While my trip to Australia this last week and a half was primarily pleasure with my family, I did get a few days to work with teachers in Brisbane and throughout Victoria (a la our PLP cohort there), and I had some great conversations about the state of the education world with some good friends. Since the trip also came on the heels of my annual two-day visit to Skywalker Ranch as a GLEF board member, these last couple of weeks have provided a lot to think about, but between travel and exorbitant internet fees and surfing expeditions, not a lot of time to write. (As usual, these days.)
One thread that seemed to pop up almost regularly throughout those conversations was the idea of “getting it,” as in how do we help school leaders or teachers or parents “get it” when it comes to understanding the shifts that social learning technologies are bringing about, and which group needs to “get it” most, etc. And while there is no doubt that there are still a lot of folks out there who haven’t wrapped their brains around what’s changing and what going to change when it comes to learning and education, what I’ve noticed is different definitions of what “getting it” mean depending on the conversation.
Level 1 seems to be “getting” that there are all these new tools and technologies out there and that we can now publish all sorts of content really easily. And that kids are already using social networks and that these tools are cropping up more and more in classrooms around the world. When I hear the question “How do we help other teachers to “get it?” I think this is what most people are asking. How can they get their colleagues to start incorporating some of these tools in the classroom?
Level 2 takes it a step further and implies that “getting it” means that there is some real change involved in what’s happening right now, that it’s not just about tools, but about connections and building learning networks for ourselves and for our students. I hear this most often in the context of leadership and vision, that the people steering the ship need to “get” that this is more than budgeting for a few more computers and revising the AUP.
Those two levels account for about 95% of the “getting it” conversations I hear. But I wonder if that’s what “getting it” really means? I’m not in any way suggesting that I completely “get it” myself, but there is much to suggest that the talk about tools and even learning networks is not really the end game here at all. That to really “get” what the implications of all of this might be, you have to really be willing to really think differently. That Level 3 is not so much about what happens in our practice or in our classrooms but what happens to our schools. That at a time when learning can be individualized and where creativity and passion are just as important as reading and math, our expectations for the roles of schools in educating our kids have to be more than just playing on the edges.
Each year at the GLEF meeting, George Lucas spends about 45 minutes with us talking about education and answering our questions. What he said this year was in that Level 3 area. To paraphrase, schools as we know them are going away. Not that we won’t still have physical spaces and teachers, but that the way we do school is going to have to change, will be actually forced to change by the Web and other technologies. That the questions we should be asking (and these are the ones I got listening to him talk, not words out of his mouth) are should we still be sorting kids by age or by discipline? How do we truly individualize instruction around kids’ interests and passions? How do we redefine the school day? What do we really want to assess and how do we assess it? Why should we bring kids together for physical space learning when much of what they can now learn doesn’t require it? As he describes the role of Edutopia.org in that context, the whole point is to keep finding schools who are grappling with those types of questions and share their stories with the world.
All of which leads me to wonder, when we talk about leaders and parents and teachers “getting it,” what are we really talking about when it comes to social learning technologies? What should we be talking about?
I think that getting it is a never-ending journey and that some people may be closer to getting it than others. As is implied by the post, the definition of getting it is a constantly moving target. I think the one thing that is certain is that if you are not involved in the ongoing conversation about technology and how we need to change in our schools because of these resources then you are light years from getting it.
In regards to how our schools will look down the road, I think we have to get out of the K-12 or K-16 mindset where students progress one year at a time. Technology offers so many opportunities for students to individual paths towards “graduation.” If we just think in terms of what we see and know from our own pasts then we will shortchange ourselves and our students.
I guess what would be helpful to me is some examples of people who look like they get it and why. It would keep this crucial conversation moving in a positive direction.
I agree with the original post, and with Patrick Larkin’s view of “getting it” as a journey, not a destination. It has to begin at Level 1, and from there onwards (and upwards!) we need to walk our talk. Organic, grassroots evolution is the very nature of the 2.0 mindset, which CANNOT be imposed top-down at institutional level.
And so it begins…
You may find the book, Engaging the Diesengaged, very helpful, as it has examples of schools who have gotten it!
Margie
I agree with with just about everything you said. I am a veteran teacher of 34 for years and I have seen how slowly our schools have taken to Iget it. With our constant changing world we should have changed a long time ago. I am fortune to be working in a district that is getting it when it comes to technology.Our techers all have lap tops or PCs and are being trained on how to better use this tool to help our students.
How can you not get “getting it”? It very clearly means to “grok“.
Recently I have been thinking much about the idea of having students learn at home while doing homework at school. In my opinion, when someone starts to question how we have fundamentally operated in education for decades, they are starting to “get it”. Deep and thought-provoking discussion about how and why we do what we do is critical and necessary to promote the type of change that is necessary here.
In order to make it to Level 3, I think we have to have a lot of educators who are willing to not only teach their students but participate in other student’s projects. How many educators are out there responding to students other than their own? How can we encourage them to help others?
I think we will always need some face to face instruction to help guide students in their learning. Hopefully those teachers will be connected to a network of other teachers who can help their students and vice versa. Maybe this is Level 2.5 which is a better short term goal.
In my opinion motivating teachers to share and network is the short-term goal which will lead to better instruction for our students. Once we achieve this then Level 3 becomes possible.
This is an important post! Thanks for bringing it to the table. In Iowa, we’re trying to decide how to move our schools forward, but somehow we think we can take a lot of the existing school with us. It can’t be done. I like how this comment focuses on working with our students – being engaged ourselves.
So if we are also the learners – what’s different?!
How do we learn? We don’t go somewhere and “learn” from 8:30 – 3:30. We read and process, consider, talk to our colleagues, try an experiment. That is not how schools are structured to work. We don’t read enough, we don’t discuss enough, we don’t talk (use our phones), or try new things.
What, then is a “learning day”? When does it happen? Where does it happen?
We can’t still have study hall fourth period, get out of class early to decorate for homecoming, or use the concept of Senior pass to do less that last year. Why do all students need to attend four years of high school?
We have to think outside the box and that means changing the structure. Our schools are too closely wedded to schools of the past in structure and organization.
Thanks for challenging us!
Getting it means that we are thinking about the financial implications of how we do school, certainly here in the US. Local property tax financed school systems are not sustainable. A trade-off to consider is having the municipality make wifi available to all of its residents. In return local school funding will be reduced. A result is that schools are freed up from equity issues to embrace web based teaching and learning tools and all residents benefit, not just those with school age children attending public schools.
Still working towards getting it.
They don’t “get it”?
Sounds an aweful lot like a cult and you’re trying to pull them in.
So, Will is right. You’ve got to do better than accusing people of “not getting it.” You’ve got to actually explain what you are talking about and why it matters to people who are not already predisposed to agree with you.
If you can’t do that? Well, it sounds like a cult.
In my opinion getting it depends on our goal. i quite agree that getting it is not just about tools, but about connections and building learning networks for ourselves and for our students.
I agree with Patrick. We need to stop using schools as free daycare and really get serious about creating environments where all students learn. Whether that is in the home or in a school building. Or some place in-between.
Maybe for some kids an extended school day works and for other kids doing online courses is the better option. We have to stop trying to fit all the different shaped pegs into one shaped hole.
The motivation to “get it” seems key to my way of thinking. Our “social animals” who are on Facebook and Myspace are having a strong need met and do and learn quickly and willingly. Keep things relevant and we all could “get it”
I think that in order to fundamentally change how schools work, we have to re-evaluate what society wants and needs from an educated populace, and what it actually means to have an educated citizenry. Universal schooling was created so that most of the population would share the same knowledge and skill base — individuation was put off for those who went on to college. So now, what shared knowledge and skill base do we want for our 18-year-olds? If we want students to know shared content, then the folks who advocate school change aren’t looking to graduate students who have reached that goal
If we want 18-year-olds who can think, who can program, create, write, research, etc — who have SKILLS not SHARED CONTENT — then we are free to engage individual passion in order to teach/guide/learn those skills using whatever content works for them. But there won’t be a universal base of information/knowledge/content.
I don’t think I’m writing clearly, even to myself, but it’s a basic question I keep coming back to when thinking about what and why of School 2.0. How we do school is not going to be transformed until/unless we transform our notions about why we have universal schooling in the first place.
As a teacher of younger children I am not so sure transforming schools into some other entity is entirely the way to go. I have children in my class who can barely read, write or do maths. Reading is a fundamental skill that can’t be caught from your peers or personal learning network. Reading for these children needs to be explicitly taught on a regular day-to-day, turn up and do it sort of way.
Also, like or not, primary school age children need ‘day care’. They need to be in a safe, learning environment while their parents go work and earn a buck.
Once the fundamental skills of literacy and numeracy have been learnt then I think children can ‘get it’ more as they have the means to access the rich resources that a personal learning network and social media can provide.
Really? Reading must be explicitly talk and is immune from social construction?
Wow!
I am not saying that social media is immune from social construction- what I am trying to say is that young children need a school, a place to go, teachers to teach. Yes reading needs to be explicitly taught so that children can take advantage of the riches that the new millennium might offer.
Where would you be now if you had never learnt to read?
Some of the gifted people in the world just catch on to reading and learning but most of us ordinary folk need to be taught how to do it effectively. And the person most likely to do the teaching is a teacher working in a school.
“Where would you be now if you had never learnt to read?”
As a parent, I taught my kids to read. Yes, they do need to read and they do need to be taught that. But if you use phonics, it is not hard (3-6 months for a 5 -year-old), and it is a shame we have so many kids who are not literate. Literate kids can tackle the web practically on their own.
Not every teacher is a parent, but every parent is a teacher. A part of the problem is the attitude that schools will teach, then parents abdicate responsibility, and the child gets shortchanged.
Children do not naturally learn the ‘right’ things, so yes, they need structure. But as homeschoolers have shown, that structure can be something other than a school with classrooms and teachers. And without home encouragement, they learn So, YES, they need a teacher/mentor/tutor, but NO, it doesn’t need to be in the confines of the traditional industrial classroom.
“productive contexts for learning” sounds like edu-crat-ese… the whole world provides opportunities for learning, and the point of the classroom is that certain key things that need to be taught wont naturally arise in other contexts, so it needs to be there.
The kids more or less learn the web by themselves. Good thing or bad thing? Good thing since it is a context for their future work, otoh, the opportunity for distraction and non-productive / non-learning abounds.
If social online networks are content-wise no different from the content of media like TV or the chatter of the playground or kids gossip, then we shouldnt expect it to be more educating than those other avenues of communication. On the other hand, DIRECTED use of the web, social media etc. could be educationally beneficial.
Are ‘books’ ‘good’? My son has Homer’s Odyssey and spiderman comics on his desk. The web has the same variety.
The IT that needs to be gotten is that the point of education is learning, and the learning happens a cognition in the child as it is exposed to the RIGHT content and the RIGHT experiences. The ‘context’ is not important per se, the media is not important, what’s ‘in’ the box is what’s important not how its packaged. The ‘right context’ and guidance to lead students to learning is what education is all about.
I disagree with the notion that reading must always be “explicitly” taught early on. I am a teacher of grades 11 and 12 — not much of an early childhood expert. However, I can tell you this, as a father of an almost three year old who has already spontaneously launched her own reading career rather well on her own… she’ll be bored stiff playing the “catch up” game with everyone else. She has seen tons of good modeling and now has the patience to absorb and explore books on her own.
Also- I completely disagree about the “day care” assertion. I DO believe children need the freedom to actively play both independently and in social settings. In fact, I would argue that we need this throughout our school experiences. The need for constructive play follows us throughout our lives whether or not we ever get to indulge in it.
If “getting it” means understanding social media or even its implications, then I fear that we are in very deep trouble indeed.
That seems like a very low bar for creating productive contexts for learning.
Dr. Stager,
Are you implying that productive contexts for for learning require not just social media, but actually a whole lot more?
Yes
How about one productive context for learning? Again, I’m talking about one piece of this that we have to “get”…there is a lot of other stuff too.
Why not prioritize these contexts then? The implication of the post is that “social media” holds a special level of importance.
No question that I’m arguing that learning within social online networks is an important context in the larger discussion. If people want to prioritize them, then fine. But the discussion here is about that one context.
I think there is a tendency by some to read this as either/or, like social online media is some new, all-encompassing framework for learning that obliterates everything that has come before. I don’t think anyone is arguing that. But I do think it’s a reality and an opportunity that we now have to add to the list.
Will,
You apparently think this context is important. My question is, “how important?”
In South Africa the conversations are about education officials, principals and teachers not getting it … the “it” referring to the need for ICT in education at all! Many still question the relevance.
Let me clarify:
I do not question the relevance. However, I do question the need.
If relevance has been established … how can there NOT be a need?
Kobus van Wyk,
Do you mean that we NEED ITC in education? That is is requirement, such that education is not possible with out it?
In the African context, YES. We are grappling with a dire shortage of teaching capacity – we need ICT to fill the gap created by teachers who left the profession, those dying of AIDS, and those who are incompetent to teach. Of course, ICT is not the only thing we need, but we need technology to support curriculum delivery. In our case we need ICT not for the niceties – it is not the cherry on the top – but for giving learners the opportunity to learn. The success of this approach has been demonstrated in the Western Cape where ICT is used to enhance teaching and learning in over 1 000 schools. Sadly, education authorities are so embroiled in their own petty political debates that they are not “getting it”.
I grok it, though I don’t know what it will look like. In 50 years, education, particularly at the higher levels, will not look like it does today and participation in it will be quite differnet (both will be due to changes in the tools available). There will be smaller changes in how we perceive the material we study. I suspect that at the learning-to-read level the differences will be less obvious (I suggest Mr Ph.D. visit a kindy classroom if he doesn’t grasp why social media are less relevent to learning to read). I do think that the Internet will have a similar effect on the world to the printing-press, but that we won’t see what that is for a couple of centuries yet.
Ceolaf, ICT is not *necessary* for education. Nor are pencils and paper (you can use a slate, or a stick and a patch of sand). But some tools make certain aspects of education much easier, particularly when it comes to collaboration.
Deborah Meier is at the top of my list of people who “get it” in public education. In a recent response to a post on the Education Experts blog of the National Journal Online, Deborah, calls for a return to the discussion about the purpose of education: http://education.nationaljournal.com/2009/11/whats-needed-to-make-sure-inno.php#1391740
Purpose is Level 3.
Sacred cows like standards-based instruction, standardized testing, NCLB, the social web, collaborative learning, and educational technology must all serve a purpose. These are all means to ends, not ends in themselves.
“Getting it” will require that we look at the context of public education in the United States and in the world. We need to look at where we are, where we have been, and where we hope to go as individuals, as communities, as countries, and as a species. Certainly, computer-based technologies and their requisite skills will play a role in the success of our education system. They will not drive us to success, however.
We will arrive at success by purpose, vision, community, dissent, consensus, to name a few drivers. The right technologies may accelerate our progress toward success, and the wrong technologies may hinder our progress or even reverse our progress.
To me, one aspect of “getting” the final level here is to understand how shifts in available technology are finally allowing a transformation toward a more constructivist approach to learning in secondary schools. Really, this is the way things have been done at the innovative periphery for some time. However, across the board, secondary schools have been painfully traditional in my experience.
It seems that it is traditionally much easier to move an elementary school into the realm of constructivism.
Sadly, I think the very real shadow cast by NCLB has also kept public schools from innovating at anything other than ways to hyper-analyze data from selected response exams. level three, to me, is seeing the ability for modern teachnology and rich pedagogy to merge in a way that greases the wheels of transformation toward a more learner-centered approach.
I’ve heard this before somewhere…. “school’s are broken and technology can fix it.” I’ve been at this educational technology “thing” for more than 30 years now. Unless you can be more specific, I don’t buy it. How about we teach kids to be open minded, curious, humble in the face of their ignorance, critical thinkers, etc… regardless of the medium we use.
This is my first foray into blogging,and I apologise if my phrasing or a lack of net etiquette causes offence to anyone. It is not my intention to do so.
I have enjoyed reading the blogs by Will Richardson and the discussions have really got me thinking, paticularly this last one.
‘How do we truly individualise instruction around kids interests and passions?’ was a question asked towards the end of this blog.
On the larger scale I think this will take a long, long time to happen. Education is, in someways, a form of control, of preparing individuals for a role in society. National Curriculums/ Standards in various guises offer the state the vehicle by which to monitor and control education.
For truly individualised learning to take place around kids interest and passions there could be no national curriculum, only an individual curriculum. This would require a major shift in attitudes.
To my way of thinking it would enable a more anarchic system of education to develop.
I wonder, if, with digital learning and the web widening the field of opportunities and options, will there be increasingly specialised schools? At what age will pupils decide what option/opportunity to follow? How will it be decided? Will the state be able to provide for it all, or will education become an increasingly paid for resource. In which case will the consumer decide the curriculum, or the school or the state?
I love the concept of widening spaces of learning. But with these widening spaces comes a need for a stronger social contacts to bridge these spaces. Never has social education been more important.
Humans by nature are social, much of our language is non verbal… how will the web allow us to communicate properly in the real world? The virtual world is just that … not the real world?
To me there is no substitute for being there. Children need to be there; to mix, to interact to talk and respond. There is a need for ‘physical’ schools. Learning is best in collaboration, with younger developing minds the immediate is best. I truly hope we never see a world develop in which education becomes a physically independent experience. Exclusion is seen as a punishment (maybe too srong a word) at the moment, why would we want to introduce this as a way of educating in the future? Education is more than about academia.
As with any ‘new’ development it can bring both benefits and harm. It is not the development per se but how it is used that is important.
We are at the start of this revolution and we need to think through the implications and ramifications of the steps taken. Once set on a route it is very difficult to change direction.
“Getting it” is a journey. I see digital natives pushing many boundaries surrounding social networking and technology.
Extremely interesting discussion! I look forward to reading more of your blogs since I am new to this concept. I am also reading your book “Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms” for one of my master’s courses.
Before we can teach. . . .nay, participate, in what our older students have been doing all along, we will somehow have to convince many teachers that social media is a positive thing, and not a scary unknown thing that must be blocked from every school’s “internet.” From the superintendent down to the secretaries and janitors, everyone in each building in each system must be involved. After 26 years in the public school system, I have my doubts that some of these people – and I’m talking about the teachers specifically – will EVER become a part of the 21st century. Many of these newfangled “things” that are a part of our students’ daily lives are outlawed, confiscated, and viewed as disobedience and outright terrorism and insubordination by many “educators” who have chosen to remain out of the loop. Instead of using these “things” to enhance learning, some teachers see them only as entertainment that must be curtailed. Until these attitudes are dealt with and changed – good luck with that, y’all – it’s going to be a long, hard road.
But what is “it”?
You, any number of you, talk about “getting it,” and looking at examples of “getting it.”
If getting means “grokking,” understanding, appreciating or — mostly likely of all — agreeing, what are you referring to by “it”?
What is the essential and core element of this “it”?
What is the non-negotiable part?
Is there some sort of universal element here, that applies in the inner city and the rich suburb, in the US and in Israel or Australia or Europe? (Don’t just say “yes.” Tell me what that is!)
Is there some central “it” that is critical for our college-bound future professionals and also for our future service workers? Is there some “it” that imperatively reshapes primary AND secondary education? Something that ties in with preparing future citizens, future thinkers, future parents and future workers? Those who will own their own plumbing business eventually and those who will be teachers?
I have no idea what you folks are talking about, quite frankly. The best explanation is that I think you are talking about multiple different things, and I’m not not certain what most of them are. How do you even know whether or not others have the same conception of “it” that you do?
Most basically, I think “it” refers to what the ultimate role and effect of social networking and social online media are in learning. Right? I’m just asking if there is more to think about here than simply publishing, and if so, what are the larger potentials of the technologies that we need to be considering. Anything new here that plumbers and teachers alike can benefit from, and that should move us to think differently about what we do in the classroom?
Will,
Wouldn’t “simply publishing” alone represent a quantum leap forward for education especially if what kids wrote was of a high-quality AND authentic?
I see very little of this OR collaboration in classrooms or on the Web.
Abandoning the fanciful notion of curriculum and adopting higher PERSONAL standards would be a good start. Blogging about questionable school asssignments or blogging as a questionable school assignments is unlikely to achieve educational nirvana.
Ceolaf and Will, it would probably help if you read the Wikipedia entry for Web 2.0, then ponder the implications for yourselves. Personally, I’m not that keen on the term, because I think ‘Web 2.0’ arises naturally from the existence of the Internet. The point is that the barriers to communicating and collaborating, on any topic and in any medium, are disappearing — the only things you need are internet access and a common language. The changes we are looking at are not simple instrumental changes, eg blackboard to whiteboard. They are changing the culture and thus inevitably, the way we educate, just as the printing press did.
Ellen,
I think you miss the point of Will’s question, or at least of mine.
I don’t wonder whether people can individually come up with their own answers. I certainly could come up with my own, and I think I could come up with another answer that many people who have previously commented would agree upon.
But there’s a real problem with defining “getting it” by directing people to some resource and telling them to “ponder the implications for [them]selves.” You see, when I hear/read people going on about how the internet, the web, web 2.0, social networking or any of the rest must necessarily revolutionize or transform our schools, I think “they don’t get it.”
I know what all this stuff is. I am an early adopter. And I can see good ways to them to augment what we ought to be doing in schools. But transform? Revolutionize? Ummmm…..no. I don’t think that this sort of technology has that kind of implication.
So, by telling people “you go figure it out for yourself” you’ve not communicated anything at all. You’ve not engaged in the conversation or done anything to help others to be more clear with each other.
So, what if I’ve been thinking about this for longer than you, understand the technology better than you, am more thoughtful about the nature of schooling and pedagogy than you and even am smarter than you? What if you cannot simply write off our disagreement with my not having considered it or with my being stupid? Then what? You still going to accuse me of not “not getting it” without specifying what you mean?
When we use that term (i.e. “doesn’t/don’t get it”), you don’t define or communicate anything. Rather, you accuse others of not coming to the same conclusion as you, without having the rigor or clarity to define what you mean or communicate it at all. You put the onus on them, with taking any responsibility for ensuring that you even know what you are talking about.
That might make it easier for you, but it doesn’t help anyone. And you don’t even figure out if others who purported agree with you actually do.
Ceolaf, my summary of “it” was: the barriers to communicating and collaborating, on any topic and in any medium, are disappearing — the only things you need are internet access and a common language. I didn’t think this was begging the question. As I work in TAFE in Australia as a librarian, I tend to think of adult learners and information flow rather than pedagogy. So yes, I do think it revolutionary that a plumbing student in a remote community can (in theory!) book in work, order materials, check the Builder’s Code of Australia, watch an instructional video, and confer with distant classmates and teachers, and other plumbers, all on one relatively cheap device. Ten years ago, this wasn’t possible, and twenty years ago, the underlying concepts were in the research stages.
Your superior intelligence, etc, is not displayed when you respond with “I don’t think so” (or worse, “it’s a cult!”) but fail to either explain your reasons or engage with positions like Kobus van Wyk’s.
Ellen,
I did not say that I have superior intelligence. Rather, I offered a hypothetical that supposed it — merely for the purposes of the hypothetical.
Nor did I accuse anything of being a cult. Rather, I warned that that the way that many people talk about this stuff SOUNDS like a cult. I was underlining the importance of being more careful and specific in explaining of “getting it” really means.
Furthermore, I don’t think that I’ve ever answered something in such a forum with a simple “I don’t think so.” I actually have a very good history of explaining at length what I mean.
How do we truly individualize instruction around kids’ interests and passions? I wonder how many educators actually “get” the point of the current education system. The current education system is not designed to promote individualism; it is designed to provide a common frame of reference for emerging members of society. One of its primary functions is to expose students to ideas that they might not like. Schools play an important role in teaching children about self-control, discipline (in the personal sense, not the punitive sense), and empathy. It is about showing children a variety of lenses through which to understand the world; lenses that they may or may not have access to when left to their own devices.
Individualized instruction is very appealing, and I love my own personal learning network, but I am just as thankful that someone made me read Shakespeare, so I could see the world through his eyes. That’s what a good school education does; it lets you see the world in ways that you yourself would not consider.
Hear hear, Jason!
What if I was never made to study history or literature, in which I eventually majored?
To what degree do we even WANT to individualize around students’ preexisting interests and passions? Just because we can doesn’t mean that it’s all good.
What assumptions about the nature and purpose of schooling does such an assertion, or even question, reveal?
“How do we truly individualize instruction around kids’ interests and passions?” I agree with Jason, and Shakespeare came to my mind, too. I avoided Shakespeare in high school, and until as an adult I finally became a little acquainted with an author whose work is known by most educated speakers of English, I felt a lack. There is a core of knowledge that connects people.
And yes, how is a child to learn what his/her interests and passions are without being exposed first to a wide range of topics/pursuits? My daughter is passionate about Shakespeare (since we were speaking of him), but she would never have known that without having taken up that first play.
As was noted above, students learn more in the physical space of school than just content; they learn to be with others. I’m pretty sure that even homeschoolers get together at times with other homeschoolers. I can’t see that interaction going totally online.
But, as someone just dipping my toe in the waters of level 1 with an eye toward level 2, I do think that the level 3 questions are worth pondering. Maybe along with the “how” of more individualized instruction (how indeed?) I would also ask: at what point in the student’s lifetime of learning?
My two cents —
As I have read (and reread) the original post and subsequent comments, I have tried to ‘construct meaning’ for myself on this topic. (I’ve been an ardent constructivist since I realized that taking things from others without integrating them into my own thinking didn’t help me develop my own insights and understandings. Isn’t that one definition of learning?)
I am definitely beyond Level I and at the edge of Level II. Being highly interpersonal, I value teaching students strategies for successful collaboration and appreciate the potential for social networks (on and off line). As I initiated teaching in an online format, I had to find ways to be sure I could create an interpersonal environment for my students that may not be physically face-to-face in nature, but could engage them in interactive thinking/crating learning experiences.
Here’s another thought —
With the various ideas of “getting it” floating around in this conversation, I wonder if it’s not about “getting it” but really about “buying into it”. I “get” the potential impact of technology, but am struggling with my level of “buying into” the extent of how technology will (not can) impact schools. Schools, as institutions, are never far from the influence of a variety of hidden agendas and demands that keep us tied to an industrialist mentality. I see technology (and in particular social networks) as a way to expand socratic thinking, creation, and innovation through interactions with colleagues around the world. This interaction has limitless potential because of the lack of boundaries created by age, gender, culture, and even expertise. What I see as the “institution’s” (school’s)responsibility is helping students develop productive strategies for navigating this environment in a meaningful way. The speed with which technology is evolving has created a haphazard approach to using it that is driven by each person’s level of excitement about the possibilities. Using technology effectively in a school setting needs deliberate structure so that less enthusiastic students (and adults) can benefit and learn how to navigate the Internet with confidence and success.
Pat,
So here’s my question:
What if someone understands what you mean, or what whomever else else means, but doesn’t agree?
How often do people think that just because someone does not agree with them that that they don’t understand them, as though merely understanding is the best possible argument — an ironclad and totally persuasive one that?
What is see here are a bunch of ideas, some more specific than others — none really worked out in terms of ultimate aims, immediate pedagogy and implications for the nature of schooling — without anyone considering that others might find the vision less compelling than more traditional practices.
I hope “getting it” includes teachers working closely with librarians in school libraries — or “learning commons,” “libratories,” or whatever they will be called in the future — as libraries are an ideal resource for helping children pursue their passions and interests in whatever format serves best.
Wow! I just spent the better part of an hour reading the coments about this article. I know I’m at the beginning stages of “getting it” and I can’t help but wonder if I would have better spent the last hour preparing my lessons for the upcoming week in middle school math (which I teach every day), or perhaps I should direct my students to the topic and allow them to learn from each other and others in their social networks.
It seems to me that we all become learners in this new world of delivering knowledge, and those who have the research or data behind them and who write the most persuasively and/ or develop learning websites are the ones who will hold the reins which guide the collaborative learners [followers]. We already use websites from Canada and England to deliver knowledge and concepts in our classrooms. This is where I see the most opportunity to be influential in future education. (Those who make the sites are the new teachers. We will be the shepherds who lead the sheep there.) It makes me want to develop websites, but I haven’t a clue! “To the web!” Learn it! Do it! Share it!
Districts and State Boards of Education are concerned about integrity of education and “biases” which naturally go undetected by younger children. They are concerned about what is “out there” on the world wide web (and they are also concerned about hidden agendas “lurking in our own halls” where teachers who do away with textbook delivery of knowledge may push their own bias a little too far or too hard through the sites they choose as well as those they ignore.) Could that be one reason why there is so much talk in some states about control over state textbooks, and only using textbooks that are approved, rather than going 100% to electronic means of learning? Whoever controls the information controls the minds and eventually the futures of the next generation. Maybe they are the ones who reeeeally “get it” and they are reeeally afraid of it for that very reason.
Maybe the smart people at NEF grok it. In a paper University Challenge “What is worth knowing?” they list:
Seven things every graduate should know:
1. In-depth knowledge of a favourite subject
2. How to apply knowledge
3. What makes a good life
4. How others think
5. How change happens
6. The dynamics of power and influence
7. Global interdependence
Is that “it”? I don’t know.
It is almost a little scary how much technology is changing our reality and how little some people understand that. As a student intern looking to be a teacher in the next year, I don’t claim to have any real handle on how I want to use technology, but I had to laugh when during one of my Thanksgiving conversations, a teacher of adult classes asked me if my students (sixth graders) know how to type. He sat back and thought about it when I said they basically grew up exploring technology the way that he grew up riding his bike around the neighborhood…
If only society embraced the use of technology as a tool to help construct knowledge as much as we seem to embrace the antiquated version of an education model that teaches kids that content is more important than the learning process itself! Society seems tied to a nostalgic “ideal” that never really existed to begin with, “the good old days” of a “factory model form” of education were not so grand either! We need to teach kids to be life-long learners by emphasizing the learning process & skills inherently necessary for them to become successful in life, & quit worshiping standardized test scores as if they were the “gods of learning”, especially when we know that is not true!
Just while people on this page are discussing rethinking education, there are government officials continuing to discuss the idea of merit pay based on standardized test scores. I know this thread is concerned with education, but I keep thinking of the state of the current business model. Can one think outside the box and create a business model for this age of readily available knowledge?
I think “getting it” means just that, we as a society need to get it. In reality it’s going to take time for teachers of different generations, students, parents, superintendents, funding, etc. to catch up to where we as a democracy need to evolve inorder to compete in this ever changing global economy.
It reminds me of the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition:
1 Novice
rigid adherence to rules
no discretional judgment
2 Advanced beginner
situational perception still limited
all aspects of work are treated separately and given equal importance
3 Competent
coping with crowdedness (multiple activity, information)
now partially sees action as part of longer term goals
conscious, deliberate planning
4 Proficient
holistic view of situation, rather than in terms of aspects
sees what is most important in a situation
uses maxims for guidance, meaning of maxims may vary according to situation
5 Expert
no longer reliant on rules, guidelines, maxims
intuitive grasp of situation, based on tacit knowledge
vision of what is possible
(Source: Wikipedia)