Thursday, February 26, 2009

What does it mean to “create” or “be creative”? (How are my thoughts changing?)

Bloom's digital taxonomy map

Given that the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy now places “creating” at the top of higher order thinking skills, perhaps it is important that we strive to build a common understanding as to what that means. I appreciate what Andrew Churches has done in giving concrete examples how "creating" can happen in the digital world:
  • Programming – Whether it is creating their own applications, programming macros or developing games or multimedia applications within structured environments, students are routinely creating their own programs to suit their needs and goals.
  • Filming, animating, videocasting, podcasting, mixing and remixing – these relate to the increasing availability of multimedia and multimedia editing tools. Students frequently capture, create, mix and remix content to produce unique products.
  • Directing and producing – to directing or producing a product, performance or production is a highly creative process. It requires the student to have vision, understand the components and meld these into a coherent product.
  • Publishing – whether via the web or from home computers, publishing in text, media or digital formats is increasing. Again this requires a huge overview of not only the content being published, but the process and product. Related to this concept are also Video blogging – the production of video blogs, blogging and also wiki-ing - creating, adding to and modify content in wikis. Creating or building Mash ups would also fit here

Are all creations equal?

It is obvious from the above definitions that creating in the digital world can take many forms and be done with innumerable tools, all of which are applicable in the educational arena. However, I wonder how we, as educators, facilitate performances of understanding where students are required to “create” while getting the biggest impact on learning regardless of the tool or medium?

David Perkins in Making Learning Whole cites two “creative” approaches to biology teaching ideas he’s observed: “dancing mitosis (students designed a dance to play out the steps of mitosis) and designing a fish (students were asked to design a fish to fit within some aquatic ecology. The students had to devise distinctive and reasonable adaptations of the fish that gave it its own ecological niche, profile the lifestyle and adaptive advantages of the creature, and also position it taxonomically.)"

As Perkins notes, both performances of understanding required students to create and be creative (and employed many of the tools and/or media mentioned above). However, which creative endeavor was simultaneously building conceptual understanding? I concur with Perkins that as educators we need to ask for creations that build understanding that aligns with the purpose of the learning and requires thinking within that discipline.

So are all creations creative?

I was first introduced to Sir Ken Robinson
a couple of years ago when a friend shared this highly entertaining Ted Talk:



I was thrilled to learn that Robinson recently published a book, The Element, where he delves into creativity or being “in the element--the point between natural aptitude and personal passion.” I agree with him whole-heartedly that we need to be more in tune with children’s passions, to encourage and help them nourish those passions rather than suppress th
em. I also agree that we don’t always see certain natural aptitudes as positive because they don’t fit the “box” of learning we often create in schools. I haven’t yet finished the book, but I’m wondering how we balance the desire to facilitate finding “the element” and nourishing the vital critical thinking skills in all our students? I’m also wondering whether I know where my “element” is and/or if I have the courage to find it?

Reflection on Here Comes Everybody


In what ways is the Web 2.0 impacting our lives and our society?

If you’re like me and you enjoy thinking about “the big picture” and are constantly wondering about the implications of the current “social revolution”, then I strongly encourage you to read Clay Shirky’s book, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations (Penguin, 2008). As the flap states, “Clay Shirky, one of the new culture’s wisest observers, gives us his lucid and penetrating analysis.” I have only read the first four chapters and I concur because Shirky helps the reader place the current “revolution” in the context of human evolution, comparing it to other such key “revolutionary” eras in order to generalize and draw conclusions. This book is a level of big picture thinking analysis that I haven’t found thus far in reading about the impact the Web 2.0 will have on our lives and our society. I have selected a few quotes with my accompanying “wonderings.”

CHAOS

“Because social effects lag behind technological ones by decades, real revolutions don’t involve an orderly transition from point A to point B. Rather, they go from A through a long period of chaos and only then reach B. In that chaotic period, the old systems get broken long before new ones become stable. In the late 1400s scribes existed side by side with publishers but no longer performed an irreplaceable service.” It seems to me we are in that period of chaos where old systems are starting to break down or dissolve. Where are we in this period of chaos? Some of these systems seem obvious, such as publishers and schools. What other systems are breaking down and what are we doing to help reach point B?

CHANGE

“Most organizations believe they have much more freedom of action and much more ability to shape their future than they actually do, and evidence that the ecosystem is changing in ways they can’t control usually creates considerable anxiety, even if the change is good for society as a whole.” There is a tangible anxiety in the world of education right now. For those of us who enjoy and welcome change, what are we doing to diminish the anxiety of others?

COMMUNICATION

“Saying something to a few people we know used to be quite distinct from saying something to many people we don’t know. The distinction between communications and broadcast media was always a function of technology rather than a deep truth about human nature. Prior to the internet, when we talked about media, we were talking about two different things: broadcast media and communications media . . . The distinction between broadcast and communications, which is to say between one-to-many and one-to-one tools, used to be so clear that we could distinguish between a personal and impersonal message just by the type of medium used. Someone writing you a letter might say “I love you,” and someone on TV might say “I love you,” but you would have no trouble understanding which of those messages was addressed to you . . . much of what gets posted on any given day is in public but not for the public.” Are the digital natives clear about who their audience is and the degree to which they are being “public”? What are we doing as educators to help them clarify their intent and audience?

CHALLENGES

“Now we know that the Web is not a perfect antidote to the problems of mass media, because some of those problems are human and are not amenable to technological fixes.” Isn’t critical thinking still the ultimate goal of education?

“The limiting effect of scale on interaction is bad news for people hoping for the dawning of an egalitarian age ushered in by our social tools.” To what extent has Web 2.0 truly flattened the world?

If you'd rather, you can listen to Shirky speak about these challenges in this video:

Blogging Blues

http://www.flickr.com/photos/freeblogbuttons/2310806501/

To blog or not to blog

Having been “wary” of blogging for a long time, I think I am finally gaining some clarity about the reason for my hesitance—there seems to be no clear purpose for many bloggers. Without teachers and students establishing clarity of purpose, the term blog in the 2.0 world risks becoming synonymous with the traditional “free writing” or “report.” Such writing tasks have long been the bane of students’ and teachers’ lives. Why? Such writings were either regurgitation with no original ideas or streams of consciousness with no organization, original voice, or clarity of thought.

What is a red flag that 21st century “blog” risks replacing the 20th century “report” as an overused, undefined catch all for getting kids to write? As one colleague mentioned recently, when you bring up “blogs” or “blogging”, the kids groan. Much like the traditional “report,” are teachers now over-using this writing vehicle with no clear purpose all in the name of tech integration?

So what exactly is a blog?

In his book, (Corwin Press, 2006), Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful WebTools for Classrooms, Will Richardson offers me some much welcomed clarity:

“If we take a look at the spectrum of different types of Weblog posts, we can start to see where posting ends and blogging as an academic exercise begins:
1. Posting assignments. (Not blogging)
2. Journaling, . . . (Not blogging)
3. Posting links. (Not blogging)
4. Links with descriptive annotation, i.e., “This site is about . . .” (Not really blogging either, but getting close depending on the depth of the description)
5. Links with analysis that gets into the meaning of the content being linked. (A simple form of blogging)
6. Reflective, metacognitive writing on practice without links. (Complex writing, but simple blogging, I think. Commenting would probably fall in here somewhere.)
7. Links with analysis and synthesis that articulate a deeper understanding or relationship to the content being linked and written with potential audience response in mind. (Real blogging)
8. Extended analysis and synthesis over a longer period of time that builds on previous posts, links, and comments. (Complex blogging)"

Richardson then goes on to give concrete ideas to educators of how to scaffold blogging for different ages.

A Call to Educators

Let’s help stem the information overload and help students become effective, motivated thinkers by establishing clarity of purpose if and when blogs are used within an educational setting. Would this not be more likely lead to an authentic, empowering, and collaborative audience for students?

As teachers, let’s follow the pedagogically grounded 2.0 teacher, Clarence Fisher, when he says that blogging in the classroom is to express informed opinions once you’ve built some understanding around a particular topic (paraphrased from a guest presentation to our first course in a certificate of Information Literacy and educational technology course at the International School Bangkok.) I suspect that is why he feels he’s now having more success than his earlier blog forays.

Therefore, could we agree not to assign “blogs” without guidance as to the expectations (i.e. original opinions) and clarity of purpose (i.e. reflect and grow new ideas) so that your students’ blogs don’t simply become a hoop-jumping activity. Can we also agree to assess students on the quality and originality of their thinking rather than the number of blog posts or amount of regurgitation?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/barnett/2836828090/

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Project Sketch: Subject Area Resource and Collaborative Space

Given my position as ES Curriculum Coordinator, I want my project to be something that is useful to myself and the teachers whom I support. Therefore, I propose the following:

What? Subject Area Resource and Collaborative Space
This would include, as a start, the following:
1. PreK-12 Area philosophy, common agreements (temporary fixed position), common assessments
2. PreK-5 curriculum maps per area (for new teachers and for everyone to see the scope and sequence)
3. units of study (collaboratively updated--a click from the curriculum map)
4. collaborative collection of related resources (i.e. video clips of components of the reading workshop)
5. Area for collaborative reflection and discussion

Where? Either an add on to the ISB ES Wiki or Panthernet or BOTH (I'm talking with a number of teachers about which would be the best route to take. It will probably begin one way and then evolve based on use.)

Why? We want a centrally local, web-based resource that gives the "big picture" of each of the subject areas and encourages collaboration, both horizontally and vertically throughout the school

ISTE Standards

Given I work with teachers, the NETS Standards and Performance Indicators would be for Teachers rather than for students. From what I'm thinking, the NETS•T addressed would be:

Model Digital-Age Work and Learning: Teachers exhibit knowledge, skills, and work processes representative of an innovative professional in a global and digital society.
Teachers:
a. demonstrate fluency in technology systems and the transfer of current knowledge to new technologies and situations
b. collaborate with peers using digital tools and resources to support student success and innovation
d. model and facilitate effective use of current and emerging ditial tools to locate, analyze, evaluate and use information resources to support research and learning

Engage in Professional Growth and Leadership: Teachers continuously improve their professional practice, model lifelong learning, and exhibit leadership in their school and professional community by promoting and demonstrating the effective use of digital tools and resources.
Teachers:
c. evaluate and reflect on current research and professional practice on a regular basis to make effective use of existing and emerging digital tools and resources in support of student learning
d. contribute to the effectiveness, vitality, and self-renewal of the teaching profession and of their school and community

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Reflection on Making Learning Whole


David Perkins

My first introduction to David Perkins came four or five years ago in two very disparate settings. The first was hearing him speak at a Visible Thinking conference at an International School in Amsterdam. Immediately I was amazed at his ability to think deeply and respond in such a clear and concise manner—all spontaneously as he responded to questions. Secondly, I came across his writings on peace education when working on a related curricular project. How couldn’t I become enamored with someone who . . .
• thinks and communicates so concisely and with such clarity,
• is passionate about learning, thinking, and peace in our world, and
• has remained so amazingly humble and human?

Yes, David Perkins is one of my intellectual heroes! So, I was thrilled that a friend recently gave me his latest book, Making Learning Whole: How Seven Principles of Teaching can Transform Education. I’ve just read the first few chapters, but would like to connect his thinking to the challenges educators face in thinking about learners and learning in the 21st century.

Perkins’ “Seven Principles of Learning by Wholes
1. Play the whole game.
2. Make the game worth playing.
3. Work on the hard parts.
4. Play out of town.
5. Uncover the hidden game.
6. Learn from the team . . . and the other teams.
7. Learn the game of learning.

The Power of a Metaphor

Thinking in metaphors helps us all wrestle with and understand complex concepts. As educators, we realize that learning and facilitating learning is extremely complex, so I appreciate how Perkins used the metaphor of baseball for framing his seven principles. Having only read the first chapter, which is an overview of the seven principles, I am wondering about these principles in the context of students and information literacy (a) and teachers as learners and facilitators of information literacy (b).

1. Play the whole game. (Understand the “big picture” so you know how the smaller parts you’re working on fit—i.e. knowing about a real baseball game)
a. How can we tap into the educational gaming world to access some virtual, authentic “whole games” to which students wouldn’t otherwise have access? b. Do the NETS standards frame the “whole game” of information literacy? How do we build our familiarity of this “whole game”? (i.e. Just because baseball exists, not all people have a clear understanding of that whole game.)

2. Make the game worth playing. (Learners are clear about why and how the learning is meaningful and connected to the real world—i.e. knowing why it might be worthwhile to learn to play baseball)
a. Are we always making it clear why the information literacy game is worth playing to our students? Why do I hear teachers talk about students groaning when they’ve been assigned to “blog”?
b. We’re educators functioning in very different contexts. Have we taken the time to make sure each of us, from our unique perspective, sees the worth of playing the game (i.e. blogging) in this course?

3. Work on the hard parts. (Bring to light misconceptions, biases, and then reflect critically, and strategically target parts for special attention—i.e. batting practice or fielding grounders)
a. Are we helping students’ identify “hard parts”(i.e. critical thinking about resources) of informational literacy or are we simply wowed by these digital natives’ apparent fluency and comfort level? b. Are teachers being supported to become aware of the “hard parts” of information literacy so that they spend time tackling that aspect of integrating technology?

4. Play out of town. (Apply understanding flexibly and wisely in novel and puzzling contexts—i.e. playing on a field where the sun hits you in the eyes and the infield is uneven.)
a. How often are we gauging students’ performances in such varied and novel contexts? b. How might we have more opportunities to hone our information literacy skills and understanding repeatedly and in novel contexts?

5. Uncover the hidden game. (Deep learning involves layers, underlying principles and concepts that need to be addressed—i.e. statistical and strategic aspects of a baseball game)
a. Are we aware enough of the hidden game of the connected 21st century to help our students discover it rather than just be skating on the surface? b. To what extent and in what ways are we uncovering the hidden game of this connected world or of information literacy in this course?

6. Learn from the team . . . and the other teams. (Social constructivism—we learn a great deal from being on a baseball team and from how other teams behave and interact.)
a. To what extent are the digital natives more deeply and intrinsically collective, and socially constructing deep understanding than the non-natives? b. To what extent are we socially constructing our understanding to a deeper level or more effectively than if this were learning in a wholly f2f course?

7. Learn the game of learning. (Being metacognitive so we can become more effective and efficient in the game of learning—i.e. how my learning in baseball can improve my efficiency in learning other games)
a. In what ways are we supporting students’ metacognition about how they’re learning as digital natives so they can more effectively and efficiently learn in non-digital situations? b. As experienced learners, to what extent and in what ways are we applying what we know about how we best learn to our learning in this course?

So far in this great read there is nothing new regarding learning theories, but Perkins has created a metaphorical framework solidly grounded in these theories to address what we so often suffer from in education: elementitis (tackling elements in the absence of a whole) and aboutitis (learning about something rather than learning to do something—i.e. reading about science rather than doing it.) I’m looking forward to digging into each of the seven principles and thinking about them in relation to information literacy.

Friday, February 20, 2009

How do we address truth and bias in the classroom?


Chris Betcher's Five Lenses for Critically Evaluating Sources


I greatly enjoyed listening to Chris Betcher, an educator from Sydey Australia, when he talked about evaluating sources, as he seems well grounded in learning and the realities of the classroom. I honestly didn’t find his ideas new as we’ve been working with kids on that type of critical literacy for many years. However, I loved a couple of his examples and the video to launch the discussion with kids.

I think we need to continue to work with our students on critically evaluating sources through the five lenses (or factors) that Chris talked about: Authority - Currency - Content/Purpose - Audience - Structure/Workability. However, I believe it is vital that we go further with critical thinking.

Critical Thinking for "The New World of Work

Tony Wagner interviewed many corporate leaders from the high-tech world for his book The Global Achievement Gap. He identifies Critical Thinking and Problem Solving as the first of his seven survival skills for the “New World of Work.” When he interviewed Annmarie Neal, vice president for Talent Management at Cisco Systems—she defined critical thinking as “Taking issues and situations and problems and going to root components; understanding how the problem evolved—looking from a systemic perspective and not accepting things at face value.”

So, let’s try this out on one of the articles we were asked to read “Engage Me or Enrage Me: What Today’s Learner’s Demand" by Marc Prensky. I agree with many of my colleague’s critique of this article regarding the over generalizing and lack of hard data to support his assertions. Right away one can assume his bias given his role as CEO of Games2train.

Let's Try it Out!
Let’s try to apply Ms Neal’s critical thinking to his article. First of all, what is the issue he raises? Engagement as a key component for learning! This has always and will continue to be an issue in learning as most learning theory data supports that engagement is a key factor in constructing depth of understanding. Therefore, as critical thinkers, we would need to look at the root components that have helped or hindered engagement in learning throughout time. Then we could look at where and why there have been successes in increased engagement for learning and how we can adapt those key factors to our current context.

Secondly, rather than accept Mr Prensky’s unsupported claims at face value, we’d have to question him. For example to use the phrase “back then” is simplistic to say the least. When exactly is he referring to? In which context? What about the judgmental statement such as “kids lives were a lot less rich”—according to whom, according to which criteria? Or “Many if not most of them never even knew what real engagement feels like” So, you (and gaming) have the corner on engagement? No one throughout history has experienced passionate engagement? Have you never read about impassioned learning ever taking place before in time, Mr. Prensky? On what evidence are you basing your opinions?

Therefore, I invite all of us (including Mr. Prensky) to dig more deeply into the issue of engagement and its powerful role in learning using our critical thinking skills of analysis (of root components) and questioning (of simplistic and unsupported assertions.)

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Connection Lost

From Spring Globe's photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mieke/1632453542/)
I’m starting to think I’m losing my mind, or perhaps as Nicholas Carr states in “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” I’m simply finding the “deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.” (More on that later.) The point is, George Siemens “new theory” espoused in “Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age” does NOT make sense to me. First of all, I agree with Martin who read the article and said, “So what? What’s new here?” especially regarding Siemen's list of “some significant trends in learning” on the first page. I would love to question and refute much of the assertions in this article. However, given some research I was just reading on how much time and attention people will actually give to reading blogs or online commentaries, I want to immediately focus my attention on the list he gives entitled “Principles of connectivism” and my related questions:
  • Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions. What’s new? Wasn’t that how Socrates was trying to continually push his own understanding—through the views and “understanding” of others?
  • Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources. What do you mean by nodes? Can understanding happen if they simply connect sources and not actually “make sense” of these connections?
  • Learning may reside in non-human appliances. What learning do you value?
  • Capacity to know more is more critical than what is known. Isn’t it more critical to know which questions to ask and to think about what you do and don’t know than mere capacity? (Suggested reading: The Global Achievement Gap by Tony Wagner)
  • Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning. How is this different from social constructivism or systems thinking in learning organizations?
  • Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill. Most definitely! Isn’t this is key component of constructivist theory?
  • Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities. So gaining knowledge (the lowest level of learning) is the main thrust of this theory?
  • Decision-making is itself a learning process . . . staying open to new learning, adapting thinking. And what is new about this? Hasn't this always been so?
Please accept my apologies if my ignorance or Googlized brain is at fault here. I’m looking for clarity and would love to hear from you all regarding your take on this “new theory” of learning.
Endless Connection (http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnson-in-cyberspace/3045991719/)