Ideas and Thoughts from an EdTech

I’m not much of an environmentalist although I recycle a bit and am trying to be more aware but this video raises many interesting questions and ideas.

Carrotmob Makes It Rain from carrotmob on Vimeo.

Carrotmob takes Tuangou (group buying for discounts) to a more altruistic level.

Very Shirykesque wouldn’t you say? I recall Shirky stating (sorry I can’t find the page number) that although group organization is now ridiculously easy, that most organizations were reactive rather than proactive. This is the type of thing that illustrates the ability to be proactive. The democratization of economics is one idea that I hadn’t really considered. The monopolization of companies in reality or practice doesn’t need to exist.

I’m looking forward to seeing passionate, connected teachers leading students in group formation that changes our world.

Part 1

If you’ve ever heard the first statement in a staffroom, the rest of the logic would follow.  Learning is what makes us human and to use this logic would suggest that schools can be inhumane institutions.

This is some of the thinking of Dr. Michael Wesch.  In the first 20 minutes or so of this presentation from his talk at the University of Manitoba, he makes such a clear case for the shift in learning due to a changing media. I love the fact that there are so many great conversations and folks dedicated to solid pedagogy which is not new. What’s new is the way new media is influences this. Wesch is the maker of The Machine is Using Us which demonstrates this shift.  The way we experience information and content is new and I’ve yet to hear a good argument to suggest it’s no big deal, let’s do school as usual.

I really want to get good and keeping both solid pedagogy and how it fits with new media in balance. What’s interesting is that the new media is leading people to push the edge of the envelope of innovation and get criticized because they appear to be tool focused. That’s why I love how Will setup the discussion today about streaming video. He prefaced it by admitting, we don’t have the pedagogy all worked out. But it’s still worth exploring and the conversations usually include a good dose of “yeah but does it help kids learn?” mixed with “wouldn’t it be interesting if we tried…?”  At times we need to play, explore and waste time.  Cheap failures allow us to see what works and what doesn’t.  Other times, let’s call it fluff when we see it and move on.

Part 2

So why when I fly 2600 miles to the world’s largest edtech conference would I sit in my hotel room, watch an online video when there is a convention center filled with people, stuff and conversations?  This helps explain part of it.  But also learning comes in many forms. Duh. People have asked me if I’m learning. I hate having to quantify my learning experience.  I like demonstrating understanding.

I love sitting quietly by myself listening, watching, reading and reflecting. I love being with a group of loud friends laughing, listening and arguing. I’m not sure I came to NECC to learn anymore than I could have had I stayed home.  By far the majority of people here need to be here to learn. That might sound arrogant but I can learn from anyone, anytime and anywhere. “Even from here” to quote my good friend Clarence. I would be great if more people could develop this type of learning network and they are. The growth of edubloggercon and the blogger’s cafe would indicate this is happening.  It’s not going to deter from conference attendance because these types of meetups are precious. Spending as much time online with these folks as I do, builds relationships. Not everyone is my “friend” but they are part of my virtual classroom and I like hanging out. I don’t need to be here to learn.

So I’m not here to learn anymore than I would normally. I”m here to be together. That’s good enough.

Here’s 4 minutes of random video of some of my day at Edubloggercon. Nothing fancy here but a few moments of learning.  You might get a sense of some of the passion and energy in this short clips. That’s more or less why I came. I came to hear stories, share a few and spend time together.

I’ve used the video annotations within youtube. You’ll have to view it on youtube to see them. I thought others could annotate but it may not be possible.

As someone that has the opportunity and mandate to help others understand the changing classroom, I scour my network for new videos that can capture beyond words, what good teaching and learning can be.
I’ve created a number on my own and undoubtedly, these have had at least as much impact if not more than than any book or blog post has done in terms of igniting conversation and action. Getting people to start thinking and pushing them in new directions is challenging. When you only have 40 minutes or less and you want to really make an impact, most of us aren’t gifted enough to do this in a finely crafted talk. I’m not anyway. A well produced video can do this better.
Chris’ recent rant on the Pearson Learning to Change video had me thinking on many levels. I’ve used that video and while it may not be perfect, it creates a conversation. It was disappointing to see them pull it from youtube. Why? Did Chris’ post scare them? Come on Pearson, tell us why?

But here’s the thing. We really only have a handful of videos. We’ve got oodles of books, a gazillion blogs but few quality representation of what true change really looks like.

I had a conversation with Clarence a few months back and I remember telling him that I wanted more from his classroom. What I wanted was a clear picture of what goes on in a great classroom. He has since provided some more visuals. But I want more from Clarence and all great teachers doing great work. I realize that classroom teachers do not have the time to create this type of media. Even if they had the time, they don’t have the expertise to create concise, high quality productions. My most recent production about the learning in our school division took me upwards of 60 hours to create. 60 hours for 7 minutes isn’t often see as productive time but I have already gotten more mileage within my own division from that work than I had expected. I’m fair from being an expert in video production, I’m a one man show but for the purposes of our schools, it gets the job done.

Bob Sprankle is one who captured his classes‘ podcasting approach. It’s a great example of how a classroom operates. Wes has begun to compile a few of these and so has Scott Mcleod. There are some great ones here although many are talks that in round about ways or indirectly address issues. Many are produced by non-educators. The number of videos actually showing classrooms in action or schools really moving ahead are few and far between. We rely on a small number of teachers and educators to produce these pieces, we end up showing the same videos over and over again and I’m bored. There are just too many great examples that could be highlighted in much richer ways if we had the skills and time to create. Teachers need big time support in this area.

Which brings me back to Pearson. The quality of that video was not in question. A well produced piece by professionals, freely given to the world to use. I’m not going to argue the political or even the hidden agendas here, the comments tied to Chris’ post do that well. We need more of these types of high quality productions. The Lucas Foundation has contributed some nice resources. The content and messages are important I’m more concerned with beginning to develop a repository of high quality videos that tell a variety of stories about change. I’ll sort through the ones that communicate the message I think is most important, we just don’t have a whole lot to choose from. Show me…don’t tell me, and Pearson, I wish you hadn’t pulled the plug on your video. More companies with the equipment and talent and money to produced these videos need to be partnering with any number of great teachers and schools and showcase their work

Update: Apparently Pearson did repost the video since there were some errors in the titles (Thanks Chris). My apologies. I still want more.

Once a year I get about 30 minutes to try and share with our Board of Education all that’s happening with digital learning in our schools. I call it the State of the Union address. I created this 7 minute video that touches on a few things happening locally. I find that this is a much more powerful way to communicate learning than a standard report which I also provided.

After the video, I talked for a few minutes about trends I see and what where we need to be headed. The Board members responded with some great comments and questions. One Board member recognized that while he might not have the understanding of how learning and education is changing, he knows we have to do a better job sharing this with parents. Another mentioned his excitement for a virtual school project that’s currently on hold. Still another shared a story about his granddaughter who asked him about bio-diesel fuel and when he didn’t give her the answer she wanted said she’d ask Mr. Google. It’s clear they embrace the future.

I was clear to tell them we don’t have all the answers. I told them that many schools can’t figure out how to handle cellphones but they need to begin involving students and understanding its power. To demonstrate I asked if they knew the population of China. While they debated I texted 466453 and “population China” and had the answer set to me before they could come up with an answer. I emphasized that it requires shifts for our teachers and while we have some great examples of those that are on their way, we have a long way to go.

I came across this video from Susan Young after I presented. I wished I had it earlier. I think it would have told them even more.

I’ve been on a bit of a Clay Shirky kick for the past couple of months. I’m about half way through “Here Comes Everybody“, been reading his blog, watched a nice video of a recent lecture and trying to synthesize his ideas.

The older concept that struck me in a new way is the fact that while many understand the significant shift in society that is just beginning, many see it as a fad, including educators. Shirky, interviewed by a TV producer about a possible guest appearance defends the producers claim that all this social media was a fad.

I was arguing that this isn’t the sort of thing society grows out of. It’s the sort of thing that society grows into. But I’m not sure she believed me, in part because she didn’t want to believe me, but also in part because I didn’t have the right story yet. And now I do.

I was having dinner with a group of friends about a month ago, and one of them was talking about sitting with his four-year-old daughter watching a DVD. And in the middle of the movie, apropos nothing, she jumps up off the couch and runs around behind the screen. That seems like a cute moment. Maybe she’s going back there to see if Dora is really back there or whatever. But that wasn’t what she was doing. She started rooting around in the cables. And her dad said, “What you doing?” And she stuck her head out from behind the screen and said, “Looking for the mouse.

Here’s something four-year-olds know: A screen that ships without a mouse ships broken. Here’s something four-year-olds know: Media that’s targeted at you but doesn’t include you may not be worth sitting still for. Those are things that make me believe that this is a one-way change. Because four year olds, the people who are soaking most deeply in the current environment, who won’t have to go through the trauma that I have to go through of trying to unlearn a childhood spent watching Gilligan’s Island, they just assume that media includes consuming, producing and sharing.

The shift is obviously more clearly demonstrated by our young people. Older generations continue to be more irritated by teens texting and gaming than they are interested in understanding that participation in social media is not a fad and it’s not all bad.

My brain is reeling with many concepts that include distribution of participation, one that suggests equality is not something that is required for social media to work. Many of these ideas fly in the face of today’s educational structures. We know that. What I like about Shirky’s approach as with any good writer is that stories are the key to the message. He builds the theory and depth out of the stories. We need to continue telling the new story. I’ve got my eyes and hears poised.
Image: Clay Shirky by Joi
http://flickr.com/photos/joi/1399862175/in/photostream/

That’s how Andrew Keen sees the culture of the web and new media. I have not read his book but have watched several interviews and lectures. The Truth According to Wikipedia is a great video that debates the merits of wikipedia with Keen and Jimmy Wales key players.

Without rehashing previous arguments, two main ideas override the specifics of the debate for me:

1. Truth has always be personalized. As much as Keen argues how this will have adverse effects on society, it really is simply the amplification of what has always been. Individuals have always determined this. Yes, in the past gatekeepers have been our filters and we’ve trusted them for the most part but there were always gaps that were revealed, sometimes years or centuries later but truth in many cases emerged. The process is simply more transparent now. The Cult of the Amateur does have merits. The idea that being able to publish somehow makes you important or have something people need to hear is a dangerous concept that we are going to continue to deal with. I have a bit of difficult time understanding his arguments that this is somehow less democratic. We still need gatekeepers but now we have more say in who those gatekeepers are.
2. It is what it is. If Keen’s argument is to make people aware of these trends, fine. But the lament of he and others to the “good old days” (whenever that was) is a moot point. We’ve always had to make decisions around trust and experts. Good teachers have been helping students critical navigate their world for years. It’s just that now it’s more important.

It’s never been a matter of good or bad for me. This is our world and why not embrace what is good, leverage it, pay attention to what is bad, and discourage it.

This post is not intended to spark a debate about religion or Christianity but rather draw attention to an analogy that might be helpful for some. I hope it’s a useful comparison of two huge societal shifts.

I had the pleasure of hearing Bruxy Cavey speak on Friday. Bruxy is a pastor and author of the book The End of Religion. The premise of his book revolves around Jesus’ attempt to stop religion, tradition and liturgy from being the foundations of belief and spirituality. He makes a compelling case for Christs’ desire for people to be free from the law and experience a life built around a person rather than a set of rules.

“What Jesus came to establish was a subversive spirituality outside the boundary markers of traditional religion, and in the process he made religion itself obsolete.”

As he was speaking I couldn’t help think of two educators: Stephen Downes and Clay Burell. Stephen has for a long time given up on the hope that schools in their current state can possibly achieve a true level of personal learning. His and others idea of deschooling is one that for most gets a nod but is quickly tossed aside as “it’s-not-going-to-happen-so-why-bother”. Clay’s unschooliness theme runs through his blog and I’ve stolen his quote many times to say I don’t like school but love learning.

“Personal Learning comes as a subversive education model outside the boundary markers of traditional schooling, and in the process makes school itself obsolete.”

So as I listened to Bruxy I was amazed at the number of connections between his idea about religion and my own beliefs about school. Without getting into too much detail about his talk and book, it became apparent to me that what many are fighting for is to not necessarily abandon school but to eliminate the structure and traditions of school that interfere with learning. This is hard work. Bruxy does many things to remove religion from his own church. Witness his recent podcast with the friendly atheist.

Because everyone on the planet has virtually all come to think of school and learning synonymously, it’s difficult for many to see beyond the structure of school. The people of the New Testament experienced the same thing when it came to religion. They only knew about God in the context of religious structure, not all of which was bad, but it had become the focal point of spiritual life and to tamper with it was blasphemous. Jesus is relentless in pointing out the hypocrisies.

Clay and Stephen and others do this often and often with contrary results. While I know Stephen has largely given up on schools but there is hope. Those of us working inside these institutions recognize that the boundaries imposed on us by the very structure of the organizations aren’t very effective. The structure of current schools was developed largely in an industrial age where it met a particular need at a particular time. So too did the religious structures. Jesus came to change that. In schools our need for change is precipitated by many things certainly access to information and people being a major force. Just as with many churches that are not purely focused on their religiosity, neither are all schools focused on schooliness. There are moments, individuals and leaders looking to make school more about learning and less about structure. When it comes to my specific role as someone charged with making technology seamless in our schools, it’s clear to me that just as there are those bound by structures of school there are those who see often see technology as the structure we ought to believe in. At times I’m guilty of this.

I need to see that learning is the goal. Okay so this may seem obvious but in the daily grind it’s easy to become the Pharisees of modern education. We have difficulty when students don’t respond to school the way we think they ought to. Personal learning has little place in many of our classrooms. The frustrations of those of us who recognize this hypocrisy grows every day. We are looking for someone who can change this. Someone with authority who can break down the traditions and structure that so often bind us from what learning should look like. There are certainly glimmers of hope.

Back to Bruxy. He was asked at the end of his talk, “How do you justify working in a church when you seem to be saying that Christ came to end religion?”. His answer was that it’s not that churches in themselves are bad, structure has its place but believing that the structure itself will save you is where you run into trouble.

He finished by giving the example of a thirsty person licking the outside of the water bottle. Obviously ridiculous. But the bottle represents the structure. What we really want is inside the bottle. Can this be true of schools? If so, no wonder our students are often left unsatisfied and go through the motions of what they think we want from them.

I’m sure you can poke holes in this analogy, but for me I was challenged but this idea and can’t help but doing a little pattern recognition and also practicing what Stephen preaches about expanding your network of ideas.

Technorati Tags: bruxycavey, themeetinghouse, clayburell, stephendownes, personallearing, endofreligion