 |
| This came up when I searched painting on Flickr Creative Commons. It’s about painting a new picture — which this is not. But it’s also about repainting our schools. |
It astounds me what can result from a “rant.” I came so very close to not posting that article (Teachers & Technology — a Rant), because I didn’t think there was enough value in it. Just me, spouting off. It is a tribute to the power of casual, colleagial, net/RSS-based conversation, when 27 thoughtful comments are posted to that article, including the ever present Gary Stager (this guy sure reads and writes a lot). Gary provides an interesting comparison between the implimentation of Web 2.0 applications and Logo — a quite useful comparison indeed. It probably isn’t important that neither Jeff Utech (whose blog I was responding to) nor I ever mentioned Web 2.0. In fact the big “2.0” didn’t appear in my blog until Sue Waters included it in a list of topics she was presenting to her teachers.
What is important is the list of comparisons that Gary offered in Why Teachers Don’t Use Web 2.0 — an Historical Perspective. I agree with most of his statements and find most of them to be quite useful to us as we continue to wrap our minds and our curriculum around an increasingly..
- networked,
- digital,
- overwhelming,
- participatory,
- reader directed, and
- incontainable (still working on this one)
..information environment. I think that Gary may be a bit too narrow in some of his views, but I’ve recently been accused, rightfully, of being too broad. I have been exercising.
I had every intention of quoting and commenting on Gary’s list, but then found that Stephen Downes beat me, accomplishing it much more fluently, if also more verbosely — and that’s saying a lot.
The most important idea that I come away with was one of the original “rants” of my blog.
For several years, many of us have been trying to make a case for thinking about education in new ways, largely as a result of technological advancements and their affects on how we use information. I think that many education leaders are listening now. I think that they are ready for clear images and stories about 21st century classrooms and what teachers and students should be doing to better prepare a generation of new century citizens.
There is no Mindstorms… for the new information landscape. There have been a number of how-to books, including myown. But we have not yet painted a picture — defined, in a compelling way “what it looks like.”
I hope to start doing that.
Links:
Jeff Utech’s Fear Factor
David Warlick’s Teachers & Technology — a rant!
Gary Stager’s Why Teachers Don’t Use Web 2.0 — a historical perspective
Stephen Downes’ Stager, Logo and Web 2.0
Miguel Guhlin’s Why Teachers Use Web 2.0
Image Citation:
Reed, Harper. “Painting Morgans Place.” Nata2’s Photostream. 3 Aug 2007. 5 Sep 2007 <http://flickr.com/photos/natatwo/1001034788/>.
Hmm, elsewhere Steven Downes points out that he has been theorising about “two point oh” education for some time. If we choose to call it computer supported collaborative learning…. well there is a huge history, My booklet for Futurelab (for free) was written with some wryness as I think we already have a lot of history.
On a big European grant 1995-2000, with my colleagues in University of Wales, Bangor we developed socially derived metatagging, video, photo and document sharing and tagging… and had working systems integrated into mail, confernece and chat systems….. As an academic my business model was the next grant… not change the world and not the commercialise the product…. and with no hard feelings- and all for education.
And in 1983 – when my main interest was Logo – News International (owners of MySpace) launched a system called TTNS – a sysytem that gave school students access to databases of “online” information and a maibox and page for every student,,,,,
The reason why some innovations are successful and others are not is complex… but it is worth starting some of the work of Michael Fullan.
Just to be clear.
I was not advocating Logo or denigrating Web 2.0 tools. I advocate both. Nor, was I suggesting that “educators” hold a monopoly on truth.
I was merely attempting to offer a hypothesis, based on a historical comparison, for why the “revolution” many educators desire is slow in coming. It is quite true that 1) schools have demonstrated a remarkable resistance to societal trends, influences and even revolutions and 2) one can’t expect much revolution to come from the tool alone, especially if that tool was designed with other purposes in mind.
It’s odd being in the position of “elder” especially as all of the horror associated with back-to-school still cripples me this time of year, just as it did when I was 10, but longevity does present the gift of perspective (at times).
I want to thank you, Gary, for reading my blog, and for pushing me and others to think and to rethink. I value your knowledge, experience, perspective, and courage. I think/hope that the revolution will come. When it does, it will, I believe, come out of what we learn from these conversations.
Great luck to you on the new year with all of your endeavors. I envy you your upcoming trip to Shanghai.
— dave —
Just wanted to clarify “Sue Waters included it in a list of topics she was presenting to her teachers” the teachers were not my teachers. And agree totally irrelevant in to the entire debate – but these teachers were from a high school, and I am a TAFE lecturer (vocational education and training).
If they had been lecturers from TAFE who I facilitate professional development sessions with I would not have taken the same approach. Unfortunately when I am requested to do presentations, I have to rely on the information that they provide me.
But based on your own rant, you are obviously faced by the same challenges.
Sue