Although the school year is in full thrust here in the States, I am taking a quick juant to Edinburgh, Scotland to attend Elgg's first conference and the Association for Learning Technology's (ALT-C 2006) annual get together. 

I am quite excited about attending both. I had a great time last year and got to meet up with such edublogger celebrities including Josie Fraser, Stephen Downes, and Scott Wilson.

This years' conferences and meet-ups look to be equally intriguing. 

The Elgg conference will be Sept 4th, 2006 from 10.00am - 4.30pm in Rm 401, David Hume Tower, George Square, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh. The cost is free. (Location map: http://www.edinburgh.ac.uk/explore/campustours_central.html)

Ben Werdmuller will be keynoting the event with a discussion on "The Internet is people: Elgg and a user-centred model for learning environments." Other speakers on the docket include Miles Berry, Misja Hoebe, Terry Anderson, Chris McKillop, Kevin Jardine, Bill Fitzgerald, Stan Stanier, and myself.

After checking Dave Tosh's blog, it sounds as though most of the attendance spaces are taken up, however, for those who can't make it, all the presentations will be released on Google Video, blogged, and podcast.

I will be blogging from the ALT conference and posting as often as I can for those unable to attend as well.

Looking forward to the change of scenery (these 90+ F Florida days start to wear you down after a while).

Drop me a line if you'll be attending or let me know if there's a particular session you would like me to attend and report on. 

I attended a marvelous session/debate titled Transforming Learning: Evolution or Revolution that was framed by the following question:

Should change evolve incrementally over time or is a more radical approach required to transform learning and teaching in an increasingly e-world?

Background:
In 2003 the SFEFC/SHEFC elearning Group Final Report stressed an emphasis on learning rather than technology and invested £6M to support “transformation” activities aimed at achieving significant changes in culture and practice in participating colleges and universities. Six transformational projects involving consortia of Scottish post-16 institutions were funded for two yearsto work towards the following principles of transformation:

• the process of change will mean that certain aspects of learning and teaching are conducted in a new way;
• the process of change is consistent with, and embedded in, institutional strategies, and is not a peripheral process driven solely by the possibility of external funding;
• the intended outcome is sustainable, and is expected to result in long-term change in activities beyond the period of external funding; and
• the process will yield measurable benefits to the institution and its learners.

The six e-learning transformational projects are developing models for change across a range of areas including pedagogy, staff development, e-assessment, PDP and e-portfolios, learning activities and content. Most projects are engaging with several of these areas. More information can be found here.

Chaired by an Scottish Funding Council representative each side, represented by two of the projects, will discuss how the different approaches impact on the following:

• Models and incentives - bottom up, top down, cascade, collaborative approaches
• Buy-in - institutional, departmental, individual
• Investment - economic aspects
• Evaluation - measuring transformation
• Timescales

The Participants:
Mr David Beards, Mr John Edmonstone, Mr Andrew Comrie, Dr Martyn Ward, Mr Gerry Graham, and the audience.

The Debate:
The revolutionary debaters argued for clear cut planning, leadership, and a strategic vision as the basis for reducing the gap between the world of information and communication technologies and teaching and learning.

The revolutionaries argued that

• change is a cultural issue that requires commitment from all stakeholders – teachers, managers, and students;
• an evolutionary approach was essentially “revolution for those who lack conviction;”
• the evolutionary process is a “perpetual series of disappointments;”
• dabbling as such equals the death knell of transformation;
• managers fear commitment (because they are mostly men); and
• the evolutionary process is like a falling feather, whereas a revolutionary process is like the flight of an arrow.
• 

The evolutionaries argued that

• transformation is about people;
• widespread consultation and buy-in is needed between stakeholders in order to plan, prepare, and communicate effectively;
• transformation takes time and training;
• reflection and evaluation is what an evolutionary process is all about; and
• that an evolutionary process is careful, nurturing, iterative process, that requires lots of evaluation and reevaluation as transformation occurs.
•  

Analysis:

After listening to each side debate their points, the audiences of about 100 members were nearly equally divided in terms of supporting a revolutionary model versus an evolutionary model of institutional change.

Audience members chimed in with several thoughtful comments. One member suggested that the metaphors of evolution and revolution were perhaps inappropriate and mixed thus not a practical way of framing the debate.

Revolution can be equated with “replacing” whereas evolution is often likened with “change,” thus are we talking about changing our educational system or replacing it with a new one?

Another audience member noted that the issue of change and transformation is an existential problem naturally associated with institutions. If universities exist to assist societies cope with change, then should transforming an institution involve both incremental and radical step changes?

Since transforming a university culture involves transforming people, perhaps any changes would work if it came in phases. Some changes could happen over a relatively short period of time (e.g., adopting a new VLE) while other changes would take time to manage (e.g., shifting the curricula to a problem-based or student centered model).

As a metaphor, evolution suggests an organic, natural process, and as such an institution can be seen as a living organism with specific traits that grow, change, and adapt allowing it to survive over several generations. This metaphor also hints at the notion of change over an undefined amount of time. Biologically, one associates evolution as taking place over thousands and millions of years, thus setting up the desire for bringing about change at a more rapid pace (i.e., to keep up with the changes in society). Information technologies have evolved at such a blinding pace over the past few decades which in turn have left many universities and schools scrambling and reacting slowly at best.

Revolution, on the other hand, frames the notion of change as relatively sudden and drastic process – as a rebellion. In some cases, revolutions are led by a majority of a particular populace, in other cases, by a small band of radicals. Revolution hints at a violent overthrowing of one body over another, as perhaps one set of unsanctioned ideas offered against the prevailing norms. Revolution can also be considered a process of social change that involves breaking away and replacing a particular status-quo, thus transforming a society.

Can transforming an institution like a university do so without moving people out of their comfort zones? (Can you make a cake without breaking a few eggs?) Personally, an evolutionary approach makes sense; however, it may take several years for the real transformation to take place. Perhaps it might be best to begin by defining what a transformed university will look like.

What if universities took on a mission statement that involves transformation as a continuous underlying element, that is to say, “we are always in transition” as a means of remaining flexible and adaptable to social and market demands? If this were the case, the notion of revolution wouldn’t be necessary unless this new plan wasn’t working.

The fact that this debate exists suggests that colleges and universities are not doing their part to stay abreast with the changes in society, teaching, learning, and information technologies. And this is why the notion of revolution seems somewhat appealing on a number of levels. How long do we have to weight for universities to catch up? And once they do catch up, will social needs and ICTs have changed yet again thus requiring learning institutions to continuously evolve and transform?

Is framing the debate of transformation as an evolutionary or revolutionary process the correct way to look at the current situation? Might there be a better set of metaphors? How might the notion of emergence fit this proposition? What might Paulo Freire think?

Confronting the current dominant paradigm is indeed necessary. I applaud ALT and the presenters for bringing this issue into consciousness. Universities have slowly evolved over time but move at a glacial pace. Revolution is certainly appealing on many levels, however getting all stakeholders to agree on the terms for transformation seem rather defeatist. Revolutionaries are often seen as subversive; they want to tip the balance of power in the name of changing the system for the better. Yet if they want to do so, they must accept total responsibility for the outcome of their actions. Can revolutionaries develop a plan that we all can live with? Who will define this "master" plan?

If I only had a crystal ball.

Thoughts? Comments?

--- 

Artwork: Metamorphosis of Narcissus by Salvador Dali (1937)
Flower hurler by Banksy

I want to address the notion of locus of control in teaching and learning in light of the increased use of information and communication technologies (ICT) that Gilly Salmon put before her session participants:

Is the locus of control of learning different given ICTs and social software and what should educators do?

In formal educational settings there is an unresolved tension between the individual and the institution. Institutions are responsible for accrediting learners and learning. Courses and programs are designed to meet standards set forth by varying accreditation agencies which set policies and in many cases determine what is to be taught, how “mastery” is defined, and whether or not an institution is properly qualified to deliver the goods, so to speak. Assessment and not students or institutions thus signify the locus of control.

Teachers, as such, become the managers, the fulcrums, the pivot points hired to balance students’ individual interests and institutional/course objectives/assessments. Teachers must validate students’ learning experiences based on a predefined notion of quality handed down from the accrediting gods. Consequently the locus of control in a managerial sense is in the hands of the teacher regardless of ICTs and social software. On the personal level, teachers do have the ability to shift a certain amount of control over to students by providing multiple assessment opportunities or learning contracts that allow students an array of choice in determining how they are going to address formal assessment requirements.

So the notion of locus of control seems to exist across a spectrum of players that shape teaching and learning from the national or global level, down to the individual student and his or her personal learning environment.

Is locus of control really such an issue worth carrying on about? What if we were to take a different approach? Perhaps we could start by razing the barn…

Burning down schools

Stephen Heppell spoke about a new vision for school that offers a revolutionary shift in thinking and acting. Heppell suggested that content is not king and that community should be sovereign, that intimacy is at the heart of all learning. For Heppell, ICTs and social software means scale doesn’t matter like it used to; the megaversity is no longer needed. ICTs allow us to build schools in our living rooms and coffee shops. ICTs can allow educators to build something personal, something interesting, engaging and ingenious.
 
Perhaps we shouldn’t be talking about teaching and learning using social software tools in terms of ICT, educational technology, or IT. Instead we should be talking about what’s cool, as in “Have you seen that cool video on YouTube?” or “Check out my new pictures on flickr.” When we think of technology as informal, it becomes less stodgy, less pedantic, and well, more cool. Perhaps when we begin integrating tech tools that we use everyday to organize things or communicate with, the more people will be willing to use them in formal educational settings.

To paraphrase a quote that Gilly Salmon included in her slides:

The success of social software and ICTs in education depends on people’s willingness to participate and contribute.

McLuhan (1995) covered this same notion but with a slightly different spin when he said:

We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us.

Teaching and learning with social software will change the way our learning landscapes unfold before us. Where once standards demanded a 1500 word essay, an equivalent could be managing an online discussion for one week or editing and posting a ten second video or scripting and posting a three minute podcast. I believe when the conditions are right, ICTs and social software can permit students more control over their learning.

Since our tools shape us, it seems our focus as educators should be to change the way we assess learning. We regularly engage the world, our peers, through ICTs and social software, yet we often find educators not incorporating them into the lessons for various reasons that may or may not be within their control. Since we can practically do anything we want with ICTs, perhaps part of the problem for those who do have access is that we don’t know what it is we want to do.

Revisioning and reforming schools and educational policies is a massive undertaking. Yet what really counts is the day-to-day interaction between learners. We need to start with notions of trust, of love, of bravery, and of real truth and not exams, grade point averages, and high stakes assessments. To be truly successful, school must be a place where we can expose and express ourselves, and have room to create, experiment, imagine, and fail – a place where we can find support, critique, and honesty. (Yes, I want my surgeon and airline pilot to know what they’re really doing. I am not saying we need to water-down assessment. I am saying however that context is key regarding content and assessment.)

ICTs and social software can allow us to work in smaller more intimate groups of peers and mentors where we can connect to other groups around the globe. As Ben Werdmuller coined it: the Internet is people. Teaching and learning is people too. And the locus of control should be ours to negotiate as long as accreditors provide the opportunity to do so. Accreditation can be more than what’s issued by universities. It could be issued by Microsoft, the BBC, Apple, Oracle, Hewlett Packard, Toyota, etc. A person’s c.v. could be more organic, assembled from courses taken in a variety of settings, from a variety of providers. The university’s monopoly on accreditation will soon be a thing of the past as other players enter the tertiary education market and offer the skills and training that meets the needs of employers globally.

Social software, ICT, the Internet, education… it’s all about people. Control should be a matter of choice. After all, isn’t that what democracy is all about?

I have been rather busy since returning from Edinburgh. Coursework has been piling up; papers and proposals to read, write, review; meetings with deans, department chairs, faculty members, students.... I hope to post more substantial work here soon.

In the meantime, one of the projects I was asked to tackle recently was conducting a one-hour workshop on using wikis in teaching and learning environments for faculty members, graduate teaching and research assistants, and staff at my uni. Wikis are old hat for many people in the educational technology arena but they are definitely new territory for many faculty members.

I built the presentation on my wiki, because I figured if I came in and did a powerpoint presentation on using wikis, I deserve to be drawn and quartered!

I focused on showing examples of how people are using wikis (rather than simply talking about using wikis). It seemed to go well. I've been asked to make this same presentation for several academic departments. But before I do, I was hoping to get some feedback from the edublogosphere. So please have a look and tell what you think, what's missing, what you would change or say differently. Afterall, isn't learning about collaborating, sharing, and co-creating?

If we start with the premise that how we approach the world affects/shapes our ideas, definitions, our identity, our practice, our landscape/environment, our community, then how learning and our community/environment is organized affects teacher practice and ultimately student achievement.

Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1999) break this notion of teacher learning down into three conceptions: knowledge for practice, knowledge in practice, and knowledge of practice. In order to get at learner transformation and change, we need to understand the underlying assumptions that inform the teaching and learning archetype; we need to know how and why things are the way they are before we can attempt to change or improve upon them.

Knowledge for Practice
In the knowledge for practice conception, knowledge is that which is produced by others for teachers to use. This conception of teacher learning embodies a level of correctness based on a “distinctive [teacher] knowledge base” governed by conventional scientific methods that "yields a commonly accepted degree of significance, validity, generalizability, and intersubjectivity" (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 255 referencing Fenstermacher, 1994, p. 8).

This conception creates a divide between knowledge informed by practice and received knowledge codified in educational literature (this division is often considered as the schism between theory and practice). The knowledge for practice conception of teacher learning also emphasizes a categorical difference between expert and novice teaching. As such this division defines teachers as receivers of knowledge and not co-creators of knowledge. The teacher’s role is “to solve problems by implementing certified procedures rather than to pose problems based on their first-hand observations and experiences” (259).


Knowledge for practice brings us to the idea of best practice – generalizable behaviors and techniques that are verified and acknowledged as effective. The problem with such a conception of practice is that best practices are not necessarily presented as situated in a specific context. We might also ask how does one evaluate best practices? How do we know what’s best in a variety of contexts? Are best practices really generalizable? If so, on what scale? Who decides which practices are best? Who determines what gets published or adopted by others? These questions also bring to light underlying notions of power, agency, and hegemony in terms of how knowledge is formalized.

Most professional development programs are based on transmitting best practices (i.e., best practice drives professional development); expertise is assigned to those teachers who regularly demonstrate best practices. What is important to note is that the knowledge for practice conception foregrounds formal knowledge as the basis for improving teacher practice. It discounts the notion of practical or informal knowledge that is a large part of everyday practice.

Knowledge in Practice
The second conception of teacher knowledge presented by Cochran-Smith & Lytle is the idea of knowledge in practice. This conception foregrounds teacher practical knowledge as the basis for improving teacher practice. Here practice is situated and constructed in response to everyday happenings within school, and as such, teacher knowledge is acquired through experience and through considered and deliberative reflection about or inquiry into experience.

To improve and enhance practice in the knowledge in practice conception, teachers need to be able to inquire about their practice, they need time to reflect, and to be able to articulate the tacit knowledge embedded in their experiences. This conception recognizes the importance of collaboration and facilitation among peers and research professionals, requiring a shift from the knowledge for practice view. The knowledge in practice conception of teacher learning acknowledges the sociality of the teaching and learning environment and clearly problematizes the formal/informal knowledge distinction. Here, the teacher is a craftsperson, a mediator, and an actor-upon the formal knowledge base.

While the knowledge in practice conception of teacher learning attempts to synthesize the notion of formal/informal knowledge, the third conception of teacher learning shared by Cochran-Smith & Lytle strives for emancipation of what it means to know, to be, to become.

Knowledge of Practice
The knowledge of practice conception of teacher learning stresses that through inquiry, “teachers make problematic their own knowledge and practice as well as the knowledge and practice of others and thus stand in a different relationship to knowledge.” (273)

The knowledge of practice conception:

• focuses on a phenomenological approach to learning (socially constructivist, critical, fluid, and dynamic);
  
  
• does not distinguish between experts and novices;
  
  
• emphasizes social responsibility;
• 
  
• regards knowledge as emergent;
  
  
• focuses on local contexts of teaching and learning, i.e., “what goes on inside the classroom is profoundly altered and ultimately transformed when teachers’ frameworks for practice foreground the intellectual, social, and cultural contexts of teaching” and learning; (276) and
  
  
• presents a notion of teacher practice as practical, critical, political, and intellectual as embodied in the writings of Freire (1970), Giroux (1988), and Kincheloe (1993).
  

This critical framework looks at larger social structures and roles and how they influence teaching and learning in issues like social justice, critical pedagogy, diversity, oppression, hidden agendas, etc. In this sense teaching is seen as a political act and cannot be separated from what is being taught, how it’s being taught, and what becomes of the results.

For the knowledge of practice conception of teacher learning, teacher inquiry provides the social and intellectual context in which teachers, at all points along their professional lifespan, adopt critical perspectives of their own assumptions as well as the theory and research of others. Teachers who adopt this framework also connect their work in schools to larger social and political issues, exploring and explicating notions of the status quo.

Part of the goal of this conception is to professionalize teaching and bring about social/educational change by enlarging the teacher’s role as a decision maker, consultant, curriculum developer, analyst, activist, and school leader.

---

I find these conceptions of teacher learning to be quite revealing on many levels. They attempt to expose the assumptions that lie beneath the surface of how teacher learning and teachers’ roles are often framed.

I guess my greatest concern is that many teachers are in roles that they find uncomfortable or ill-fit. Without exposure to conceptions like the ones cited above, will they be able to adequately address their situation? If these teachers do not have an opportunity to explore feelings of inadequacies, how can they expect to change their situation?

Cochran-Smith & Lytle also note that teachers cannot expect to improve their practice on their own; it takes a willing community to support growth, change, and development. Taking a close look at one’s practice is risky; it takes courage to admit you may be doing something wrong.

I think Cochran-Smith & Lytle also point indirectly to a conception of teacher as learner. When a teacher defines him or her self as a learner, the notion of expertise can be shared within the teaching and learning environment. In this sense knowledge is not necessarily received, but is constructed; it can be interrogated, elaborated, applied, reflected upon, and critiqued. As such, teaching and learning can be equated with action and problem posing to local and larger sociopolitical situations.

I shared this article with a class I am participating in on Teacher Learning and Professional Development. The one person who had the most difficulty with the conceptions noted above was a school principal. He was attracted to the idea of knowledge for practice (teacher as receiver) and knowledge in practice (the value of teacher practical knowledge), but it seemed as though he had a hard time conceiving how to manage a school of teachers who identified themselves as leaders, activists, questioners of the status quo. When administrators see themselves as management experts, it seems the concept of knowledge of practice might feel a bit threatening.

Cochran-Smith & Lytle clearly spell out the emancipatory power of a true learning organization, where all members of the teaching and learning environment consider themselves learners. While such a stance is threatening to some, such a position recognizes the social, political, and economic importance of critical pedagogy and practice. And if teacher do not take an activist stance in defining their practice, their identity as professionals, then who will?

Reference:
Cochran-Smith, M. and S. L. Lytle (1999). "Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities." Review of Educational Research in Education 24: 249-305.