I’ve lost count of the number of times that people have asked me, over the past few days, to respond to the term School 2.0. I’ve resisted up to now, because I’ve not been satisfied with the term, and because I simply can’t define it. I can characterize it, and usually do by saying the School 2.0, like Web 2.0, is about conversation.
This characterization rang true when, at the Association of American Publishers conference the other day, Timothy Burke, an academic blogger, said that, “monograph is over and good riddance!” I think that monograph and monolog characterize School 1.0, where information is shared, but only in one direction. Teachers and textbooks speak and illustrate. Students simply nod their heads, by taking tests.
I’ve said before, that when our classrooms fill with students who, from the perspective of their information landscape, are more literate than their teachers, then our classrooms become flat. We can no longer rely on the gravity of monolog to drive instruction. Monolog is meaningless — on so many levels. School 2.0 must tap into what Greg Suprock called the natural forces of the evolving information environment: The power of users, the strength of collaboration, the energy of groups, and the value of quality — and all of this happens in the dynamic and multidimensional conversations that are increasingly possible in today’s learning environments.
And in this understanding lies the problem. Monologs are predictable. Conversations are not. Standards-based education requires predictability. It’s why we try to rely so heavily on research, because we strive for predictability. Conversation, even when directed well, is unpredictable, and what to many teachers will feel like chaos. But doesn’t this describe the future we are preparing our children for. We are no longer preparing them for a future of security, predictability, a job for 35 years. Instead, we’re preparing them for a future of opportunity, constantly refreshed tools, knowledge, and skills to accomplish things that have never been possible before. Perhaps a certain amount of chaos is exactly what our children need in their learning. Boy is that scary! 😉
But it’s why I want to think about the term School 2.0 in a different way. Rather than referring to 2.0 as a version number, we might refer to it as a value of velocity. School 0 and school 1.0 are schools that are not changing, that are not adapting. School -1 and School -2 are schools that are going backwards, which, in my opinion, describes U.S. education over the past six years. School 2.0 is a school that is dynamic, rich with content, equipped with information tools, and deep with knowledge-building conversations. School 2.0 adapts!
Gosse, Tom. “Henry L. Pierce School.” Irish Hermit’s Photos. 18 Jan 2006. 7 Feb 2007 <http://flickr.com/photos/irishhermit/88329932/>.
Even well-wired districts have a difficult time understanding the situation, though. And the shift to 2.0 is deadly — few realize what it is, or that it needs to be done, let alone how to do it.
And then there is this issue: What do you do with a well-wired lesson plan when only four out of 30 students have internet access at home, and the school doesn’t provide significant access?
I think you’re on to a key point here. I also think that we have a serious issue in that television-savvy kids are often beyond 2.0 in bandwidth, and monolog schools can’t deliver enough content to keep the bandwidth busy. Idle bandwidth is not only a playground for mischief, but key “standards of learning” are unlikely to get to the “heaviest hit” list.
Dave, what I like about your post is that none of it is about the technology and everything is about how we approach education and knowledge. You don’t focus on wiring classrooms to the internet, but tapping into any force that promotes connection and change. I think the old term was Transformative change, where a system does not simply patch or even adapts, but has a catalytic change where the system is not consumed or destroyed, but it ends up a different organization barely recognizable as the original. This is were we need to go. Ed is correct in his post, many of our students are beyond what is described as “2.0”, the “progressive classroom”, or a “best practices” classroom. The idea of students having bandwidth is very apt, in some ways where we accuse them of a short attention span, it may be more appropriate to say that they have a wider attention span, taking in more at a time.
Lots to think about. Thanks for the conversation!