Following the great Internet Safety debate, I ran across Quentin D'Souza's post regarding the The Three B's. D'Souza responds to school board and administrative reactions to social networking, weblogs, and other areas where students publish online: Ban, Block, and Bury.

What I find helpful is D'Souza's response to this reaction: EDUCATE. He suggests that we need to educate students and teachers how to use social software appropriately, that there is a time and place for everything.

D'Souza suggests that educators who introduce the World Wide Web into classrooms need to be sure they understand the "brave new world" they are engaging, the good, the bad, and the ugly, before taking the proverbial leap. When educators step blindly, we see administrators "banning, blocking or burying, rather than educating."

I agree that Internet safety is an important topic and needs to be embedded into the curriculum. Indeed, forsight is needed to make this a reality.

I am reminded of the classic maxim that underscored much of western education rhetoric, that we, as students, needed to learn our Three R's: Reading, 'Riting, and 'Rithmetic. (I can't tell you how confusing that was to me as a child--that's not how you spell writing or arithmetic!) Perhaps the Three R's could be changed to Reading, wRiting, and Responsibility. This places the onus squarely in both camps--teachers and students.

I firmly believe that schools need to set the proper tone regarding education: students are not the only one's who should be learning and responsible for their actions. Granted most teachers I have known accept a large amount of responsibility for what goes on in their classrooms. This philosophy of learning as a community is clearly a part of the School as a Learning Community organizational model which is not as pervasive as one might hope.

In my own research regarding teacher education and professional development, I keep finding that administrators serve a critical role in setting the tone for how a school functions, i.e., whether an instructor works in a healthy school or an ill one. D'Souza's call for education needs to extend not only to teachers and students, but to parents, administrators, and politicians as well.

So, ATTENTION all K-16 educational technologists: time to put on your teaching hats and polish up your presentation skills. I recommend a proactive stance in this situation--don't wait to be invited to talk about Internet safety--request an opportunity to show (not tell) what you know. The future of our children is in your hands! (How's that for incentive.)

 

This is a long post. The report on which it is based is available here. I highly encourage you to read it if you have the time. I have attempted to capture some of the key elements herein and share them with you.

At the bottom of the post is a call for “change agents” and professional development personnel to share their thoughts regarding both the authors’ suggestions and my own. I look forward to hearing from many of you soon.
-cds

---

Many studies exist offering diverse accounts for why teachers do not use technology to its full potential and in innovative ways that lead to measurable or remarkable teaching and learning experiences.

In an article titled An Ecological Analysis of Factors Affecting Technology Use in Schools, Zhao and Frank (2003) examine this phenomenon using an ecological framework that draws parallels between the invasion of exotic species into a stable ecological environment as a way of understanding computer uses in schools.

Resistance to change
The authors cite research which argues that schools are “naturally and necessarily” resistant to change which exerts pressure on existing practices. Such factors of resistance can be categorized as cognitive, social, organizational, psychological and technological:

• Technological or physical structures – limited classroom space, the bulk and size of computer workstations, a lack of willingness to take students to computer labs, and lack of student access to computers at home.

• Teacher pedagogical beliefs – teaching styles of instructors and the idea of their changing practice (e.g., from a transmission model to a learner-centered model).

• Diffusion of innovation – instructor attitude and expertise with computers

• Educational Value of Computers – many instructors do not see the value of using computers, while others do

• Time and Effort – staying current with computer applications takes time and effort

• Technological considerations and support -- temperamental tendencies of hardware and software lead to unease and discomfort. Lack of tech support adds to lack of adoption.

The authors suggest that, in many cases, the factors that affect technology use have been studied in isolation from each other with little attention being paid to understand how these factors “dynamically interact with each other and technology uses” (p. 6).

Zhao and Frank conduct their analysis of computer uses in schools in ecological terms by creating four metaphorical equivalents:

• Classrooms as ecosystems
• Computer uses as living species
• Teachers as members of keystone species
• External educational innovations as invasions of exotic species

Classrooms as ecosystems
The authors suggest that there is a diversity of species both biotic (i.e., caused or produced by living beings) and abiotic (i.e., non-living components of an ecosystem) interacting in a teaching and learning environment: teachers, students, principals, parents, books, desks, grades, subjects, state and national educational systems, etc. The roles and characteristics of each continuously affect one another, adjusting and adapting their relationships with each other. Of course, the biotic species adjust and adapt more readily than the abiotic ones, but the point is that there is a continuous interplay between each.

Computer uses as living species
Here the authors argue that technology follows a process of evolution similar to organic species. The “diffusion of computer uses” is subject to a principle similar to “survival of the fittest:” some uses are better suited than others in a given environment and are more likely to endure and propagate.

 
Teachers as members of a keystone species
As a keystone species, teachers affect many other species. Teachers draw on each other for assistance in adopting innovations in the classroom, and as such a form of reciprocal altruism -- you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours – builds social capital.

External educational innovations as invasions of exotic species
In an ecosystem, the introduction of a new species affects equilibrium. The authors suggest that the resulting introduction can lead to the following possibilities (p. 13):

1. the invader “wins” and wipes out existing species;
2. both win and survive, in which case some other species may perish or the ecosystem may eventually become dysfunctional due to its limited capacity;
3. the invader loses and perishes; and
4. both go through a process of variation and selection and acquire new properties.

Thus, we can infer that whether computers are adopted by teachers and “become permanently established depends on their compatibility” within the teaching and learning environment.

Interaction within the Teaching Environment
Zhao and Frank propose that there are two main types of uses in terms of the purposes of computer use in the classroom: a) for students and b) for teachers.

When teachers are the only users, computers benefit the individual but the system as a whole may suffer. When students are involved in using computers, the innovation takes on deeper roots, as it were, and the innovation becomes shared in greater numbers throughout the system, giving greater odds for survivability of the innovation.

Qualities of the Invading Species and Characteristics of Computer Uses
The authors argue that successful innovations demonstrate three key attributes:

• Longevity – degree of permanence or durability
• Fecundity – the ability to propagate quickly
• Copy-fidelity – reliable and successful reproduction
  

In the teaching and learning environment, when teachers and students have more opportunities to work with computers, the greater chance that computer-usage will become a permanent part of the curriculum.

Interacting with the Environment and the Role of the Teaching Ecosystem
An instructor’s teaching context is part of a greater multi-level ecological system. As many research reports and governmental white papers suggest, there is strong demand at the “societal level” to set up computers in classrooms, even with the ongoing debate concerning the “educational value” of computers.  States and local governments can often support purchasing hardware and connectivity, and provide some amount of training.  Thus, within the greater societal context, computer uses appears to be favored. Yet,  even though these larger institutions and policies affect technology use in the classroom, they are quite distant from any given teacher’s everyday classroom reality.  In this light they should be considered as “geological forces that shape the general landscapes that teachers inhabit as professionals” (p. 16).

The authors suggest that it is the school district that is more likely responsible for hardware, training and support and therefore more responsible for the spread of computer uses in the classroom.

We must also consider the school itself which controls the amount of release time that allows teachers the opportunity to use the technologies and attend training sessions as well as offer time and support to colleagues in getting them up to speed.

Zhao and Frank also note:

Technology infrastructure (network, location  of computers, availability of computer hardware and software), scheduling, and physical  layout of the building, and subjects and grades teachers teach make up the abiotic  component of the school ecosystem, which influence the types and frequencies of uses.  For example, some subject matters and grades are more conducive to certain types of  computer uses. Technology education, computer education, and business are subjects that  have unfilled niches for one type of computer uses (teaching technology as the subject  content), while special education courses provide the opportunity for drill-and-practice  type of uses. Physical locations of the computers (e.g., distributed in classrooms or  concentrated in the computer labs) also create different patterns of computer uses (p. 17).

The authors also bring to bear the notion of competing resources within the school. Computer uses often compete with existing teaching and learning tools, such as books, copy machines, phones, etc. such that resources that once went to the library or media specialist are now directed towards hardware and software.

As mentioned earlier, computer uses compete with some teachers that engage in an instructor-centered approach to teaching and learning, thus serve more as a threat than an opportunity. Also, let us not forget the weight that standardized testing has brought to schools. For many instructors and administrators, computer uses are considered secondary and incompatible with test preparation.

Interacting with Keystone Species and Teachers’ Cost-benefit Analysis
Zhao and Frank argue that the survival of computer uses are mainly determined by their “compatibility with teachers” (p. 18). The authors also suggest that instructors make their decisions about computer uses on limited information. In particular, instructors make decisions of whether to use computers or not based on calculations of perceived costs and benefits. Benefits and costs ultimately translate into a) how much time will it take to implement computer usage and b) how will computer use positively impact student achievement. Value judgments also come into play in terms of an instructor’s current knowledge of computers, their beliefs, attitudes and classroom practices. Therefore, we can safely infer that a teacher’s choice is critical: their decision to use computers in the classroom affect others’ uses (other teachers and students) and opportunities for longevity, fecundity and copy-fidelity.

Zhao and Frank share the results of a study conducted that asks how computers were used by instructors in four separate school districts that already demonstrated a relatively high level of computer use and support.

Their study found that the most frequent activity involving computer uses were teachers communicating with parents and preparing for instruction, while least frequent activity involved students using computers. The authors suggest that this finding confirms the assumption that “simpler technologies that require little change, thus cost less in terms of time and energy, are used more frequently” (p. 26).

The authors note:

It seems evident that like organisms in an ecosystem, teachers use computers to  address their most direct needs, which brings them maximal benefits, in ways that do not  demand excessive investment in time to learn and reorganize their current teaching  practices, thus minimizing costs” (p. 27).

Other findings revealed in Zhao and Frank’s research suggest that when the district level of attention focused on teacher professional development, was responsive to teacher needs and regularly assessed teachers’ needs, computer use among faculty and students was higher.

The authors data also suggests that English teachers find computers “a natural tool for student writing activities” (p. 35).

In terms of how social capital affects usage, the authors report that “teachers who perceived pressure from colleagues were more likely to use computers for their own purposes, and teachers who received help from colleagues were more likely to use computers with their students” (p. 36).

In terms of competing interests, Zhao and Frank report that teachers who perceived that their school “implements many new innovations were less likely to implement computers for student uses and moderately less likely to  use computers for their own immediate goals. There was also strong evidence that teachers who had opportunities to experiment with district supported software used  computers more for student purposes, and moderately so for their own purposes” (p. 37).

Most importantly, the more a teacher believed that computers were compatible with her teaching style the more the teacher reported using computers for herself and with her students (p. 37).

The authors also found that teachers reported more computer usage when they had time to explore new technologies on their own. This lends credence to the notion that the more contact teachers have with computers, the more willing they are to find ways to adapt them into their curriculum.

The general discussion items at the end of the report bring to light several key concepts that are best left in ecological terms (for a detailed explication of these ideas, I suggest you read the full report):

• Survival depends on where innovations settle.
• Many innovations can enter an ecosystem due to human activities and natural forces; some of these may survive while most do not.
• The compatibility between the new innovations and native species influence their survival.
• In the final phase, i.e.,  co-evolution, new innovations and the native species adapt to each other by changing  themselves.

Leaving the ecological metaphors aside, the following components were also found to affect how computers are used in schools:

• Informal teacher relations with colleagues affects computer uses.
• Informal social pressure that teachers bring to bear on one another affects computer use.
• Play and experimentation impact computer adoption and implementation.
• The informal social organization of a school affects computer use.
• Peer pressure plays a critical role on how teachers adapt computer uses.
• Colleagiality affects computer use and adoption.

Implications for policy and practice
In this section of the report, I found several items related to change agents worth noting:

• change agents can provide training opportunities… through in-service and professional development conferences.  But our evidence suggests that these activities may have little effect on usage in the classroom for the common teacher. Most likely they [change agents] operate through socializing teachers into different beliefs regarding the value  of technology (p. 45).

• change agents can provide various opportunities to explore and learn about new technologies. These have surprisingly strong effects on both teacher and student use of computers. This suggests that districts could do well simply to allow teachers release time to engage technology and consider its applications within their specific contexts (p. 45).

• change agents can leverage change through the social context.  By giving teachers opportunities to help one another and to interact, schools may be able to increase the overall level of technology use.  But leveraging through the social context is a double-edged sword.  As help is most important when coming from a colleague, those with few colleagues may not be able to access the type of help they need to implement computers.  Also, social pressure can be as strong a force working against technology as in favor of technology. This suggests that change agents should be very aware of the social structures and the school cultures in which they operate, and should deliberately address shortcomings and pitfalls. This recommendation is also consistent with the finding that teachers implement computers less when they are asked to implement many other new things. Change agents should thus be aware of the stress on the social context and culture before attempting to implement further innovations (p. 45-46).

• change agents must account for the extent to which organisms in the ecosystem are prepared to accommodate change, they  must allow opportunities for co-adaptation, they must allow for adaptation through the social processes of the system, and they must not overburden the system (p. 47).

Zhao and Frank end with four proposals for school administrators that summarize their findings as they relate to computer use in the classroom (p. 46-47):

1. Consider teaching style as it complements computer usage when hiring teachers.  
2. Give teachers opportunities to experiment with software and demonstrated applications;
3. Consider providing opportunities for teachers to interact instead of standard professional development;  
4. Focus on a small number of innovations at any given time.

Speaking as a person keenly interested in teacher professional development and computer use in the classroom, I recognize that the authors do not wholly embrace the notion of professional development. Based on previous experiences in professional development settings, I can clearly understand their apprehension. In light of their findings and recommendations, I feel I have a better understanding of how I can best serve teachers as a professional developer.

• Work with a self-selected audience of teachers willing to share their knowledge with others.
• Find out what their interests are and adapt lessons and objectives to meet both of our needs and desires.
• Develop a reasonable timeline for communicating and feeding back for proposed course objectives.
• Create assignments that require lots of hands-on activities where follow-up occurs online at regular intervals over a determined period of time.
• Make time to check-in at unscheduled times to receive feedback and see how things are going.
• Keep assignments and lessons simple and unassuming.
  

I would love to hear from the other professionals who make their living providing professional development and hear how they organize their lessons, objectives and follow-up.

Reference:

Zhao, Y. and Frank, K. A., (2003). “An Ecological Analysis of Factors Affecting Technology Use in Schools.”  American Educational Research Journal, 40(4): 807-840. 

So I ran out of coffee.

I have a lot of work to do at home this evening and I really have no time to get in my car, go to the store to get a bag.

Good thing I have my Second Life account.

Now, I can quickly log on, virtually drive to the grocers, pick up a bag of my favorite Blue Mountain coffee, and drive home in a matter of seconds rather than minutes.

What makes this experience even more tasty, is that within a half an hour, I get up to answer the door in my real house, and tip the delivery driver for my bag of coffee.

Can this be real? Could we interact virtually with the real world? There was a time a few years ago when I could order 100 lbs of dog food online and have it delivered to my door. But that idea went belly-up, or to the dogs as it were. Now pizza is easily delivered to your door via the Web. Why couldn't our groceries be delivered?

Looking over lists of products is too overwhelming, too much textual overload. Wouldn’t it be easier to tour our local grocery store or supermarket aisle by aisle as if we were in an online gaming environment?

This idea came to me as I read Cory Ondrejka’s Web 3.0 presentation description for the upcoming O’Reilly Emerging Technology Conference scheduled for March 6-9 in San Diego, Ca. (Cory is the VP of product development, as well as team leader in developing "Second Life," Linden Lab's user-created digital world.)

Cory’s presentation description poses several interesting questions which include “how will 3D worlds be used to better manage data, convey information, and enable new forms of communications?” Good question. And I'll bet he has an answer.

He goes on:

By granting broad intellectual property rights to its residents and embedding the tools needed to build almost anything, [Second Life] has enabled large scale creativity that bridges the 3D and web worlds. Projects ranging from games and shopping malls to medical research and education have been built on top of Second Life's core technology and then linked to companion web sites, blogs, and wikis. This is only the beginning, however. Currently, Firefox is being embedded within Second Life so that web content can act as a fundamental building block of the world as animations, textures, or audio.

So it seems only a matter of time before we are grocery shopping online in an environment similar to where we actually shop. Sign me up!

Now if I could just find some way to wash my dog without getting wet.

 

How receptive are educators to changing how they teach? That’s obviously a loaded question with a host of potential reactions.

One major factor that impedes change is a fear of taking risks. Behind this fear lies issues of control, issues of embarrassment, and a fear of failure.

What are some concrete strategies for working with educators to assist them in overcoming these barriers, these emotional fear factors, and embrace change?

Fear Factors
I have taken Elaine Showalter’s (2003) teaching anxiety categories, modified them a bit, and placed them into seven typifications:

• Lack of Training
• Feelings of Isolation
• Tension Between Teaching and other Related Professional Activities
• Coverage Demands
• Performance Issues
• Assessment Challenges
• Student & Peer Evaluations

Educators put themselves, their beliefs, out in the public every time they engage a class. This exposure can trigger feelings of inadequacy that naturally compound fear and anxiety as well as lead to disparagement, complacency, and a willingness to be innovative.

Risk Aversion
Researchers, including Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, suggest that we do not consider gains and losses, costs and benefits, rationally. Our primary motivation is to avoid loss. When the stakes are high, when our pride is on the line, our intuition attempts to tackle the issue quickly rather than thoughtfully considering all sides of the decision. Reflective thinking only takes us so far when we feel under duress. So what do educators fear they are losing?

When content is considered “king,” it is natural for educators to fear losing control over the amount of content covered. When a certain amount of requisite information demands attention, employing new technologies or pedagogical innovations limits an educator’s ability to see the advantages of changing their approach.

Strategies to Overcome Fear

Reducing Anxiety
My father had a saying he learned from his father called the Seven P’s: Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard that saying. As pithy as it may sound, it’s true. Winging it in a classroom never left me feeling all that well. Improvisation works well in a comedy club, but it can cause great anxiety in a classroom of expectant students. For educators, the more prepared you are, the better you feel. Practice does lead to perfection, so before attempting to employ any new innovation, it helps to be comfortable with what you are doing, to have some experience with the technique or technology before jumping in blind.

Model Learner Behavior
On the other hand, if you look at the classroom as a learning environment, as the teacher, you might find comfort in taking on more of a learner role. In this light, everything you do turns into an experiment. If you go into a teaching situation explaining this to students, the learning environment becomes a place where failure becomes a teachable moment. The bottom line here is, be open and honest with your students; don’t pretend to have all the answers. Be prepared to be transparent and reflective: check your ego at the door and model problem-based learning.

Addressing Coverage
How much time should you spend covering requisite material? One solution involves taking lots of smaller measurements of student learning along the way. Frequent low stakes quizzes and prompts can provide a good indicator of how well students understand the content being presented. Students know they need to read and study. Knowing they need to come to class prepared to be quizzed or called on can be a strong motivator. This process can help educators gauge how much time is necessary to spend on specific course content as well as determine appropriate scaffolds to be constructed.

10 Feet Tall and Bulletproof
One of the greatest fears I see in the many educators I have observed over the years is the fear of feedback, the fear of peer review. Nobody likes to be told what he or she are doing is wrong, so feedback needs to be offered in light of specific practice. For example, when I invite a trusted peer to observe me in class, I ask them to keep an eye or ear out for a specific area of concern. In one case, I felt I was not transitioning from one critical concept to the next clearly. I knew the material I wanted to cover in my head, but I felt it was not translating well for my students (based on the glazed looks I was seeing). My peer observed me engaging the students at this critical juncture and was able to feedback what she saw, acting as a mirror, which allowed me to see for myself where I was missing the point and adjust my practice. (Why do medical doctors call what they do their “practice”?)

All the world’s a stage
Seeing one’s self in an open and honest light can be difficult for many educators. Admitting anxiety, admitting they made a mistake, can be the last thing any body feels comfortable doing. A helpful technique in diagnosing one’s way of seeing can be done through using metaphors. For example, if I were to ask you to describe yourself as an educator, what metaphor might you use? Are you a policeman? A tour guide? A drill sergeant? A gardener? In what ways can you qualify your answer based on your practice? Is this ho you want to see yourself? Is this the most effective role for you? How so? Thoughtfully and honestly reflecting on your practice and sharing your thoughts and feelings with trusted peers can be an effective means for changing one’s behavior, opening an educator to the possibility of trying something different.

More on Failure
None of the solutions I have mentioned are guaranteed. They are only meant as suggestions, as opportunities to addresses feelings of fear and anxiety associated with adopting new teaching practices. You can lead a horse to water, or you can lead a faculty member to a good professional development workshop, but you can’t force either one of them to do anything (master of the obvious I am). Our culture is one that frowns on failure.

Terry Wassall writes:

To take risks and innovate means to be prepared for some failures. But failures can be successes if something valuable is learnt from them. If the innovation is taking place within some worked out theoretical framework, then failure does not have to be measured only in terms of the specific objectives and aims not achieved; it can also be measured in terms of what the failure tells us about the theoretical framework within which the innovative activity was designed and applied. In this sense at least, there should be no such thing as a failed experiment. The implication of this is that risk-taking innovators need to be operating within a theoretical framework that informs their activity and its continuous evaluation. If they haven't got this they won't learn from success either. It occurs to me as I write this that this is pretty much, at a high level of abstraction, what the experimental method is.

The other aspect of failure that must be considered is how it impacts upon the subjects of the 'failed' innovation, the students. I think there has to be some sort of fail safe aspect to the instructional design. I speak here with the wisdom of someone who has never done this consciously!

In response Tom Campell suggests:

Buckminster Fuller opined:

"There is no such thing as a failed experiment only experiments with unexpected outcomes."

The other aspect of failure that must be considered is how it impacts upon the subjects of the 'failed' innovation, the students.

We must tell the learner what we are doing with them and get them thinking that one learning outcome is to embrace the experiment and abet it.

I have too many 'A' students - but once we alter the design to make them 'own' their learning and broaden our biases to include the widest possible representations of mastery, we end up finding a worthy place for the unexpected outcomes.

So how do we get educators to feel that they are or can be risk takers? There is no one simple answer. Yet there are internal and external steps educators can take to address their fears. But it needs to start with the educator first. Yes, there are risks when a physician attempts to heal him or herself. Yet, is it a risk worth taking?

 

The Harvard Business Review (February 2006) recently released a list of  20 “Breakthrough Ideas for 2006.” The one that caught my attention was number fifteen: “The Avatar as Consumer.”

Advertisers and marketing agents are being told to tap the massively multi-player online role-playing games arena.

Since the avatar represents a projection of the individual creator, why not market to the avatars? Sure the creator controls the wallet, but the avatar “can influence purchasing decisions or… offer insights into the creators tastes.”

Since people’s dreams are on “overt display” in online gaming environments, the author suggests that advertisers observe how avatars inhabit their virtual world, see what products they purchase, where they choose to vacation. Hey, this is valuable information. After all, “[m]arketing depends on soliciting people’s dreams.”

Companies could even market directly to avatars “persuading them to purchase real-world goods for their creators.”

So get ready for marketing campaigns aimed at furries, but don’t expect to see a McDonalds in Sim City again, or empty Diet Pepsi cans on the medieval banquet table. But you can expect to see clothing lines and accessories tied into your virtual community that will be available both in the real- and cybernetic worlds.

The reality is, virtual worlds are big business.

As many as 10 million people spend $10 to $15 a month to subscribe to online role-playing games. Players lay out upwards of $100 million a year on auction sites like eBay simply for accessories – for example, digital weapons earned or crafted by others in a virtual world – that can enhance their avatars’ presence and performance.

The article ends with the image of a potential customer entering a department store asking the sales clerk to give her another one of those items, after all, she is buying “for two.”

Virtual worlds are indeed big business. Yet for me, part of the fantasy would be to escape the consumer culture. Do we really need more advertising in our lives? I would expect advertising in a free gaming environment, similar to broadcast television. But if I am paying membership fees, should I expect to be sold a designer handbag?

Things that make me go hmmmm….

 

In XplanaZine, author Rob Reynolds offers Five Laws of Product Development for Education in the 21st Century.

Claiming the following assertions as “Laws” is quite a bold statement, if not egregious. Universal principles? Maybe. Healthy speculation? Closer. Hypothesis? Now you’re talking.

Here’s my take on the author’s contentions. The original article can be found here.

We no longer know how they want to know
This idea is a misnomer. We can certainly predict what our current students will need to know in order to be successful: they must be able to use reason and logic; they must be able to express themselves clearly in a variety of mediums; and they need to be able to transfer what they know to new and different environments. It also wouldn’t hurt if our students were sensitive to issues of social justice and compassion for fellow humans. It also would be nice if we taught students how to think reflectively. How students receive and process information will always be in flux, so trying to predict what technologies will work best seems a bit like chasing one’s tail. So I agree with the author on this point.

Convergence will stay ahead of content
While devices change and evolve, content remains somewhat static (there are only a few ways to solve a quadratic equation, right?). Since technology developments move faster than content providers ability to keep up, I think convergence will always be over the next hill. I also know many techies who still keep a paper calendar, you know, just in case….

One plus one equals infinity
I believe the author is dealing in generalizations again. Product thinking regularly determines the market. As long as professors publish texts through a large company, the producer, i.e., the textbook publisher will determine when to roll-out new editions. Why? Because they have a larger stake; they hold the purse strings. And as long as professors and writers rely on publishers to pay for their work, the publisher will determine when texts will be published. Wouldn’t be interesting if professors started self-publishing on the web. Would they be allowed to assign a book they wrote if they weren’t making any money from it? Hmmm. Now there’s an idea. What the market demands is indeed critical to the success of a product, but if a particular industry has a virtual monopoly over the market, what the market says has little impact. Am I missing something here?

Failure is a repository of possibility
Amen. This is the beauty of reflective thinking, a skill that we could say is one we believe all students should develop. As Buckminster Fuller used to say "If I ran a school, I'd give the average grade to the ones who gave me all the right answers, for being good parrots. I'd give the top grades to those who made a lot of mistakes and told me about them, and then told me what they learned from them."

While I applaud the author's attempt at codifying lifecycles of product development, I have found from my own experience (i.e., making lots of mistakes) that attempting to concretize what is naturally fluid and dynamic makes one apear nebbish, or worse, pedantic. I prefer the terms guidelines or reflections; this leaves one open to making changes as required.

I do appreciate the author's willingness to share his thoughts. I believe that many minds working on a problem helps to refine and address the issue from multiple perspectives. In that sense, technology is moving us all along in the right direction, convergently.

I was making a presentation on social software affordances in class the other night when my professor stopped me and said:

Chris, that’s great, but how do we know that using technology will positively impact student achievement? What does the research say about technology use and student achievement?

I paused for a moment and collected my thoughts.

I considered citing the “no significant difference” research. Then, without thinking, my reptilian brain kicked in. I suggested that schooling is about more than achievement. If we focus solely on achievement we end up with measures that ignore critical social aspects of development. Schools are all about interaction. Teaching and learning is a focal point, but you can’t make students learn.

I spouted: “Are you saying that student achievement is only expressed through grades?”

This exchange left me feeling raw, yet I felt I needed to prove to him that technology can and does positively impact student achievement. I understood where my prof was coming from. He’s an empiricist; anything considered educative needs experiential proof that it positively impacts learning.

I went home feeling rather inept. I spent the next several hours looking through notes and online resources.

I discovered a paper on the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory site by Honey, Culp & Spielvogel (2005) titled “Critical Issue: Using Technology to Improve Student Achievement.”

The authors site several research reports that demonstrate positive gains in student achievement when instructors used discrete educational software like integrated learning systems, computer-assisted instruction, and computer-based instruction. These applications are widely available in schools today and, along with word-processing software, have been present in classrooms for more than 20 years.

Discrete educational software not only to supplements instruction but is also used “to introduce topics, provide means for self-study, and offer opportunities to learn concepts otherwise inaccessible to students. The software also manifests two key assumptions about how computers can assist learning. First, the user's ability to interact with the software is narrowly defined in ways designed specifically to promote learning with the tools. Second, computers are viewed as a medium for learning, rather than as tools that could support further learning (Murphy et al, 2001).”

I found this second point to be a critical one. Computers are more than tools; they serve as a medium, a vehicle, a channel, a mode, a method to engage learners through a variety of applications. Computing and software offer affordances that were previously unavailable to both the teacher and the learner. Similar to non-computer mediated learning environments, student achievement is really a matter of learning design and the level of engagement proffered within a particular environment.

This argument may or may not sway my professor, but the research evidence culled from the NCREL report might.

I encourage you to take a look and see what you think. If we are asked to defend technology in classroom settings, we need to have several good arguments available. The research suggests that it depends on how technology is used, the teacher, the learner, and the content.

Two other points worth noting from the NCREL report:

The Complex Nature of Change

Another factor influencing the impact of technology on student achievement is that changes in classroom technologies correlate to changes in other educational factors as well. Originally the determination of student achievement was based on traditional methods of social scientific investigation: it asked whether there was a specific, causal relationship between one thing—technology—and another—student achievement. Because schools are complex social environments, however, it is impossible to change just one thing at a time (Glennan & Melmed, 1996; Hawkins, Panush, & Spielvogel, 1996; Newman, 1990). If a new technology is introduced into a classroom, other things also change. For example, teachers' perceptions of their students' capabilities can shift dramatically when technology is integrated into the classroom (Honey, Chang, Light, Moeller, in press). Also, teachers frequently find themselves acting more as coaches and less as lecturers (Henriquez & Riconscente, 1998). Another example is that use of technology tends to foster collaboration among students, which in turn may have a positive effect on student achievement (Tinzmann, 1998). Because the technology becomes part of a complex network of changes, its impact cannot be reduced to a simple cause-and-effect model that would provide a definitive answer to how it has improved student achievement.

Research on successfully developing, evaluating, studying, and implementing a wide range of technology-based educational programs suggests that the value of technology for students will not be realized unless attention is paid to several important considerations that support the effective use of technology (ISTE, 2002; Byrom & Bingham, 2001; Chang, Henriquez, Honey, Light, Moeller, & Ross, 1998; Cradler, 1997; Frederiksen & White, 1997; Hawkins, Panush, & Spielvogel, 1996; Honey, McMillan, Tsikalas, & Light, 1996; National Foundation for the Improvement of Education, 1996; Pea & Gomez, 1992). These considerations are:

   1. Specific educational goals and a vision of learning through technology
   2. Ongoing professional development
   3. Structural changes in the school day
   4. A robust technical infrastructure and technical support
   5. Ongoing evaluation

I am not suggesting that technology or social software is the answer to all of our educational needs. However, I am saying that if it is implemented carefully and thoughtfully, technology and software can have a positive impact on the teaching and learning experience.

Reference:
Honey, M., Culp, K.M. and Spielvogel, R. (2005). Critical Issue: Using Technology to Improve Student Achievement. Retrieved 14 February 2006 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te80

Recently a professor/mentor of mine noted that I seem to spend more time writing on my blog rather than writing for academic journals. She noted that I will not get tenure or be promoted for my blog posts but that I will for publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

I’ll admit, she made a good point. I use my blog space to reflect on ideas for “proper” articles. In many cases I receive useful feedback that helps me tighten my argument or consider alternate or opposing viewpoints. In this light, my blog serves as a handy testbed and sandbox which allows me room to play.

Often when I am fleshing out ideas for submission, I find myself uncovering fresh and relevant ideas in the blogosphere that I have not seen in academic journals. Does citing a blog post from an anonymous author lessen my argument’s credibility?

For many tenured academics, it appears that blogging is less than credible. Is a cogent argument made in a public forum less than credible if the author lacks a credentialed doctorate degree?

Advantages of blog posts

James McConvill and Liz Lawley offer several points to ponder regarding the advantages of blog posts:

Blog writing requires concise writing skills. Journal articles often run over 2000 words. If you cannot express your novel idea in 1000 words or less, then you are probably trying to say too much (brevity being the soul of wit).

Blogging allows ideas to circulate quickly. By the time many journal articles are published, the ideas contained within have aged and risk possible irrelavance. Blogging creates buzz, and buzz gets people talking and ideas have an opportunity to be analyzed and refined.

More often than not, blog posts are written in a pedestrian or conversational tone. They invite comments and feedback and are readily accessible to a lay-audience. They often involve sharing opinions and offer a perspective rather than the “law.” Perhaps this a major reason why they are not considered academically rigorous and consequentially dismissed.

Blog posts have the potential of reaching a wider audience than academic journals. How many practitioners do you know spend hours reading academic journals relevant to their field? How many practitioners regularly read relevant blogs? Academic research journals are written for academic researchers. How can we expect the perceived theory-to-practice gap to be adequately bridged? Blogs are written for whoever’s attention they grab; they come with a take-it-or-leave-it flavor. If a blogs information is meaningful and relevant to you, then it has real value. Many academic journals exist to provide professors a place to publish and validate what they do for a living. Whether their research has meaning or adds value is secondary.

Disadvantages to blogging

When blog posts do not cite from where they get their information, punditry/pedantry rules. I liken this to what I call the “Fox Effect,” plenty of sizzle, but no steak; lots of deafening opinion, little support or evidence for opinions.

The digital divide. Those without access to the World Wide Web are left out of the conversation. In effect, power laws work against a diversity of opinion and the roar of the masses is reduced to a whisper at best.

Ignorance. This concept threatens many useful ventures and good ideas. As long as academics remain ignorant to the value that blogging can serve, then blogs will continue to exist as second rate publishing venues.

The fact remains, university’s are and will always be slow to change. They are built on medieval traditions that support their existence. This is not say they are useless agencies; plenty of important, cutting edge work happens on a daily basis. However, to paraphrase McConvill, if academics want to be perceived as being “progressive, relevant, and dynamic,” then you would think blogging in the academy would be embraced.

I can imagine publishing houses are feeling the heat. Similar to the recording industry, they are becoming more and more threatened by the DIY ethos of open publishing. And as textbooks are closer to becoming rendered obsolete, publishers will need to develop a new business model to remain economically viable.

So while I may not receive tenure for this blog post today, perhaps tomorrow offers us food for thought.

Dominating the discussion of education and educational reform in the U.S. in recent years lies a fundemental economic argument – the notion of scarcity. From this perspective, we as human beings are essentially pitted against each other, competing for basic resources and a life free of want. As such, we develop notions of the “other” being against “us”-- the other as evil, immoral, and depraved. At the core of this perspective, a pessimistic worldview becomes the dominant paradigm: Humans are weak and God is angry. From this perspective, humans need to be told what to do, what to think, and need to be held personally (and by extension, organizationally) accountable for their beliefs and actions. Within this paradigm, government is perceived to be a thief, a waste, wherein less is more beneficial (except for a strong military which is needed to protect us from the enemy, the other). In terms of public education, this moralistic and conservative paradigm is the basis for standards-based reform, voucher programs, charter schools, all of which leads to the potential of privatizing public education.

Strategic initiatives embodied by this worldview have lead to the following steps (Lakoff, 2004) that are currently dominating the educational reform debate:

   1.    Objective testing uncovers school failure.
   2.    Demonstrated failure justifies punishment of failing schools.
   3.    Punishment justifies reduced funding.
   4.    Less funding makes it harder for schools to improve.
   5.    A cycle of failure ensues.
   6.    This cycle of failure justifies privatization.
   7.    Privatization will lead to good schools.

The unexamined consequences of this paradigm in education include:

• Students are untrustworthy, unmotivated, undisciplined, slothful, and immoral.
• Students (and educators) cannot be trusted and must be  monitored and coerced to do the right thing.
• Ability is the best way to identify and group students for learning. Isolation of able learners is essential.
• Education is reduced to a set of select examinations and select examinations becomes education.
• Presentation equals teaching.
• Knowledge is the accumulation of facts.
• Creative, caring, curious, critical citizens are not a priority.
• Public schools are a bloated, ineffective government bureaucracy that should be privatized.

The question is: What has this dominant paradigm actually done for public education except manufacture a crisis?

There is an alternate paradigm that exists which deserves more attention. It is a worldview that was initiated by such historical figures as Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Montessori, Horace Mann, Piaget, Dewey and Freire, to name a few.

This alternate paradigm offers a position that suggests that indeed life is difficult, complex and ambiguous, yet human beings are essentially good; evil exists yet it is only a minor part of human experience.

In terms of education, the alternate paradigm acknowledges the following broad perspective:

• Human freedom and empowerment are more critical than accountability and punishment.
• Life is about relationships, not acquisition.
• School is a democratic experience.
• Caring and trust for each person is the center of any truly professional activity.
• Schools are to improve society as a whole, not providing competitive advantage to the elite.
• Curriculum is best derived from the needs and interests of the learners.
• Developmental appropriateness should supercede national assessment.
• School failure is the result of a variety of political and economic causes.

Supporters of this alternate perspective maintain that education is a process based on trust, not doubt and suspicion (Bryk & Schneider 2002). The crucial elements that will sustain school improvement is not high-stakes testing, standards, or reactionary accountability programs – “it is simple human trust… that rests on four supports: respect, competency, integrity, and personal regard for others” (George 2006).

Real education is built on meaningful relationships. We do not learn things in isolation from each other. The core components of education are based on learner-centered values, a respect for diversity and complexity, tolerance, and empowerment. The developmental needs for learners are widespread and cannot be easily or meaningfully reduced to a pencil-based exam.

Historically, the alternate perspective is responsible for ending the divine right of kings, ending political executions, and ending slavery. Without an alternate paradigm we would not have women’s suffrage, child labor laws, civil rights or an environmental movement.

Although this argument paints the current educational reform argument in broad strokes, the underlying assumptions are clearly present and readily accountable. The education of millions of human beings is at stake. The future of our world, our political, economic, and physical environment is at stake. It is my belieft that this alternate paradigm is worth fighting for.

Next steps

How can we address the current paradigm in a profound and meaningful way? I have a number of mixed feelings about how to do this. One idea that dominates my thinking is wresting control of the media. Media corporations control a majority of the content made available to the general public. How can the Internet and Internet technologies (social networks and social software) play in this arena? Who will be the agents of this alternate paradigm? Politicians? Business executives? Technocrats? Teacher Unions? Governments are reactive agencies, they respond to popular opinion and monied interests. Rarely do they act proactively. So it appears that an alternative shift will need to come from the grass roots, the bottom-up, which is from where communities of practice develop and evolve. The need to popularize an alternate perspective appears to be the only way to close the doors on the current paradigm and consign it to history.

Thoughts and comments are most welcome.

References:

Bryk, A. & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

George, P. (2006). Unpublished draft of Don't think of an elephant: Paradigms, culture wars and the middle school concept.  21 February 2006.

Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Note: The ideas discussed in this post are from a combination of thoughts and writings based on an in-class discussion, notes taken, and references from George's (2006) unpublished draft.

Based on a MetaFilter post by foraneagle2, I compiled this suggested list of Free Online Educational Resources on my wiki.

Please share the wealth and let me know of any additional resources you feel should be added.