Multi-faceted Refractions

As a new member of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Special Interest Group (SIG) for Independent Schools executive board, I have been involved in planning for a new project, a Summer Book Reading Selection. It was at my suggestion that we  selected  A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for A World of Constant Change by Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown for this summer’s read.

For me, this book is a great summer read. It is fairly short (140 pages), very readable, and available in paperback or eBook versions. Jonathan Martin, who I am assuming is a quick reader, was able to complete the reading in 75 minutes. Thomas and Brown define the difference as:

The differences between the teaching-based approach to education and the learning-based approach is that in the first case the culture is the environment, while in the second case, the culture emerges from the environment – and grows along with it

A second difference is that the teaching-based approach focus on teaching us about the world, while the new culture of learning focuses on learning through engagement within the world.

Finally, in the teaching-based approach, students must prove they have received the information transfered to them – that they quite literally “get it”. However, in the new culture of learning, the point is to embrace what we don’t know, come up with better questions about it, and continue asking those questions in order to learn more and more, both incrementally and exponentially. The goal is for each of us to take the world in and make it part of ourselves.

And thus begins the context of the rest of the discussion in the book. Having read it earlier this year (and currently re-reading it to be ready for the discussion), it strikes me that Thomas and Brown are beginning to direct us to the sets of questions that we need to be exploring as it relates to education, with or without technology.

Officially beginning on June 1st, we will be using the ISENET Ning (http://isenet.ning.com) as our gathering point to discuss the book.

As a culminating event, we will also be hosting a webinar sometime between mid-August and early September (time and date to be confirmed) with John Seely Brown.

I am really excited about the discussions which I hope will emerge this summer.

Paperback -
http://www.amazon.com/New-Culture-Learning-Cultivating-Imagination/dp/1456458884/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305730113&sr=8-1

Kindle -
http://www.amazon.com/New-Culture-Learning-Cultivating-ebook/dp/B004RZH0BG/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&qid=1305730113&sr=8-1

As our newly renovated Upper School is nearing completion, my thoughts and attention turn to the spaces that we have used to build our  blended learning environments. Do the tools that we have chosen support the goals and compliment the goals of the physical spaces? Are there shifts in our framework that we need to move to in order for these goals to be more congruent with each other?

First, our newly renovated high school space has been built to support a technology rich environment which supports collaboration and intellectual collisions between learners in the environment, both adults and young adults. Following the 79 Ideas for Using Redesigning of Learning Spaces as defined by the  Third Teacher, gone are classrooms and hallways. Instead, we have Learning Studios, most with attached Seminar Rooms. We have an open commons which has seating along the edge and tables for groups to gather. We have Project Spaces with movable glass walls which open into Collaboration Spaces. For me, this is the 21st Century equivalent of the Parisian Salon or coffeehouses of the Enlightenment. <<An audio interview of Trung Le, the architect for our new space, on EdTechTalk’s Conversations with friends and fellow EdTechTalk hosts  Lisa Parisi, Maria Knee, and Sheila Adams>>

For the previous six years we have built our blended learning space using Moodle as our starting point. At this time, it fit our needs a place which would support threaded discussions and provide a repository for handouts and materials generated by the teacher. It allowed us to begin to have student upload assignments as teachers got used to the environment. Two years ago, we added Google Apps for Education, which provided the communications and collaboration hub. Initially with the core suite of tools, email. calendar, docs, and sites, we have created an environment which allows for creative spaces and tools to be used by all. It has allowed us to begin to shift our pedagogies to ones which support the ability to communicate and collaborate.

However, I am not sure if Moodle, provides us the right platform from which to build anymore. It does not offer a fluid, adaptable, more social environment that I feel will better suits the shifts that our  new physical environment will provide. It is my opinion that  Moodle by design, it is more of a  teacher-centric model, with the delivery of information being controlled by the lead learner. This does not congruent with the pedagogy of the new spaces that we will be occupying.

So I begin looking in earnest. My plan is to do some small system tests using a few environments which will provide us more of a fluid, social space. Narrowing down our choices, I hope that we are able to begin to pilot the use of one of these next year to see if it will match what we are looking for.

This will be an interesting journey that I am looking forward to embarking on. I would love to hear your experiences.

Over a year ago, when we were planning for our newly renovated high school space, we had the opportunity to test Steelcase’s new Media:scapes, a collaborative workstation that easily allows for 4-6 users to connect their computers, iPads, or netbooks to a “puck”. Pressing on the puck, one can easily project their screen to a flat screen display that all of the users can see. You can read about my initial experiences using the Media:scape from January 2009 (http://vvrotny.org/2010/01/12/test-driving-collaborative-workstation/)

Our first Media:scape was delivered just over two weeks ago and we have been begun using this device various classes. After two weeks of experimentation, we have been to determine what advantages the media:scape provides as opposed to students gathered together at a table or in desks. Here are some of my initial observations:

Using the media:scape provides a central focus point for the group, rather than being hidden behind their individual screens. This promotes collaboration versus isolation.

It is significantly more difficult to share resources and/or media (audio, video, or pictures) around a small screen and small speakers

The ease of being able to share and negotiate ideas quickly allows for inclusion of a greater diversity of ideas and promotes more discussion

The ease of collaboration shifts the focus towards group collaboration and discussion versus individual contribution. This is a 21st Century Skill which we want to cultivate.

The Media:scape provides ability to focus on process (discussion, negotiation, sharing) versus task (end document)

This week, I will be working with our United States and Advanced Placement United States History classes on a digital storytelling project through next week. I am excited to see what other new pedagogies we can begin to implement in anticipation for the five we will have access to next year.

Last week as the results of conversations I had or blog posts that I read, there were five ideas that reemerged and reentered my thinking. In this post, I am going to update my reflections from a post I wrote in July 2007 – Four Essential Questions that Need Answers (http://vvrotny.org/2007/07/15/four-essential-questions-that-need-answers/):

Like many, I am intrigued by the promise and potential that integrating Web 2.0 tools provides for all learners, both students and teachers. I know that in many instances, that I leading the charge full bore down that path because I believe that it is imperative that we provide experiences for our students to begin to construct their learning environments using these new collaborative tools.

But as we delve further and further down the path, there are four questions that need to be answered before completely committing to these tools.

I feel that it is essential for institutions to provide clear directions and guidelines for these questions to avoid potential problems down the road.

1. Who owns the data?

I will admit that I do not read the terms and agreements of the new tools that I am experimenting with. If I create something, do I retain some kind of ownership of the idea? Are my ideas protected by Creative Commons or am I giving my intellectual property away?

One of the challenges for us in education is to teach all of our learners, faculty and students, how to use the best tool for them to communicate their message, so that it can rise above the rest of the “white noise” of information that surrounds us and is growing daily. But we also want our learners to be able to retain ownership of their ideas, for that alone may be what defines them. No one should be able to co-opt an idea. Enhance it, synthesize it to create a better idea, but the kernel should remain.

Since 2007,  we have standardized using combination of a closed Moodle server for our course management and Google Applications for Education for our collaboration. We have selected Google Apps since:

Data created and stored within Google Apps is available until you remove it for as long as you maintain an active Google Apps account. If you wish to move data in or out of Google Apps, our tools help you easily import, export, or download information. After you delete an account, we remove the data associated with that account. (http://edutraining.googleapps.com/Training-Home/module-1/chapter-4)

2. Who owns the curriculum?

One of the questions as teachers begin to modify and create new curricula to meet the needs and demands of the students is who owns it? Is it the school or the individual or team that create the curriculum?

In business, the answer used to be crystal clear, it was the business that had ownership of new ideas, especially if an individual left. In higher education, more and more institutions are beginning to define this with the curriculum belonging to the institution. In K-12 institutions, very few institutions have guidelines such as

All work product (including academic content and materials) developed while one is an employee of  this school is the property of the School. Unless specifically notified by the School, teachers are permitted to make copies and to use such academic content and material in their teaching for in this school, but may not otherwise sell, market or give away these materials. All other work product is presumed to belong to the School and should not be copied without the consent of the School.

This may become a bigger issue, especially if the teacher shortage that continues to be forecast in the next seven to ten years occurs and the demands for the excellent teacher who is getting results with the new tools. Also, since 2007, this will become more of an issue as more schools look to create online or blended learning environments which will have a greater reach than their own physical are.

3. Who owns the experience?

If the face to face classroom experience is what differentiates the leaner’s experience, who owns that experience and interaction between lead learner and others? Prestigious universities such as MIT, Stanford, and Cal-Berekleyand others such as Kahn Academy are making the experience, by posting podcasts and videocasts of courses freely available. As schools begin to use the tools and share the classroom experiences, who owns the content, the school, or the creator of the content, the teacher?

Since 2007, this has increased in importance, especially with the growth of the “flipped” or reversed classroom. If teachers are creating this and uploading the videos into a public sphere and institutions need to have conversations and shared agreement before venturing down this road.

4. What will draw students to your physical learning space and environment?

With the whole of knowledge is being made digitally available, what will bring learners to your physical space? To your virtual space? How will your school be defined, by physical location, by time, by content?

Again, since 2007, this question has been blown open by many, including Christenson, Horn, and Johnson in Disrupting Class and others. This leads us to additional questions, such as what is the nature of school?

I do not profess to have any answers, only questions. I do hope that these questions will help define what we mean by School 2.0 or beyond .

Yesterday the New York Times published an article entitled, “Speaking Up in Class Silently, Using Social Media.” In this article, Erin Olson, an English teacher in Iowa, stated that “social media, once kept outside the school door, can entice students who rarely raise a hand to express themselves via a medium they find as natural as breathing.”

My reaction to the article is so what, why is this new? At our school, we first demonstrated in 1996, through a pilot 1:1 project that we ran in our AP United States History course (with Mac Powerbook 160′s and 56k modems) the shift in power that can occur using a electronic communication.

Before  this pilot project which I collaborated with our history teacher, Kevin Randolph, classroom discussion were dominated by students who were assertive, the loudest, and those who were able to make decisions quickly, show conviction and “shoot” from the hip. More often than not, it was the young men in the class who dominated these discussions. Yes, there were young women who could, but they were not in the majority. During this pilot, we saw a shift and a leveling of the playing field via the electronic communication. This mode of communication favored the thoughtful, reflective thinkers, those who would let ideas peculate and make new and different connections. Having a medium where the loudest voice was silenced allowed those with longer, more complex arguments, begin to share.

This shifting lead to different in-class discussions. Ones which the reflective thinkers ideas were being brought up and honored and valued. It allowed them to gain credibility and a more powerful voice. For me, it allowed us to teach in the best of ways, allowing each voice, either oral or electronically communicated, both times when they were working in the area of their strength. Kevin and my goal was to allow those who dominate classroom discussion the opportunity to slow down, think deep, and construct more complex arguments while allowing those who thrived in the electronic area the ability to grow their voice and confidence so that they were more willing to step up and voice their opinions.

This is why our blended learning strategy and solutions for the last 14 years have included the ability for both types of discussions to occur, whether using Moodle discussion forums or Google Docs. The ability to facilitate both synchronous and asynchronous discussions has been an integral part of our instructional design strategy. Not that we couldn’t do more and incorporate new tools, but it is the foundation from which we have been growing our learning environments.

So what did the Times article add to this discussion? Well that the tools for creating this type of learning environment, both the physical tools for connection (the growth of mobile phones, and the prevalence of computers, netbooks and tablets) and communication (wireless and cellular access) have matured so that this environment is more accessible and available to all who are willing to incorporate this into their pedagogy.

I have always believed in the power of these communication. At conferences, you will find me in the back channel sharing and helping make new connections from the very beginning (NECC 2007 – New Tools, New Schools) and tweeting thoughts and reflections, like I have done this morning while watching some of the TEDxBloomington (#tedxbtown) stream. I know that I thrive in the electronically mediated spaces instead of faculty meetings. I have difficulty reading and then reflecting quickly in a 20-30 minute time frame. I need time, almost up to a day, in order for my thoughts to come together in such a way that they are whole. I need to bounce my ideas off of others, as Steven Johnson believes that is the birthplace for great new ideas.

So new, no. But awareness to the masses as to the power of this environment, thank you New York Times.