The article is about the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) conference in San Francisco March 28, where past CoSN board chairs participated in a roundtable discussion about the need to advocate more forcefully for change in higher education.
This is the question under discussion:
Given the needs of today's learners, as well as the current context of technology in most school districts, what are the most important ed-tech leadership issues that are not receiving attention?
Two themes are elucidated in the article – the need for a new vocabulary for discussing educational technology with various stakeholders, and the need to overhaul the teacher education process.
While I agree that a new vocabulary and an overhaul of teacher education programs are popular, hot-button issues, perhaps they are actually one in the same. Allow me to explain….
A relatively recent study of teacher education programs reveals the following features of a successful program (Darling-Hammond, 1999):
A shared vision of good teaching that is consistent in courses and clinical work;
Well-defined standards of practice and performance that are used to guide the design and assessment of course work and clinical work;
A common core curriculum grounded in substantial knowledge of development, learning, and subject matter pedagogy, taught in the context of practice;
Extended clinical experiences (at least thirty weeks) that reflect the programs vision of good teaching, are interwoven with course work, and are carefully mentored;
Strong relationships, based on common knowledge and beliefs, between universities and reform-minded schools; and
Extensive use of case study methods, teacher research, performance assessments, and portfolio examinations that relate teachers’ learning to classroom practice.
Now, that’s quite a thorough and articulate list. What is needed in teacher education is clearly understood. Where the disconnect occurs is transferring this theory into practice (an age old problem in the field of education, for sure).
Will a new vocabulary make the transfer easier?
A new vocabulary might allow us to create new metaphors for thinking about the integration of technology into classrooms, but the trouble begins when we attempt to enact these new/old concepts.
While educational technology has gained a foothold in many private and public higher education institutions, it often resides as a curricular add-ons as opposed to fundamental building blocks. Most of the professors at my uni do not use technology aside from email and powerpoint presentations. In the teacher education program, one educational technology course is required, a fundamentals class, that is most often taught by advanced graduate students. While these graduate students do an outstanding job of activity-based instruction, the content of students’ other pedagogical course work is not directly tied to their use technology. So the buck stops there.
The reality is, the teacher educators I work with who are reluctant to use technology in their curriculum do not use it for several of the following reasons: 1) they don’t want to learn about it; 2) they don’t see any value in its use; 3) it’s not the way they learned; 4) its considered just another educational “fad;” and 5) they don’t know any body else using it effectively.
Another excuse I’ve heard from teacher educators is the fact that most schools offer limited technological access and resources, so if they use IT to teach with, then students will go into the world trained inappropriately with skills they will not be able to employ.
Hmmm… a major disconnect indeed.
While many kids’ social life hinges on digital social networks, many schools have not figured out how to tap into their power. Instead students code switch, i.e., they use their MySpace, Facebook, and del.icio.us accounts for their personal life and drop them in their school life. Given that we are capable of multiple ways of thinking, believing, acting, perceiving, and evaluating, this code switching sometimes strikes me as a better alternative to having ill-prepared educators require us to use technology in an overly prescriptive, uncreative fashion.
As of today, getting educational technology written into the curriculum in a meaningful way will require significant effort. A core set of curricular frameworks for teacher education is just now being tested and evaluated (see Darling-Hammond & Bransford’s Preparing Teachers for a Changing World, 2005) The good news is, because teacher education experts are still hammering out such frameworks, there’s room to expand and add technology appropriately into the core requirements. But here again is where things get tricky and perhaps a better might vocabulary come into play. Clearly, we need to articulate what we want kids/adults to do with technology.
For example, do we want kids to engage in multicultural experiences that raise their awareness and sensitivity to other cultures and societies? If so, then we must write curricular frameworks that have students engaging meaningfully with students from around the globe via the Internet (like the flat classroom project).
Obviously we want to steer away from the use of any one particular piece of software, yet we can advocate the use of technologies such as weblogs, wikis, virtual worlds, simulations, etc. as they provide a means to enhance our ability to connect, think, experiment, care, and share.
Transforming schools, classrooms, and teacher education programs is a momentous task. I am convinced that eager, well-educated, committed educators can and will make a difference. We already have the knowledge, skill, and technology to transform students’ lives. Perhaps what we require is the collective will do to so.
Reference: Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Educating teachers for the next century: Rethinking practice and policy. In G.A. Griffin (ed.), The education of teachers (pp. 221-256). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music. ~Angela Monet
It is easy to be seduced by the notion of art leading us to a state of bliss. How many times have I escaped into a book, a song, a movie, as a means of cleansing my body, my mind, from the inequities of mad, mad, mad world?
The reality is, there is little empirical evidence to suggest that those who possess an abundance of creativity “operate on a higher ethical plane.” In an article penned by Jonathan Kellerman (1996) he suggests just the opposite: “the creative, the brilliant, the blessedly divergent, are psychologically deviant and characterologically flawed (Kellerman’s emphasis)” (p. 57).
Kellerman goes on to point out that creative genius is like a “pearl: beautiful, rare, but a constitutional defect, inexorably linked to madness and weakness of character” (p. 57). In other words, you can earn excellent marks from your teachers “and still flunk life.”
I offer these observations in light of Sir Kenneth Robinson’s TED 2006 talk wherein he speaks to the notion of creativity being educated right out of children in most schools. Each time I watch Robinson’s talk, I want to cry. I want to race to the school my children attend, pluck them from their classes, and find a way to provide them a meaningful educational opportunity where their passions can be nurtured, their spirits’ enriched, and their social needs can be met. That’s not the school they are attending today. Nor was it the school I attended.
When Kellerman refers to artistic genius he is referencing those men and women who stood out from the crowd, the mis-fits, the men and women who saw their world as flawed and untenable. However, I want to argue that their creative temperament was a response, a reaction, to the deadening spirit of school and the social contexts that prevented them fully realizing who they actually were.
What if schools encouraged creative expression in all children? What if this expression did not end at age 10, but was nurtured and encouraged throughout adolescence and on into adulthood?
I believe the psychological deviance that is characterologically a part of so many great artists and performers is the result of a society where creativity is simply educated right out people.
I do not mean to suggest that if schools nurtured creative and kinesthetic activities, then we would have less criminal and deviant behavior. Creativity is not antithetical to evil. But such a supposition, as made by Kellerman, misses the point. Deviance is a complicated sociological condition that is not easily reduced to specific traits or behaviors. Similarly, not all creative geniuses are necessarily or empirically bad.
What Kellerman supposes, that “violence and creativity all too often connect themselves inextricably,” is fallacious reasoning, a rhetorical slippery slope (that is, if A occurs, then the chances that B occurs are greater. This is also known as the camel’s nose argument suggesting that once a camel slips her nose into the tent, then the rest of her will surely follow).
Creative genius represents one end of a broad spectrum of possibilities. I am not suggesting that if all children are given the opportunity to follow their passions, they will all become creative geniuses. Rather, I want to suggest that if creativity is nurtured, valued, and embraced by society, the world might not be considered such a banal or senseless place. (Note: I do not mean to suggest that a creative citizenry will end poverty and suffering; however, I am suggesting that such a conceit offers us a place to begin imagining such possibilities.)
While “mental and mood instability and behavioral deviance among artists and writers” (p. 57) may be common in some cases, as Kellerman argues, generalizing that this behavior leads to immoral and criminal action is decidedly false and misguided. Many artists and writers have been leaders of social reform. It is also worth mentioning that many artists and writers have willingly served as “tools of intolerance and racism” (p. 58) as well. Perhaps we might ask: Has the creative class produced more cads and villains than the non-creative class? Statistically, I think that would be difficult to prove.
In Robinson’s famous report, All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education (1999), creativity is recognized as being diverse, multifaceted, and possible in all fields of study and human intelligence: “Genuine creative achievement involves knowledge, control and discipline combined with the freedom and confidence to experiment” (p. 44). As such, it is the role of educators to aide learners in understanding these aspects and to help kids gain control of them.
In the end, I want to argue that creativity should not be an “add-on” within our educational environments. Instead it should be an intrinsic part of the teaching and learning process. The “All Our Futures” report lays out in great detail recommended steps for making this happen, all the way down to how teacher education programs and institutions within the community can adopt such a stance.
I do not believe that fostering creativity will lead to a proliferation of lawlessness and decadence as purported by Kellerman (1996). Again, such an argument is hopelessly flawed and romantically unsound. Building on the creative talents of individuals is about unlocking the potential within all learners that can arguably lead to prosperity and social cohesion. Character flaws will always exist given the multidimensional nature of the world we inhabit. Yet, fostering creative development is one way to balance motivation and self-esteem with the skills and aptitudes we all need to guide us thoughtfully into the future.
References:
Kellerman, J. (1996). Pearls, yet swine. Modern Painters, 9(1), pp. 56-59.
In teacher colleges, the issue of finding exemplary mentor educators to work with student teachers is, unfortunately, a real challenge. More specifically, finding good mentor educators who make their thinking explicit and openly confront the difficulties associated with teaching, warts and all, is even more of a challenge.
It is worth noting that while exemplary environments may be good for the student teacher and mentor, the learning success of the student teacher within this environment is by no means guaranteed. Margolis (2007) argues, “what is also needed is access to and participation in the teacher thinking and reasoning” which can aid in making a particular environment more successful (author's emphasis p. 76).
This notion of thinking aloud started me wondering about the possible advantages afforded by weblogs as a space where an educator could be highly explicit about their thinking and instructional practices. Would a community of educators find value in such a blogging environment? Is this what we are hoping online communities such as Classroom 2.0 or Second Life will provide, i.e., a space where educators can create and build upon their professional knowledge? Is such an environment any different than a highly developed listserv? Hmmm….
Margolis points to a study (Schoenbach, et al., 1999) that describes a “reading apprenticeship” approach where a teacher models strategies employed in reading and decoding texts. For example, “good readers” use many of the following strategies, depending on the form and/or content of a text:
Posing questions
Making predictions
Explaining personal connections to the work
Connecting to other ideas/situations
Acknowledging difficulties
Exploring strategies to mediate difficulties
Explaining decisions as a reader and results of a decision
As I read through and reflected on these strategies, it struck me that weblogs could serve as a rich medium for demonstrating these “good reader” strategies. After all, what do many edubloggers do on their blogs besides pose questions, make predictions, connect to other ideas, acknowledge difficulties, etc?
While Margolis’s study focused on the mentor-side of the student teaching relationship, his work serves as a launch pad for further research into how and in what ways weblogs (or other digital media) might serve “particular types of explicit mentor-student teacher talk” (p. 77) that could potentially impact teacher and student learning.
The value of vulnerability
If I am being honest, I am often skeptical of people who regularly seem to have all the right answers. Most often I prefer listening or talking to people who are working through various dilemmas. Perhaps this is because as I get older, I find myself stumbling upon more questions than answers.
As a child, I rarely saw a teacher make or admit to a mistake. When I did, I could hear others in the class like myself gasping in awe. It wasn’t until I was a junior in college that I learned that writing was an iterative and cyclical process of writing, reflecting, rewriting, rethinking, and revising. Similarly when I entered teachers college, I learned that good teachers modeled and talked through how they read, wrote, and attempted to solve problems. Research cited throughout How People Learn (Bransford, et al., 2000) shows how exemplary teachers model their own thinking processes involved in unraveling life’s infinite mysteries. This doesn’t mean good teachers are always “right.” What it suggests is that exemplary teachers are open about the complex and often “scary” decisions they make.
Margolis notes, “teaching requires the capacity to make multiple decisions and choose from a multitude of options repeatedly and sometimes immediately—often uncertain as to the outcomes” (p. 79). And it is precisely this level vulnerability that students of all stripes find most useful.
This is why I find myself advocating weblogs as a means of capturing and sharing this side of teaching and learning. Through participation in online communities such as weblog rings, listservs, and a host of other online communities of interest, educators have an opportunity to collectively expand one another’s thinking, investigate and negotiate skills and practices while simultaneously developing repertoires to become more thoughtful, active, and accountable to each other and ultimately with the students with whom they work.
Weblogs and other social media do not offer any guarantees of explicitness, but they can provide a space where one can engage their own thinking as well as the thinking of others, if one so chooses.
I guess I value weblogging mostly because it is a place where I can share my struggles and brainstorm solutions with others. My blog is a space where I can open up my own line of thinking and invite feedback. My blog is a place where valued colleagues and I can reciprocally reflect on dilemmas. It’s a space where we can learn together, a space where I can learn from my mistakes and make adjustments in my personal and professional practice.
Finally, my weblog is a space where I can be vulnerable and yet still feel safe and supported. For some odd reason, I’ve never been maliciously attacked for my points of view. Instead, I have noticed a wonderful sense of decorum among fellow educators that is truly remarkable if you think about it. I guess that’s why I still feel surprised when professional colleagues tell me they are afraid to blog because they are concerned about not being taken seriously or being overly criticized for their thoughts and feelings. Of course, there is no guarantee they won’t be. I guess it’s a matter of trust in the kindness of strangers.
Clearly, there is still much research to be done on the types of knowledge gained through the use of social media on teacher education and its impact on student achievement. And as always, your thoughts and comments are welcomed and encouraged.
References:
Bransford, J.D., et al. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Margolis, J. (2007). Improving relationships between mentor teachers and student teachers: Engaging in a pedagogy of explicitness. The New Educator, 3(1), pp. 75-94.
Schoenbach, R. et al., (1999). Reading for understanding: A guide to improving reading in middle and high school classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
So I get an email out of the blue from the Christian Long from DesignShare inviting me to join him and DK from MediaSnackers for a bit of quick banter. (Check out DKs podcast series – some seriously heavy hitters on that list. So what am I doing on there?)
Link to podcast: mediasnackers.com/report/2007/April/25/340/
By the way, the interview takes place at 10 AM Sunday morning and I’m zooming off of two delicious bowlfuls of coffee. Christian and DK are gracious hosts. We chat for a few moments then jump right into questions.
Spoiler: If you make it for more than 10 minutes, you deserve a medal. Christian and DK ask brilliant questions. In fact, they are much more worth meditating on than any of my answers.
0.00—0.27 intros 0.28—1.43 exploring the essence of Christopher's blog 1.44—4.34 who/what is on Christopher radar 4.35—8.25 early adopters and learning outside of school 8.26—10.54 who is doing it right 10.55—15.28 hi-touch and are young teachers doing something different 15.29—16.41 one piece of advice 16.42—17.03 outro
If you like it, hate it, or are somewhere in between, let me know. It’s definitely not my best. Before you reconsider hiring me for a keynote address, know that I work much better from a script!
Anne, thank you for all that you do. I want to make sure that when we meet up one day, you will not beat me mercilessly around the head and neck region!
Finally, I’d like to hear from you: Who’s on your radar? Who or what are you reading? Share some new finds.
I am a huge fan of pop culture. So here are some sites on my radar:
Bedazzled -- A Boing Boing source that will keep you occupied for hours. Consider yourself warned.
Large Hearted Boy -- I found this site through another social networking site I belong to [thanks fipi lele!]. It is a music blog featuring daily free and legal music downloads as well as news from the worlds of music, literature, and pop culture.
Warren Ellis -- Take a walk on the wild side with a graphic novelist, author, journalist, screenwriter.
A MySpace photo of a teacher education candidate, Ms. Snyder, wearing a pirate hat while drinking from a plastic "Mr. Goodbar" cup was reason enough for Millersville University (aka My'Ville) to deny her both an education degree and teaching certificate.
The dean of the School of Education accused Ms. Snyder of “promoting underage drinking.”
Of course, here in America, we like to take legal recourse whenever possible. Ms. Snyder is asking for $75,000 for her troubles.
Is it only in America where a person can be denied a university diploma for posting a picture of them selves titled “Drunken Pirate”? Think of the number of drunken teenager/college student pictures floating around cyberspace at this moment. Is it possible other institutions will deny people jobs, interviews, diplomas, bank loans, for personal pictures we post of ourselves online?
Should teacher colleges or employers regularly surf the web to make sure their candidates keep their personal life in-check in public? Is this possible or even advisable?
Which professions would this impact the most? Public servants/public professionals have known for years the importance of being earnest and tidy in public. More than one teaching career and professional life has ended due to an unfortunate public display of poor choice.
So it appears MySpace, Bebo, Facebook, Second Life no longer carry the cultural cache of a speakeasy or VIP/private lounge. What happens in MySpace no longer stays in MySpace; MySpace is now YourSpace. Or is it OurSpace, or WiiSpace, or UrSpace? The neologist in me quakes with excitement!
I do not mean to suggest that if schools nurtured creative and kinesthetic activities, then we would have less criminal and deviant behavior. Creativity is not antithetical to evil. But such a supposition, as made by Kellerman, misses the point. 
It is worth noting that while exemplary environments may be good for the student teacher and mentor, the learning success of the student teacher within this environment is by no means guaranteed. Margolis (2007) argues, “what is also needed is access to and participation in the teacher thinking and reasoning” which can aid in making a particular environment more successful (author's emphasis p. 76). 
Weblogs and other social media do not offer any guarantees of explicitness, but they can provide a space where one can engage their own thinking as well as the thinking of others, if one so chooses. 
By the way, the interview takes place at 10 AM Sunday morning and I’m zooming off of two delicious bowlfuls of coffee. Christian and DK are gracious hosts. We chat for a few moments then jump right into questions. 
Is it only in America where a person can be denied a university diploma for posting a picture of them selves titled “Drunken Pirate”? Think of the number of drunken teenager/college student pictures floating around cyberspace at this moment. Is it possible other institutions will deny people jobs, interviews, diplomas, bank loans, for personal pictures we post of ourselves online?
