My New Hero

I'm pretty sure that Shelly Blake-Plock is my new hero. Today I began reading his blog TeachPaperless as a way to turn my thinking from relaxing on break back to the world of Education, and I must say, it did the trick.

Many of SB-P's posts point readers to resources or current issues in the news. His most recent blog post TeachBookless is an excerpt from the NPR story Books Have Many Futures (also worth checking out) that ran last week. There is also a nice list of other blogs he follows relevant to Education and Technology.

However, the real meat of TeachPaperless can be found under the heading "Favorite Posts." Read them all. Seriously. Whether you agree with him or not, SB-P unapologetically offers answers to the important questions surrounding the use of technology in the 21st Century classroom that are sure to make you think.

The first post that struck me was Why Teachers Should Blog. SB-P managed to squelch any doubts that may have been lingering in my mind about blogging. Consider this: "I blog and what I blog--and how that message is received by others--tells me what I think. And it tells me how I think." This rings true to me. When I read my old posts, I can see the course of my own thinking, my own growth, and the path that led me to the place where I now stand. He also responds to a student's concern that he has nothing to add to the public discussions that happen on blogs and Twitter. To this he says, "To blog, you can't always allow yourself to be burdened by overthinking. At times this will lead you to a scary place. A place without a safety net. A place full of prat falls." I found this reassuring. I know that I've stared at my blank posts with the worry that whatever I write will somehow be wrong, or worse yet, offensive. I end up thinking myself into a corner. But, SB-P says, "real maturity is not about having the right answers, it's about having the audacity to have the wrong answers and re-address them in light of contemplation, self-argument, and experience." Be still my heart.

While that post caused me to strike a contemplative pose--brow furrowed, chin in hand, I Was a Paper Junkie cracked me up. In this post, SB-P comes clean with his dark past as a "paper junkie." He chronicles his copier-obsessed binges from his early years of teaching (I think I've been guilty of nearly all of them myself), including printing off ebooks (Yep, done that). The best part, though, is when he talks about how he actually made the shift to paperless teaching.

"It wasn't that I was some tech wizard. I certainly wasn't all that environmentally conscious. I barely used the Internet with the exception of reading bulletin boards and getting my morning news.

"Rather, the reason I got into paperlessness was because I was too dumb to figure out how to hook a printer up to my new laptop and too stubborn to ask the IT department to do it for me."

I found great comfort in this. It's reassuring to know that you don't have to have some innate affinity for technology in order to use it effectively in the classroom. This notion comes up again and again throughout SB-P's blog, which is perhaps why I am so drawn to it. He demystifies the idea of what it means to educate students who will be living in the 21st Century. It is definitely a blog worth checking out.

Gen X on Gen M

Family dinners were pretty much a non-negotiable daily commitment when I was growing up. During dinner, we weren't allowed to answer the phone. If it rang, one of two things happened. One, we had to just let it ring. Mind you, we didn't have an answering machine and caller ID didn't exist, so we had no way of knowing who had called. Or, two, my mom would tell my dad to answer it and, "Get rid of 'em." It wasn't that my parents were dictatorial, rather, they believed that dinner was a time for us to sit down as a family and talk to one another, without distractions. I believe there is value in that. I believe in undivided attention.

This is why I'm not sure if I'm impressed or appalled by the "multitasking" of Gen M. It amazes me that anyone can have earbuds in, text someone, talk in person to someone else, update their facebook status, and tweet, all within the same minute. I can't divide my attention in that way (Refer to my earlier post about the webinar). I can barely listen to music and walk at the same time without stumbling into oncoming traffic. I think it becomes an issue of quantity versus quality.

Towards the end of our reading for class, Linda Stone says that Gen M is in a state of "continuous partial attention." She says that this is different from multitasking because it doesn't mean multiple tasks are actually being accomplished. Instead, when a person is connected to so much media, he or she is scanning for what is most important or interesting at that moment. I suppose we all do this to some extent--I know I've sat around on a Saturday night, unwilling to commit to any plans until I know all of my options. Still, I don't do my scanning while I'm already having dinner with one of my friends.

The other part of the reading that really struck me was this new notion of privacy. The authors discussed the fact that teenagers want "control over their audience." It reminded me of the first time I learned about blogs. I was working at a boarding school and one of my students came to me in tears. She was upset because some of the other students were giving her a hard time about something she had written in her blog. I had no idea what a blog was so she told me it was a "public diary." Huh? Isn't that an oxymoron? I had to keep asking for clarification. I thought I had to be missing something. You share your innermost thoughts and publish them in a place where pretty much anyone can see them. She couldn't see why I found this completely illogical. Even more, I had a hard time consoling her because my initial reaction was, "What did you think would happen?"

On one hand I think it's frightening that kids aren't all that concerned about their privacy. But on the other hand, it's admirable that they are willing to share so much of themselves. It might be a way for them to work through issues that would otherwise be buried. I also think it's great that they feel so comfortable sharing their "creations" on the internet. A student might be embarrassed to share a poem in front of her English class, but feel fine about publishing it online. There is this perceived anonymity that somehow makes it easier.

My lingering question is this: Does Gen M represent the natural progression of our society, and if so, should I work on changing my own thinking? Should I try to get better at this type of multitasking, or be even more leery of it? I don't want to find myself completely out of touch, nor do I want to be swept up in this rampant communication. As for now, I'll listen to my mom and I won't answer the phone during dinner, not even if it's her.

More on Gaming...

According to James Gee, one of the benefits of video games is that when you play them, there is constant assessment. The game evaluates every move you make and you know quite quickly if you made the right choice. He also says that in order to succeed at a video game, you have to learn from your mistakes. It is pretty much inevitable that you will fail at first, but this leads to a productive type of trial-and-error learning. These are attitudes about learning we would probably like to encourage in our classroom. But how do we do it? Is it possible?

First, I think we have to consider context when we compare our classroom to the experience of playing a video game. More specifically, we need to consider what is at stake in each situation. If I fail at a video game, I feel frustrated (sometimes pleasantly, sometimes not) and I try again. If I continue to fail, I put the game away. I might be angry or upset that I wasted my money on a game I can't play, but I won't lose any sleep over it. Worst case scenario--my ego is bruised (especially when I'm losing to a six year-old kid. Yes, this has happened to me...many times.) The game that is constantly assessing me is simply a creation of computer programming. I don't care what it thinks of me. There is relatively little at stake.

The classroom is, as they say, a whole 'nother story. Students are not assessed by computers. A teacher might use a computerized device to correct a test, but ultimately the teacher is making the assessment. Connected to this assessment is a perceived judgment. If I fail in class, I might feel like I'm letting down my teacher, my parents and myself. I do care about that. A lot. Of course teachers can alleviate some of this anxiety by being nurturing and supportive. However, I think some of those feelings will always exist and have an effect on students.

The other big difference between video games and a classroom is the content to be mastered. It doesn't really matter if I don't save the princess or win the virtual Super Bowl. It won't have much bearing on my immediate situation or my future. If I don't understand how to write an effective essay or master the concepts of basic Algebra, there will be consequences. In school we can't usually say, "Oh well. I don't get that. I'll just move on." New concepts introduced in a classroom typically build on previously learned skills so it's much more important to master the content. Failure to understand skills and content has implications for the future--grades, standardized tests, college acceptance, etc. It would be nice to say that those things aren't that important, but in our current system, they are.

I hope I don't sound pessimistic. I really like the way James Gee thinks and I support his ideas. I think we should make some serious changes to our system to encourage more of these ideals. I just think we have to probe some of these issues in order to figure out how to make them more of a reality in our classrooms.

A Few Words on Gaming

Until recently (as in, about an hour ago when I read and listened to James Paul Gee) I never felt there was any significant value in playing video games. Sure, some seem loosely "educational," in the sense that they are based in real historical events (mostly wars), and I've often heard the case made that they improve hand-eye coordination, but this is hardly enough to convince me that video games have any true scholarly value.

Enter James Paul Gee. He makes the point that, ultimately, video games are very effective at teaching us problem-solving skills. Gee also suggests that video games promote creativity by allowing players to create characters, societies, and in some cases their own worlds. He points out that video games are constantly assessing us when we play them. They build challenges in a logical way, from the initial training stages to complicated "bosses." When we play video games we are encouraged to take risks. His case is quite convincing. Still, I have some questions.

My first question is a practical one. I understand the points he makes, but I'm not sure how I would integrate gaming into a high school English class. Should it be an activity I use in my classroom, or should I just encourage (or at the very least, not discourage) students who play video games? If I had to answer my own question, I would venture that Gee isn't necessarily promoting the use of specific video games in the classroom. Rather, he is encouraging educators to think about some of the aspects of video games that make them engaging and effective and incorporate those into our teaching practices.

This leads me to another question. Do most video games have this type of worth, or is it only a specific few, or only certain genres. For example, do sports video games encourage problem-solving skills to the same degree as role-playing games? If there is a difference, what criteria should be used to evaluate games? When I hear Gee describe the games he refers to in his article they seem to be quite different than the games I grew up playing. When I was a kid, I had games like Space Invaders, Donkey Kong, Frogger and, of course, Pacman. They are pretty simple by today's standards. I'm not sure that they are able to provide the same benefits as the games that students are playing today. At least not to the same degree. In high school Super Mario Brothers and Zelda were in everybody's Nintendo. These seem to be the basis of many of the platforming games today. But we never had anything quite like a lot of the games that Gee describes.

The last question that keeps bouncing around in my head is whether or not traditional games (card games, board games, etc.) have the same basic educational value as video games. I ask this partially because I feel like many teachers keep board games in their classrooms and don't mind students playing them if there is extra time, and some even model lessons around certain games like Jeopardy, Trivial Pursuit and even Bingo. Most of these teachers would never even consider allowing their students to play video games during school time. Do we have this backwards?

While I don't plan on racing off to the store to purchase the new X-Box 360, I do see the value of certain games that I previously would have written off as mind-numbing. I'm looking forward to exploring this topic more.

Plate Spinning

This is pretty much how I felt during the webinar Friday. I only wish I could have had that background music. Oh, I also forgot to mention that in my version all the plates fell on the floor.

Webinars stress me out. I get so distracted by everything else that's going on that I forget to pay attention to the people presenting. I was distracted by the "technical difficulties," the comments being made by other participants on the screen, and I was especially distracted by Twitter. I kept trying to think of possible "tweets" that would be helpful or relevant to add to the mix and then I would realize that I had quit listening and had no idea what the speakers were even talking about. It was like being trapped in an ADD nightmare.

I don't mean to dismiss things like webinars or Twitter. At least not yet. I think it's important to keep in mind that just because something doesn't work for me doesn't mean it can't be beneficial to my students. It also doesn't mean I can't learn to use it. Maybe some people actually retain more from an experience--be it a webinar, conference, class discussion, etc.--if they are able to tweet about it. It could be used as an amped up form of note-taking.

My biggest concern is that this format seemed to keep me from really being present in the experience. I don't remember much about what was said by our guest speakers. I would even go as far as to say that I feel my inability to focus was disrespectful. Thankfully, our guests were aware that this was, for many of us, our first webinar and were very patient with us.

My other question is about Twitter. It was totally acceptable that we were tweeting during the presentation. However, does this send a tacit message that it is okay to tweet in any situation? Will students (or adults, for that matter) tweet their lives away? That's a little dramatic, but I sometimes worry that we are so connected with technology that we become disconnected from authentic (maybe that's a loaded word) experiences.

As with many things in my life, I feel these ideas are expressed well by Jon Stewart. Enjoy!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Twitter Frenzy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Pop Quiz

Please put away all notes, books, cell phones, iPods, calculators, laptops, Kindles, Gameboys, PSPs, purses, wallets, backpacks, and briefcases. Empty your pockets. Remove all watches, sweatshirts, sweaters, and jackets. If you are at home, please sequester yourself from all roommates, pets, and carnivorous plants. Remove all artwork from the walls. If you are at a library, restaurant, coffee shop, bookstore, or other public venue, please go directly into the bathroom. Lock the door. Position each of the six Acme-Blogger-issued cameras as directed, paying special attention to the patented Acme-Blogger Anal-Cam. WARNING: Incorrect placement of the Anal-Cam may result in rectal failure. Acme-Blogger is not responsible for any injuries. Release your Acme-Blogger watchdog, Mr. Chompers, from his kennel. PLEASE DO NOT FEED MR. CHOMPERS! If you have consumed bacon, sat next to someone who consumed bacon, walked by bacon at the grocery store, or thought about bacon, Acme-Blogger cannot guarantee your safety while in the presence of Mr. Chompers. Finally, fasten the Acme-Blogger ankle and wrist restraints. You will be sent the key upon completion of this quiz. (Please allow 6-8 weeks for delivery.)

Choose the correct answer for each of the following.

1. The color that best represents happiness is:

a. Red

b. Green

c. Pink

d. Blue

e. Happiness is a figment of our imagination.

2. If you're on a train that leaves Ann Arbor at 2:13pm traveling at an average of 62mph, where should you get dinner when you get to Chicago?

a. Capital Grille

b. Gino's East

c. Ed Debevic's

d. Charlie Trotters

e. Subway

3. What is the sound of one hand clapping?

a. It's sort of like leaves rustling in the wind

b. A quiet snapping sound

c. Fingernails on a chalkboard

d. Depends on the size of the hand

e. Trick question: the person clapping doesn't have hands

4. What is Ouagadougou?

a. A type of onion grown in South America

b. The name of Rudyard Kipling's third dog

c. An international Art Fair held in Burkina Faso

d. The sacred text of the Hopi Indians

e. A word you say after drinking too much tequila

5. How now, brown cow?

a. To get to the other side

b. Because I said so

c. Howdy Doody

d. Let's go cow-tipping

e. 9 out of 10 cows hate cheeseburgers

Please put your pencil down. This quiz is worth 75% of your final grade.

Mr. Chompers

(a.k.a. Scout)

"Instead of having answers on a math test, they should just call them impressions, and if you got a different impression, so what, can't we all be brothers?"

-Jack Handey

The Democratic Classroom

When I think of the vocabulary of education, words like "literacy," "taxonomy," and "pedagogy" come to mind. I think of standards and benchmarks, philosophies and theories, lesson plans and curricula. One word I never directly associated with education has come up in nearly all of our classes--democracy. I never framed my notion of education around the idea that we are preparing students to become active members not just in society, but in a specifically democratic society.

I suppose one of the reasons I never made this connection is because most classrooms are not democracies. The teacher chooses the content, assignments and assessments in his or her course. The teacher, usually in conjunction with the school administration, sets the rules and guidelines for what is considered appropriate behavior in the classroom. Often, students are given choices. For example, they can choose the topic of a research assignment, or they might have the option to do a creative project rather than a formal essay. However, this is hardly enough to suggest a classroom democracy.

Perhaps there are good reasons for this. After all, the teacher is supposed to be the "expert," not just of his or her content area, but also of learning in the broader sense. It can be argued that a teacher has had more life experience, therefore, he or she knows "what's best" for his or her students. Families typically operate according to this model as well. Parents make the rules and children are expected to follow them. There are good intentions behind this type of thinking--it is done out of care for a child's safety and well-being, not because parents and teachers are sadistic and hungry for power (I hope).

What happens if we do try a more democratic model? Can students be the judge of what's best? I'm not sure if they are capable of deciding what content material will benefit them most, simply because they lack the knowledge to make that decision. For example, I wouldn't have known that a "wiki" could be a useful tool for teaching because until a couple weeks ago, I had no idea that "wikis" even existed. Similarly, a student wouldn't understand why it's important to know how to write an expository essay if they haven't ever written one. However, I do believe that students know what's best for them in a more general sense.

Students ultimately know what they want and expect from their education, even if they don't always know how to express it. They hope to be in a safe learning environment that will prepare them for future success. If we train them to simply be passive receivers of information, we should expect them to be passive members of society. On the other hand, if we give them a voice in our classroom, they will learn how to better advocate for themselves in the future. Isn't this what democracy is all about? It seems to me that if students are able to have some sense of ownership of their learning experiences, they are much more likely to be successful, not just in school but in our democratic society.