Education Rambler

Thinking about the information you just read regarding LoTi, what do you think the implications of LoTi are for classroom use of technology?  Do you see yourself as being willing to “up the ante” in order to move to another level?  Should Level 6 be the goal of every lesson?

To refresh your memory of LoTi, click here.

I have to admit that when I began blogging just a 1/2 dozen posts ago, I was kind of skeptical. I mean, I had made the decision to do it for myself–if for no other reason than to take the time to actually reflect each day and write about my reflections. What’s interesting is that sometimes taking a risk yields unanticipated rewards.

After writing my thoughts on 21st Century Skills in my Cookie Cutter post, it appears I received a comment from Roger Schank himself (I say “appeared” because the person signed their ID as Schank and directed me to his website, but I don’t really have a definitive way to prove it was him).

Regardless of whether or not it was actually Schank who commented on my blog, I got directed to Schank’s site, Engines for Education and was able to learn about the VISTA project.

I plan on looking more into Engines for Education, but at this point I’m excited about what appears to be my first blogging breakthrough. That is, I’ve gone from simple journaling to making connections with a larger community of learners. Whether it was Roger Schank (I mean, what are the chances… really?!) or one of my friends tricking me into thinking it was Schank, the end result is the same. I wrote about what I think, someone read it, and pointed me in the direction of a place where I could learn more about it.

And, by the way, according to Engines for Education, it appears the “cookie cutters” are on their way.

In a recent post on his blog, Rick Weinberg cited an article from 2000 regarding a future vision (ironically it’s seven years later, and the vision has not come to fruition) for education as a result of technology.  Rick’s post focused mainly on empathy as a 21st Century skill.  Something that jumped out to me in the article was in the second introductory paragraph:

The computer will allow the creation of “learn by doing” courses designed by the best and the brightest experts in any given field. Quality universities will put their names on these courses, and companies will create them, guaranteeing employment to those who pass them. This will create tremendous change for everyone involved in the education system.

The notion of a “learn by doing” course struck me as the type of real-world, hands-on learning that I think is so critical for 21st Century students.  It made me think of the cookie cutter lessons that are available in the teacher manuals of so many text book series.  I’ve always felt that the cookie cutter lesson is a quick way for classrooms to become less lively and creative, but what I dislike most about many of them is the lack of hands-on, real-world learning.  This lead me to a new question: If cookie cutter lessons are a comfortable tool for lessons that don’t incorporate real-world learning, could modules be developed for teachers to encourage more real-world learning?

Of course as I write it and think it, I see an immediate flaw in my thinking.  For one, the real world isn’t planned, so trying to script a real-world experience isn’t as easy as being able to write up a scripted lesson for teaching letter-sound correspondance.  My idea comes from the idea that expecting people to jump head first into the strange new land of 21st Century learning may not be as realistic an expection as luring them in slowing with well-crafted, planned out learning experiences.  I know this loses the open-ended beauty of real-world learning, but perhaps it’s a step in the right direction.

What excites me the most about the article is Roger C. Schank’s prediction about the role of teachers:

Not only will teachers act much more as social workers or guidance counselors in the future, they will also lead courses that explicitly focus on developing social and interpersonal skills. In many ways these courses will resemble the kinds of programs provided by Outward Bound. The teacher will be an advisor to the team, or a guide on an expedition. Right now teachers are authority figures. Once teachers move out of that role, they will eliminate a roadblock that prevents them from connecting with the students who need the most guidance.

What’s most exciting about this notion is that I’ve seen it happen, and it seems to be working.  This very idea–along with a foundation of real-world learning–is already in effect at the Met School in Providence, Rhode Island.  In a visit this spring, I (along with about 50 educators from our region) witnessed students engaged in real-world learning that wasn’t dictated, but guided by their teachers and the individual interests and passions of the students.  Students were not taught in traditional classrooms, but while engaged in internships and real-world projects.

Whether real-world learning happens exclusively via online learning (which–come on–would not be real-world), or simply uses technology as a vehicle for communication and efficiency, we need to get away from assembly line education.  The idea that every brain needs to contain the same list of facts and figures when it leaves high school ignores indviduality, diversity, and specialization.

Now, back to cookie cutters…

For me, I know what my “end in mind” is for education.  I just wonder if a complete overhaul is as real-world as rehabilitating a system by providing 21st Century standards and 21st Century standard-aligned lessons for teachers in a system that has been built around content standards.

Remember, I’m just wondering… so I’d love to hear where you think we should start.

For many people Wikipedia is old news, but as part of my job, I feel obligated to make sure teachers know that it exists.  And, for people who know how Wikipedia works, there is always a tendency for people to dismiss Wikipedia as irrelevant because it’s perceived an inaccurate and subject to change.  Rather than debate the pros and cons of Wikipedia, I’d just like to list some of my favorite uses for it.

SCHEMA BUILDING
When I’m learning something new or I want to quickly understand something, one of the first places I go is Wikipedia.  For instance, just the other day I was back home in Pennsylvania and someone made some statements about “all the Amish and Mennonites down there.”  Realizing that I didn’t really know the difference between Amish people and Mennonites, I went to Wikipedia and typed in Amish.  The results took whatever background knowledge I had previously and coupled it with a better understanding of Amish and Mennonite traditions.

For about nine years, I taught an undergraduate American Sign Language course at a local university.  A huge component of learning any language is learning about both the langauge and the culture.  To assist my students in building schema around Deaf Culture, I gave them key terms and asked them to search Wikipedia and the Internet for information prior to the next class.  This allowed for students to come in the next week with a little bit of schema and a lot of questions which lead to a great conversation to synthesize their understandings.

MAKING CONNECTIONS / SYNTHESIS
If you’ve heard of the game Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon then you are on your way to understanding what I’m about to say.  In this conversational game, participants are asked to think of a movie and list one of the actors.  From this, they think of an actor who might have been in a movie with Kevin Bacon.  Although they’re not always able to make the connection, it usually only takes a chain of six actors before you eventually get to Kevin Bacon.

What I love while playing around in Wikipedia and other wikis is something I call “wiki hopping.”  It’s kind of like surfing a wiki.  When I look something up in Wikipedia I usually read the main article, but then go back to some of the blue links in the article to see what else I can learn about related subjects.   It also helps to clarify things that I didn’t quite have a full understanding of.

Let’s go back to my Amish example.  While reading the article about the Amish, one of the blue terms was Pennsylvania Dutch.  Where I’m from, Amish and Mennonites are sometimes referred to as “Pennsylvania Dutch.”  What became clear to me is that Pennsylvania Dutch refers to a dialect, not necessarily another group who might be mistaken for Amish.  In further reading about Pennsylvania Dutch, there was a cross link to the Industrial Revolution, and I’m sure I could have gone deeper and deeper from there.

My point is that in some way virtually everything is related–sometimes it’s just by six degrees.

SHARPENING THE SAW
Steven Covey (7 Habits of Highly Effecitve People) talks about the principle of sharpening the saw.  He uses this as a metaphor for becoming better at what you do by keeping your skills sharp.  My background is in deaf education, and with my current job I’ve become somewhat removed from it.  I enjoy going into Wikipedia and finding out the latest trends in Deaf Education and Deaf Culture.  I also like reading posts and finding places where my own contribution might clarify or add to a point that may not be presented in the most efficient way.

FOR SCHOOL?
I think all of the above uses of Wikipedia are totally appropriate for school, and I encourage teachers (and my college students) to use Wikipedia as much as they like.  My only rule for Wikipedia is that I will not accept it as a cited work in a paper or homework assignment.  I tell students to use it to get to the bare bones of what they’re about to study deeply, but they should use the understandings they gain from Wikipedia to sharpen their searches when looking for appropriate professional articles or publications.