Educational Insanity

photo credit: Nathan Y

Recently, on Darren Draper’s blog, I commented on the sort of “invention sessions” that Malcolm Gladwell wrote about and that Darren suggested would be an interesting addition to the field of education (I agree completely, BTW).  I wrote: “I wonder if electronic communities are sufficient. Classroom 2.0 is a wonderful resource, but do ‘invention sessions’ necessarily require prolonged f-2-f interactions among a small group of smart people? I think this is an empirical question.”

In response to my comment, Darren wrote, “Strange, but you’re right about the f2f interactions. There is something about having a face to face relationship with someone – and the power that comes from bringing it to online settings. It’s as if one without the other isn’t quite as effective. I know that as I’ve met people f2f, our interactions online become more rich…That said, I think many would argue that f2f interactions aren’t required for effective ‘invention sessions’. This topic needs to be addressed further.”

I henceforth address the topic further, and I respectfully disagree (though maybe it’s just a matter of how we interpret Gladwell’s writing about invention sessions). Please don’t get me wrong…I think there are incredible opportunities and ideas to be pursued through the use of networking sites such as Ning, and the learning opportunities afforded by the combination of networking tools such as Ning, Twitter, UStream, Elluminate, etc. are endless.

However, I think what we are doing by collectively using those applications is creating individualized yet overlapping learning communities.  And, with NECC 2008 approaching, I will meet (with) many of those within my learning community and add face-to-face communication to that community.  I believe this is ideal for two reasons.  First, my own learning is aided because growing evidence suggests that e-learning is best when supplemented with f-2-f interactions (i.e. “blended” learning).  Second, as I’ve written about before, based on the work of Etzioni and Etzioni (THE experts on “community”), the ideal form of community is a hybrid one. Communities that utilize hybrid systems “would be able to bond better
and share values more effectively than communities that rely upon only one or the other mode of communication” (Etzioni & Etzioni, 1999, p. 247).  Thus, adding Web 2.0 tools to traditional learning spaces such as presentations, conferences, etc. creates perfect personal learning communities; the learning is better and the community is better.  PLN/PLE + F-2-F = PLC [NOTE: I believe the PERSONAL learning community is distinguishable from the PROFESSIONAL learning community made famous and popularized by Rick DuFour and others.  But, that's the subject of another blog post...].

However, I understood the “invention session” to be an action/change-oriented, synchronous interaction between a small group of really smart individuals with very different personal and/or professional perspectives.  I suspect that those in the sessions of which Gladwell wrote extended their discussions with computer-mediated communications (CMC), but I think the initial brainstorming needed to be done together, in the same room at the same time for an extended period of time.  I’m as much an advocate of CMC as anyone, but things happen f-2-f that cannot be replicated digitally.  I also think the action orientation of invention sessions necessitates limiting the number of participants.  If you’ve ever chaired a committee or a task force, you can probably appreciate such a limitation.

If someone can offer an example of a major “invention” or “innovation” that was developed purely through CMC among a large group of individuals, I’d be willing to reconsider my argument.  Until then, I throw out two questions:

1. What do you think?  Can an invention session be held solely online?
2. If there were to be an invention session to. let’s say, eliminate the achievement gap, which 5-7 living individuals would you want to be involved?

I’m sure I’m not the first to write about this, but Scott McLeod delivered his latest list of the (potentially) top 50 P-12 education blogs and he got me thinking. The list is what it is…a ranking based on one metric: how many other blogs (and blogs only) have linked to a given blog. As long as Scott’s clear about that, which he very well is, then readers can make what they want of the list.

I commented, noting first that the list overwhelmingly consists of ed. tech. focused blogs. There are many reasons for this, most notably that blogging requires some technological awareness and a little bit of tech. savvy that ed. tech. folks are most likely to have. I also noted my surprise not to see certain educational policy bloggers on the list, such as Sherman Dorn, Matthew Tabor, Alexander Russo and Gary Stager (who I see as more of a bridge blogger). Dorn’s been blogging practically since I was born, and I learn more from him than just about any of the other bloggers I read.

I’m still searching for the right metaphor, because I don’t know that “echo chambers” is quite right; maybe it is, though. According to Wikipedia, “[m]etaphorically, the term echo chamber can refer to any situation in which information, ideas or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission inside an ‘enclosed’ space.” I’ve gotten myself in trouble in the past for suggesting that the edtechblogosphere is a closed space, so I have to be careful here. But, I’ve noticed that the ed. tech. folks on Scott’s list all tend to comment on each other’s blogs and they all tend to communicate with each other via Twitter and other communication media. There are LOTS of REALLY valuable reasons for that, mostly that there is lots of co-learning going on that way. [NOTE: I've noticed that the same sort of "echo chamber" exists for the ed. policy bloggers, although the echoes there are less frequent and more muted (IMHO), and I don't know that there's much electronic communication going on between them beyond the blogs].

So, maybe rather than a closed space, then, a problem as I see it is that there are very few nodes connecting the unfortunately and unnecessarily distinct networks (i.e. the ed. tech. networks and the ed. policy networks). When Gary Stager called out the ed. tech. bloggers for failing to write about the Reading First study, he (purposefully or not) served as a node/bridge but also pointed out just how little overlap there is between the tech. and policy networks. A few commenters thanked Gary for pointing out the “story”.

I’m problematizing this disconnect because, for me, it is symptomatic or an extension of the sort of compartmentalization that plagues the education sector generally. I believe that one of the reasons our public schools have not experienced rapid technological change is because the ed. tech. folks are treated as separate. Leaders and decision makers don’t really understand the issues, so they delegate it to the geeks and wireheads (I use those terms lovingly). It’s the same way with, for example, special education. Leaders and decision makers don’t really understand all of the laws, regulations, etc., so they delegate authority to THAT department and THOSE educators. We have the same problems in schools and colleges of education. For example, I work in a department of educational leadership. Separately, we have a Department of Special Education and Disability Policies. So, let’s say an educator wants to pursue a doctorate with the idea of serving as a special education policymaker or an assistant superintendent for special education. To which program does that educator apply?

We need more integration in education and less compartmentalization; fewer echo chambers. After all, everything is miscellaneous, right?