According to Bransford, Darling-Hammond, and LePage (2005), the goal of preparing educators to help all students achieve their greatest potential raises several important questions. For example, what skills do teachers need in order to provide meaningful learning experiences for a diverse set of learners? What kinds of knowledge do educators need to have about their subject matter, learning processes, and the development of learners?
During the Online Connectivism Conference 2007 session entitled “Connectivism: Learning Conceptualized Through the Lens of Today’s World,” George Siemens focused his discussion around learning processes associated with the theory of connectivism.
As I listened to the presentation, I chose to filter Siemens’ discussion through a lens associated with issues ofpoverty. Poverty can be defined as a condition in which a person or community lacks or is deprived of the essentials for a minimum standard of well-being. While this definition is culturally determined (that is, what constitutes a minimum standard for one culture may be different for another), I want to suggest that the “essentials” include basic material resources (food, water, shelter) as well as social resources such as access to education, health care, political power, and the opportunity to participate meaningfully in society.
Meaningful participation is a key element of connectivism. According to Siemens, learning and knowledge requires a diversity of opinions; learning and knowledge creation requires the ability to connect to multiple information sources, the ability to see patterns, and the ability to make sense of these patterns. Yet, if learners are denied access to digital technologies, to a diversity of opinions, and other social resources, then what will become of them?
Like the tool of language, computers are instruments of normalisation, marginalisation or empowerment, depending on who is using them, how they are being operated, and to what end they are being employed. (Kapitzke, 'Information Technology as Cultural Capital' (Education and Information Technology, 5:1, 2000), p.59)
Digital technologies and their affordances represent both educational opportunity and impossibility. While the Internet and the read/write web provides an opportunity for thousands of people to connect and expand their networks, enhancing their ability to co-create knowledge (and even earn a salary), those without access are essentially disenfranchised at a number of social, political, economic, and educational levels. This is not to say that people without access to the Internet cannot become highly educated or socially mobile. However, it can be argued that in an age of increasing information and knowledge creation opportunities associated with access to or through digital technologies, the digital divide becomes an impending knowledge divide that potentially fuels and/or augments social and economic differences around the globe.
Research suggests that poverty puts learners at risk of academic failure. The rising number of children and families experiencing such social and economic disparity makes teaching and learning a challenge. What will become of children and educational institutions if they are unable to use technology in meaningful ways? Will our society be further divided? Is there any way to bridge this gap?
This last notion of bridging the gap puts a heavy emphasis on schools and their role in providing opportunities for social and economic advancement. In terms of addressing poverty and the achievement gap associated with learners from different classes or ethnic, racial, and income groups, it is important to recognize the role of the dominant culture and its responsibility for recognizing, valuing, and respecting minority cultures.
In his research of the achievement gaps across several minority cultures, anthropologist John Ogbu notes two distinct categories: involuntary and voluntary minorities. Involuntary minorities became minorities via conquest or enslavement, and thus inherited a social status that affects how they are treated by dominant social groups and how they perceive and respond to such treatment. The involuntary minority groups’ identity is formed in opposition to the dominant groups’ that oppress them. As such, involuntary minorities are regularly suspicious of social institutions run by the dominant group, including schools and health care providers, believing that the curriculum or treatments received threatens and degrades their heritage.
Voluntary minorities represent those groups who choose to immigrate in hope of attaining a better life. According to Ogbu’s research, this minority group sees education as an avenue to success in their newly adopted land. They are willing to embrace new languages and new cultural ways, no matter how far removed from their own, in order to acquire the benefits of an education.
While Ogbu's research offers compelling reasons for the achievement gap between dominant and minority cultures, Edward Rhymes notes that Ogbu also warned that "we should not allow our righteous zeal to fight discrimination (and to break down barriers in education and in the opportunity structure), to cause us to ignore the personal behavior and attitudes that are conducive to academic success."
Accordingly, what occurs in classrooms has a significant impact on student achievement and the opportunities afforded to learners. I think Siemens would agree that digital technologies and their affordances are only as effective as how they are used.
Clearly, children born into poverty have little control over their condition. Educators must show learners that they can be agents in their personal, social, and academic development. A critical task for educators is to assist learners in developing intentional or conativeattitudes -- demonstrating the importance of goal setting, planning, and perseverance -- and believing that something can and should be done to support the development and educational opportunities for all people. Siemens echoed this same idea by acknowledging the importance of teaching learners how to create rich and diverse networks.
The inequalities of poverty effects an entire society in a host of ways that can further divide a nation socially, economically, educationally, and spiritually. While educational institutions and educators can address and possibly mend some issues associated with poverty, they are not nor cannot be the sole solution.
Addressing issues of poverty requires mobilizing families and communities to action as well as redistributing educational resources, social services, health care, and economic development. It seems that the complicated interaction of public finance, private economy, and personal rights makes certain that the most needy children and families are unable to receive the services they need to succeed.
The good news is that many educators are trying to figure out how to make schools work for children. Those with access to digital technologies and have the social capital to connect far and wide can get involved by writing grants, lobbying congressional representatives, and mobilizing their networks. I do not mean to suggest this is a simple solution. But it could produce some benefits for others without such connections. Being connected, technologically, socially, scholastically, even spiritually, carries a certain amount of privilege, and it is up to us to use this privilege wisely.
References: Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & Lepage, P. (2005). Introduction. In Linda Darling-Hammond & John Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (1-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Here's a little video entitled "Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing us" courtesy of Michael Wesch, an Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Kansas State University that explains (albeit rather rapidly) many concepts behind the read/write web.
My favorite portion is built from excerpts from a Wired Magazine article titled We Are the Web: "When we post and tag pictures...we are teaching the Machine... Each time we forge a link ... we teach it an idea.... Think of the 100 billion times per day humans click on a web page... teaching the Machine...."
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.
A theory is as much an assumption, a basis for belief, as it is an explanation, an ontology, or an understanding of things. Typically, theories evolve out of the language of experience. Out of such language, a grammar and syntax are invented/uncovered/supplied that underpin our observations.
It is natural that we have so many theories. Some prove more valuable than others, some have historicity, while others serve as temporary bookmarks saving our place while we focus on other aspects. Theories are reminders of where we are, where we left off, where we need to return.
Educational theories range in depth and complexity and are as abundant as snowflakes. So what are we to make of them? Which ones are most pertinent? Are all theories relative or contextual? Do we need a grand unifying theory of learning? Or will hundreds or thousands do?
Dennett (1978) frames theories on three levels:
the physical level -- as in neurological postulates of learning;
the design level -- as in psychological speculation; and
the intentional level -- where philosophical/humanistic schema reside to include scientifically testable theories.
Bereiter (1990) suggests that a real learning theory, that is, one distinct from bridging theories that link beliefs to practice, is necessary as it would (hopefully) provide an explanation appropriate for instructional theories.
Bereiter (1990) states: “An educational learning theory may have a bearing on cultural change, but mainly needs to explain the enculturation of the individual” (p. 607). He goes on to layout a framework that serves as a means for guiding further inquiry:
What should the boundaries of a learning theory be?
What should a learning theory try to explain?
What are its building blocks?
So what is it we wish we understood but do not?
Bereiter ultimately wrestles with a question that is quite important in terms of explaining learning: How do people acquire knowledge that is more complex than what they already have? In other words, how do we learn things that are difficult to learn?
An educational learning theory should provide us with a systematic account of the conditions implicated in learning difficulty, and it should be able to tell us how we overcome such learning difficulties.
In 1978, Case published a developmentally based theory where the learners ability to control for complexity took center stage. This explanation was not a learning theory but instead provided a good instructional ontology to assist others in supporting students in the creation of knowledge. The question of how students experience, adapt to, and overcome learning difficulties remained un-clarified.
Functionally, others have examined the notion of expertise in overcoming learning difficulties, yet these theories can only provide an operational explanation and generally ignore issues associated with the process of learning (e.g., How do you get to Carnegie Hall?)
George Siemens offers connectivism-–an external form of connectionism--that provides an explanation of how we build and leverage knowledge based on our external networks of both human and digital connections. If I understand Siemens correctly, the proposed unit for his educational theory is the contextual module known as the node -- the atomic unit on which networks are constructed. Each node is a network itself of both internal and external networks that responds to and interact with external stimuli.
The question is, does connectivism move us beyond the functional aspects of learning and explain how we acquire knowledge that is more complex than we already have? What does connectivism offer that other theories of learning have not?
In his OCC 2007 presentationStephen Downes proposes a theory of learning based on practicing and reflecting what’s been modeled and demonstrated. Again, Downes puts forward a functional theory based on the development of procedural knowledge and skills, declarative knowledge, pattern recognition, goal structures, etc. that can be developed and elaborated. Like Siemens, Downes’ model recognizes the numerous cognitive structures affected by external phenomena and stimuli that shape learning yet resists an explanation of how we overcome learning difficulties.
Task learning and personal knowledge construction
Perhaps it is important to consider the difference between task learning and personal knowledge construction. Task learning is what we acquire from schooling. Out of this process, we develop what Bereiter calls a schoolwork module, that is, a schema by which we process incoming information presented in the context of school. Beyond this model, the intentional learning module is one that is not necessarily cultivated in most school settings. This module pushes us to struggle with complexity; it recognizes familiar patterns as well as unfamiliar ones. Once this module/learner enters unfamiliar territory, the module “kicks in” and allows the learner to engage in active problem solving using a range of resources and networks in order to construct “the more complex knowledge that is foreshadowed by the premises…. The educational problem is how to foster development of an intentional learning module in students who are not so fortunate in their circumstances that it develops spontaneously” (my emphasis -- Bereiter, 1990, p. 617).
This where the work of Siemens, Downes, and others seems to be directed: how do we design educational settings or social contexts for learning in such a way that they encourage and develop intentional learning.
Toward a functional theory of discontent
As for my own thoughts on learning theory, I feel we need a functional theory of discontent -- a theory that allows our beliefs and ideas to be challenged by what others think. Cognitive dissonance offers a schema that starts us in the right direction: Holding two conflicting or contradictory beliefs gives us drive, it starts the engines running so that we begin to reconcile these two beliefs into something that serves us in our desire for closure. Yet it is this drive, this desire itself, that creates calamity because closure is never certain (nor will it ever be).
This leads us to a certain level of uncertainty and insecurity. Uncertainty means a lack of knowledge. It is an epistemic category linked to the question “what do we know?” On the other hand, insecurity means need for control. It is a pragmatic category linked to the question “what shall we do?” Researchers like Harald Mieg (2001) and others define an occupation to be of low uncertainty if there is sufficient formalized knowledge, e.g., engineering or basic health problems. An occupation is said to be of high insecurity if there is a discussion of precautions that needs to be taken, e.g., foreign policy or basic health care issues. So where does teaching and learning fit in this model?
There are certain occupations where the public accepts insecurity as relatively high but sees uncertainty as relatively low. In this case, solutions are offered by professionals who carry enough social capital to serve us in a relatively purposive way. Teaching seems to be an aoccupation somewhere inbetween the uncertainty/insecurity domain, thus the publics' general ignorance and acceptance of the issues portrayed in the media.
Within this uncertainty/insecurity framework, if we want to place education on a political agenda, then it is necessary to increase public concern, i.e., increase perceived insecurity. On the downside, if we want to achieve a scientific outlook on education, then we have to promise to reduce uncertainty by establishing standards that are quantifiable, e.g., high stakes testing.
Toward an instructional theory of discontent
On the one hand, as educators and learners we need to be rewarded for being confused. We’ve spent years listening to others only to determine whether we agree with them or not. We need an instructional theory that states: “we must listen to people who think differently than we do.”
Since we live in and with complexity, we need an instructional theory that says, if we want to understand this complexity, then we must spend more time not knowing.
Part of our identity is defined by what we believe. We need an instructional theory of curiosity. We do not need to rid ourselves of what we believe, but we do need to be curious about what other people believe. Our survival may depend on it.
Oftentimes, we are unable to figure things out on our own; consequently, we need others to verify or support what we believe, what we see and think. We don’t need to agree, and as such, we need an instructional theory that says as much.
So what if you don’t like this theory? Sometimes we get comfortable listening to our selves and people with similar tastes. Listening to other people leads to uncertainty and potentially change -- thus change serves as a by-product of listening.
Ultimately, change starts with confusion. And great ideas appear in that wonderful abyss of not knowing. If we can learn to discard fear and enter the abyss, we can be greatly rewarded. This is where creativity is born.
I applaud the work of theorists who are dissatisfied with the way we see things. Their passions ultimately push them to re-arrange the deck so as to provide us with new points of view, new ways to consider what we do, how we think, and where we need to go. While an instructional theory of discontent may not be the best way to frame my argument, it provides us a means to continue the debate what teaching and learning needs to look like now and in the future.
References:
Bereiter, C. (1990). Aspects of an educational learning theory. Review of Educational Research 60(4): 603-624.
Case, R. (1978). Piaget and beyond: Toward a developmentally-based theory and technology of instruction. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 167-228). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
I am currently enrolled in a course that focuses on teacher education and issues of poverty. In class, we regularly discuss issues of race, racial stereotypes, and their social, historical, political, and economic impacts.
Although I normally focus my blog posts on computing, learning, and teaching, I wanted to share the video below (7:00 minutes). It deals with an important question that educators need to consider that is quite perplexing, that is, the socio-cultural issues associated with skin color.
A number of the interviewees in this student produced video speak about identity (what is my identity?) and culture (what is my true culture?) and are perplexed as to how they and others perceive who they are.
What messages are being culturally transmitted in neighborhoods, in schools, in the media, based on the color of one's skin?
When we look at issues of learning, teaching, and computing, does race matter? Does social class matter? Can computing or access to the Internet bridge social, educational, and economic divides?
Ulises Mejias (2005) wrote that the "true potential [of social software] lies in helping us figure out how to integrate our online and offline social experiences. Thus, social software must live up to its name by relating to the individual's everyday social practices, which include interacting with people online as well as people without access to these technologies…. [S]ocial software can positively impact pedagogy by inculcating a desire to reconnect to the world as a whole, not just the social parts that exist online."
As an educator, I feel that it is important to consider how social media can be used to augment conversations and action associated with issues such as racism, sexism, and social justice. Access is one piece of the puzzle; there are many other pieces we need to sort through as well.
This video is a wonderful step in shedding light on issues of race and identity designed specifically for people with access to social media. I encourage you to share it with others and bring the conversation out into the open. (BTW, here's another video where actor/comedian Bill Cosby breaks it down for you.)
A colleague recently recommended a book to me. “A must read,” he said, “it changed my life.” With such high praise, I couldn’t resist. So I began reading The Courage To Teachby Parker Palmer.
Understand, as a doctoral student, I rarely get a chance to read things for fun. Any extracurricular reading I do has to be worked into my schedule, that is, usually before I drift off to sleep in the evening.
Last night I was able to get in the first chapter of Learning to Teach which dealt with several themes that I have been weaving into my research. Palmer’s work is a personal narrative. It is the voice of a seasoned and passionate educator, not a stolid researcher per se. His work captures what I want to call the informal nature of learning – that is, learning that happens outside of structured environments, learning that almost appears accidentally, unplanned, that grows wild like the volunteer tomatoes that arise each spring out of my garden.
Palmer’s work offers a “knowledge of practice” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999), a knowledge acquired or created after much seasoning and reflection. Palmer approaches the nature of teaching as fluid and dynamic. He frames the notion of teaching and learning by looking at himself as both an individual and as a participant in a larger social and intellectual context who works toward being critically aware of his own assumptions as well as the theory and research of others.
I thought it might be fun to share a few quotes that stood out for me thus far and see what you think:
“Good teaching cannot be reduced to technique; good teaching comes from the identity and integrity of the teacher” (p. 10)
Palmer seems to be saying that teaching is not about the methods you employ, but instead about the personality, the disposition, and scruples one brings to the learning environment that matter more. This idea brings to mind the notion that perhaps students would best be served by teachers who score high on a particular personality test, one that identifies successful teachers as open, honest, ethical, caring, truthful, etc. (You know, the one or two that you had when you were in school….) However, I do not want to suggest that I endorse recruiting or filtering teachers in such a manner. More on this later....
“My ability to connect with my students, and to connect them with the subject, depends less on the methods I use than on the degree to which I know and trust my selfhood – and am willing to make it available and vulnerable in the service of learning” (p. 10).
Here I am attracted to the notions of connectivism and of the teacher demonstrating his or her vulnerability. How often did you experience a teacher being unsure, or willing to expose their ignorance? If you ever had a teacher who acted this way, I’ll bet you remember it well.
Again Palmer speaks to the importance of self-hood -- of knowing who you are, knowing how you feel about things, being what we might call critically aware. Here what matters is not being "right" but being yourself, being honest about how you feel. Acting in such a way may be quite revealing. If you think your students are a pack of scoundrels and you let your true feelings show, then maybe you should look for a different career....
“Good teachers possess a capacity for connectedness. They are able to weave a complex web of connections among themselves, their subjects, and their students so that students can learn to weave a world for themselves” (p. 11).
This what I see as the heart of George Siemens’ work. I was doubly pleased to see it woven into Palmer’s work even without reference to social media. Connectivism at its core is a philosophy of support and association (please corrct me if you think I'm wrong here). My favorite teachers are ones that take me out on a limb, teachers who scaffold my learning, and model how to get back on the ground in one piece.
“The connections made by good teachers are not held in their methods but in their hearts—meaning heart in its ancient sense, as the place where intellect, emotion, and spirit and will converge in the human self” (p. 11).
This is a very contemplative approach to teaching and learning. We often give emotion and notions of the heart short shrift in education. Emotions and heart are not scientific, logical, or precise; they’re messy, they’re chaotic, they’re complex and difficult to frame systematically (Sounds a lot like the art of learning itself). Yet emotions and heart frame our ability to see, feel, and learn. Emotions are part of what motivate us to take risks as well as avoid certain ideas and conceits. (I would like to come back to these ideas later.)
Each of us must find “an approach to teaching that respects the diversity of teachers and subjects, which methodological reductionism fails to do” (p. 12).
I like how Palmer recognizes that teachers are a diverse bunch and that there is no single approach to teaching that will work best for us all. I had a fantastic Algebra teacher that had his personality removed at birth. But he was truly passionate about getting us to understand how to solve equations. He did it in a straight forward manner that was not funny, not personal, but plain and simple that allowed his students to grasp the concepts well. We never learned if he was married, had children, liked baseball, or anything labout him personally. He was strictly algebraic and that worked well for a majority of his students. To say he did not fit the model of the open and caring teacher mentioned above would be misleading. Was he open? I don't know? Did he care about his students? I don't know. But he did care about whether we learned how to solve equations. Is that enough?
“If we want to grow as teachers—we must do something alien to academic culture: we must talk to each other about our inner lives—risky stuff in a profession that fears the personal and seeks safety in the technical, the distant, the abstract” (p. 12).
This statement somewhat contradicts the previous statement about finding an approach to teaching that respects individual diversity. Many of us are accustomed to the idea that teaching can be a solitary act. And for some teachers, solitary works well; no amount of collaboration or cooperation will aid them in their personal or professional growth. And I’ve come to realize that we need to respect that. I personally revel in my communities of practice/interest. But this approach does not work for every body. As a teacher of teachers, at first I had a difficult time accepting this notion. But as I work more and more with a variety of teachers, I realize we’re all quite different and what works for some, doesn’t work for others. Now I find this idea of being solitary vs community-focused refreshing and less burdensome.
Finally, I think it’s wonderful how Palmer attempts to connect intellect, emotion, spirit, and will together as being the center of who we are as people. This weaving of human artifacts is too often overshadowed by theories of cognition that eagerly separate thought from emotions, our sense of self and that “force that through the green fuse drives the flower.” I am still wrestling with how to think about learning. I recognize its social and individual nature and I want to be careful not to exclude one from the other. Yet so much has been written from both cognitivist and situative perspectives, both of which try to out argue the other side instead of looking for similarities (Vygotsky seemed to be struggling with the same idea). Again, I'm not looking for a unifying theory; I'm simply enjoying the sense of being unsure!
I hope you found these reflections somewhat useful. I look forward to finishing Palmer’s book and would be more than happy to engage others in a dialogue about the contents.
References: 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.
I had a valuable conversation today with a journalism professor Lauren Hertel about school reform, School 2.0, and the engaging the mass media (for an alternative perspective on the role of the media, see the following article illustrating several Chomskyian tenets).
To get the school reform and School 2.0 message to a wider audience, we need to educate the media.
Take a look in any paper and see what is being written about education. Anything new? Anything different?
Given this small sample from 3 major news sources of record in the U.S., you quickly get the sense that nothing new is being said about education, no alternative views are provided. In other words it’s the same old stories being recycled over and over.
Largely speaking, reporters are not stupid. More often than not, they come out of college (j- school) as generalists. They cover the police beat, the city government beat, the education beat, etc. They get bounced around all over the news, so to speak. More often than not, they are looking for new ways, new ideas, new connections, to move conversations forward. Reporters go online to see what’s buzzing; they check blogs and websites. But where do they go to find out the latest news on the role of social media in education, connectivism, flat world projects, wiki use in middle schools, web 2.0 use in college and high school?
This is where I believe we can make a difference. We have an opportunity to shape the media’s perception.
In terms of covering school reform ideas like the ones gradually being articulated on the School 2.0 site, reporters need a hand. So here’s my proposal: as part of the "Unconference" that will take place at the NECC2007 conference in Atlanta, we need to begin drafting a reporter’s guide that clearly articulates the issues we want the media to focus on. This guide can frame the argument as we see it; it can plant the seeds of educational alternatives that have been running throughout the blogosphere over the past few years.
A first-rate reporter’s guide could be a site that pushes information to the media. This site could be easily searchable, easy to use, with clear links to critical topics. It could offer constant reminders via RSS about the inadequacies of poorly conceived DOPA-type legislation, the inequities inherent in No Child Left Behind, the damage that high stakes testing causes, as well as the success stories shared by many bloggers on a daily basis that are only noticed by the ~500 of us that make up the edublogosphere. This reporters guide can become the space where reporters will go for news, source material, and fresh ideas.
As such, a valuable reporters guide could be similar to sites such as the OLDaily, but written for people new to the discussion – a lay person’s guide, if you will, to educational issues that clearly need greater attention by the media, and thus the public.
So I ask you, is this something we should offer as a community of interest? Do you think such a collective site could work? If so, how should it be organized? How do we decide what content should be published? Who updates the site? Can we do this as a collective and insure that strong content will rise to the surface? Or should this be the work of a few editors a la Boing Boing? Would pointing journalists to Stephen Downes', Will Richardson's, David Warlick's, and Vicki Davis' sites be enough? Is what we have now, that is, small pieces loosely joined, enough?
As I listened to the presentation, I chose to filter Siemens’ discussion through a lens associated with issues of poverty. Poverty can be defined as a condition in which a person or community lacks or is deprived of the essentials for a minimum standard of well-being. While this definition is culturally determined (that is, what constitutes a minimum standard for one culture may be different for another), I want to suggest that the “essentials” include basic material resources (food, water, shelter) as well as social resources such as access to education, health care, political power, and the opportunity to participate meaningfully in society.
Research suggests that poverty puts learners at risk of academic failure. The rising number of children and families experiencing such social and economic disparity makes teaching and learning a challenge. What will become of children and educational institutions if they are unable to use technology in meaningful ways? Will our society be further divided? Is there any way to bridge this gap?
Accordingly, what occurs in classrooms has a significant impact on student achievement and the opportunities afforded to learners. I think Siemens would agree that digital technologies and their affordances are only as effective as how they are used.
Social media, or more specifically the 
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). 
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. 
Perhaps it is important to consider the difference between task learning and personal knowledge construction. Task learning is what we acquire from schooling. Out of this process, we develop what Bereiter calls a schoolwork module, that is, a schema by which we process incoming information presented in the context of school. Beyond this model, the intentional learning module is one that is not necessarily cultivated in most school settings. This module pushes us to struggle with complexity; it recognizes familiar patterns as well as unfamiliar ones. Once this module/learner enters unfamiliar territory, the module “kicks in” and allows the learner to engage in active problem solving using a range of resources and networks in order to construct “the more complex knowledge that is foreshadowed by the premises…. The educational problem is how to foster development of an intentional learning module in students who are not so fortunate in their circumstances that it develops spontaneously” (my emphasis -- Bereiter, 1990, p. 617).
This statement somewhat contradicts the previous statement about finding an approach to teaching that respects individual diversity. Many of us are accustomed to the idea that teaching can be a solitary act. And for some teachers, solitary works well; no amount of collaboration or cooperation will aid them in their personal or professional growth. And I’ve come to realize that we need to respect that. I personally revel in my communities of practice/interest. But this approach does not work for every body. As a teacher of teachers, at first I had a difficult time accepting this notion. But as I work more and more with a variety of teachers, I realize we’re all quite different and what works for some, doesn’t work for others. Now I find this idea of being solitary vs community-focused refreshing and less burdensome.
