

Education in the 21st century is plagued with a barrage of challenges, each with it’s own army of activists working to affect change.  When we consider the social, cultural, and ethical implications of an excessively dynamic technological surge, we must begin to see the need to carefully and intentionally include proper technology tools in our instruction. 

 

A problem that hampers the push to more effectively integrate the right technology tools is that there seems to be a large contingency of educators interested in the tools. Conferences and conventions are bringing unneeded attention to the multitude of technologies that may or may have no or limited affordances on student learning and cognition. Topics and sessions like “Cool Tools for School!” and the “Top 20 Web 2.0 Tools for the Classroom” are all about the glamour of 21st century education. 

 

With the field of educational technologies (and tools not intended for technology working their way into the field) doubling at such an alarming rate, teachers in the classroom are incapacitated by an inability to integrate technologies already out-of-date. Similarly, schools are trying to meet the social demands of student technology use by employing some technologies and outright banning some. This uninformed policy-making is costly in both budget and in time lost, meaning that when student technology use has been limited so has the education that accompanies it - forever. It is no wonder why a large percentage of teachers in our schools are resistant to technology integration.

 

It seems like the rush to create - and the fool-hardy consumption of - technologies intended for education has trained us to respond too quickly to what is best for education. It pays to tread carefully and to intentionally explore what works best, not for someone over there, but for you and your students.

 

Let’s bring these analogies full-circle. I remember when I was young, my dad and I went for a ride out to a portion of our property where he had excavated a portion of a field to expose the bedrock below the surface. In my dad’s craft of stone-masonry, he never simply put stones into a wall. Stones were laid a few at a time, having been carefully selected for that spot in the wall. The stone itself had properties, however, when taken into the context of the wall was part of a greater whole, and dad was sensitive to this perspective an artist knows the whole mural even as she works on a small area. In that particular visit to the “quarry”, he would select only two.

 

I see the value in that contemplation; the deliberate nature of his efforts, and the design of the whole from individual pieces. I see a very practical application of this methodical process in our integration of technologies into education. I also see the contagion of “cool” tools crippling this at every turn. So what’s the answer?

 

Chris Lehmann, principal of the Science Leadership Academy in Philidelphia, PA, wrote what he felt made a “great teacher”. Written in 2003, this blog post still strikes me as stunningly grounded on what’s important in any age. Among the twelve elements he thought were critical (see them all here), I identified two that are increasingly needed, but increasingly left out of training and professional development:

#5 - A willingness to change

#7 - A willingness to reflect

 

When taken in combination as a cycle, these are powerful elements that allow us as teachers to never be caught up in the hype of new tools, but to rather be mindful that there are things that can make instruction better, and after the employment of any aspect of a lesson/unit/or year, to reflect on how that could have been better and to seek that which may have been missing striving to make instruction better. Dan Maas recently tweeted (6/29/10) “The killer app for 21st century learning is a good teacher”. Prescient.

 

Take pride in being a “builder”.

Inaugural bonfire at the Bruce's.

Looking Ahead

"What are you going to school for?" While going to college, a student should prepare him/herself to answer this question at least a hundred times. My response was always "to teach", or "to become a teacher", or even to some, "I've always wanted to teach history". Of the many times that I had been asked that question, there's one particular dialogue I'll never forget.

I was working with a beverage distribution company and had finished up a stop and was in conversation with the owner when he asked me what I was doing in college. In reply I was quick and concise. He enthusiastically offered the following: "I have a friend who teaches. What a great gig! He works from 8 am to 3 pm nine months of the year; his vacations line up with his kids; and he never takes anything home, because the school's textbook gives him everything he needs to teach the class!" 

That conversation left a mark on me. Granted that the dialogue may be misconstrued a word or two, but I retain literary license. Regardless, something kept me from going home and promptly discarding the extensive work I had accumulated to the practice and craft of teaching social studies. Perhaps it was the disdain in the stereotypical reference to the perception of teachers, or maybe that my "profession" was tarnished by the representation and reputation of others before I was even in the classroom. Whatever it was, I became determined to ensure that no one could say those things about me.

As I sit in my den and look up at the wall, I see the two diplomas earned. One is a BS in Education earned at Central Michigan University. This diploma marked the beginning of my professional career, transforming me from a student into someone certified to practice the craft of opening students minds to the world in which they live. The second is a MA in Educational Technology, a degree earned from the College of Educational Psychology and Special Education (CEPSE) at Michigan State University that was designed to challenge the personal and social assumptions of the role that technology plays in student learning and achievement. 

These diplomas are symbols of academic achievement, representative of ground gained, progress made, and a shift that has occurred in my role as a professional and/or an academic. This shift has also been accompanied with a change in self-awareness and creates assumptions and expectations regarding the new knowledge. Both of the aforementioned degrees instilled a responsibility to become the greatest teacher I can be and to pursue methods and technologies to design instruction that transforms learning. This has become part of who I am. As a teacher, it is not enough to remain content in the curriculum, textbook, or classroom pedagogy that "worked". Rather I have been informed through the pursuit of the MA, as well as my experiences since then, that contentment in the classroom leads to complacency in the craft of teaching and ultimately the kind of teaching that is plaguing the system of education - the kind described above.

Recently I was accepted into a Educational Psychology and Educational Technology doctoral program through CEPSE at MSU (the same department that issued the MA in Ed Tech). This degree program is designed to explore the affordances and constraints of technology and to provide understanding to a field ripe for research given the rapid expansion of technology resources in social environments. Given the nature of the previous two diplomas, and the nature of the work ahead of me through this research degree, this diploma will not be another simple step in the academic ladder. Rather this diploma will place me in a position where I can advance a multitude of educators to see their profession for what it should be by allowing teachers to reach new levels and to take pride in their craft, transcending the constraints placed upon them by social and political pressure to perform. 

This diploma will have a particular symbolic reference, one that is larger in magnitude and in meaning. I hope it's bigger.

My Study Companion

Download now or watch on posterous

IMG_0002.mov (14223 KB)

As I sit in my den reading, writing, and completing coursework for my grad classes, I'm accompanied by my daughter Carmen. We have a good time talking about her pictures and what she likes about various things. She's a pal...

Wikispaces Blog - Hey, That's Us!

via blog.wikispaces.com

Well, since creating my class wiki two years ago we have done some pretty cool things. It has since grown in size and value to become the online environment in which my 9th grade U.S. History classes work. When Wikispaces asked to do a profile on their blog, I immediately shared what I could, because I see a tremendous value in how we use our wiki in our classroom. Take a look for yourselves. Let me know what you think.

Posted via web from Mr. Bruce's Musings...

Slow-Jam the News, Jimmy

Jimmy Fallon has never made me laugh. Recently, I was directed to a clip by Gary Stager from Fallon's latenight show - it took NBC News' Brian Williams to do it though.

 

 

Posted via web from Mr. Bruce's Musings...

Zinn Education Project

via zinnedproject.org

Any teacher familiar with Howard Zinn and his "People's History of the United States" will find this very useful. Teachers unfamiliar with Zinn - find out now...

Posted via web from Mr. Bruce's Musings...