[The following essay was developed in response to Will Richardson’s presentation(mp3) (05 February 2007) for the Online Connectivism Conference sponsored by the University of Manitoba.]
It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, rather, it is those most responsive to change. – Charles Darwin.
Social media, or more specifically the Read/Write Web (pdf), serves as a means for people to extend their knowledge and understanding, pursue their passions, and connect with others far beyond the constraints of formalized educational environments. As such, McClintock (2000) argues that the role of our formalized institutions will shift:
"In a world in which each individual can pursue most any personal purpose in most any place that suits him, all on his own initiative, the habit of relying on authoritative institutions, which operate through commands enforced by penalties and inducements, may sharply diminish. With the change of phase in the opportunity factor, people need less and less to rely on formal institutions for a chance to fulfill their personal purposes. And as more and more people become aware of the unlimited choices that they have in their personal lives, sanctions and incentives will become ineffectual means of administering authoritative commands in government, society, business, and education.” (para 101).
Will Richardson’s presentation, entitled Connective Teaching: How the Read/Write Web Challenges Traditional Practice, touched on a number of areas that demonstrate how the Read/Write Web shifts how, when, where, and why we learn. As such, this shift essentially requires educators to re-envision their role and the role of schooling.
At the Threshold of a Cultural Revolution
Given the change and affordances presented by emerging Read/Write technologies, the reality is we, the people, are having difficulty figuring out how we all fit together into a larger picture. Author Joel Garreau suggests that “The reason we’re having so much trouble is that we don’t have a common frame of reference anymore as to what constitutes truth or beauty or logic or anything” (Kelley, Leyden, et al., 2002, p. 97).
In other words, the cultural upheaval of technological advancement has pushed us so far “out of the box” that we have lost track of what value a box brings us.
Garreau asserts that “we need the box because it’s difficult-to-impossible for different parts of society to work together toward a common goal if they don’t have some common framework—something as basic as what constitutes reality. It’s a collective project. So obviously, the great irony is we’re talking about getting back in the box. That’s what this cultural revolution is about: how everything fits together that now appears disconnected” (Kelley, Leyden, et al., 2002, p.98).
Identity is one particular factor of this issue. Who am I? How do I fit? How do we fit together? Perhaps this isn’t so much of a problem as a wonderful consequence of the re-envisioning process that Will spoke of -- it’s the search for coherence in what is currently incoherent.
It is also worth noting that this new global diversity and connectivity afforded by the Read/Write Web represents an opportunity to learn and value the distinctiveness of particular cultures and traditions. There’s a new sense of responsibility associated with our flat/spiky world: if we are going to be a part of this global community, we must recognize and respect other participants and the context and values they hold. This does not mean we must do so unquestioningly. Yet it is an opportunity to learn about ourselves, our cultural assumptions, our hidden prejudices, that makes this a true cultural revolution.
Having everyone connected is a phenomenal opportunity to learn and grow. There will be moments and events as a result of our connectedness that will be shocking in a terrible sense, and shocking in a fun, exhilarating sense.
Kevin Kelley (Kelley, Leyden, et al., 2002,) writes:
In the year 3000, they’ll look back to this time and marvel, “Oh man, to have been alive then, because that was the first time in the history of the world, of this planet, when it was wired up for the first time, when they connected everybody together.” That only happens once. And as that’s happening, we are able to exchange information, exchange value, communicate in hundreds of thousands of new ways and new directions that were never before possible.
Welcome to the New Frontier. Conceivably Second Life is our latest step towards the holodeck. Yet will any of these new and emerging affordances help us alleviate poverty and human suffering? Perhaps, if we direct our efforts in such a way.
To echo Will, it is truly an amazing and challenging time to be an educator. And Like Will, I agree that to overcome the obstacles before us (e.g., fear of change, technology, transparency, etc.), we need to start with our passions—let them be our guides. The sociotechnological revolution introduced by the Read/Write Web requires new ways of learning, and these new ways are complex and critical and will take time for us to map out and adopt.
So what does my Hope Index say? To borrow from Tolkien: All who wander are not lost.
References:
McClintock, R. (2000) Toward a place for study in a world of instruction. Institute for Learning Technologies. Columbia University. Retrieved 02 February 2007 from http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/papers/studyplace/title.pd
Kelley, E., Leyden, P. et al. (2002). What’s next? Exploring the new terrain for business. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Photo credits: Tipping Point + Social Media Network by undersound, Get-a-Mac Ads: Out of the Box 2 by silverkeys, Futures2 from NetworkedWorld.
Keywords: change, connectivism, development, diversity, emergence, evolution, frameworks, George Siemens, global diversity, globalism, hidden curriculum, holodeck, hope, iDC, identity, Joel Garreau, Kevin Kelley, learning, networks, OCC2007, out of the box, passion, poverty, practice, re-envisioning, read/write web, revolution, Robbie McClintock, school, schooling, Second Life, social media, teaching, vision, Will Richardson
Comments
It is true!!!! May it become true!!!!
What a ride this is!
Joan, as always, it's good to hear from you.
Richard, I would love to hear your thoughts and elaborations on this. How might we get some of the innovations to stick? Or am i looking at it incorrectly?
Not incorrectly, but rather unrealistically. (Forgive me for coming across as extremely presumptuous.) The "unlimited choices that people have in their personal lives" as a result of the Internet do not apply to most people in the U.S. or the world. People who are already endowed with the relevant social capital such as an expensive education and a few professional connections may find their options and information sources expand. Others won't find alternative sources of information or new paths to economic stability if the major media players and business have taken over vast amounts of web real estate. It's great that "citizen's journalism" is becoming a reality, but of what significance will it be if no one reads it? It's like the plight of independent bookstores and coffeehouses. They may do well in college towns and yuppie shopping districts, but most people in the country go to Borders and Starbucks.
My point about the conservative history of American education is that there is something about the enterprise that resists change. Maybe it is the inertia of decades of the same style of education. Perhaps it is the sweeping autonomy granted to teachers once the classroom door is closed. For whatever reason, promising innovations only seem to alter the peripheries of schooling practice and reach just a few schools and classrooms. I, too, am excited about the small schools movement, magnet schools, alternative schools, and charter schools. They have the greater potential to break free from the mold and try something different. However, even the most progressive-looking school tends to get reeled in by its district, teachers, administration, or parents over time. I taught in one such school a few years ago, and it was astonishing to see the manner in which the district and state moved to clip the wings of this particular school and the charter movement in general. They had the power, and they used it to rein us in. There is another great example of a school in San Francisco (Marshall High) whose innovative program the district completely gutted in the same of standardizing the educational program across different schools. It's the first time I'd seen a district argue to lower educational standards in the name of reform.
How do we get innovations to stick? Let's treat this question at two levels. At the teacher level, we have to give teachers more time, compensation, and respect if we expect them to change practice. As you know, these factors are all trending the wrong way right now. At the ed tech evangelist level, I think that we have to be realistic about our roles in supporting teachers, aim for the low-hanging fruit, and anticipate incremental progress. As a school tech director, I need to resist the temptation to completely change the educational paradigm of my faculty. That's not my job, and it doesn't show a lot of respect to the teachers I am serving to insist that they become completely project-based and student-centered when they have been celebrated for years for running a teacher-centered, content-focused course. That's why I'm okay with promoting Moodle in schools more broadly than, say, Elgg, because Moodle is accessible to a broader range of teachers in most schools. Though Elgg represents the right kind of out-of-the-box thinking needed, and certainly a few teachers will go there (and I will support them enthusiastically), I may get 50% of my faculty to sign on to Moodle. Now, Moodle isn't really innovative if a teacher simply posts a week-by-week syllabus (as many do). But at least it puts other, more constructivist tools right at the fingertips of such a teacher.
My apologies for the rambling nature of this post. Thanks for asking the question.
Richard,
I quite enjoyed reading your "rambling." I work with a number of faculty members similar to yours in their interest in adopting new technologies, new pedagogies. Thank goodness for the low hanging fruit (or I probably wouldn't have a job!).
We spent a good deal of time tonight in class talking about moving out of the cognitive/conceptual realm of change and into the streets where we can practice implementing or engaging others in granular, nitty gritty issues associated with the new perspectives we read about. And again, we end up working with those who see value in what we believe. In Will Richardson's presentation last week for the OCC2007 conference, he was asked how to implement change. And I think he gave the right answer: start with people's passions. Find out what turns them on and draw connections to show how the social media can support their passions. I think many people tend to think of technology/social media as emotionless. Tapping into people's emotions is always a good way to get a conversation started and get people thinking (for better or worse!).
Thank you again for commenting.
-cs
Sounds like Will is drawing from Howard Gardner with that one. Gardners posits a theory of change rooted in multiple intelligences. Yes, many will resonate with an emotional appeal to using technology. Others wil like the rational, the practical, and so on.
One may think of low-hanging fruit as the application of constructivist theory to the work of technology integration in schools. Teachers will learn new technologies best if integrators teach to their current level of experience -- or the proximal zone of development, if you will. Teachers learn best through experience, for example when using a new technology to support teaching in the classroom.
Yet, sometimes the sequential path through technological innovations is different for our peers than it is for us. I am reminded of an economics teacher who never built a static Dreamweaver web page for her course but became our leading Moodle expert when that tool first became available. When asked why, she replied that static pages never had any appeal for her. Moodle gave her the tools that were most consistent with her teaching style. For this teacher, Moodle was the next developmental step in her use of technology in the classroom. It makes sense in hindsight, but it wasn't so obvious four years ago.
Thank you for all of your writing, which I find amongst the most thoughtful and applicable out there.
The cover article of this month's Phi Delta Kappan is titled "Conspiracy Theory: Lessons for Leaders from Two Centuries of School Reform" (James Nehring). It presents a similar argument to the one that I presented above with an emphasis on longstanding cultural factors that obstruct school reform today. His six historical factors are:
1. The tendency to view schools as factories.
2. The tendency of community fears to drive school activity.
3. The tendency to impose plans that look great from above and make little sense at the ground level.
4. The tendency of the system to crush promising innovation.
5. The tendency of schools to say less to all legitimate requests.
6. The tendency to promote favored groups to the detriment of others.
The article pulls examples from 100-150 years ago of both progressive and regressive tendencies in school organization.
That looks like an article I need to read.
So how do we work beyond these hegemonic structures and restrictions?
Are schools moving forward in an evolutionary fashion? Or do we need a revolution to shake things up?
Do we work the system from the inside to promote change and positive growth or take arms (alert the presses) against the sea of oppressors?
Realizing how pedantic I sound, is change really an either/or proposition or a both/and solution?