Thinking Allowed.

It is getting close to the Learning 2.0 conference in Shanghai and I am becoming more and more excited to present the work that Justin and I have done in preparing what we believe is a new and better way to approach technology learning in schools - Curriculum 2.0.

Better?

Better than what?

Better than the incredibly thorough, but utterly oppressive I.T. scope and sequences or standards (or some other s-word) that have been the norm at schools.

Better than these documents that - rather than making technology integration accessible - serve to intimidate teachers and foster the counter-productive notion that talking about technology is for tech geeks and experts, thus eliminating it from the classroom.

Better than what we’ve done before and seen fail.

At least we think so.

Here’s the blurb on our workshop in Session 8, Sunday at 10:15 am (I’m not listed in the real program):

Information Technology Curriculum 2.0
By Justin Medved (and Dennis Harter)
At ISB, we believe that technology is a tool for learning. We believe that technology is used as a tool outside of formal schooling for communication, collaboration, understanding, and accessing knowledge. It is our goal in developing an integrated curriculum to ensure that the way students learn with technology agrees with the way they live with technology. At ISB we believe we must focus on the higher-order skills that are necessary for success in the 21st Century. These skills are not tied to any particular software or technology-type, but rather provide students with the opportunity to succeed no matter what their futures hold. In this session we will share our curriculum model and our implementation plan for the next three years.
Room: C-228

It’s a work in progress, but it’s progress that we focus on.

We’d love your feedback, so if you are going to be there, hopefully you’ll attend and give us your thoughts.

If you are coming to Shanghai, introduce yourself here and we’ll meet again in a few days!

Looking forward to it.

Listen to this post

Technorati Tags: learn2cn curriculum2.0

This weekend is the Learning 2.0 Conference in Shanghai, China. Featured speakers include: Alan November, Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach, Will Richardson, Jamie McKenzie, Gary Stager, Wes Fryer and Chris Smith.

Are you kidding me?! That’s like a who’s who of Ed Tech RSS feeds! And as exciting as that line-up is, also attending are Always Learning’s Kim Cofino and Medagogy’s Justin Medved (then again I work at the same school - so I see them regularly) and Thinking Stick’s Jeff Utecht (one of our hosts).

How can I not be psyched?!

SHAMELESS PLUG ALERT: Justin and I are presenting one session on our ideas for embedding the new literacy we all talk about into school life and curriculum. We believe that our approach may give it a chance to be successful finally. We’ve seen too many IT scope and sequence documents fail. Our approach, we believe, makes all of this accessible to teachers and their buy-in ultimately seems to determine the success of a program. If you are at the conference we hope to see you there in room C-228, for Session 8.

We are hoping that the minds of fellow Ed Tech people will help us frame our work and improve it as we go. The collaboration in our jobs is just so great.

Can’t wait…it’s going to be fun.

Web 2.0 continues to just amaze. To think that we hardly had internet 15 years ago and now I learn, accept, use new tools constantly. How can education not embrace this? How can we not provide better learning for children (and adults) with what is at our disposal now.

Justin just showed off the amazing animoto over at Medagogy. A truly cool presentation tool.

And a social studies teachers just shared with me Hans Rosling’s videos on TEDtalk using his amazing Gapminder software (named after the saying, Mind the Gap heard hundreds of times on the London tube). Gapminder was recently acquired by Google, which is a good indicator that it’s about to take off.

[side note: for a very cool lesson in "new" visual literacy check out the home page of TEDtalk. They use visual cues of image size to demonstrate most recently updated. You can switch the views on the side and change the visual cues to represent most discussed, most emailed, etc. Now this is visual literacy. How can anyone argue that we need to talk about things like this with kids!?!]

Am I really late on all of this? Is this old news?

I feel like I should have known about Rosling’s work already, but it really blew me away seeing it. If you haven’t seen his presentation, watch that first to get a real sense of how powerful this statistical data animation software can be. He is pretty dynamic, but it’s his graphs that steal the show. Calling them graphs is almost unfair…like calling a Ferrari a car or an iPod a walkman.

He has brought together world data with design and animation to truly provide understanding of what’s happening in the world. In the video I linked to he debunks the myths many have of the Third World.

He does not tackle lack of knowledge, but rather pre-conception. And that’s pretty powerful.

Don’t our students have preconceptions?

Don’t we want to students to question them?

This data analysis truly promotes understanding. When was the last time you could honestly say that about the data analysis your students are doing?

Watch his videos, then check out the tool.

Really, if you don’t know it…you should really check it out.

Man, the tools are cool now. Makes me miss the classroom.

Every now and then you get lucky. And then even more rarely, you get professionally lucky. And then, if all the planets align and you have your lucky socks on, and you eat the right breakfast something happens that fills you up with professional optimism.

In Ed Tech blogging, we tend (not always) to blog about similar ideas. About the need for change and about the power of the change we see coming for learning. And sometimes we ask each other about how to change. Because change is not easy. It is particularly “not easy” in education where the professionals who do the job have a great deal of autonomy and often are resistant to change. So we ask ourselves, “what do we need to do to affect change?”

How do we convince the teachers and administrators at our schools that what we see as NECESSARY, fundamental change needs to happen and it needs to happen soon?

What is the Tipping Point for this change to happen?

Lucky little me might be about to find out.

You see, last year, when I took the technology facilitator job, I was lucky. I joined a technology director whose focus is on learning. He makes his decisions for technology spending on learning and he still has conversations about learning. And he’s supported by a School Head and CFO who also focus first on learning.

Then this year, Justin showed up. Suddenly, I had a NextGen leader pushing my thinking. We bounce ideas off of each other and share in our efforts to create something new, dynamic and effective in educational technology and learning. Well, that’s pretty lucky.

But how lucky would you be if you then are joined by ANOTHER NextGen teacher next year? Yup, that’s happening. Along comes Kim, always learning, to join as an information specialist. Are you kidding me?!? I am not.

Well, that’s just unfair lucky.

It gets better. (now I’m just bragging!)

Our administrators are embracing this thinking about thinking - the focus on thinking as curriculum in itself. This is awesome and it makes me think that I may be seeing the beginnings of real change possibilities. And that’s pretty exciting.

The previously mentioned voices, you’ve been reading, or if you haven’t you should be: Justin at Medagogy and Kim at always learning. But now add a new, different voice to that mix. Our ES Principal, Annelies has begun to blog about “Thinking” in her blog In-tu-it-think and what she’s come to realize in her own growth as a school leader.

What we can do together is more than what I can do.

There is so much that I like about her first post, but that line is my favorite. You have to love a blog from a Principal that has the tag line, “How does education meet the needs of the 21st century learner?”

Certainly a welcome new voice to the discussion!

And as fortunate as it’s become for me professionally here, I am pretty psyched about “what we can do together” in the coming years.
Lucky me.

So I am late chiming in on the NY Times laptop article. You know the one…the one that says one-to-one laptops are not showing any improvement in learning and schools are ditching their programs left and right. Justin wrote a great post on it over at Medagogy. Chris Lehmann chimed in over at Practical Theory. Warlick put in his 2 pennies. In the Ed Tech blogosphere, this article is everywhere.

Here’s the thing. Almost every complaint/dig/slam of the laptops in students’ hands came from the perspective of the teacher. Laptops “did not fit into lesson plans”… “It’s a distraction” … “The box gets in the way … “They are too hard to manage” …

Where laptops and Internet use make a difference are in innovation, creativity, autonomy and independent research…

[Oh, I get it, and we wouldn't want that? (where is that sarcastic font when I need it?)]

It could be that laptops in students’ hands are useless as the article suggests, but doesn’t that seem counter-intuitive? Doesn’t access to information and opportunities to engage, communicate, and think with students in a way that they use, interact, and enjoy in their own time sound like a good thing? And doesn’t providing students in a school setting with tools that they use regularly,outside of school, seem like a chance opportunity to engage them in discussion about responsible use, being safe, and the implications of their online behavior? I could go on.

Instead, I offer this question: is it not also likely that the teachers are not sure how to use the laptops with the kids in a proactive, educationally sound way?

Could it be that teachers are the very digital immigrants that we talk about as being so different from our digital native kids? And if that’s the case (it is) then isn’t it likely that if scores aren’t supporting improved learning then maybe it isn’t the technology failing, but rather the people entrusted with using them well who aren’t doing the job. (before you lynch me, it isn’t their fault…read on)

Often the most simple, logical answer is the right answer.

News media like to emphasize possibilities that surprise you. It’s not a secret that they like to sensationalize. Even the New York Times. Providing laptops and access to information to kids is a positive move for learning sounds right. It’s why so many people did it. It should be a good thing.

So why isn’t it?

Were we wrong? Maybe, but not likely. Ideas that are so intuitively sound are usually not wrong.

Instead, could it be that WE DID IT WRONG? Probably.

Most teachers are not social networking and blogging and thinking about the needs of 21st century learning. They are Math teachers and English teachers and Grade 2 teachers who were trained to be the kinds of teachers that we had when we were kids. Their ideas of best teaching practice come from a world before laptops in classrooms and probably before Internet access was possible (particularly for schools).

And I’ll be the first to say that good teaching is good teaching. That sharing passion and engaging students in subject matter and learning has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with a teacher.

But that’s not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the teachers for whom the technology was expected to solve less-than-good-teaching (or at least not inspirational teaching). And that wasn’t going to happen. It was unfair to teachers and to the technology to have expected it. (luckily, the technology’s feelings weren’t hurt)

What teachers need with technology is REAL professional development and REAL support. They need technology support people whose job is to make sure that they understand what good laptop classroom management looks like. It isn’t hard to keep kids off of mySpace during class. But if you’ve never had to think about it before, you might not know how to do it. These tech support facilitators need to be 100% devoted to the implementation of technology in their schools. They need to be available to team teach with teachers to model good laptop classroom management strategies and share integration ideas. It is their job to learn new technologies and figure out their implications on learning. Teachers are too busy to keep up with that stuff. (see Kim’s post on always learning)

The shame of it all is that the reaction of schools to abandon laptop programs is hurting the students. Once again, decisions are being made that are “most convenient for us, not best for them.” (Dangerously Irrelevant) Sure, in this case, the decision is couched behind scores that haven’t improved, but the causality is all wrong.

Do it right and it will work. Do it wrong and it won’t.

“A good craftsman never blames his tools.” (thanks, Keith Olbermann and ESPN Sportscenter!)

It’s worth noting that perhaps these schools and districts concede that they will never hire these support people or create a professional environment in which teachers have an opportunity to succeed. If they concede this, then they might as well abandon the laptops.

But if they really want kids to learn WHAT THEY NEED TO LEARN, then the cause of why it didn’t work must be looked at. And then they must bring the laptops back with an infrastructure in place (training, personnel, HELP) so that teachers aren’t pre-destined to fail, but rather are given a real and fair opportunity to succeed.

In the end, if teachers, schools or districts resist or deny this, then it is the students who suffer and who ultimately will not be prepared for their future. Our past is over. We must stop insisting that learning only happens when it matches the testing and models of that past.

Laptops are gateways to information. They can instigate real learning about ethics, communication, safety, responsibility, and high-order thinking. But they need a teacher to do that. A teacher supported and prepared and passionate to do that.

Our curricula of content mired in Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies is not preparing students for anything but further education focused on these same subjects.

What students learn needs to be different and how they learn needs to be different.

But that’s another post.

Day 2 of the conference brought us another wonderful student keynote who spoke on the Chinese tale of the Frog in the Well. The frog only has a limited view of the sky through the top of the well, and until she is moved and shown the true nature of things, her horizons and her perspective are never changed. A fine start to the day for teachers to think about and to consider international education.

Then, the ever dynamic, Ian Jukes came on to speak. With excellent supporting visuals, Ian spoke on the dire need for our schools to address the thinking skills needed to prepare students for the world that outside of education has changed and continues to change so rapidly. Great quote from Woodrow Wilson, “it’s easier to move a cemetery, than it is to change a curriculum.” He makes a terrific point that the main difficulty is that the change we are dealing with is hard to comprehend and so it is hard to make our own changes when we are dealing with the “tyranny of the urgent.”

Kids today are different - Jukes spoke on how the visual cortex of the brain is larger, more developed than kids of 20 years ago. “Screenagers”, he called them, citing two Time Magazine articles. Interestingly, he talked about how current research seems to indicate that our brains continue to adapt and make new connections. But the brain needs regular exposure to the “change-maker” to make this change. So does this have implications on our schools? (rhetorical)

Jukes talked a fair amount on games and their impact on kids. He encouraged us to learn about these games, to play them with kids and to get our “asses kicked” by kids. They are hard-wiring themselves through these technologies. We should need to tap into this.

I saw a lot of Ian Jukes this week. And the message is clear. Change is here…change is fast (exponential) and getting faster. And predicting the future? Impossible. So what does that mean for us? It means that we need schools to be different. I haven’t had “my own” class in a few years now and I do think about how I would do things differently if I were in the classroom again. But my need for change in education is even greater now. As the tech-guy, this stuff seems to fall under my umbrella for change. And I need to work out how to convince a curriculum office to dump content and adopt thinking skills, a faculty to include me in their lesson planning, and an administration to hire and evaluate based on a willingness to adapt to these ideas and change the way schools work.

Is this overstepping my bounds? Probably. But the need seems to strong to ignore. Education really seems to be failing kids. They seem to be learning in spite of us, not with us. Maybe that’s too harsh, but I liken it to the exact opposite of wikipedia. Wikipedia is accurate at the macro-level, but could be inaccurate at the micro. I think real learning is possibly working in individual rooms with individual teachers, but we are failing miserably on the school-wide education-as-a-whole level in preparing kids for futures requiring 21st century skills. (speaking of which, I attended a workshop on these skills that set us back on moving forward more than anything I’ve seen….good presentation is good presentation and when it isn’t good…ouch. Until I get up and start presenting myself in that forum, I suppose I should not judge).

Luckily, I am spoiled. I work with a forward thinking leader colleague and am about to be joined by another in the ES. I saw many faces from my school at the various Jukes sessions. The tide could start changing at ISB and I think that those who are interested is as good a place to start as any. Let’s see how many come to school on Monday wanting to be committed.

(originally posted on harterlearning on Mar 7, 2007)
The Washington Post has had some gems lately…glad I have them on my Netvibes.

A recent article delves into a continuing, but also growing problem in online social networking sites where rumors and disinformation and personal attacks are impacting people’s lives negatively (to understate it). It’s a very scary article on what happens when the Web 2.0 tool gets used badly.

The article starts with the story of a Phi Beta Kappa, Yale Law graduate who did not get many call backs and received no job offers. Though admittedly difficult to prove, she claims that this was a result of deragatory postings about her in a well-read public forum on AutoAdmit.

The woman and two others interviewed by The Washington Post learned from friends that they were the subject of derogatory chats on a widely read message board on AutoAdmit, run by a third-year law student at the University of Pennsylvania and a 23-year-old insurance agent. The women spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared retribution online.

The forum in question contains useful information about law schools and law firms, but also contains hundreds of posts filled with racism and bigotry. But the site’s founder says it’s free speech.

The students’ tales reflect the pitfalls of popular social-networking sites and highlight how social and technological changes lead to new clashes between free speech and privacy. The chats are also a window into the character of a segment of students at leading law schools. Penn officials said they have known about the site and the complaints for two years but have no legal grounds to act against it. The site is not operated with school resources.

This is out there. It’s real. How much more hiding from it can educators do? Ignorance on this type of thing is simply no longer acceptable for teachers. This is the world that a participatory web 2.0 has created. One in which anyone can say anything about anyone else. We can’t just teach kids to protect themselves, instead teachers have to assume the responsibility of teaching students to be responsible users as well.

The technology is new(ish), but it isn’t going away. As a teachnology facilitator, it’s my job to make sure that teachers get this. I need to show them how important it is for our students to learn how to use the tool properly AND responsibly. It is worth noting here that the “misuers” in this article are law students slandering their peers.

Dare I quote it? “With great power comes great responsibility.” (Thanks, Spidey.)

The educational power of Web 2.0 is out there for us to embrace: collaboration, critical thinking, communication. But not all teachers have jumped on board. Maybe we are still too content focused in our curriculum. Maybe “the kids are going to learn the technology anyway”, since they spend so much time on it outside of school (side note: why wouldn’t this be a reason to make school more like that?). But even if that’s the case, this article reminds us how important it is to have conversations with students about the implications of their actions.

So whose job is this? Only mine as the tech. guy? Parents? What about all educators? What about the village? But here in lies the rub: most of those people don’t even know what’s out there. They don’t know that this technology exists, that kids are using it, that kids are learning in it, and that kids are misusing it too.

Like so many things, the answer lies not in protection, but in education. But that adds to our problems as more and more schools are knee-jerking their way to blocking access and sealing off their schools from the participatory culture that’s out there. So we emphasize the good, make little of the bad (see Jeff’s ThinkingStick post on this), and get people on board.

So when’s a good time to bring in the bad? To have those real conversations with kids? How about ALL THE TIME. Damn…that puts me back at square one…I have to get our teachers to see this as their job. I want to be obsolete as Jeff suggests (well, the job anyway…not me personally), but I don’t see that happening any time soon.

That’s the key to this Web 2.0 participatory environment…it’s put power into everyone’s hands. And we just haven’t prepared everyone for that kind of responsibility.

It’s no wonder that there is misuse, just as it is no wonder that some are learning on their own how to behave well and how to protect themselves (great post on this from Justin at Medagogy and teacher directed kids learning based at ThinkingStick).

But we can’t rely on self-learning anymore, because it is about more than skills that we can scope and sequence. It’s about responsible use as well. It’s the job of all educators to make sure that students get that. And teachers will get there, because we can’t afford not too…I just hope it’s fast enough for our students’ sake.

(originally posted on harterlearning on Jan 29, 2007)

I have just returned from Sunny Sacramento, CA where I was being trained on our school’s new Student Information Management System. Looks like it’ll be a good product, but there is definitely a right way to implement and get everyone on board both training and thinking-wise. More importantly, there are plenty of wrong ways. We need to do this right…I can tell right now that this is going to be a big time-occupier.

While on the trip, my computer COMPLETELY crashed on me. Wouldn’t even start up. So I am behind on posting, behind on keeping up with my netvibes feeds, just behind in general. It did allow me to read a book, which with little children is typically impossible. I am also part way through the audio book of The Long Tail. Fascinating concept, which I have mentioned earlier in this blog. Had a good discussion with Justin about how even retail real-world sellers are really thriving on the niche market and allowing complete customization of products for customers. Starbucks was our example with the “skinny, extra shot, extra hot, soy latte” is a perfect example of how you can be completely niche even when buying in a mainstream environment. It’s all about what you want and no longer about what most people want. I think I am going to like living in a world like that.

On a side note, the original purpose of this post was to announce - in a very un-grandiose way - that I’ve changed the name and URL of this blog. If you are here, you know this. The old name affiliated the blog with the school, which ultimately it was not. They are my thoughts on learning and my thoughts on the musings of others, so I now I’ve made sure that’s clear in the blog title and address.

I am Harter and I am learning. And I have my ideas on learning which give this another meaning. Finally, this new learning, while ultimately beneficial for the students who need us if we can help them, will be difficult for some teachers to move to. Therein lies the other “play” on the name…Harter Learning…because some things worth doing are hard.

[author's note: if you are reading this here, then you know I've changed the name again...this one is sticking, I hope.]