Those with whom I network for learning purposes through Twitter, blogs, Nings, etc. are largely members of an amorphous educational technology community.  That community is fond of throwing around terms like “change” and “reform” connected to schools or education and most often the “change” or “reform” is largely related to advances in technology. The gist of the argument is that technology has changed the world we live in but not schools so schools need to catch up (or something to that effect).  Schools are becoming “dangerously irrelevant,” right Scott?

There are also frequent references to those other educators who do not “get it.”  Yet, it is never clear, at least to me, what the “it” is that other educators are supposed to “get.” There are references to School 2.0, Classroom 2.0,etc.  Significant technology integration is certainly implied, but even that is a loosely defined concept.

Many of the same individuals with whom I learn and interact online will be attending Educon 2.2. at the Science Leadership Academy (SLA) in Philadelphia this coming weekend.  That event will involve lots of conversations, largely around technology and the future of education. Chris Lehmann, the principal of SLA, has long been clear that Educon is not an educational technology conference.  In fact, the conference is guided by five axioms which you see below:

That’s not a bad starting point for framing the “it” that “others” are supposed to “get,” but like all standards, they are vague and high-minded.  I believe “we” (myself included) would all do well to think long and hard about what “it” is that “we” are aiming for and figure out a way to articulate “it.”

What troubles me more than an overall lack of an operationalized vision of the change that “we” want are the many flawed arguments made in favor of “it.” That is, to justify a vision that I argue is not clear from the start, there are a host of arguments being made within the amorphous ed. tech. community that are logically problematic. I summarize and briefly discuss some of those arguments below:

The “Digital Natives” Argument – yes, I’m well aware that “we” have largely denounced the digital natives-immigrants dichotomy, and I’m on board with that.  However, I see a new, related line of thinking that is equally problematic.  It has to do with the notion that kids are really comfortable with technology, they use it a lot, so we should bury them in it at schools too.  When the recent Kaiser Family Foundation report was released, it spread like wildfire among “our” networks/communities.  Here are the money lines: Today, 8-18 year-olds devote an average of 7 hours and 38 minutes (7:38) to using entertainment media across a typical day (more than 53 hours a week).  And because they spend so much of that time ‘media multitasking’ (using more than one medium at a time), they actually manage to pack a total of 10 hours and 45 minutes (10:45) worth of media content into those 7½ hours.

Well, there you go. Given *that*, how can we NOT make our schools more “relevant?”  HOLD ON…what’s the logic there?  Just because that’s what kids do on their own time, that’s how we should engage them in schools?  Why is that exactly?  Maybe, actually, what we need to be doing is using that evidence to argue for maximizing face-to-face time.  In fact, this gives me even more reason to argue for the “flipped classroom” model that you see discussed here.  Let’s “disrupt” or “interrupt” kids time online by, where necessary, providing content or instruction via digital means so that when they come to school they can learn to interact with each other and learn socially while face-to-face.

The Economics Argument – this is the argument based, often, in the works of (non-economists) Daniel Pink, Richard Florida, etc.  It is a big part of presentations done by folks I admire greatly, including my friend/colleague Scott McLeod.  Watch and/or listen to Scott’s presentation to the NEA and you’ll hear a lot about the changing nature of the workforce and how we need to reform schools to meet those changing needs.

I get that, kind of.  Here’s the problem.  If you make that argument, you have to believe that one of the fundamental purposes of schooling is, in fact, to prepare kids for the workforce.  That’s not at all something I believe.  For me, first and foremost, schools are in the business of preparing kids to be active, productive citizens in a deliberative democratic society.  Schooling for citizenship and deliberation, not employment.  I want to remove all references to “workplace” or “workforce” or “economy” from any and all school mission statements.

If I argue or advocate for technology integration in schools, it is based on the idea that we need to recognize that the Web is causing us to rethink what citizenship means and is increasingly becoming a space where important deliberation happens (see e.g. the ways in which social media impacted the last presidential election in this country).  We need to help kids become deliberative  and to express their ideas and thoughts in productive ways in spaces that are digital and PUBLIC.

That said, building upon my notion of maximizing face-to-face time, let’s think about ways to use school time to foster civic engagement and deliberative habits. As far as I’m concerned, every kid should be required to take a debate class.

The Business Argument – this argument was bolstered by the publishing of Disruptive Class which is based on the theory of disruptive innovation developed by of one of the book’s authors, Clayton Christensen.  The general premise there is that technology will increasingly allow us to individualize/customize learning and makes learning possible anywhere/anytime and that is an innovation that will disrupt the model of formal schooling as we know it here…unless, of course, schools figure out a way to head off that disruption at the pass.

Let’s say we accept the book’s premise. Then what?  It was NEVER clear to me in reading the book what it is that schools need to do in order to not get “disrupted.”  Are student-centric learning technologies that customize learning the disruption or the prescription against disruption? I may be missing that, and if so, I’m willing to listen.  But, if “we” include the “Disrupting Class” thinking in “our” arguments, “we” need to be prepared to then tie the vision of the “it” that “they” are supposed to “get” to the logic of disruptive innovation.  In other words, it’s not enough just to say that the current model of schooling is going to be disrupted.

That said, I’m not accepting the book’s premise, largely because I’m missing the last link  in the chain of logic.  I also still don’t understand why the author’s went after K-12 education and not higher education.  Higher education is a choice (to a degree). Up to a certain age, though, public schooling is mandatory.  It’s also, for most people, a public enterprise and not a profit-driven one, and I don’t think the theory of disruptive innovation works in that context.  For a more thoughtful critique of Disrupting Class, I encourage you to read this critique by Andy Zucker of the Concord Consortium.

The “Bored Kid” Anecdote – OK, @bengrey, your turn under the bus. So, lots of attention was given to the story of Aaron Iba, the now former CEO of AppJet, the company that created EtherPad.  Ben wrote about Aaron’s story here.  Lisa Nielsen wrote about it here and here.  Aaron’s story is not a new one.  And, I know Ben and Lisa and others know that.  In fact, that was pretty much their point.  Since forever, kids have been bored in schools.

Well, guess what?  For all of the Aaron’s out there, I can point to a…well…me. School worked beautifully for me.  I’m the perfect anecdote for maintaining the status quo in schools.  I loved school. I got to learn, largely by myself, and that’s what I liked.  Teachers soothed my ego and made me feel smart and great and I achieved at high levels. So, why isn’t anyone blogging about me and how schools work?

Additionally, the Gladwellian tactic of finding a case to fit an a priori belief is not compelling to me.  I think case studies can be immensely interesting and meaningful, but only if done thoroughly and systematically.  Gladwell gives us bits and pieces of his cases and, as a result, we can’t know how well that case “fits” his theory because we don’t know enough about the case.  Same with Aaron Iba. Do we really have enough information here to know the whole story? To conclude that the schooling system failed Aaron? Writing a good case study is hard to do.  When done well, though, they are deep, rich narratives that are full of meaning; they aren’t meant to be “generalizable” though.

One last question about the “bored kid” anecdote: what makes you think the “it,” the “new” school or modes of learning that you apparently have in mind though haven’t quite fully articulated will be not boring for everyone?

In sum, then, I think “we” are putting broken carts before the horses. “We” are concentrating too much on the “why change” argument without first fully and clearly articulating what it is “we” want from schools.  Furthermore, the “why change” arguments, I argue (meta?), are fundamentally flawed.

There are lots of reasons for the institution of schooling to be transformed.  Likewise, there are lots of reasons to consider the affordances of ubiquitous computing for learning.  I ask you to help me think through those reasons in ways that are well-informed and logical…especially those of you with whom I hope to have fully maximized face-to-face experiences this weekend at Educon. I look forward to deliberating with many of you there!

]]> http://edinsanity.com/2010/01/29/the-logic-of-our-arguments/feed/ 22 http://edinsanity.com/2009/09/30/the-politics-of-education-blogging-tagging-etc/ http://edinsanity.com/2009/09/30/the-politics-of-education-blogging-tagging-etc/#comments Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:32:15 +0000 Jon Becker http://edinsanity.com/?p=388 I’m teaching a course called The Politics of Education to an awesome group of our doctoral students this semester. The wiki/syllabus (a living, breathing document) is located HERE. You can participate and help my students’ (and my own) learning in a couple of ways. First, tagging…anything that you think might be related to what the [...]]]>

I’m teaching a course called The Politics of Education to an awesome group of our doctoral students this semester.

The wiki/syllabus (a living, breathing document) is located HERE.

You can participate and help my students’ (and my own) learning in a couple of ways.

First, tagging…anything that you think might be related to what the course is about (see e.g. http://sites.google.com/site/edpolitics/syllabus) can be tagged with “adms707“.  I know, just about everything education-related is also about the politics of education, but that’s OK. Tag away. We will all be feeding Google Reader with a subscription to the tag and we can filter out what’s useful or not.

Second, please consider subscribing to and/or reading the blogs my students are using as reflection spaces.  You can get to individual blog posts HERE.  Or, you can see the blog URLs HERE.  Of course, comments are helpful as I want this blogging endeavor to be meaningful in a connectivist sort of way.

Thanks for considering being a part of our learning experiences this semester!

photo credit: helgasms!

There’s a bit of irony that I’m writing this given that Scott McLeod got on my case this morning for having my head in my Blackberry too much.  I’m glad he did that.  Here’s why…

I’m disconcerted that we’re here at Edubloggercon ’09 which is billed as an unconference where conversations happen.  The goal is to stand in contrast to NECC proper where there are formal sessions with (usually) presenters speaking to the audience.  Yet, even in the smaller breakout “conversations” here at EBC, there are more heads in the machines having conversations in the backchannel(s) than there are having face-to-face conversations.  I would take a picture, but I don’t want to “out” anyone.

I’m all in favor of backchannels…in the right place(s) at the right time(s).  If I wanted to chat online with the folks here, I could have stayed at home.  Additionally, if I were facilitating a discussion among a really large group of people, I might encourage a backchannel there.  But, I came here to have meaningful, face-to-face, real conversations about real issues in education.  Fortunately, I’m finding those in small pockets off to the side; I’ve had a few really meaningful conversations and it’s only 11:30.

But, I hope others join me this afternoon in using this particular opportunity, Edubloggercon, to get our heads out of the machines and to look each other in the eyes and to engage in “real” conversation.

OK, folks, I need your help.

Back in February 2008, my wife bought me a Slacker Portable Player for my birthday. It cost $250. Slacker had very recently released the player and I thought it was the perfect device for me since I don’t have many mp3′s, have very few CDs I’d want to rip, etc.  I don’t own an iANYTHING. And, I love to discover new music.

Well, the unit malfunctioned from the very start. I rolled with it for a while figuring I was one of the earliest adopters and the firmware updates would improve the functionality of the unit.  That didn’t happen. By June ’08, I was fed up and asked customer support for a replacement or a refund. They agreed to replace the unit once I sent it back.  I did that; I remember the exact moment when I did that.  My family and I were on our way to NY, and we stopped at the post office.  I had delayed getting the unit shipped for a few weeks and felt good to have finally sent it off.

When I hadn’t received a replacement within a month or two, I contacted Slacker only to be told that they never received the unit.  Apparently, somewhere between the post office and Slacker’s offices, the unit disappeared.  So, Slacker essentially told me that I was out of luck; it was my responsibility to track the unit.  I trusted the USPS and didn’t bother paying for the ability to track the package. In hindsight, that probably wasn’t a great idea.  But…

I pleaded with Slacker, asking them to do the right thing and replace the unit anyway. I sent an e-mail on 12/17/08.  I didn’t get a response, so on 1/08/09, I followed up again and got an auto-reply message that I should get a response within 24 hours.  I didn’t. So, today I went to their online “chat” support to take up my case.  What follows is the transcript of the relevant parts of the discussion (I’ve redacted the Slacker employee’s name):

• XXXXXXX: Thank you for contacting Slacker Live Chat Support.  My name is XXXXXXX.  How may I help you today?
• Jon Becker: Nobody is responding to my e-mails re: Ticket# ….
• XXXXXXX: We are currently about two business days behind in email.
• XXXXXXX: I have read the email.  We are not responsible for any package sent to us, unless we receive it or have proof it was received by us.
• Jon Becker: I understand that, but I’m asking Slacker to consider otherwise. I’m not trying to pull anything here; I’m just a hard-working person with a family and I paid $250 for a device that NEVER worked properly.
• XXXXXXX: There is nothing we can do and this has nothing to do with your situation in our decision.  If we do not receive a package, then you will need to open a claim with USPS.
• XXXXXXX: If you do not have Insurance or tracking, then you run the risk of this happening.
• Jon Becker: That’s not true; there is something you can do.
• Jon Becker: You were going to send me a new unit anyway, so what’s the difference now?
• XXXXXXX: We do not have a unit that is the difference.
• XXXXXXX: We exchange the unit.
• Jon Becker: what does it matter if you got my non-functional unit?
• XXXXXXX: It matters because we have inventory to account for.
• Jon Becker: Listen, I know Slacker is a small company with bills to pay. But, I strongly believe that doing right by your customers and building a loyal customer base is infinitely more important than “accounting for inventory”. I was one of the earliest adopters of Slacker and want to see the company succeed, but I’m really turned off by the way Slacker is handling this. Not replying to e-mails was a bad start.
• XXXXXXX: I just informed you we are two business days behind in emails.  We have no need to take action in this case as your package was lost by USPS and never received by us.  We would have exchanged it had we received it.
• XXXXXXX: We are not able to verify that you sent us the package.
• Jon Becker: the e-mail I sent on 1/8 was a forward of the e-mail I sent on 12/7
• XXXXXXX: I am looking for the email on 12/7
• Jon Becker: You need to “verify” that I sent you the unit? That’s the issue? So, I guess you just don’t trust me?
• XXXXXXX: We are not able to verify the unit.
  
• XXXXXXX: We dont trust anyone until we receive the unit.
• Jon Becker: really?
• XXXXXXX: Really, its business and not personal.
• Jon Becker: those are NOT mutually exclusive
• XXXXXXX: I am just letting you know.  We are not able to replace this unit as we do not have one back from you.
• Jon Becker: If you’re just going to hide behind that policy and your statement that you don’t trust anybody, so be it. We’ll see how that works out for you.
• XXXXXXX: Like I said we do not have an item from you to exchange.
• Jon Becker: yep, got it for the 15th time. I’m done with Slacker altogether. Well done.

You may very well think that I’m wrong and that I should, in fact, bear the burden of the loss.  Fine.  But, here’s a small company in a highly competitive industry and their stated policy is that ” We dont trust anyone…”  How’s that for customer relations?

So, how can you help?  If you’ve read Here Comes Everybody, you might remember the story in the first chapter about the lost phone and how the read/write web allowed the “victim” to get her phone back through mass, Web-based collaboration.  Well, I need mass, web-based collaboration; I need a Smart Mob.  I’m calling for a boycott of Slacker. Don’t support them in any way; there are plenty of alternatives for customized Internet radio, including Pandora, imeem, last.fm, etc.  And, the Slacker portable player will become obsolete once everybody has an iPhone and/or Blackberry (heck, I could nearly buy one of each of those with the $$ it cost to buy the Slacker player in the first place).

I’m also asking you to spread the word. Post about this on your blog; I don’t even need you to link back. Just spread the word.  Write about building customer loyalty. Write about “trust”.  Whatever.

Thanks in advance.

For months now, I’ve been trying to figure out how to develop an online community to enhance our programs within the Department of Educational Leadership at VCU.  Currently, each course has its own Blackboard space.  We also send lots of e-mails to students, though sadly we don’t even have good e-mail groups in our e-mail client (that’s pathetic, I know).  So, communication across courses, across programs, and across the years is impossible.  It’s a sad state of affairs, and I’ve spent way too much time trying to figure out the best way to establish an online community for all of our students, faculty and even alumni.

I suppose my biggest problem is that I’m looking for the perfect one-stop solution.  I’m very familiar with Ning and I’ve been playing around with various wiki systems that work nicely as places for collaboration and communication.  Those are fine ways to create a single online community.  One problem for me, though, is that our department consists of many different groups, cohorts, etc. Here’s a graphical representation of our department:

I want each group, cohort, etc. to be able to communicate privately with each other, but to also be a part of the larger community.  So, I could, for example, setup a department-wide Ning and then setup each cohort as a group.  However, the groups within Ning don’t have the full functionality of Ning (e.g. they can’t setup their own document repository or a separate page for anything, really).  And, the groups are not private.

A second problem is that I want to be able keep track of activity with an RSS feed.  But, as you may know, private spaces (Ning, Wetpaint, etc.) don’t allow for RSS feeds.  This limitation also stops me from setting up a Ning or Wetpaint for each group, cohort, etc. and then setting up a department-level aggregate page via NetVibes or Pageflakes (a la Steve Hargadon’s approach here).

So, where am I?  Right now, I’m leaning towards a department-level Ning as the hub of our online community.  From there, I could setup groups for each cohort, group, etc. with a link to a private wiki for each cohort, group, etc. (leaning heavily towards WetPaint for that).  In the absence of RSS feeds, I’ll have to subscribe to each site via e-mail and then setup routing rules so that my inbox doesn’t get flooded.  It’s also going to be a naming nightmare.  But, that’s my best current solution.

If any of you smart people have better ideas, I’d be more than happy to hear them.  Thanks in advance!