Random Thoughts

Woody has, again, written a post that got me thinking. He is talking about being proactive in our efforts to get kids interested in math, science, and engineering. He discusses a project at his school that was designed to address the issue but isn’t, in his view, really working. He says:

Bringing in an Engineer to talk to the students is not going to get them interested in becoming an engineer. Most of these students cannot see this in their future. It is not real to them.

His notion of what needs to be done is this:

I believe we need to change the methods of our teaching first. We need to give the students a way to express how they feel. We need to listen to them. We need to talk with them, and not at them. We need to present ourselves as learners also. We need to let them know that their voice is just as powerful as ours. We need a collection of voices to make learning more powerful to everyone. We need to invite schools to be more proactive instead of reactive. Until this changes, I don’t see the students changing.

I couldn’t agree with Woody more. Even though I teach adults, my program is set up the same way Woody’s is. We talk to the students. We decide what they need to learn. We do not really feel a need to give them a voice in anything that goes on.

I wonder what would happen if I were to throw the “curriculum” out the window and teach students, not some material that they may or may not need or want. I try to adapt what I do to make it more meaningful to them, but my students still have to take the same tests as everyone else. If I don’t cover the same material, they are at a real disadvantage. If I try to cover it in a different way, they may have a real understanding of the material but be unprepared to answer the fill-in-the-blank questions on the test.

I would love to teach in an environment that valued learners more. It would be messy, and it might be more difficult to prove to funders that learning had taken place. But I think, given time, we could develop a really excellent program that met students where they were and took them to where they wanted to go. That is a program I would be proud to be associated with.

I’ve been reading Woody’s blog, edumorphing, for a little while now. A little more than a month ago I wrote about his decision to eliminate worksheets from his classroom, and I have been reading him ever since.

He had a post the other day about change and our role in creating it. He said:

We love to make everything look like it’s alright, even though it’s not. I think its time that we start calling a spade a spade. Do something about it.

I commented there about my situation at work. And it got me thinking.

That same day I was talking with my husband about work, and he told me that I had to speak up more directly and more forcefully than I had. So I did. I don’t know how it went over. It isn’t always easy to tell. But at least I said what I felt.

We are having a meeting next week where all this will come up in front of everyone. It will be a real pivotal meeting for me. I don’t know how it will end up, but I cannot sit quietly, hating the way things are but unwilling to take a public stand.

I have to try to create positive change on an institutional level, not just a personal one. This is what Will was talking about a couple weeks ago and what I wrote about after reading his post. I am not sure, of course, how this will turn out, but I am ready to try.

I have written before about how it isn’t enough to use these exciting new tools to do the same things we have always done. So, I had to stop and think when I read Karen’s post about the EVO session she is doing this year: Research and Web 2.0. She makes what was for me, a very startling statement:

For starts, I got kind of hung up on the doing of things the same way…. that is… ok, let’s start with introductions.

And in her introduction she said

I’ve been thinking during this week about this course and wonder about the function of introductions in this setting and the best use of web tools for that.

What was startling? Well, I am a co-moderator of an EVO session called Social Media in English Language Teaching. And we began by asking out participants to introduce themselves. It never occurred to me, at least, that there might be an alternative. Actually, that isn’t exactly true. We also had Charles Cameron set up a HipBone game that was supposed to get us in different groupings for deeper conversation than the traditional intro. And that worked. But I would
never have thought not to have participants introduce themselves in a forum-type post. After all, that’s how I always begin my classes: We go around the room introducing ourselves to the group.

The question, then, becomes, “What else could we have done?” That’s what Karen is asking. Unfortunately, I don’t have any answers.

Is there a way to get people to know each other and to begin to develop a sense of community without introductions? Do we actually need to develop community from the beginning or could we allow it to develop over the course of the 6-week session? I don’t know. But I want to think about it.

Last night I was too tired to really comment on the the idea of a free software culture. But the idea is worth more than a few comments.

I have really noticed a change in myself since I started using Linux. Of course, I had been using OpenOffice for a long time before switching to Linux, so the changes had probably been occurring gradually over the space of a couple years. As Byfield’s article says,

A Do-it-yourself philosophy runs deep in almost every free software user. The longer they have been using it, the deeper it runs.

I know that I am constantly tinkering with my computer. I download new applications, try them out, switch to them or reject them as I see fit. I can use KDE programs and Gnome programs interchangeably; I am not locked into choosing one or the other. I use different applications for different purposes. I like that freedom to make my computer mine.

I constantly turn to forums for answers. And it doesn’t end with forums about my particular software. I look on forums for answers to everything. I know that I can go out and get the answers to almost any question from someone who has actually had the same problem I am having. And if I don’t understand the answer, I can ask for clarification. When I do that on a software forum, I have to be prepared to provide information about my own system. I have to go t the command line and get that information. But if I do my part, I can get the answers I need. And it doesn’t cost me a penny.

All of this, though, makes me think about the importance of free software in education. This culture, it seems to me, should be the goal of education: individuals who can explore, investigate, ask questions, learn, share their knowledge, and apply what they learn to their own situation and to the situations of others. It is a mind-set that I think schools should want to encourage.

So why is it so hard to get schools and teachers themselves to change?

Thanks to LXer, I found a great post by Bruce Byfield, 9 Characteristics of Free Software Users. I found it to be a very interesting list. And a pretty accurate one. Among the 9 are:

3) Free software users expect to work the way they choose

Switching from Windows to GNU/Linux, the first thing that users are likely to notice is how many customization options are available …

These options are a direct result of the sense of control that free software encourages in its users. Not only do they expect to use menus, toolbars or keyboard shortcuts as their preference dictates, but they expect to control the color, widgets and even placement of desktop features easily and efficiently.

and

6) Free software users expect to help themselves

Free software users … are far less likely than proprietary users to expect formal technical support. Instead, what they expect are the means to help themselves …. A Do-it-yourself philosophy runs deep in almost every free software user. The longer they have been using it, the deeper it runs.

The whole post is great, but what actually struck me most was his introduction, in which he talks about helping family and friends with their Windows machines. He said:

…I was able to solve problems that baffled the others — not because of any technical brilliance, but because the free software culture in which I spend my days made me better able to cope.

I believe what he is saying is true. I also think it extends far beyond the questions of computers and software. But that is another topic for another day perhaps.

I said a while back that I wanted to focus on adult education in this blog, and I have attempted to do so — without a lot of success. But I started reading adult ed blogs at least. A post on Technology for the Adult Education Instructor today caught my attention today. What it says is applicable to all levels of education, I think, but it is definitely true of adult ed.

Of course, schools have evolved. But has staff evolved as well? To some extent, yes, but is it enough? From the iPhone to Wi-fi to the Wii, technology is part of daily life for students. Yes, there are pockets of educators creating innovative 2.0 interactive Websites and Podcasts, but it is hardly a universal phenomena. The average instructor is satisfied with accessing 20th century technology. Many have changed (usually reluctantly) to LCD projectors and PowerPoint presentations but I am sure that in most every school there are still those using the overheads with abandon….

A lot of people have been saying this: that the problem is the current staff/ employees, not the difficulty in transitioning to whatever the new thing is. And I agree. It is the reluctance of teachers to change and our inability to envision a new way of teaching that slows us down. The technology is out there waiting for us.

And yet, I think about my own situation at the moment. I would willingly teach with all kinds of technology if my students had access to it. I would happily use the most modern and up-to-date gadgets if I had access to them during class. But I don’t. So what do I do? How can I exploit technology if I have only a chalkboard?

There are still ways to include technology in my teaching. My students, unfortunately, do not get to participate in it, but they can benefit from it anyway. At the very least, I can avail myself of the wealth of information that is out there and inform my teaching accordingly. I can provide my students who have Internet access with web addresses of sites that might help them with their study of English.

Something else that I can do, and something that intrigues me more than these other options, is to try find low-tech ways to enhance my students’ learning. What I am looking for are ways to encourage student investment in learning, connection both with the topic and with each other, and deep thinking. One tool that immediately comes to mind are HipBone games. There are others.

I think, then, that it all comes back to the teachers. Are we willing to change? I don’t think that technology will save us if we are unwilling to examine our own classroom practice and its suitability for our situation and our students. I think that there are times and places where overhead projectors are just fine — better than LCD projectors even. And I can use PowerPoint all day long, but it won’t help if the lesson I am teaching with it isn’t relevant to my students and their lives. It isn’t the tool as much as what we do with it that matters.

I believe that we, as teachers, are at the heart of education. We shape what happens in our classrooms by our action or inaction, by our creativity or lack of it. And that is where I see technology as critical. We can get our encouragement and our ideas from what others are doing. Technology gives us access to classroom practice in hundreds, if not thousands, of classrooms around the world. It gives us access to teachers who may be more creative than we are or who, at least, are ahead of us in learning about some of the options that exist. No other form of professional development is as personal and as universal at the same time.

The tools are out there. The knowledge exists. What remains to be seen is what we do with them.

Another interesting post from Edward Cherlin on the OLPC News. This one is about education. He says:

The problem that we face is that almost every education system in the world was created by a colonial power, not to encourage innovation and problem-solving, but to keep the population in order while their country was pillaged.

Now, I don’t want to get involved in a discussion of the political elements of this claim, but I do want to discuss the state of education today.

It seems obvious that our schools do not “encourage innovation and problem-solving”. This situation does not seem to be improving. And it is not just K-12 education.

If there is a chance of changing that situation, it comes from the free access to information. And that is where the OLPC project comes in. Students can have access to information much more easily when they have access to the Internet. Children are naturally curious and, given the chance, will follow that curiosity and will learn.

All too often we kill that curiosity in school. We force kids into move lock-step through material that may or may not be interesting to them. I do not understand why this has to be. Why do all students in a class have to do the same thing in the same way at the same time?

There are examples of teachers doing things differently, or starting to anyway. I think of Clarence Fisher’s work,like his students’ Outsiders wiki . I think of Eric Langhorst’s The Guerrilla Season project. And then, of course, there is Barbara Ganley’s blogging and her work with her students. She sets the bar, as far as I can see.

Computers don’t and won’t automatically change education. It will take teachers who are able to open up the world to their students through using them to make a real difference.

Stephen Downes has a great post about morality — not your usual blog post topic maybe, but a really wonderful post nonetheless. He points out how our morality is shifting/has shifted and says that kids are the first ones to notice this. He says:

I think you may also want to examine how publishers and their supporters are changing (or trying to change) the concept of ‘morality’.

and goes on to describe some “shifts” in terms of “the doctrine of first sale”, “fair use”, and “sharing”, among others. He concludes by saying:

Children do not have some fundamentally different morality. Rather, they see – while adults, for some reason, are blind – that the game is shifting, that some very self-centered and greedy people are trying to change the rules. The children – who have no stake in this sudden ‘ownership society’ – are not fooled. We shouldn’t be either.

It’s a very thought-provoking post. If you are one of 2 people who read this blog and don’t read Half an Hour, please correct that situation and read this post.

Miguel’s post rings true:

…In K-12 education, I often hear that Linux just isn’t ready…but everyone–except the leadership–knows the truth. The truth is that it’s not ready to be supported by the staff you have on hand. So, rather than require people to learn a new operating system and make the switch, you’re stuck with an expensive, proprietary system.

Human beings, most of us anyway, don’t like change. It is hard to give up the known for the unknown. We only do it when we are forced to.

My son-in-law, for instance, is very happy running PCLinux on his laptop. But he would never had done it had his computer not crashed. And when he gets a new hard drive, I don’t know what OS he will put on it. He says he would be happy to keep PCLinux, but the pull to the familiar will be very strong, I am sure.

My daughter is resisting getting comfortable with Knoppix, which is OK since we wouldn’t be installing it on her machine anyway. But I hope that being forced to use it (or Ubuntu on my other machine) until they decide what to do with her machine will give her enough of a taste for it that she would consider Linux as an option.

My daughter’s problem, actually, isn’t an aversion to Linux as much as a commitment to certain Microsoft products (like Money) and Windows/Mac-centric sites like ITunes. I am sure she will end up back on Windows for those reasons.

But enough about me and mine. What about you? Are you ready for Linux? I guarantee there is a variety of Linux out there that would be just perfect for you!

Darren had an interesting post about “Empowering K-12 Students Online” that you should check out. It is actually his notes from a talk by Jeff Catania, another Canadian educator. He looks at school mission statments and says, among other things:

Clearly, educational institutions (likely including your own) have made it their mission to prepare students for a changing world—but do they actually do it? Even with significant reform efforts, K-12 curricula have not changed dramatically since the 19th century.

He then poses the question:

Which of the following do you think best prepares our children to succeed in a changing global environment?• Express y = ax2 + bx + c in the form y = a(x – h)2 + k by completing the square.
• Describe the stages of mitosis – prophase, metaphase, anaphase, and telophase.
• Recognize and use passé composé of verbs conjugated with être.
• Identify by characteristics the major rock types (for example, igneous, sedimentary, metamorphic).

- or

• Handle and compose email.
• Participate in conferences and bulletin boards.
• Navigate and create electronic content in a variety of forms (for example, web sites).
• Use instant messaging.

Obviously, the first set of tasks is much more common in schools than the second set.

At first reading, I thought that this was a really good question. But then I wasn’t so sure. In the second set of tasks, there are only tasks. We don’t know anything about content. I wonder if email and instant messaging really prepare our students “to succeed in a changing global environment”. I would argue that, without some serious thought to the content of those messages and emails, they may not be much more helpful than completing the square.

I think that we need to show our young people how to use these tools in increasingly sophisticated ways. Somewhere I think the question of thinking and evaluating and analyzing have to enter into it. I think we need to be showing students how to interact in a meaningful way with each other and with the online world as a whole.

I guess what it comes down to for me is that we need to be doing a lot more for our students than we are. Technology is a necessary component of what we need to be doing, but I am not sure that technology in and of itself is going to fix anything.

In fairness to Jeff and to Darren, I should make it clear that I don’t think either of them believes that technology in and of itself will solve all our problems. I just think that this was the tack that Jeff, as an eLearning Instructional Coordinator, took in the presentation. The discussion that I am envisioning is an offshoot of that tack.

I guess, for me, this is the other side of the coin. I have been thinking for awhile about the need to avoid doing the same old things with the new technology. Darren’s post made me think about how we have to use the technology to do meaningful things, not just new things.

It’s an interesting post. Check it out.