one teacher’s journey

Stephanie Sandifer issued a challenge to edubloggers, especially (perhaps) those of us who are feeling a bit overwhelmed by the latest burst of bleeding-edge tech.

I think it’s time we — the edublogosphere/edutwitter community — take some “downtime” to reflect on what we are doing, why we are doing it, and what  outcomes we think may come from the work we are doing.

As a classroom teacher, I feel I am constantly questioning the technology and tools I use in class. Am I using this [particular tool] because it’s empowering students and moving their learning forward, or because it’s cool. It’s so easy to get caught up in the geekiness of it all; it is some pretty amazing stuff, after all. But to what end? And what of it is valuable? And what use of it is effective and necessary? A lot to think about, but here goes…

What?

I’ve been thinking quite a bit lately about the Web tools that are now almost second nature to me: blogs, wikis, RSS and my Google Reader, del.icio.us, my Facebook. This is how I learn and what I use to access my network of teachers and my collection of resources. But I am also constantly reminding myself that many of my teaching colleagues and most of my students are not familiar with these, or at least don’t use them to the extent I do. This, of course, makes me no better than them…just a different kind of learner.

In my excitement about the direction in which education, learning and teaching is going, I find myself tempering that excitement around non-geek colleagues (for lack of a better term). I want to tell them all I’ve learned, but I fear I would simply overwhelm them in my zeal to convert them. When it comes to my students, my concern is more that I will not adequately be able to justify why I am making blogging a part of this class; instead, they may just see it as more work to do, rather than the opportunity that it is.

And so, I’m left second-guessing every inclusion and mention of technology in the classroom and every comment I make around colleagues. Don’t get me wrong; I haven’t been paralyzed by this. I had my AP English students blogging and using Google Reader last year for their research, and I am almost finished getting all my students set up with a blog for this year. My students created a study guide last year using a wiki. I believe that puts me in the brave-enough-to-just-try-it camp.

So What?

When it comes to blogging, in particular, I’ve been formulating a list in my thinking about why student blogging is worth the time and effort (and justification to others!). I need to solidify this some more, but for now..

• In English, we always talk about giving students a “genuine audience” for whom to write, but we can never really come up with one. So, we have them write for each other and for the elementary kids in the district, or we make up assignment with fictional audiences as a poor substitute. Blogging, by nature, gives student writers an immense, general audience…and an interactive one, to boot.
• It forces reflective thinking, which we don’t often give students time to do, nor do we show them the value of reflection in our fast-paced, bell-driven schedules.
• The feedback is (can be) faster, more varied, and more interactive than some red-ink comments from a teacher on a paper (that is probably not going to be revised anyway).
• Blogging gives students a voice, an opportunity to express their thinking and insight. Especially for those that may not feel comfortable opening their mouths in an intimate classroom environment (just as others may fear writing for a global audience!), a blog post may be the best way for others to ‘hear’ that student’s voice.

Aside from the pedagogical issues, blogging gets students comfortable in a region of the online environment with which they may not be familiar. The style of conversation that exists in blogging is one that many of the them will be required to use in their post-secondary education and their professional practice.

Now what?

Now, we edubloggers continue doing what we are doing. No radical change of plans, just a steady progress, a step at a time. We share our knowledge and excitement with others, slowly, a bit at a time, and give them opportunities to try these tools and let them make the connection to improved engagement and learning. We continue to pay attention to the tech world around us and learn what we can, sanely, in between our other professional responsibilties.

Most importantly, we continue to be the professional educators that we are and focus on student learning. Every new tool should be honestly analyzed for classroom use. If it doesn’t move learning forward than it shouldn’t be in class, cool or not. We continue to advocate for students, including fights to unblock sites, get laptops into their hands, make relevant technologies an integral part of the curriculum, and–if need be–speak before school boards, committees, parent groups, city councils, whomever, about why they need to be on board (if they are not already) when it comes to the realities of the new read/write web and the role it needs to play in student learning.

Technorati Tags: edublogging challenge students learning

Another thought-provoking video from Michael Wesch, assistant professor of cultural anthropology at Kansas State University and creator of “The Machine is Us/ing Us”.

Not only does this include an example of Google Docs in use, but more importantly, it is a view of students through their own (honest) eyes. The focus is on undergrads at a university, but high school students (and others?) are not far off of this vision.

What are the implications for us as teachers? How does this vision of students demand that we teach differently? How DO we engage a generation that edits their Facebook profile during lecture hall? (Sadly, some will likely offer this as further proof of why we should not have 1:1 laptop programs and why we should ban all digital gadgets from the classroom…and why? So they can focus better on the blackboard, of course.)

And we would be missing the point.

Okay, so I’ve stumbled upon the name Marshall McLuhan three times in the last couple of weeks.  Allowing my curiousity to get the best of me (or was I just avoiding grading papers?), I looked him up in–where else–Wikipedia.  It was this “McLuhan tetrad” that I was most curious. 

Oddly enough, my enthusiasm for Web 2.0 in the classroom has waned a bit in the past week or so, hence my lack of posts.  This is not due to some revelation about all its flaws, or its irrelevance, or a sense of “why bother, it’s just gimmicky”.  I believe none of these.  In fact, I am exciting to keep going, to keep learning, to experiment in my classroom. (I plan on setting my AP English students up with their own blogs next week…and let them run a bit)

I think it’s just a practical matter of the rest of life creeping back in after the “honeymoon” of all my recent discoveries.  Perhaps the intoxication has worn off and the sober reality of what to DO with these tool, this new knowledge, this new direction, is just now sinking in.  I want to try so many things; I want to share all of this with all my colleagues; I want to get this into my classroom…all of it.  Yet, I want it all to be relevant, effectual, moving my teaching and their learning forward.

Which is perhaps why McLuhan’s tetrad intrigues me so.  Perhaps this is one way to evaluate the efficacy of each of these new tools.  What does blogging enhance or intensify?  Does it retrieve something that was previously lost in my other teaching methods?  What would become obsolete as a result of blogging in the classroom? (And would it matter if it did?) Does blogging become a figure, and what becomes the ground? 

I could (should?) obviously apply these same questions to every one of the new tools I bring in to my class.  Right?  I’m curious if other educators see any relevance to McLuhan in their classrooms…

Technorati Tags: McLuhan, assessment, Web2.0, education

NCTE’s Inbox flagged this one for me.  And here’s another subject in the changing landscape of school in the 21st century that I’m ambivalent about.

I fear what will be lost in a push for online classrooms, I’ll admit it. 

But other educators urged caution, noting that teacher-student interaction is irreplaceable.

Yet, I also think the possibilities are exciting, both for the students taking these classes and the prospect of my teaching one of the courses.  The technology is certainly giving us the freedom to move in this direction.  As long as the rigor of the curriculum is not lost to the gadgetry.  Ah, the recurring dilemma of School 2.0.

The quote that resonated the most with me came from Ken Ellwein, executive director of the Lutheran high school in Orange County:

“To keep technology away from kids while they’re going to school, when
they have it in every other part of their lives — it just doesn’t make
sense.”

It’s a searching statement, to be sure.  What do we as individual educators do in our own curriculum?  Are we doing our best to hold to the way we’ve always done things and keep these new-fangled Web 2.0 tools out of the way?  Do we limit lab time?  Put so many blocks on our system that they can’t get to anything of meaning or use any of the tools?

Yes, once again, there needs to be a balance. (I should add that I feel blessed to work in a district that seems to be constantly trying to find that balance.)  So, we block MySpace.  Is there a lot of educational value being lost blocking that? No, not when there are much, much better tools out there for networking in an academically meaningful way.

But what about IM and chat? What do we do when we know that students could be using these, with our direction, to have meaningful conversation about a collaborative project with other students (or experts) half way around the world?

And the questions just keep coming…

A recent article in the Crimson echoes similar stories from Cornell and Tufts, all in relation to the Middlebury ban.  The slant in the beginning of this one focuses on the shift by some profs to actually include Wikipedia articles as part of their syllabus. 

Here, again, the balance seems to exist.  Some professors assign their students to author and edit Wikipedia entries–a good way to create the “editors” that Will Richardson always advocates for. 

One professor, who assigned articles for reading, admitted that-due to the ‘unstable’ nature of the entries–”perhaps I should re-look at the entries from time to time.”
Isn’t this what we should do with all our teaching resources?  Just because a photocopied article (shhh!) has worked well for years, is it still relevant?  The best I can find to illustrate a point?  This, to me, is just good, reflective practice…regardless of the inclusion of Wikipedia in my course materials.

Harvard Hebrew Literature and Philosophy Professor Shaye J.D. Cohen, in commenting on the need to be skeptical about Wikipedia, said:

“Wikipedia represents all that is great and all that is dangerous about
the Internet.  It is incredibly powerful and readily
available, and yet can mislead the unwary and spread disinformation.
One hopes that a good undergraduate education will enable students to
assess what they are reading.”

One hopes that, if we are doing our 21st century jobs correctly, a good secondary education will enable them to do so as well.

It seems as though Middlebury College isn’t the only one. I wonder if this is a sign of things to come, with more professors making it clear that they will not accept Wikipedia as a cited source.

It certainly appears to be a growing trend of bloggers and “journalists” opening with misleading headlines. The Cornell Daily Sun’s Ben Eisen writes of professors who will not allow Wikipedia to be cited. Yet even the profs agree that Wikipedia has its realm of usefulness.

Cornell history professor Aaron Sachs:
“I tell my students that Wikipedia is sometimes a decent option for a
getting a basic overview,” he said. “But even then it takes a lot of
practice to recognize when an entry might be more or less reliable.”

Eisen does quote students in his story, however, which gives a more well-rounded perspective:

“I will use Wikipedia if I need to look up an equation or if I want to
get background information before starting my research, but I wouldn’t
ever cite it in a paper,” said Michael Lazar.

The understanding of Wikipedia’s limitations seems to come from many arenas. “(E)ven Jimmy Wales, the site’s co-founder, says that neither Wikipedia —
nor any other encyclopedia — should be used as an academic source.” (from Eisen)

What about high schools? Those teachers who require research of any kinds have already encountered Wikipedia in the Works Cited page. Is it worth “taking a stand” and making a clear ban on citing it? I’m starting to think so, under one huge condition: that we, as educators, do a better job of explicitly teaching our students how to evaluate sources for reliability and validity.

I hear the voices now…”I’ve been doing that for years!” Yes, so have I. But web sources like Wikipedia are a brave new world that few of us teachers have sought to understand. If we are going to teach students how to be evaluators (or “editors” as Will Richardson calls them), then we must first understand how these new tools work and how they are different from the sources of even a year or two ago.

I’ve been quite interested in the latest flap over Wikipedia and the recent ban by the history faculty of Middlebury College in Vermont. At issue is the citing of the community-edited online encyclopedia in academic work.

This is a polarizing issue among educators, as are most technological innovations. Time is often the best judge of the worthiness or merit of any new technology, but what to do until that final judgement. Do I, as an English teacher, allow Wikipedia to be cited? Do we, as a high school staff, take a particular stance on the issue as well?

I appreciated a recent article in the Tufts Daily, “So long, truthiness: Middlebury bans Wikipedia in the classroom,” and the comments from a number of Tufts history professors. What I appreciated most is what appears to be a rather balanced and thoughtful view of the web tool.

“It’s a popular knowledge compilation that, as a scholar, would be
dangerous to rely on,” Malchow {history professor at Tufts} said. “However, as a first step – as you’re beginning some research or for basic knowledge that you’re not going to assume is necessarily accurate – it can be incredibly
convenient. I use it myself sometimes as a starting point.”

“I don’t deny that it’s a useful tool,” he said. “I just don’t think it’s a scholarly tool.”

I also agree with Associate Professor Gary Leupp as well:

“I think [a ban on Wikipedia] is irrational,” Leupp said. “It’s
important to inculcate a critical sense in students about any kind of
source.”According to Leupp, no source is truly credible. To him, choosing which information to believe is what learning is all about.

“Students have a tendency to read a book by one fallible human being, and then to say, ‘Well in the book they said …’ They – as if it were a
committee,” Leupp said. “Students often revere sources in a way, but
they are written by individuals.”

“Students should disagree with and doubt parts of anything they read,” he continued. “It’s all part of the critical reasoning faculties you want to develop in a history class.”

And an English class…and math…and science…and life. To me, it seems we are missing the point. Here is a real-world opportunity to teach our students how to question validity and reliability, and we are–in many cases–running from it by deciding to ban it outright. And we all know how well bans work, right?

Technorati Tags: wikipedia, critical_thinking