In the News

As we conclude our first year of the pilot 1:1 classroom, I find myself looking back on the school year and participating in the single and double loop reflection that is part of effective constructivist learning. Both my students and I constructed our own understandings of the 21st century classroom. I have asked they look back on the year and reflect on their strengths and weaknesses and the strengths and weaknesses of the course. We will discuss these thoughts as a class and I will share my own reflections.


My single loop reflection involves considering the effectiveness of daily instruction, the structure of assignments, and authenticity of assessments. While there are many things to comment on in this regard, this posting is about the double loop reflection: questioning the underlying assumptions about instruction and the educational system as a whole.


The infusion of technology into our high school has created battle lines between those who truly embrace constructivist education and those who embrace a more behaviorist approach to learning. Many of the behaviorists believe they embrace open discovery, project-based, student-centered learning, but their true colors emerge when you discuss giving students access to technology.


I believe part of people’s reluctance is the new technology requires completely restructuring of the classroom environment and the traditional power structures. Teachers are also concerned that the new technologies and teaching strategies are merely causing further distraction and are more flash than substance. They are not the only people concerned with the path education is taking. Mark Bauerlein published a book, The Dumbest Generation that describes students today as, “drowning in a tidal wave of teen, youth, stuff, delivered through digital tools, and the adult realities of history, civics, foreign affairs, politics, and fine arts can’t break through.” (Warlick, D., 2008) He goes on to discuss how access to technology and web 2.0 tools has not led to intellectual gains. “In an average young person’s online experience, the senses may be stimulated and the ego touched, but vocabulary doesn’t expand, memory doesn’t improve, analytic talents don’t develop, and erudition doesn’t ensue.” (Richardson, W., 2008) This argument reflects the opinion of many who oppose the move to 21st century classrooms. The general feeling is that the laptops add more flash but very little additional substance to learning. While I believe this critique is valid when technology is the sole focus, it does not hold water when technology and web 2.0 tools are used in properly constructed learning environments.


Will Richardson discusses Bauerlein's argument in his blog, vehemently arguing that this generation of the so called technological natives are not dumb. "[O]ur kids are not “dumb” nor is this generation 'dumb' simply because they spend a lot of time in front of television screens and computers or because they haven’t worked out for themselves how to get smarter using the Read/Write Web. And to label them so is demeaning and smacks more of marketing than reality."(Richardson, W., 2008) Not only is this stance demeaning to children, but in the educational environment, it implies a lack of responsibility and accountability of parents and teachers to interact with students in meaningful ways within the life experiences of students. This is a philosophical dividing line in education: should students be expected to learn what adults have learned, the way adults learned it, or should students be instructed within their understanding of the world and guided on how to become good global citizens? We must help students understand how and why to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information in meaningful ways. Bauerlein might be correct in emphasizing that web 2.0 alone does not improve the intellectual abilities of Generation Next, however few children often go out of their way to use their surroundings to improve their reading and writing skills without prompting or guidance. We must guide them as they construct their understanding of the world, not tell them how it is and expect them to have buy-in.


Many traditionalists in education believe students learn best in behaviorist environments, however our students have grown up learning and interacting in a predominantly constructivist environment. The Internet can be a powerful tool for constructivist learning and I believe it can be a powerful tool for educating traditional teachers on the benefits of web 2.0 and constructivist learning environments. If the read/write web is to be utilized for converting the naysayers, the learning environment must be non-threatening, constructivist in nature, and utilize techniques of mentoring, reflection, and collaboration. Teachers will be exposed to the benefits of the Internet in the classroom in the four following ways. In-service time and proper training should be used in order to provide the necessary time and guidance:


Internet Miner: Teachers will be exposed to the social bookmarking site Diigo and will be invited into a group dedicated to collecting resources for effective use of the internet in the classroom. They will also be provided some useful search techniques utilizing Google. Time will be provided for them to surf the web, bookmark sites, highlight important text, and examine other's bookmarks. Teachers seasoned in 21st century teaching techniques will help act as guides.

Producer: Teachers will be trained on the use of free website generators such as Free Webs or Weebly and encouraged to create a website for their classroom. This website would provide a course overview, valuable resources for students and a forum or blog section where they could experiment with posing questions for student reflection and discussion. After creating the site, they would visit sites created by other teachers and post suggestions/reflections/links in their forum or blog. This would help provide a non-threatening way to experience the read/write web.

Policy Adviser: Following their experience with web 2.0 tools, teachers would be encouraged to discuss the implication these tools would have on their courses. They would be encouraged to discuss modifications that would have to be made and what changes could be made at the institutional level to support the implementation of 21st century learning environments (namely access to laptops, an appropriate AUP...). A wiki will be created as a place for participants to post their ideas.

Integrator: Teachers will work in small groups to modify a couple of their existing lessons in order to harness the interactive nature of the read/write web. The longterm plan would have them implement the lesson and reflect on the benefits offered by the web 2.0 tools.

There certainly are a lot of logistical aspects that need to be sorted out, but with proper support and commitment to change, I believe many naysayers can be enlightened to the educational benefits of the Internet (does that sound fascist?). It is our responsibility as parents and teachers to educate ourselves on these 21st century tools, so that we can help guide students on effective ways to use technology. In the end, if we do assign kids the label, "The Dumbest Generation", they are not to blame; it will have been our own lack of support, guidance, and understanding.


References:
Lynch, M. and Johan, C. Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticizing (2004). Reflection types: Chapter 9. Reflection in self-organized systems. Retrieved 6/4/08 from http://epress.anu.edu.au/info_systems/mobile_devices/ch09s03.html

Richardson, W. (June 2008). Not the "Dumbest Generation". Retrieved 6/7/08 from http://weblogg-ed.com/2008/not-the-dumbest-generation/

Warlick, D. (May 2008). Another Naysayer Stirs the Pot. Retrieved 6/7/08 from http://davidwarlick.com/2cents/archives/1459