Praxis Makes Perfect

See previous post for background (click here)

The first statement that Christensen et al  (in Disrupting Class) make is that children learn in different ways. They cite Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences theory as evidence that children have different modes of learning. Furthermore, they make the jump to education stating that the current system uses a standardized, one-size-fits-all approach to instruction that does not adequately serve different student needs. All of these are compelling arguments, which lead the authors to suggest a “modular” approach using technology, where students can get just-in-time, individualized instruction that cater to their multiple intelligences.

While I am not an educational, or cognitive psychologist by training I have a couple of initial critiques of the authors here. If I am mistaken in any of these points, please comment and point me to any resources that may help my own learning. My critiques in order:

1. I do not believe there is no solid evidence that multiple intelligences exist. There is a great theory, posited by Howard Gardner, which has gained much popularity in Education because it seems to make perfect sense. There are also numerous research articles that suggest mulitple intelligences are at play in children’s learning. However, I have yet to come across any studies that definitively prove ML.
2. So do children learn differently? It sure does seem like they do huh? However, I personally would stop short of calling it multiple intelligence. A kid who excels at sports is a kinestetic learner but not a visual learner? I find that hard to believe. Perhaps the kid who is a good football player has a unique body structure that allows him to run faster than others, and perhaps through dedicating more time to football (since he has natural physical gifts) he has trained his brain to master football concepts. However, that does not mean an athlete who is less naturally gifted cannot excel.
3. This is not multiple intelligences to me… Perhaps human beings have a certain balance of physical and mental capabilities. Some people may pick up running the 100m faster than reading a book… but if that same person invested enough time in reading a book, I’m sure they could (even if it took a bit longer than a good reader). What I’m suggesting is that yes, “children learn differently”, but all children (who are within a range of normal needs) could adequately learn something given enough time for their abilities to develop. Using this framework, instead of multiple intelligences, calls for very different uses of technology.
4. The authors of Disrupting Class suggest that online learning, and social media, have the potential to help children who learn differently. Using a ML theory, there are a couple of problems. How would you design online resources for a kid who is a “physical learner”? How about a kid who is “socially smart”, what would you design to help each of these children learn how to plot data points in a chart? If we start to think concretely about what we’d design online, using ML theory, I’m hard pressed to see any usefulness of the theory.
5. Instead if we suggest that children learn at a different pace, and some students need multiple perspectives on a concept in order to learn it, then online resources play a VITAL role. Perhaps one student could read a wikipedia entry on photosynthesis and understand it completely.  Perhaps another student needs to read the wikipedia entry, see a video on YouTube, and ask students on a Facebook group to explain it in their own words — before finally having that ah-ha moment. This process makes more sense to me, and using technology and social media to create different KINDS of educational resources would help different children learn in different “ways” and time-tables.

Thoughts?

A book that has received a lot of hype lately is Disrupting Class by Clayton Christensen and others. I found the book to be extremely interesting, as the authors predict that online learning will expand to encompass 50% of the courses taught in K-12 education by 2019, and that social media (like Web 2.0 applications) will evolve to allow students to teach each other - disrupting the traditional models of school, teaching, and education.

While these are bold claims, some of their theories have merit. I’ll list them here today, and offer my own critiques in subsequent posts. The authors suggest 5 major points of discussion:

1. Children learn in different ways, as evidence by Howard Gardner’s work in multiple intelligences.
2. Disruptive innovations gain a foothold and revolutionize a market because they target a niche audience who normally could not consume a good.
3. Online learning is a disruptive technology because it often targets students with special needs. For example, students take online courses when their own schools do no offer a course (i.e. AP classes). Or students enroll in cyber charter schools because they have special needs: learning needs, behavioral needs, parents who want to have more involvement in their children’s learning, life situations such as competitive sports players etc. etc. These unique student populations are “non-consumers” because the alternative for them is a really inferior educational experience, or no education.
4. Computers in schools are not disruptive technology because they have been utilized to marginally “improve” an existing education structure. Larry Cuban has done amazing work documenting how computers are merely used as workbooks, supplemental activities, or replacements for things teachers already do. As a result computers add tremendous cost without adding much value in terms of educational benefit.
5. Computers “can” be a disruptive innovation, when used to create new learning situations. For example, social media platforms (i.e. Youtube, Facebook, eBay and infinite others popping up everyday) are disruptive innovations. Why? Because they open up new avenues for non-consumers. Before YouTube and home-video editing software, it was difficult for the normal joe schmoe to create and publish video. Now the barriers have been reduced, as non-consumers can more easily participate in media creation. Social media has similar potential for education. For instance, imagine students creating ways to teach each other some difficult topic, and sharing it on a web-based platform. The avenues for learning are increased, student no longer only need to rely on their immediate teacher or parent for learning assistance.

Ok, so in the previous post I critiqued the problem of thinking about networks and technology in general terms. Here is an example of thinking about networks in a more focused, and I think more helpful way. Check out this link:

(more…)

I came across this post from Weblogg-ed today, and spurred some thinking I’ve been doing about “networks”. There has been a lot of punditry these days where various folks tout the rise of networks and the power of technologies which connect people. The intuitive thought is that the Internet, mobile communications, and applications like Facebook etc etc etc create networks of people in ways that we’ve never seen before. I think this point is true, but not as provocative as some would make it seem. Here are some of my quick thoughts on social networks:

(more…)

Much thanks to Arvind and Alex over at 21st Century Learning for having me on their webcast. It was great fun to catch up with a classmate, and shoot the breeze on issues of education, research, and technology.

One of the things we wanted to talk about, but didn’t spend much time on, was this speech by Sir Ken Robinson. Check it out here.

Here are some of my thoughts on the presentation (and I’ll address some of Arvind and Alex’s other questions that we didn’t get to in the webcast in future posts this week): More after the jump.

(more…)

I’m going to go off on a little tangent with this post, so apologies beforehand.

I attended an alumni event this weekend for my dear alma mater; it was a panel discussion discussing Mayor Villaraigosa’s takeover of LAUSD. It was moderated by Professor Kenneth Wong with panelists representing the LAUSD school board, another California school board, a member of the Mayor’s staff, and a teacher in a LAUSD charter school.

First thoughts - Amazing props to my alma mater and everyone involved for organizing and participating in such an important event. What a great commitment to dialogue and education. My reaction after the jump.

(more…)

Technology - The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives. The entire body of methods and materials used to achieve such objectives.

Question of the day: Given the defnition of technology, what is the definition of Educational Technology?

I’m on a few trains of thought today: More after the jump.

(more…)

Came across this L.A. Times article about the pending showdown between mayor Villaraigosa and the teachers’ union, concerning his desire to take over L.A. Unified: click here
The questions that always pop up for me when large scale, political, and structural changes are prescribed as a solution to education reform are:

1. Are the players involved, doing what’s right, or just vying for power?
2. If given power and responsibility to inact your plan, what measures will be in place to assess your performance? (a question for any policy maker, mayor, teachers’ union, school board etc. etc. etc.)
3. How does your prescribed changes really change anything? What is required on a micro-level, from those on the front lines of school administration and classroom teaching, for positive results to happen? What kind of support is needed at the structural, political, and macro level? Basically, what does each player in the system need to do to “buy in” and contribute to a successful initiative?

There needs to be many individuals in a system (a school system, a district, a school, at all levels) who understand that creating unity amongst stakeholders, is the only way to create real change. I believe Michael Fullan calls this “moral purpose” in his book The New Meaning of Educational Change. Think about it… any top-down or bottom-up strategy is easily killed without mutual support. We need each other, not to fight against each other, otherwise anything we try will likely fail.

I think where systems and organizations break down, is where the “bad apples”, the misinformed, those with personal agendas, those who just don’t want to buy-in create disunity… But how do we create unity in large systems?  These people exist in every school, in every school board, political office, University….
The easy answer is, everyone needs a gut check and have to ask themselves, “What do I need to do to help make this work? And what specifically do I need others to do, to make this work?” and to really follow through and do whatever these things are. Provide funding. Make hard decisions. Follow the plan. Buy in with good faith. This is easier said than done, because one breakdown creates further breakdowns. One break of trust, disintegrates the system easily. What to do? Right now we spend our time posturing our own agends and creating plans on top of plans. Anyone have any ideas on creating unity?

I like to read fellow RI’er tuttlesvc.com often, as he usually points me to great resources on a regular basis.  (Thanks Tom) Today he points to an interesting post by Mark Ahlness, which really got me intellectually pumped up this morning (along with my Starbucks caffeine addiction).

I am sympathetic to Mark’s frustrations, but I would posit that his reaction while probably experienced by many teachers, is ultimately a detrimental one.  Basically, it is the teacher saying “I am the master of my domain, my classroom, and I know what’s best.  So, if you’re not a teacher then you have nothing to say to me.  I decide what to do in my classroom, I alone.”  While this is a valid reaction, and sometimes a necessary reaction to the mis-informed school administrator, professor/researcher, parent, public, politician etc. etc. etc. in the grand system of education, it is ultimately detrimental to progress.

School reforms or movements often fail, or at least wade in a puddle of mediocrity, because teachers ultimately decide what to adopt or subvert via their daily decisions in the classroom… when teachers reach a point where they no longer want to listen to new ideas, innovation ceases.  You (the teacher) are the gatekeepers, you hold the power.  So I implore teachers to instead do something like this:

• Take new ideas, let them wade around in your head.  If the idea has promise for you then…
• Communicate with others and make them understand the reality of your classroom
• Think critically about what it would take to successfully implement Project A, or Initiative B, or School Reform C in your classroom
• Critically assess and challenge “the others” (public, administrators, politicians, parents etc etc etc) to respond to your critique
• Work together to figure out the efficacy of implementing something in your classroom
• Implement it with zeal, good faith, and continual development/learning

As a former teacher, and now a Technology Director, I can reflect on both sides of the coin…. Often in my work with teachers, trying desperately to get them to think critically about changing practice, I come across black & white reactions much like Mark’s.  The teachers I’ve worked with want an easy fix, i.e. does it already fit nicely into my already established comfort level?  And if it doesn’t, as technology usually doesn’t, they resort to the “I am teacher.  You are other.” defense in an attempt to not engage at all.

I would surmise that any systemic reform often breaks down and fails at this daily, everyday, minute interaction between teacher and other.  Let’s develop some trust between stakeholders, and for those mis-informed “others” let’s challenge them to think more critically about their ideas and earn our trust.  Then let’s move forward in good faith, rather than clasping our hands over our ears and refusing to listen to anyone.

My homestate of Rhode Island made some positive news today; they are planning to offer state-wide Wifi!

I think it’s a great idea, being a techy, and is a direction many cities/states should consider.