Comments on: Not “New,” “Good”

By: Twitted by millerb32

Twitted by millerb32 — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:57:57 +0000

[...] This post was Twitted by millerb32 [...]

By: Franki

Franki — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:45:03 +0000

I agree that most of this "21st Century" stuff is not "new". But the term seems to be giving us a chance to talk about what is important in schools, especially with people outside of education. I think it is giving people a new lens to think about and argue about what education can be. .-= Franki´s last blog ..CELEBRATING TEACHING, DAY FIVE: ANOTHER COOL TEACHER =-.

By: M. Walker

M. Walker — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 04:14:53 +0000

Bud,
Last year while facilitating a group of teachers who were exploring teaching in a 1:1 environment, I attempted to utilize pedagogy that was “student centered”, and shared tools that would allow them to connect, collaborate and share. After one session where I gave a mini-lesson on using Diigo for social networking, they responded, “That’s what we need, more direct instruction!”
I felt they were requesting an “old” “teacher centered” model to learn “new” “student centered” instruction!
I also felt like I was working against the culture of the district, where sharing was fine with their colleague across the hall but not so much across town, and heaven forbid with another district!

I remember while working in Dr. Thornberg’s Constructing Modern Knowledge session prior to Educon, how you effortlessly brought your PLN to bear on solving the problem posed in the session.
My hope is that as I continue to build community with them, they will open up and start commenting on other’s blogs, sharing their experiences, and building a community of support that may become a PLN. I hope they find it good!
.-= M. Walker´s last blog ..1:1 Learning Reflection =-.

By: Chad Lehman

Chad Lehman — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:02:39 +0000

Great post, Bud. I wonder if administrators feel the same way. In my district, I'm not sure this type of PD is thought of that highly. They can't give us a day to do this and have us produce an end product, which often seems to justify the time spent (and perhaps the cost). In a lot of cases for me, the conversations and learning don't take place within a short period of time and there's not definite end product (unless you count my increased knowledge). I like that the conversations continue and often morph into something else. Chad Lehmans last blog post..State Project Interviews

By: Christina

Christina — Fri, 08 May 2009 05:24:49 +0000

Hi Bud. Yes, I really think this is key and very critical to remember at this moment too. I’d like to suggest that we use the excitement generated by new tools to remember what is is about the social practices they support that we think are so good and healthy for us as neighbors, friends, colleagues … and try to make those happen in various ways in our lives, both on and off-line. Ie. what can we learn from the back-channel to fix the front?

Btw I thought you might appreciate this kind of cute nytimes article exploring social practices that we can see across time and medium: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/the-face-book-fad-is-more-than-a-century-old/

By: Jorgie

Jorgie — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:59:04 +0000

I love the perspective. The tools, the twitter, the blog, the wiki isn't what's good. It's the result. The community, the PLN. Is there a place for training though? Sometimes we need to be taught how to use the tool and training sometimes works for that. It works better when there is a why but there is a place for training just like there is a place for direct teaching/lecture in the classroom Jorgies last blog post..Creating threads of understanding

By: john

john — Sun, 03 May 2009 12:51:58 +0000

John C commented, “Times are different. What does schooling need to look like now?”. Even though they are still the same. Children see value in hands on learning. It seems to me that schooling is top down and fails to put children in charge of their education.

Mentor the children through their learning and guide them through their educational process. It the child finds the experience relevant they will learn. They will not if simply forced to sit in a classroom and learn from a book.

As Kevin H stated that systems are so complex, we are training people to think inside the box. Heck, that complexity is left out of the current Presidential desire to manage the whole world. Heck look at agriculture, they want to keep farmers in business (corporate IMO), so they give subsidies to corn, wheat and soy, plus a few more. That is distorting what would happen in a free market. The subsidies have caused the dead zones in the gulf of Mexico from over fertilization. They have destroyed small towns as they encouraged row cropping systems which can only survive with subsidies. They have ruined health care by making diets highly dependent upon corn, corn syrup, etc.. They have led to increased dependence of energy and many more areas.

Our schooling is very reductionist. Methane comes from cow farts in one class my son had. Yet Rice paddies give off more than cattle. It has really fostered an environment which only allows for one variable and yet life is very dynamic.

Communities will be here next year. It is just a matter of what that community will look like. Unfortunately the US community appears headed towards central planning, which will fail as it will fail to take in all variables.

By: Ken Allan

Ken Allan — Sun, 03 May 2009 00:19:40 +0000

Kia ora Bud! I think you've hit the target with this post; bull's-eye style! Communities are ancient - we know this. Attempts to build them are almost as ancient. What comes with the (wrong) idea that this is all new and 21st centuryish is that it's also easy. I was astonished recently when a revered educator told me that communities were logical developments of networks - that building a community from a group of participants was only a matter of time. Not. First: communities aren't built. They're grown. Second: growth of any complex organism is capricious when it's not possible to control every existing factor, let alone the ones that are known. Third: complexity systems (of which community is but one) tend to have minds of their own, and though once established they can be fostered, it is almost impossible to make long term predictions of their position, shape and size, never mind their attitude. The weather is a good analogy. Try predicting what the weather is going to be like on any particular day NEXT year. But communities are even less predictable than the weather, for at least we know that there's going to be some weather. Enjoy the retreat with Kevin H. Catchya later from Middle-earth Ken Allans last blog post..All About (digital) Learning Resources

By: john creighton

john creighton — Sat, 02 May 2009 23:39:21 +0000

This post reminded me of something that drive’s me crazy about the framing of current education debate: the phrase “schools are failing.” These three words shut down conversation. Good people quit talking to each other. I would like it if the frame could be: “Times are different. What does schooling need to look like now?”

The post also relates to an idea I’ve written about that “local” is different now, too. Local used to be only a geographic concept. Now local can transcend place. Times are different. What does community building look like now?

I wrote about “what will local mean?” here. http://tinyurl.com/cxb4m2

By: Eric MacKnight

Eric MacKnight — Sat, 02 May 2009 22:12:33 +0000

Yes, yes, yes. I would love to have Socrates's learning skills, or Lao-Tsu's, or Thoreau's, or George Eliot's, or Pascal's, or any number of other long-dead people of assorted genders and cultures. And I bet they would have enjoyed some of our technology. Eric MacKnights last blog post..Supporting teachers—when they deserve it