Not So Distant Future

I’m reflecting on Educon 2.0 this morning and the most powerful parts of it for me.

One of the most powerful aspects for me was online community turned real community -that in 140 characters on Twitter , bit by bit, you create connections with other educators. And when you meet them, it’s like you are just picking up the conversation where you left off, not like meeting them for the first time.

So, that’s what I’m hoping we do after Educon—pick up the conversations where we left off. I worry that when we leave the rarified environment of SLA and enter our own schools, that we’ll become discouraged. Once you see what things can be like, it’s difficult to go back.

  So, what was different about SLA and what did I learn at Educon?

–A mission–everyone knows what the mission is and what they are there for.  Every student you ask, every teacher, clearly knows that mission.   And everyone does what is needed to get it done.   One quiet little moment that really moved me was when I opened the door to the stairwell, and a student was there with a broom, sweeping up a little area of the floor, in a place no one would even really have noticed–because he cared about the mission of their school and it belonged to him.

–Constructivist learning –Students who are so incredibly committed to their school not because of extracurriculars or sports, but because they know they are learning and they’ve made a commitment to their own learning.   Students who are making meaning by discovering knowledge, discussing things in class–students who are expected to bring themselves to the classroom.  I saw an incredible presentation led by a group of students on their collaborative playwriting process, and the students were so excited and committed as they talked about what brought them to spend their “extra” time working on this project.   Like Konrad Glogowski spoke about in his presentation, let’s stand like Caravaggio on the side of the painting and shine a light for our students while they learn.

–The people–When Al Bichner, CIO of Philadelphia Schools spoke at the opening session, he said that he knew he had a “first round draft pick” in Chris Lehmann.   The staff is incredible.  The students want to be there.  The energy of the people in the building make a difference.

–Student voice–Student voice is respected, desired, and a critical part of this community.  And it was a respected, desired, and critical part of this conference as well, and it made everything different and better having students there with us.

–The power of collegiality—This permeates the school.  Students feel empowered to express their opinions , and teachers feel the freedom to let their students learn through discussion and exploration of ideas.  You see a principal and teachers who are colleagues in the real sense of the word, working side by side for a truly shared mission. As one teacher put it today, “What’s different at SLA is that we all want each other to bring our best.”   Everyone is in it together.

– Community. There’s a sense of everyone looking after everyone else. Community based around everyone on campus as a learner. Not just students but teachers. I saw students leading workshops, students from both SLA and from elsewhere. And by having students show up, all of us learned.

For example, at the end of my own workshop, we reflected twitter-style(briefly) on our experiences at Educon. Several of the students present commented that what they learned was that  teachers really are passionate about learning, and that there are teachers who really care. And we as teachers saw in action how powerful adding student voice to the mix is.    How sad it is that somehow we aren’t conveying that to our students in every school, that we really care about learning, and that their voices are so valuable to us.   That is something we can change.

I’ve been thinking a lot about an article I read in American Libraries recently, which pointed out that libraries can get overly focused on the “commodity” of books rather than the customer. I see this as an issue for secondary schools.   We focus on the commodity of content over the learner themselves sometimes.   We get so consumed by content that we don’t see the “whole” school or work together.

Two students over the course of the weekend told groups of us that their best learning experience had been elementary school, because they learned by experimenting, by doing, by playing.  One of the most innovative ideas I heard was from Arthus Erea, a high school student from Vermont, who pointed out that he felt students should be asked to make a learning plan with each teacher reflecting what the student would like to learn from a course. We dialogued in Arthus’ session about the fact that we indoctrinate students from an early age and so they sit there passively expecting to be told what to learn, because we don’t ask them to be partners in defining their own learning.   When Arthus shared the example of receiving his syllabus in the mail, “telling him” what he was going to learn–my eyes were suddenly opened.  Where is the invitation in that for our students?   Are we inviting them in to our classrooms?

–Conversations.  As I mentioned yesterday, the power of conversation was everywhere at Educon, and I suspect everywhere at SLA.  It is a school that talks about ideas.  And the conference was the same way.  The conversations were happening everywhere in every corner, stairwell, hallway, and conference room.   Sylvia Martinez pointed out in the panel discussion on Sunday that the system of schools in our country wasn’t really so big–100,000 schools isn’t really that many to change.     We just need to keep spreading the conversations.

So, let’s pick up the conversation where we left off.  Let’s go make our schools even better.  Let’s go talk to our students, start conversations with our staff, and keep sharing with and supporting one another.   Let’s go make change. 

I’ll be writing more for weeks I’m sure about the conversations and sessions at Educon this weekend, but in looking over my notes this morning, the thing that strikes me the most is the power of conversation in learning.

One of the most powerful part of Kevin Jarrett’s and Sylvia Martinez’s session, “Influence Without Authority” about the Future Search process, was that Sandra Janoff, who initiated this process, was there in the room, and in the conversation with all of us.   Future Search is a method of bringing key players together in a specific process to discuss change.

Kevin and Sylvia were exploring through their conversation whether technology could enhance the process–if wikis or blogs or other methods could support the Future Search.   And the astounding thing that took place as we all talked was that Sandra Janoff shared that she didn’t know about all these technologies, that she was learning from our conversation and that she was very excited about the possibility for finding out how they could be used as a support for the Future Search.  We were all learning together.

Similarly in Arthus Erea’s session on Student Voice, one teacher in the room was struggling with how to balance teaching to the standards and embracing time for exploration.  She was an experienced teacher who was struggling with this but as the conversation evolved, and students added their voices, and others of us talked about it, you could see that her view was shifting and she was becoming an excited part of the conversation.  Having student voice involved in the discussion was a significant part of that.

We’ve been talking alot about change and how it can happen and what facilitates it in many different sessions at Educon.  So what strikes me is this–how could we take “conversations” into our own districts and campuses?  How could we take a constructivist approach to learning into our staff development, our campus meetings and committees so that we can better learn from our colleagues and students, and have conversations that matter?   How can we make sure that all the key players are present?

Sandra Janoff identified an acronym–”arein”–to explain who should be present–people with the authority to make the changes,  the resources, the expertise, the information, and the need.  That seems like a very helpful construct in planning conversations.   And Arthus’s session made it clear that those conversations we are having in our schools should include student voices, our real constituents.

Much to think about, and I’m off to day 2 for more conversations.  (I’ll be presenting a session at 2:30 on developing some globally contributed best practices relating to intellectual freedom/internet filtering.)

Kate left a comment on my blog yesterday about personal  learning networks, and that now all we need to do is show teachers the why.

And sitting here, at Educon 2.0, surrounded by so many other dedicated professionals that I never would have met otherwise, is my reason why.  There are educators and bloggers from around the country here–from Florida to South Carolina to New York to Canada who have gathered here because they are passionate about education and want to share ideas, (and gadgets!) and learn.  It’s astounding what we as educators and librarians and tech professionals have to learn from one another.

And to think that most of us would never have met without these online learning networks that enable us to stretch our gaze farther, and find those who share our interests and passions!   It brings home the power of the network.

Tune into the Ustreams today and tomorrow and join the conversations!

This summer, at the NECC conference, I was sorry to have missed the first “Educon” — an informal gathering of educators/bloggers who had only previously met virtually –who were meeting in Atlanta to talk informally about education. 

Tomorrow I’m leaving for an experience I am very excited about–and the seeds of which were planted at that first meeting.   If you aren’t familiar, I’m heading to Educon 2.0, which takes place at the Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia, and is composed entirely of conversations about education (and I hope will lead to many actions as well!)

I’m nervous but excited to be hosting two conversations.  The first conversation on Saturday at 2:30 will be “Extreme Makeover: Library Edition” and will be hosted by Joyce Valenza, Cathy Nelson, and myself (this will my first time to meet Cathy also!).   We’ll be having a conversation about Library 3.0 and what that can look like, and ways to start getting there.

The second conversation I’m hosting is Internet Filtering and Intellectual Freedom, which takes place on Sunday at 2:30.  I’m following a session by Tim Stahmer on the balance between access and safety.  Hopefully our conversations will build upon one another.   The goal of my second conversation is to begin building a shared “go to” site for information about best practices in schools regarding the issues of filtering.   We know the problems–but what can we do to insure that our districts follow “best practices” and that we have examples to share?

Chris has already established wiki links for each session and every session at the conference will be Ustreamed.   Check out the agenda and links for all of the sessions here.   And since it’s on a weekend, this means if you want to follow a session from home, no worries!   Plus they’ll be saved for later viewing as well.

The most inspiring part of the conference is the roster of attendees and presenters(if you can call leading conversations presenting?).  I’m going to get to meet so many bloggers and teachers that I’ve read about or admire.  We’re going to get to have a tour of the Science Leadership Academy, and I’m really looking forward to seeing practice in ‘action.’

And on a related note, I’m wondering why within our campuses, we can’t host an “educon” for students–why not have a day where our students present workshops and learn from one another?   One of the other sessions I’m very excited about will be hosted by Arthus Erea, a high school student from Vermont who will be attending the conference.   What a great example–I can’t wait to hear his session!

And the very best part of all of this is that it’s a group of peers who have come together to learn from one another.   Peers learning from peers–all of us there because we are passionate about education.  What could be more inspiring?

Quite a bit of conversation has been circulating around the blogosphere lately about personal learning networks and how to move them into the professional practice of teachers.

Scott Schwister pushed at that idea in a “must read” recent post, asking “How do we show the learning that happens through personal learning networks?”   He concludes by asking, “What is it going to take to bring professional learning networks in from the cold? Can the learning that occurs in a PLN be shown in a way that makes sense—and makes a case—to someone not already involved in their own network?”

My pushback to his post–if you’ll excuse me for citing myself but I am going somewhere with this–

“When we think of teaching something, we often talk about connecting to something our students already know and scaffolding their learning that way.

We can’t ignore the fact that most teachers already do have personal learning networks–maybe they are within their own buildings, but those are networks, nonetheless.

Perhaps building on the notion of the teacher down the hall connects into that.

When we talk about personal learning networks, I think we’re really thinking of something more far-flung.

But although this may seem obvious, I think for a personal learning network to really be personal, it has to fit the needs of the person who creates it.

I think this is partly about creating opportunities for teachers–opportunities for them to get professional support, share ideas, and learn.

But for something to be an opportunity, there has to be a perceived need. “

I’ve been thinking about Scott’s question while reading Made To Stick, by Chip and Dan Heath.  The authors write about what makes ideas appealing enough to move us forward.  In their chapter on emotion, they invoke Mother Teresa’s eloquent words–”If I look at the mass, I will never act.  If I look at the one, I will.” 

The idea of building a learning network seems overwhelming in the “whole” and those of us doing workshops have a network built already that we are sharing in conversations and workshops.  But how did we get there?  One by one, we built those connections.   I wrote a post a few months ago about specific steps teachers could take to build a network, trying to get at that idea of breaking down into the details.

I think as we talk with teachers about building a caring professional network, we need to help them look at the one, not the mass, as they begin.   We can’t get so carried away with our own enthusiasm that we don’t help them find entryways.

In the chapter in Made to Stick, the authors highlight a number of important factors in making a message stick that resonated with me in relation to personal networks.    Some of the factors are things I wrote about on Scott’s post, like connecting to ideas that teachers already know( like their within the building networks).    Bringing home how it will help a particular teacher and appeal to their own interests is also a significant way to make the idea of a personal learning network stick–it has to be personal to them.   

But, and this seems important as we work with teachers as a whole–stickiness also has to do with the identity of the group as a whole, according to the authors.  When making a decision, we may consider our own interests, but we may also consider how we fit into a group–asking ourselves, for example, “what do “teachers” who follow best practices do?”  Or “what do 21st century teachers do?”   The work Will Richardson and Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach are doing in this regard is an excellent example of helping teachers develop that identity.

 But associations can backfire too, as the authors point out.   (If someone in a workshop doesn’t consider themselves a 21st century teacher because they are reaching retirement age, will they buy in to that identity?)

The authors also point out that sometimes the “curse of knowledge” interferes with our ability to see. (p. 200)  Teachers are familiar with teaching ‘as it is’ and we know our jobs ‘as they have been.’   How do we push beyond the status quo, and ask “why?”  Why teach?  Why are we here?  Why are students here?  What are we hoping to accomplish?  The authors point out that “Asking ‘Why?’ helps to remind us of the core values, the core principles, that underlie our ideas.”(p. 201)  Drilling down through these questions may allow us to better explore what would make our classrooms more effective places for students, who are our customers, and sidesteps what the authors call the “curse of knowledge.”

Lastly, the authors circle back around to Mother Teresa’s words.   When we make the experience more particular to one person, it has more of an impact.  What if we ask teachers to think of that one student that they didn’t quite know how to help–and what it would have been like if they’d had a network of excellent and experienced teachers they could have asked for help?    Or what about that one lesson that they’ve struggled with conveying to their students?  What if they had a network of people to inspire them with a way to teach it?

I believe there is tremendous power for educators in building learning networks.   But if we bandy about the term it loses meaning(if it had any for teachers to begin with.)     I think part of making this happen is breaking it down from the global to the particular.

We don’t tell students, today we’re learning all of algebra, and algebra is really important.  We show them, step by step, day by day, particular detail by particular detail.

So, in a very roundabout answer to Scott’s question,  I think we need to keep it real.  I think we need to keep it specific.  I think we need to keep it personal.   I think we have to tie it into what teachers already know.  I think we have to tap into the need.  I think we have to help teachers identify what is in it for their students.  And I think we have to model being a connected, global teacher and invite them into that experience.

I’m still thinking about this–as Scott wrote, there’s a lot here to be delved into.   I know how significant developing a learning network has been for me in the last year.  I have felt more challenged, inspired, pushed, and enthusiastic than I have felt since college.   I’ve read more, written more, learned more, grown more, and shared more than I have had the opportunity to do in many years.  

So, what next?   Where do we go from here?

If you’re stopping by after reading my recent article on using Skype in libraries, welcome!

Skype also is an excellent tool for bringing in experts/other librarians into workshops you are presenting, by the way, even if they can’t attend in person. 

One of the best things about using Skype is it brings you and your students closer to a global community.    When students are having to figure out what time zone someone else is in to set up a meeting, or talking to someone “live” from another state or country, their sense of the world expands tremendously.  When they can speak to an author or see the author via a webcam, their sense of what a writer is deepens and becomes more personal.

I’d love to hear other ideas about how you’ve tried Skype in your libraries/classrooms!  Thanks for stopping by.

  Professor Tara Brabazon of the University of Brighton is concerned about student uses of Google and Wikipedia.  She is giving an upcoming lecture in Brighton which piqued my interest, entitled “Google is White Bread for the Mind.”

While I am always amazed by Google, and  by no means go so far as she does(banning students from using Wikipedia and Google), I do think she’s onto something as far as our work with students and gives us a good metaphor to hang our hats on.

Google, like white bread, is easy, quick, and readily available (and liked by many/most students).   But white bread’s nutritional value is lacking, so of course as parents, most of us recommend and buy wheat bread for our own children, whether or not they like white bread better.

As educators, shouldn’t we be providing more “nutritional value” for our students?   When we assign any research project or paper, shouldn’t we, as content area specialists, be providing some guidance as to whom the experts in the field are and where the best sources are(be they databases or websites?), rather than turning the students loose to wander?  

Or if we send them wandering, wouldn’t it be helpful to give them clues as to what to look for(important organizations in our fields, ways to evaluate a website for authority, etc.?)   And in the results they bring us, shouldn’t we be helping students cull out the best resources for that field?  (and embracing resources they find when they discover great ones we aren’t aware of?)

I’m very much an advocate for discovery and sometimes use a Google search myself to establish who the experts in the field are.  But…if I am not familiar with the field, I still try to find a “guide” online–whether a friend I can consult or a teacher in the field or a website where someone expert has provided links.

As the professor points out, students will find their way to Google, so isn’t our job to make sure they know other avenues for finding information as well?

And even when we give our students white bread, can’t we  homebake it and put it some oatmeal or wheat germ?

image credit:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/doublereed/1985361614/

Literally.   And figuratively.

  This is the question I’ll be trying to answer for the next year or so, because this is our library.  

Is a library defined purely by just its “stuff” or  by the services the staff provides? 

The time for thinking a library is just a warehouse has passed.   We can deliver services to where our customers are(the classroom), deliver it via the web, deliver it via Skype, deliver it via video, because the library is also the staff IN the library.

So, those of you who aren’t librarians–do you ask your librarian for “stuff” or for services?  And if you don’t ask for services, why not?  

Fascinating interview with Alvin Toffler in Edutopia which dovetails with my post a couple of days ago about Sir Ken Robinson’s approach to rethinking education.

While I don’t agree with everything that Toeffler says, I do think it’s refreshing to see someone approach this complex problem with some understanding of the complexity and particularly the understanding that what we do should be more integrated across the curriculum, no matter what it looks like.

Well worth a read.  Thanks to Stephanie Sandifer on Twitter for the link!

A chance plea from a parent and colleague Brian Smith on Twitter today led to a long discussion online about the research process and how it could be so much more meaningful for students than it is.

Smith was struggling to work with his 14 year old to generate a research topic.  The assignment the student was given was to pick “something of interest.”

While it seems very open-ended to allow a student to research whatever they want, as very often happens, the student was given the assignment with no advance preparation, brainstorming, etc., and expected to “come up with” a topic.

(I also wonder where the librarian was in this process.  As a number of us commented on twitter, teachers often don’t seem to perceive us as partners in the research process or even as helpful advisors sometimes, even though research is what we “do” for our campuses; but that is another post altogether).

Smith reflected his frustration in his tweet:

How do we tap into student passions when we ask them to really research something?  How do we stoke those fires, draw them in, ask for their voices and make it personal for them?     And are we(both teachers and librarians) providing enough inspiration and scaffolding throughout the research process?   What can all of us do differently to make this more meaningful for students–a rich, engaged and authentic experience where real learning and understanding occurs?

Carol Kuhlthau has done a tremendous amount of work on the research process, and her model is one I find very valuable because it speaks to the process, not the product.   She observed the behaviors of students while doing research and her model describes both the steps they experienced but also the emotions associated with each stage.   

 For example during the initiation phase, students feel anxiety and uncertainty as they seek to define the assignment and their topic.  That’s a normal way for students to feel, and it helps for both students, teachers, and parents to know that.   Her model does an excellent job of portraying those connections, and in her books, she elucidates many ways to scaffold research assignments for students so that they are supported during the more stressful parts of the process.

Kuhlthau also identifies a “zone of intervention” based on Vygotsky’s work on zones of proximal development, which is the zone during which help and scaffolding helps move students through the process and eases their anxiety.

So part of the issue I frequently see is that we aren’t sufficiently supporting students through the stress that characterizes the beginning stages of the research process.  

But another issue is something that Brian identified in his tweet–where is the passion?  His child was told they couldn’t do their first topic because another student had selected it–on a practical classroom level, this is understandable, but in terms of the student’s passion for the topic it isn’t.  If a student is interested in something, that is what they are interested in. 

Basically we are asking them to set aside their own passion because another student “claimed it” first.   And if we go back to Kuhlthau’s model, at the most stressful and difficult stage of the research process, we are adding to the stress by denying the student his own self-selected interest.   

One way to have balanced that in the first place would be to begin a research assignment by weeks of having students write about their interests, or clip newspaper articles, or to bookmark websites on delicious–then the student would have had already identified several of his/her interests and wouldn’t be left in a scene that is all too familiar to many of us who are parents or librarians–sitting with the child going, “Do you like this?  No…do you like this?   No? …aren’t you interested in this?”   

Another model which seeks to address the area of student passions is Ken Macrorie’s I-search model, which encourages students to be active participants in the research process and encourages use of primary sources as well.

So again, aside from scaffolding the process much more effectively, how can we tap into student passions?   How can we make the research process more real–more like the real research that researchers do?  Here’s a few ideas, but I would love to hear more.

1.  Give students time to consider their interests.  How many of us could “generate” a topic when approaching it completely cold.  The bells rings–okay, pick your topic.

2.  Consider having students, as I mentioned above, write about things that interest them or collect information for weeks or months prior to the assignment.

3.  As you move through your curriculum, have students keep a “research idea” log as things in the curriculum pique their interest. 

4.  Consider conducting research across an entire semester or year.   Two of our teachers are trying this this year–having students gradually collect articles of interest, compare Wikipedia with other sources, use delicious or furl to bookmark items, keep their eyes out for news stories on their topics and so on.  (Interestingly, this was partially driven by the fact that our main library will be closed in the spring when they will be writing their paper, but it’s been very very effective educationally.)

5.  Consider completely rethinking the “research project.”  Tell students they will write a research paper sometime during the year when it feels right to them.   Scaffold everyone at the beginning with assistance on logistics, but let students “strike when the iron is hot.”    (I know we are dealing with high school students, but….they might enjoy having this flexibility and spontaneity).

6.  Have students establish a blog or use a class bulletin board online as a way to explore topics, ask others for help and work collaboratively.  (What would have happened for the student above if the teacher had said–well, if you want to do this topic, and if you and the other student agree, how about the two of you working collaboratively on your research and your paper?  And then supported that with sharing web 2.0 tools that would have assisted them?)

7.  Consider how writing a blog entry or several blog entries is like writing a research paper–where you explore, document and share your investigations and passions.   Could a “blog” be a research paper and be even more meaningful because it’s published?

8.  Consider making the process more open-ended for students.  Every researcher does not end up with the same product in “real life.”  Why can’t the product grow organically out of the topic and student’s process?    Some students may want to create a video to inform others, while others may want to write a blog, and yet others may want to create a slide show and present their information to their peers.     Empower students to make those choices.

9.  If you are a classroom teacher, then realize that your librarian is and wants to be a real partner with you in research(and your tech coordinator may as well!)   Most school librarians have teaching degrees(in some states, this is required) and most have taught.  (and many were English teachers!)    Your librarian sees research in action every day, sees the problems students are having, sees where help is needed and wants to collaborate with you and plan with you.   Seek them out and don’t feel like you are bothering them or inconveniencing them.   (And librarians, don’t ever make teachers feel like they are inconveniencing you!)

But whatever you do–think about how to engage your students passionately in their research.  Think about how to make it authentic for students.  Rethink how you were taught the “research paper” and rethink how you teach it.   Throw out the old “box” and see what happens, because your students will benefit tremendously in the end.    And imagine “grading” research papers where every student was so engaged and passionate about their writing and their topic that they transcended the form.   Wouldn’t that make the process worth it for everyone?   It could even become the spark that leads a student on a life-changing path as they learn to shape their own learning.