Disrupting Class – An ineffective solution to a big problem?

The authors of Disrupting Class:  How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns argue that the current paradigm of education is broken, and though I agree with their diagnosis of the problem, I do not agree with the prescribed treatment.

The Problem: Since students learn differently and at different paces, learning experiences should be customized.  Part of the reasoning is that if instruction was student-centric and customized, learners would be more motivated.

With this much, I couldn’t agree more.  I believe that education is stuck in a tradition that is not effective, not interesting, and not related to the needs of our current society.

The Solution: The book suggests that computer-based software is the key to provide customization.  The idea is that software could be modular, meaning that it could be inserted at any point as needed.

The author provides several moving examples of how students learn using different modalities:  the young lady who learns to spell by dancing the alphabet, at the teachers suggestion, and a young man whose father helps him understand physics using realia.  Both of these adjustments in learning style were made by an adult who understood the child.  Now how would this work using modular software?  Suppose there was a software for teaching X.  Would that software offer eight different methods of teaching X?  That would mean that for each module you would need to develop eight versions.  Does this seem practical?  Is this what the authors mean?  It is hard to say because despite these moving examples, the authors do not address how software will address these learning differences, which was the whole point – to provide this level of customization.

Now clearly there are things that need to change.  The sage on the stage is the classic embodiment of the monolithic instruction that the authors deride.  This cannot continue.  But at this point in the book I am pondering alternative ways of crafting a solution.  Here are my thoughts so far:

1. Our current system of education is commonly referred to as industrial.  It fit the needs of the factory by conditioning students to repetition and following directions.  It seems to me that any new model should not make the factory model high-tech by plugging students into computer software.  The world uses computers in much more sophisticated ways than that.  Our new model should be based on the current needs of the workplace – creativity, innovation, media literacy, etc.
2. Perhaps another shift in education should be from outlining what teachers have to teach to what students need to learn.  This may seem like one and the same but our current school system does not truly hold students accountable to learning.  Grades are often based on completion, participation, effort, etc. and are rarely a measure of how much a student has learned.

I must admit that I am currently only about one-third of the way through this book, so perhaps my mind will be changed.

QR codes in the classroom – how could we use them?

At CUE 2008, I heard Hal Davidson talk about how cell phones might be used in education.  One of the examples that was most interesting to me was the idea of using QR codes that can be read by student cellphones.

QR codes are two-dimensional bar codes that can encode information that can be read at a high speed.  To the right is a QR code that would tell you the URL of my blog if you were to read it, made at a QR code generator.  Below is a video demonstration of how QR codes can be used with a cell phone.

So how can these be used for educational purposes.  Cool Cat Teacher, Vicki Davis, sees them as a link between the physical and virtual world.  They can contain URLs, text, phone numbers etc.  She sees the potential for a rich web of learning created by integrating QR codes into museums, GPS, and creating QR code scavenger hunts.

I agree with her that the possibilities for their use in education are incredible, especially since smart phones may be our best bet for giving students a one-to-one web enabled device.  What I am having a harder time envisioning is how they will be used.  For things like scavenger hunts or providing multimedia information about items in a museum or library, with the scan of your phone, I can see the power.  I would love to go to a museum where instead of the static paragraph or two of text next to an artifact there is a QR code that will pull up an audio or video file that tells me about the piece.

But if I am wanting to give students web links wouldn’t it be easier to simply provide direct links from a webpage?  I think it is mainly when the idea is to instantly transfer a link or file to a handheld device that the QR codes have their strength.  If districts are able to manage one-to-one computing, what will be the power?  Why would I, as a teacher, generate QR codes?  Why would my students?

Hal Davidson gave the example of using QR codes to encode a homework assignment.  As students leave the classroom, they would scan the code and get the homework without writing anything down.  This seemed super cool, but then I thought, what if a kid forgot to scan?  The access to the homework was a hardlink to a physical QR code in the classroom.  For a student who was absent or forgot to scan to have access, the teacher would have to also post the information online.  If that’s the case, then the QR code seems like too much work.  Why not just post it online, and ask the students to check the website for the homework.

I’m definitely not saying that QR codes aren’t cool and won’t be useful in education.  My problem is that except for a few examples, I am having a hard time picturing it.

The Importance of the Teacher in Transforming Education

The video, A Nation in Crisis: America[s Education System is Broken makes the argument that education is failing our youth, which I don't think many people would disagree with.  With increased globalization, our students need to be able to compete not just with their neighbors but with people they've never met in countries across the world.  "We are squandering a national resource," the brains and talent of our youth, with an educational system that is entrenched in tradition that is unable to adapt to the new realities of the 21st century.  The new global workforce needs to develop 21st century skills and be able to adapt and learn continuously, and our schools are simply not developing these abilities in students.

The video provides a powerful motivation for change, but does not outline a solution.  What will education that inspires students and develops the ability to change and shift look like?  What will the role of the teacher be in this new paradigm?  What is it that we need to do differently?

In a previous post, I present a worry I have about one view of the teacher role in any new paradigm.  Some people who adhere to the Plugged in Vision (PIV) for educational reform (hopefully a minority) believe that the teacher should facilitate education in a very narrow sense.  They see the teacher as simply a coordinator of the students’ experience with pre-made online curriculum.  On this model, software is selected for each subject and students work through the software at their own pace with the teacher monitoring and assisting as needed.  In my previous post I presented some of my concerns with this model.  But in regard to the teacher role, I believe this model represents a very impoverished view of the teacher role.  Teachers would not teach; they would manage.  A view of the teacher that I much prefer is presented in the video Networked Student.

In this video the teacher is vital to the learning in an environment where connections are what is important.  On this model, students learn from each other and by those outside of the classroom that are grappling with the same issues.  They evaluate and share resources, discuss both in web environments and in person.  They work together to construct meaning through connectivism.  As a final product they present their learning in wikis or other media so that their learning is shared with others.

In this much more robust vision of 21st century learner, the teacher is:

• Learning concierge
• Modeler
• Learning architect
• Connected learning incubator
• Network sherpa
• Change agent
• Synthesizer

His/her role is critical in guiding student learning.  To be proficient in this new role, teachers will need to be highly skilled in content, in web 2.0 technology, and in facilitating cooperation, discussion, and interaction.

The only question is whether the vision of 21st century learning outlined by the Networked Student video will resolve the problems presented in the A Nation in Crisis: America[s Education System is Broken.

Innovation in Education & TPACK

What is innovation?  It’s not just about change, and I don’t think it’s just about things being better.  I think innovation is a new idea or invention that makes us wonder how we ever did things before.  It can’t be just that it is better.  It has to be soooo much better that we can’t imagine a world without that invention anymore.   For example, Windows Vista might be better than Windows XP Professional…ok, just kidding.  Bad example.  For example take 2, the Leopard OS may be better than Tiger, but the difference isn’t so great that we think, “Dang, I don’t know how I managed with 10.4!” Leopard is not an innovation even though it’s better.

But some ideas and inventions are, in fact, innovations and are such that you think, “Wow, how did I ever manage?”  Take Internet search engines and all of the ever-growing content on the web.  Who did we ask pre-Google?  What did we do when we needed to figure out how to get somewhere before mapquest and Google maps?  Having vast amounts of information stored on the web in such a way that anyone with a computer and connection can query this massive database is radical and has made our life so much easier/more fair/etc.

from Open Learning at BYU

Now in education there is always change.  Every year there is a new curriculum or a new strategy that we try only to abandon it next year or a few years down the line in exchange for another “New” idea.  There are very few ideas or strategies that can truly be called innovation.  One recent idea, in my humble opinion, is a true innovation, and it has to do with teacher knowledge and how we develop that knowledge in teachers.

TPACK, or Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (if you prefer the mouthful version), is just that innovation just as it’s predecessor PCK, or Pedagogical Content Knowledge, was before it.

If you don’t know the story of TPACK, here’s a quick synopsis.  It used to be that when teachers learned how to teach they would take their content classes and then take general pedagogical classes, and they were separate.  Then this guy named Shulmann came along in the ’80s and proposed PCK.  His point was something like this:

Sure teachers need to know how to teach in a general sort of way, but if they teach science, then there are particular pedagogical concerns that are different than if you teach math.  The way you learn how to solve quadratic equations may be different than understanding ecosystems, and most likely the way you teach it is different too.

Out of this idea methods classes were born in teacher education classes.

Ever since personal computers and internet access has become a dominant force in our culture and in teaching, technology classes have been a part of teacher education programs as well.  However, they are generally separate in the way that content and pedagogy were taught separately pre-Shulmann.

TPCK from tpack.org

Recently Punya Mishra and Matthew Koehler have preposed that Technology should not be taught in isolation in teacher education because the way that you use technology will be particular to your content and your pedagogical focus.  When taught in isolation, technology generally focuses on the skills of using technology.  For example, a teacher will go to a workshop and learn how to use PowerPoint or Moodle.  This workshop will teach what each menu does, what icons mean, and how to create something using those tools.  The focus is not on how to use it to teach within a content area.  This is the revolution that Mishra and Koehler are proposing (as I understand it).

Why is this a tremendous innovation?  Because it should revolutionize professional development in the use of technology.  We should no longer focus on the tools because they are just that…tools!  We need to focus more on what those tools can create and how we can use them to make amazing things happen in education.

Now as much as I think that TPACK is a truly innovative idea/framework, I’m not sold that the Learning by Design strategy for professional development is as innovative or effective, but since this blog post is already far too long, the reasons for that opinion will have to wait to be shared until next time…

Focused on the Wrong Things

Why are we always focused on the wrong things?  Okay, by we, I mean me, and by always, I mean mostly.  That way I avoid a bit of hyperbole.  But here’s the point:

Just like Kip, I love technology.  It is so exciting – thinking about what’s possible now and what soon will be possible.  Take for example several of the things that have been presented at TED that have gotten so much attention of late.  Here are a few I’ve been amazed by:

• David Merrill: Siftables, the toy blocks that think
• Pattie Maes & Pranav Mistry: Unveiling the “Sixth Sense,” game-changing wearable tech

As I watched these videos, my jaw dropped.  I began to think about this amazing new world that was on the horizon (that hopefully won’t include precrime units – despite the reference to Minority Report in the 6th sense presentation).  I reveled in the possibilities for a awhile.  I would love to be able to take a picture with my fingers.  How great would it be for my son to learn math using siftable manipulatives.  What else is coming?  Wow!

Then suddenly I felt morose.  It was rather sudden, and perhaps I’m simply moody because I’m not feeling well, but my response to these technologies changed instantly.  The greatest minds in the world are developing gadgets to make our lives easier, help us learn more efficiently, have fun, but at the end of the day, these inventions, that are like mental candy to me, don’t address the greatest problems that humanity faces.  They’re just really cool.  But what about the problems that really plague us?

• crime
• poverty
• climate change
• materialism/wastefulness
• moments we probably all experience at times where recognition of our differences is used to justify hate, fear, and worse
• ignorance and lack of clear thinking and perspective

As much as I love these amazing toys that illustrate the best of human ingenuity and flexible thinking, I want the worlds greatest minds to focus on bringing the kind of change to the world that really matters!  Maybe I’m being short-sided and I’m not being flexible enough in my thinking to see how these tools and gadgets can bring about meaningful change.  Anyone got any examples of amazing innovations that address some of the problems with more gravitas to cheer me up?

Despite my rant above, I’m not meaning to pick on the two presentations above.  They are two of the most amazing innovations I’ve ever seen.  I am in awe.  They just happened to be the catalyst for my rant.  

Why are we always focused on the wrong things?   (Ok, maybe I didn’t just mean me)

Bigger than the printing press?

Just returned from the CUE conference in Palm Springs with a feeling of excitement.  One session that got me thinking was a panel discussion about Classroom 2.0 hosted by Steve Hargadon.  At one point the panel discussed whether Web 2.0 is as big or a bigger innovation than the printing press.  There was some minor disagreement about this, but, by and large, people agreed that it is most likely a more significant innovation.

Printing Press from Gastev's flickr photostream

As far as I am concerned, Web 2.0 is a more significant innovation.  The printing press allowed for the wider dissemination of content, but what was printed was still controlled by the upper echelons.  A relative few had the opportunity to share their ideas through printing.   The content was the same.

Web 2.0 allows for instant, world-wide dissemination by ANYONE.  Not only does this change who can publish, but it changes the content that is being published.  There is no establishment that makes a decision about what content is appropriate, profound, important, etc.

For education, this means that students can be published.  Their work can be presented to everyone in the world, not just their teacher or peers within the walls of their classroom.  These are fantastic beneifts of this revolution, but it also poses a problem.

When doing web-research, teachers usually teach students about reliable and unreliable sources.  One of the criteria tends to be the web 2.0 sites are less reliable than more traditional websites because they are just by “some guy.” In fact this is why great resources like Wikipedia are often blocked.

Some argue, however, that Wikipedia is possibly more reliable and more up-to-date than more traditional encyclopedias.  It is easy to create articles about current news and current technology, and since it is written and edited by “us,” there are many filters that can help remove bias and inaccuracies.

But as the web is more and more being written by us – recorded history and current events are being written more and more by “us,” a new problem arises.  How do we teach students to evaluate web-resources?  It doesn’t seem right to simply discount websites that aren’t from the “establishment.”  But with a flood of websites and resources out there, how do we teach students to filter?

Here are my first thoughts:

• Web 2.0 that allows for anyone to join are more reliable than those that require approval and those are more reliable than those that are closed
• The more collaborators (not subscribers) the more reliable
• The more that source is referenced by other apparently reliable sources, the more reliable it is
• The more links to other sources, the more reliable

I’d love to hear what other people think.

• Should we still hold “establishment” websites as more reliable than web 2.0?
• How should we teach students to evaluate sites that are web 2.0?

What I’m still worried about – Will  Web 2.0 lead to majority rule when it comes to recording history and reporting life as it happens?  If so, I’m worried.