CREDIT: Grant Leavitt

After presenting a paper about a study of an ed. tech. integration support program, the discussant mentioned that he drew very similar conclusions from a simlar study he did…20 years prior. In other words, the role of the technology support personnel in schools is no different today than it was 20 years ago.

That got me wondering and looking back at some other seminal writings about ed. tech. from a decade or so ago. I stumbled upon this article written by friend/colleague/mentor Dale Mann in 1999. My favorite part is this:

Mann also writes, “With the Internet, learning goes to the learner…The democratizing impacts of that reversal are only dimly perceived. And the consequences for bricks-and-mortar knowledge citadels have not begun to be imagined, although they are probably captured by the observation of technology as train–you will be either on it or under it.”

Many of us lament how the institution of public schooling has missed the train, and I personally have postulated that one of many reasons for missing the train has been fear (from and of many things). I wonder if there is some unorganized resistance to technology within the institution of public schooling out of fear of losing control of the learning enterprise. In other words, perhaps the learning revolution threatens the entire bricks-and-mortar enterprise.

Whenever I have my students read Roger Schank and Kemi Jona’s vision of education in the 21st Century, they are almost all shocked and horrified. Without articulating it explicitly, they are incredibly fearful of giving up the sort of control that Schank suggests.

I encourage you to read Mann’s article and the Schank/Jona white paper and let me know what you think. Do you want a learning revolution?

Tags: education, learning, Mann, revolution, Schank, technology

There’s an interesting story (free registration required) in the New York Times about professors who blog and engage in other forms of Web 2.0-ness.  I think the MtvU exec. makes the best point when he says that it’s about transparency.  I’ve also espoused transparency as an orientation to my own work, and I think blogging is a natural extention of that for me. 

What I think the NYT article misses though is any discussion about teaching or learning.  Specifically, the edublogosphere has become my personal learning space and those who feed me (in RSS terms) and who I follow on Twitter are my personal learning network.  I blog because I believe (maybe mistakenly?) that I have something to offer this learning space and because I believe I am somewhat obligated to give and not just take.  Also, by making my thoughts and ideas “public,” I’m inviting others to join my PLN. 

If I can get past the tenure hurdle, I’d love to embark on an empirical journey around this notion of collaborative/digital learning.  I’d like to know how PLN’s jive with theories of learning, community, etc.  I’d like to know how we can foster PLNs in doctoral education.  I’d like to know how we can use PLNs to advance school leadership.  So, I guess that’s why I blog, tweet, comment, etc.  I’m learning about learning.

Tags: blogs, leadership, learning, PLN, transparency

The faculty at my former University/employer is engaged in complicated discussions over the possibility of re-naming their unit.  Currently, they are the School of Education and Allied Human Services (SOEAHS).  The AHS part was added not too long ago to properly recognize the many non-school-based programs within the unit.  When I was there, my feelings about those discussions ranged from “ridiculous” to “really important.”  At times I thought, “names don’t matter; quality content does.”  Other times I thought, “names send really important messages.”  Though I’m no longer a full-time faculty member there, I find myself in the latter camp today.  Maybe I’ve been reading too much Seth Godin, but I think what we call ourselves positions us within a marketplace of both consumers (students) and ideas. 

So, I took a look at the Top 5 graduate schools of education (according to the U.S. News & World Report) and found the following names:

• Teachers College, Columbia University - that’s the name of the unit.  Um, Dr. Fuhrman, the 19th Century called and they’d like their normal school-ish name back.  (NOTE: can they revoke my doctorate for being so mean?).
• Stanford University - Graduate School of Education - simple, straightforward, conservative (sorry, had to throw that in there).
• Harvard Graduate School of Education - also simple, straightforward
• Vanderbilt Peabody College of Education and Human Development - in the field, mostly referred to as Peabody College.  I like the inclusion of “human development.”
• UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies - cool; information studies!

I haven’t formally analyzed the data, but I’d bet that if you went further down the list, you’d find the modal circumstance to be “School of Education” (like VCU, where I work).  And, that makes me wonder a couple of things.  First, if, as I believe, education is much more than formal schooling, are the collective bodies of departments and programs within those units truly about education or are they nearly exclusively focused on the institution of schooling?  Second, where is “learning” in all of this?

I noticed that Stanford offers a doctoral prograrm in “Learning Sciences and Technology.”  Sounds like a fantastic program.  Harvard offers degrees in “Learning and Teaching.”  I like that learning comes before teaching (see names do matter!).  And, UCLA has two main departments, one of which is the Department of Information Studies.  That’s neat and interesting, but at first glance, I didn’t see the word “learning” anywhere within their mission statement.

Thus, ultimately, I’m left wondering what the relationship is between education, schooling and learning.  If we go by the names of these graduate institutions, learning is a subset of the larger thing called education (i.e. it’s part of one or more programs offered within a school of education).  In some cases, based on names alone, it’s hard to know where learning fits in at all.  I’m not comfortable with that.

If I were naming the graduate institution in which I worked, it would have the word “learning” in it.  Also, to meet the realities of the modern world, I wouldn’t include the word “school” in our name either.  Maybe we’d be something like the Learning Sciences Institute.  Except, that’s already taken.  I knew those people at Vanderbilt were smart!

Tags: education, graduate school, learning, names, schooling