Nothing has brought pedagogical theory into greater disrepute than the belief that it is identified with handing out to teachers recipes and models to be followed in teaching .

- John Dewey, Democracy and Education

I’ve written about this before, but the concept of engaging students in conversations and engaging, as an educator, in conversational assessment, is something that I continue to investigate.

Of course, it is not easy to have meaningful and authentic conversations with students about a literary text that they’re reading. First of all, they know very well that I’m an expert - even if I don’t see myself as one. Therefore, they are absolutely convinced that they cannot contribute anything to the discussion that I don’t already know. No matter how much I try to show them that there are still many aspects of a given topic that I am not very familiar with, students persist in their belief that teachers are experts.

So, I often try to start conversations and create activities that are just as challenging for me as they are for them. This calls for quite a bit of creativity and forces me to abandon tried and tested lesson plans.

Last month, I decided to help my students engage with Anne Frank’s The Diary of a Young Girl as more than just a literary text. I wanted them to look at it as an experience, as life written down by someone their own age. They find it difficult not to treat the diary as just another "big book" that they study at school. I wanted them to think about Anne as a person and her diary as a personal record. I wanted them to have an opportunity to engage with the text and think about what Anne’s words and experiences meant to them. I wanted to create an avenue for a personal connection - not an easy task in a classroom setting where every text we study is likely to be perceived as a literary text first and a personal experience second. At the same time, I also wanted to engage myself as a participant. I wanted to model the kind of personal engagement I wanted my students to experience.

It occurred to me that one way of doing this would be to create a soundtrack for the diary. So, I spent some time browsing through the SeeqPod and SkreemR archives on the mixwit page . The next day, I walked into our classroom and explained to my students how I got the idea:

I always listen to music when I read. Last night I was listening to Mozart and re-reading parts of the diary for our discussion today. Suddenly, I realized that the piece I was listening to suited the passage I was reading perfectly. It felt almost like the best soundtrack for that specific passage. So, I decided to make a list of songs and classical pieces that, in my opinion, would work well as a soundtrack for Anne’s diary.

And then I showed them the soundtrack I had made and we listened to a couple of tracks. I saved my soundtrack using mixwit’s highly visual interface and then embedded it in my blog in the grade eight blogosphere:

(Click here if the above widget does not work)

Then, I continued:

I want you to know that this took a long time and I found it very difficult to choose the songs. I kept searching the mixwit database for all kinds of songs that I thought would be perfect, but then I realized that the lyrics didn’t really work or that the song was actually very different from how I remembered it. In other words, I had to spend quite a bit of time not just coming up with possible song titles for this but also justifying my choices.

So, I would like you to do the same. Create a mixwit account and then search the database for tracks that, in your opinion, would be perfect for a soundtrack for The Diary of a Young Girl . There’s one catch, though: You have to be able to justify your decisions.

And then the conversations started. The one thing that made a huge impact was that I had challenged them to create something that I myself had already done. They could interact with my playlist and learn from the process I had engaged in prior to starting their own. They could critique my work and analyze it before embarking on their own journey of creating a soundtrack. In other words, I had entered the classroom and started the conversation as a participant. Creating my own mixwit tape placed me in the position of a learner. I eagerly shared with them my experiences of using mixwit and choosing the appropriate songs.

The point here is that what they were encouraged to do was not based on an abstract assignment description. I had entered the classroom with evidence of my own meaningful personal engagement with the diary, not just a typed handout explaining what they had to do.

This exercise led to a number of meaningful conversations with my students about Anne Frank, her writing, and our interpretations of her personality and her work. The fact that they all needed to justify their musical choices ensured that the conversations we had focused not just on the music but also, perhaps primarily, on the text. I had many one-on-one conversations with my students in which they talked about specific aspects of Anne’s personality and shared their knowledge of popular music with me. They read and listened to the lyrics carefully because they realized that the choices had to be justified and couldn’t be in any way offensive to the sanctity of the text written by a girl their age who perished in the Holocaust. This wasn’t just about listening to music, it was about making connections, and they all realized that, in order to make them, they had to become very familiar with both the songs and the text - I had encouraged them to become experts.

I was also pleased that this activity gave all of us an opportunity to engage with the diary in a new and unique way. The students still studied the text, they still had to think about Anne as a person and a writer, but they had to do it in a context that rarely enters our classrooms, one that certainly is never present when we discuss literary texts.

I learned that entering the community as a participant allowed me to have conversations with my students that they did not perceive as instructional. Yes, they were talking to Mr.Glogowski about their songs and their reasons for picking them, but it did not feel like school talk.

Here are some examples of what they created:

… and, of course, the best thing about this was that there was no rubric or evaluation sheet. Why? Because when you listen to student soundtracks for The Diary of a Young Girl and the music works, the music fits, you just know the students did a great job … and they do too - not because they received a rubric with a high mark, but because their work emerged from meaningful conversations with each other and the teacher.

A new semester begins...

I am teaching three courses over the next twelve weeks in educational technology. The first course is a (hybrid) sophomore level intro to ed tech that meets once a week for 75 minutes. The second course is an online graduate course titled Supervised Research that is designed as a culminating experience for students completing their educational specialist degree (Ed.S.). The final course is a hybrid course in instructional technology designed for Spanish language educators traveling through South America over the summer. [Ack!]

The good news is I have tremendous assistance from colleagues in the development of all of these courses. Each syllabus is an aggregation of activities and resources built on a set of communication and broadcast channels that should be rather appealing for both new and experienced users of information and communication technologies. My goal is to assist users/participants/students in leveraging the power of networks and social media to deepen their view of the world and to improve their personal and professional practices. (You know, real lightweight business; nothing substantive here....)

Course development and late assignments

The course development process has been a marvelous exercise in framing my own stance as an educator. It provides a chance to revisit what I think, what I know, and what I wonder.

During a recent team discussion on the undergraduate course, I brought up the notion of not allowing any assignments to be turned in late. In other words, turn your assignment in late, you get no grade, no points for the assignment. Students have three major activities and class time dedicated each week to completing them. I thought to minimize "issues*", we could eliminate the need for "late" grades.

* By "issues" I am referring to both the significant amount of time, energy, and attention expended in tracking and calculating late grades and the emotional/social fallout that occurs when a student attempts to turn in an assignment late with no reasonable excuse.

A handful of my colleagues think I will be in for a shitstorm the size of the women's gym....

I find that difficult to believe, but not unimaginable. It seems if students are reminded on a regular basis that no activities can be turned in late, they will understand and comply. Excused absences are the exception and will be handled on a case by case basis.

Am I missing something here?

Based on my colleagues' previous experiences, it seems turning in an assignment on time can be amazingly challenging for most people. Should a student be penalized for not being able to meet reasonable course deadlines? How might you handle the situation?

Thoughts?

In mid-May I will be teaching a general education course, an introduction to educational technology. The audience is a mix of undergraduate students from across campus. While I am quite thrilled at this endeavor, I wanted to take a moment and tap into my learning community network. If you are, or consider yourself, an educational technologist, I need your help.

Can you provide a brief description of what an educational technologist is? I thought it would make sense to get a definition from people engaged in the practice on a daily basis.

So I put it to you:

1) What is an educational technologist?

3) What are the social, ethical, legal, and human issues surrounding the use of technology that you feel are important to consider?

Of course, any other insights you might want to provide are clearly welcome and encouraged.

[video] Clay Shirky, "Here Comes Everybody" (runtime: 42:12)
See and hear Clay Shirky discuss elements of his latest text "Here Comes Everybody: How Digital Networks Transform Our Ability to Gather and Cooperate." Regarding his text, here's how Cory Doctrow http://craphound.com/bio.php describes it on BoingBoing:

"Clay unpicks what has made some "social" Internet media into something utterly transformative, while other attempts have fizzled or fallen to griefers and vandals. Clay picks perfect anecdotes to vividly illustrate his points, then shows the larger truth behind them."

[video] Howard Rheingold at TED
Here Howard delivers a brief overview of collaboration, participatory media and collective action with his usual sense of style and panache at TED.

[video] Henry Giroux: Culture, Politics & Pedagogy: A Conversation w/ Henry Giroux
Henry talks about the work of Paulo Freire and the importance of theory, reflection, and NCLB. Too, too brief.

[video] danah boyd on MyFriends, MySpace
Here danah speaks about her research on social networks. She provides a great historical context to the various sites that have come and gone from the center of Internet activity, as well as some insight into what brought about their successes and failures. 

[video] Billy Collins: Forgetfulness
Former US Poet Laureate reads his poem "Forgetfulness" with animation by Julian Grey of Headgear. Mixed Media Animation + Poetry = another reason I heart YouTube.

Comic for bdieu: Bee from The Perry Bible Fellowship

http://xl-medium.net/WPblog/2008/02/24/online-learning-commu

This essay is a review of the following article written by V. Charalambos, Z. Michalinos, and R. Chamberlain entitled The Design of Online Learning Communities: Critical Issues, published in Educational Media International (2004), v. 41(2), pp. 135-143. Elements of this essay are incorporated in a literature review I am working on associated with peer-reviewed journal articles that focus on online learning communities.

In this study, the authors share lessons learned in the creation of an online learning community sponsored by the United States Distance Learning Consortium called STAR-Online (Supporting Teachers with Anywhere/Anytime Resources), a Web-based educational technology teacher professional development program/model.

According to the authors more than 20,000 teachers have participated since its inception in 2000. Each participant registers online, takes a pre-survey as a means for directing them to suggested learning modules which he or she can complete as directed. All participant data and modules he or she completes is stored in a personal online portfolio. Participants are given access to a number of professional development resources. These include Teacher Resources (lesson plans, digital artifacts, audio and video), communication tools (listserv, chat room, and online bulletin boards.

Professional development modules or lessons are built upon several components. Each contains an overview of the topic(s) to be presented, a set of competencies to be addressed, lessons/activities to engage in, a lesson plan development and integration activity, a sharing out feature which asks the participant to describe how the lesson plan worked, and what impact it had with students, and an evaluation form that is submitted to the module development team for feedback and assessment purposes.

Lessons learned After systematic research and evaluation, the authors suggest that there is no systematic formulae or step-by-step guarantees on how to build and structure successful, highly engaging, online learning communities. However, the authors do suggest that online learning community planners and developers can glean much from reviewing what others have experienced and learned from such endeavors. As such, the authors share what they believe to be successful characteristics of an online teacher professional development learning community.

Successful online communities have several of the following characteristics (pp. 138-139):

• They consist of people who cannot meet face-to-face because of place and time constraints and who meet online to work together on a shared task.
• The tasks and sub-tasks on which members work online are clearly defined and participants have a clear understanding of the expectations.
• A common sense of responsibility exists among participants towards the assigned task and peers.
• Easy access to technology and Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW) tools is available to all members.
• The tools for communication are accessible and usable.
• There is good leadership and co-ordination of online activities.
• There are capable moderators that provide facilitation, help, guidance and support as needed to the members of the community.
• Ongoing interaction among members is based on constructive dialogue.
• A joint vision, control and ownership of the community, its goals and artifacts are equally shared among the members of the community.
• There is mutual support among its members and sub-groups.
• The rules that govern participation in the community are clearly defined.
• A system is in place monitoring member participation and behaviour and a system to sanction certain inappropriate behaviours.
• It is a safe environment where participants can freely express their opinion and ask questions without the fear of being 'attacked' by others.
• Activities completed are evaluated regularly and feedback is provided in a timely manner.
• There is a certain degree of structural dependence that establishes the need for members to interact and share resources.
• Smaller groups within the community provide a peer-support group smaller than the larger community (Levin et al., 1990; Palloff and Pratt, 1999; Salmon, 2000; Harasim, 2002) [authors' citations].

As a set of general principles or guidelines, the above list provides a set of ideas for online community designers and developers to consider. Combined, these principles relate to elements of Anklam's (2007) definition of a network. In this sense, networks are built upon "webs of relationships that we tap into in order to accomplish something that we could not do by ourselves" (Anklam, 2007, p. xi). As an organizational form, networks offer us a range of choices for managing and interacting with people, ideas, and work. Every such network has a particular purpose, an implicit or explicit organizational structure, a style or way in which participants engage and interact with resources and others, and such networks provide some form of value or the network itself probably would not need to exist. While networks will never replace hierarchical structures or markets, they can offer participants new ways to think and act.

As such I have difficulty accepting the authors belief that there are no systematic formulae or step-by-step guarantees on how to build and structure successful, highly engaging, online learning communities. Research on professional learning communities (DuFour, 2004), communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), and organizational networks (Anklem, 2007) suggest that there are specific steps that can be taken to create online learning communities that offer considerable value to participants.

The authors then go on to outline and consider questions and issues associated with planning the creation of an online community for professional development as well as offer practical recommendations derived from their work and the works of others.

While the planning and development suggestions are practical and offer meaningful insights, the authors only occasionally offer any real theoretical grounding for their suggestions outside their own experience. Team building, cooperative learning, and other models for organizing people to work and learn together are abundant. I am curious why the authors left these or other structural or organizational models out of their analysis of planning and creating online learning communities?

The authors conclude by acknowledging the complexity associated with learners, learning, and community design. They note that like learning itself, online learning communities involve a certain level of disequilibrium or struggle with the problems and possibilities of their own creation and capacity. Thus so much depends upon how structural decisions are negotiated among organizers and participants.

However, it does seem a bit disappointing to listen to the authors cite the importance of the experience and research of others in planning and creating online learning communities without offering reflections or citing the work of others in this growing field. As such, I find myself somewhat skeptical of their findings.

References:

Anklem, P. (2007). Net work: A practical guide to creating and sustaining networks at work and in the world. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Charalambos, V., Michalinos, Z., & Chamberlain, R. (2004). The Design of Online Learning Communities: Critical Issues. Educational Media International, 41(2), pp. 135-143.

DuFour, R. (2004, May). What is a "Professional Learning Community"? Educational Leadership, 61(8), p. 6.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

This is the first advertisement I have seen promoting a professional social network.

It's purpose seems relatively clear: attract more members, make potential clients aware of such networks.

It's style is humorous, irreverant, tending towards the vulgar, as the narrative indirectly makes light of what it's like working in the advertising arts field. It's not clear, however, if this professional network is virtual or face-to-face.

The value proposal seems to be connected to alerting members, potential members, and advertising clients of a "space' where creative advertising types can assemble, share, collaborate, and reflect--i.e., those things that networks are capable of producing and sustaining.

What would an edublogger network ad look like? Hmmmm... 

Thoughts? 

Preface

Here is a set of rough notes associated with net work -- the work associated with many online learning communities.

It is worth noting that there are several ways to consider a network. It can be seen as a system of intersecting lines or channels; an interconnected system of things or people; as well as, communication with and within a group of people.

Community, on the other hand, is sometimes defined as a group of people with shared characteristics or similar interests.

One might ask, "are the two the same?"

My initial response falls in the "well, sorta...but not exactly" camp.

Communities are conventionally associated with a sociological grouping of people, plants, or animals that share an environment. There can be networks within communities, i.e., interconnections and communication shared between group members. There can be communities within networks, as in, a group of football fans or accountants who regularly interact within an interconnected system.

Perhaps, networks are better framed as the infrastructures that allow communities to maintain their existence-- the ontological, a priori of communities. (Of course I could be completely off the mark here, thus my desire to share my thinking with a larger network of thinkers, writers, and practitioners and hopefully receive some feedback.) ---

Analyzing Social Networks

Given the task of analyzing social networks, Anklem (2007) provides a useful framework that captures four critical facets: a) the network's purpose, b) its structure, c) its style, and d) its value.

Every network, be it cyber-based, face-to-face, personal or professional, has an underlying purpose, and as such, every network creates value (p. 4). More specifically, Anklam (2007) notes that the purpose of a network "relates to the value the network creates, which may not always be articulated, but can always be discovered (pp. 4-5)."

In other words, the value of the network is related to the contributions made by individual and groups of members. (Think GIGO.)

Also worth considering is that within this shared space, there are a number of intangibles, i.e., variables associated with learning and meaning making, that occurs which can eventually be captured and quantified given the proper tools and lens'.

Agency

Since networks are built around human relationships, they represent a complex adaptive system, whose relationships change regularly. Each member of the network is an agent who has the capacity to make and impose choices on the world. (1) As Anklem points out, fundamentally, "Everyone in a network influences the relationships in and the outcomes of the network" (p. 5). Thus we might contend, networks possess a certain style in which participants engage one another, use a certain tone, or are more tolerant in terms of ideas, speech or behaviors than others.

A brief aside, Hegel (1807) suggested that there is more at stake than an individual free will concerning the notion of agency. Specifically, he argues that human agency represents more of a collective, historical dynamic (historicity), as opposed to a function rising from individual behavior. Hegel reminds us that there is a power associated with the sum-of-the-parts--an important component within the larger equation that serves the network. More recently, this same notion is presented in a concept of networks dubbed as "small pieces loosely joined" by Weinberger (2002).

Value

According to Anklem (2007), successful professional networks can be deemed valuable if they can bring together "shared learning, practice, fellowship" (p. 5). As such, Anklem (2007) suggests that "Value can be derived from a network when it is reflective and generative" (p. 6). To do this, Anklam's (2007) research points to the following factors associated with successful, generative, reflective networks:

• Creating--acting, i.e., doing the (net)work
• Contributing--sharing evidence/artifacts from one's practice
• Collaborating -- engaging other participants in further discussion/reflection
• Reflecting--commenting, follow up

As such network practice is iterative. Given the above model, network practice involves taking what you've learned, applying to one's own practice, reporting back to/through the network relating your experience--how what you learned impacted your practice.

Leadership

Networks are "complex, not chaotic" (p. 6). More specifically, successful networks are built upon a foundation where the "unknown and unexpected can be welcomed and managed" (p. 6). Thus, another important factor associated with successful networks is the need for clear norms that are negotiable by members for establishing the rules for for how people engage in interactions and acknowledge the contribution of others. Perhaps more importantly, it is role of the network leaders to model these accepted/negotiated norms (p. 6).

Summary

What is important to note is that the network is only as valuable and useful as what participants contribute. Networks can range from being loose and adaptive to rigid and prescribed. All networks serve a function and posses a purpose, structure, style, and value that also serve as ways to analyze networks. Finally, networks, whether they involve face-to-face meetings or online avatars, are about relationships--some are productive and professional, some are personal and quixotic. As such professional practice networks require organizational leadership to assist in modeling network norms and keeping the group focused.

Next steps:

Building a case for

• Communities of practice

• Leveraging technology

• Social Software

References: Anklem, P. (2007). Net work: A practical guide to creating and sustaining networks at work and in the world. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1807). The phenomenology of mind. Translated by J. B. Baillie. Retrieved 20 January 2008 from http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/ToC/Hegel%20Phen%20ToC.htm.

Weinberger, D. (2002) Small pieces loosely joined: A unified theory of the Web New York: Perseus.

Images: Jack Goodlad Community Park by vasta. peddlers or agents by Shannon K. Magnifying Glass by dsb nola.

http://xl-medium.net/WPblog/2008/01/15/networks-as-learning-

Preface

As I begin compiling resources that will become chapter two of my dissertation (i.e., the literature review), I thought I would share relevant findings as they seem appropriate. This week I offer you an historical glimpse of social networks as a means of supporting teacher professional development.

Introduction

Over the past three decades, a re-examination and re-framing of the notions of teaching, learning and schooling (which includes a fundamental examination of practice, policy, and organizational structures for teachers) have been introduced by a number of educational researchers (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999a, 1999b; Darling-Hammond, 1993; Lieberman, 1992; McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993). These studies have clearly revealed a tremendous amount of information about the organizational structures and conditions that best support sustainable teacher learning over time.

Organizational structures

To begin with, research tells us that teacher professional development is only sustainable if the organizational conditions are appropriate (Lieberman, 2000, p. 221). While this might seem like common sense, given the pressure of school reform measures, accommodating emerging technologies and changes in organizational structures has, in many cases, proven difficult (Lieberman, 2000, p. 221). Educational bureaucracies often prescribe "one size fits all" solutions that many times ignore the specific training and developmental needs of teachers within their specific contexts. (Lieberman, 2000, p. 221). additionally, teachers are often "'developed' by outside 'experts,' rather than participating in their own development" (Lieberman, 2000, p. 221).

Development networks

While bureaucracies do provide much needed functionality in managing hundreds of teachers, they can prove unwieldy and untidy when it comes to responding to the emergent conditions and "discrete needs of schools, teachers, and students" (Lieberman, 2000, p. 221). Research has demonstrated that educational development networks that employ organizational structures that are loose, responsive, and accountable are well suited to this era of new technologies and potentially rapid change (Lieberman, 2000, p. 221).

Teacher professional development networks provide an organizational means to serve school-based educators within the context of their own work. This network is composed of school- and university-based educators and is organized "to work together to better serve students" (Lieberman, 2000, p. 226) by providing a context of support for each educator.

Accordingly, teacher professional development networks can emerge spontaneously or intentionally based on the need for people to work together "on an agreed-upon purpose" (Lieberman, 2000, p. 226). These agreed-upon purposes develop and shift over time, thus the need for organizational structures to be relatively loose and flexible. Being loose and flexible does not mean the organizational structure does not promote or provide accountability measures. Instead, accountability criteria become part of the networks structure wherein requisite measures and milestones are factored in to the networks underlying structures themselves.

The benefit of teacher professional development networks is that they support bureaucratic reforms by tying professional development and growth to the interests and needs of practitioners.

Historical perspectives and research

Sixty school improvement networks were explored in the late 1970s by Allen Parker. Parker's research (1977) identified five key operational characteristics within these networks:

• commitment to an idea
• shared purpose
• a mix of information sharing and psychological support
• a facilitator who insures participation and equal treatment
• an egalitarian ethos

Other educational researchers picked up and expanded Parker's analysis by examining the theoretical implications from both the inside of the network and outside (Miles, 1978; Rosenbaum, 1977, Schon, 1977; McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995). McLaughlin and Talbert (1993) examined secondary schools over a 5-year period and discovered that teachers who took risks and looked for new ways of working with their students developed organic learning networks with their peers thusly creating norms for an open, supportive professional development environment. These networks provided a structure for practitioners to share lesson plans, to learn from one another, and support each other in their practice, what we might call a critical friends groups.

In 1995 Newmann and Wehlage conducted a national 5-year study examining the common characteristics of elementary schools that were intentionally retooling organizational structures to better meet the needs of their students. They discovered that successful schools featured a professional network of practitioners who took collective responsibility in working together to develop a shared, clear purpose towards improving student learning.

It is clear from both McLaughlin and Talbert's (1993) and Newmann and Wehlage's (1995) research that school-based professional learning communities provided educators with the kinds of organizational structures that made professional learning both continuous and sustainable.

1n 1996, Lieberman and Grolnick conducted research on 16 educational reform networks operating for a minimum of 5 years. They examined common themes and tensions associated with these networks and discovered that, regardless of the network's genesis, the networks themselves served as training grounds for practitioners to collaboratively work together, work toward building consensus, and commit to continuous learning and professional development (Lieberman & Grolnick, 1996). Collaboration and collaborative relationships provided opportunities for practitioners to build trusting among network members which is critical to the nurturing and development of new ideas. According to Lieberman and Grolnick (1996) these new ideas aided in the building of network "buzz," i.e., interest and participation, as participants ideas and practices further developed and transformed.

In terms of tensions that were noted by Lieberman and Grolnick's (1996) study, many practitioner participants in these networks were continuously trying to balance long-term goals and short-term needs within their network and their daily, professional (school-based) practice. In this regard, Lieberman (2000) notes:

"Sustaining educators' commitment and interest hinges on keeping work focused on practice. However, focusing on practice involves taking a position as to where the knowledge comes from that informs the work of the network. This is of great importance because networks are trying to bring people together who have different ways of acquiring, developing, and using knowledge (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1993; Sirotnik and Goodlad, 1998). Keeping a balance between inside knowledge (the experiential knowledge of teachers) and outside knowledge (knowledge created by research and conceptualization) is a hallmark of successful collaboratives" (p. 223).

Summary

In order for professional teacher networks to survive, the energy, participation, and commitment of network participants is vital. Organizational structures must be able to work with the bureaucratic needs of federal, state, and local authorities, as well as the needs of the school-based practitioner. Teacher professional development networks can provide a bridge that supports administrative directives and the growth and development needs of practitioners.

Next steps

What organizational structures provide mechanisms that allow practitioners to meet individual, student, and administration needs? Are there specific strategies that support the creation and continuous nourishment of a teacher professional development network?

And you?

Your thoughts and suggestions are highly encouraged.

References:

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and teacher knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999a). Teacher learning in professional communities: Three knowledge-practice relationships. In P.D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 251-307). Washington, DC: American educational Research Association.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999b). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15-25.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Reframing the school reform agenda: developing capacity for school transformation. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(10), 753-761. Lieberman, A. (1992, September). The meaning of scholarly activity and the building of community. Educational Researcher.

Lieberman, A. (2000). Networks as learning communities: Shaping the future of teacher development. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 221-227.

Lieberman, A., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1992). Networks for educational change: Powerful and problematic. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(9), 673-677.

Lieberman, A., & Grolnick, M. (1996). Networks and reform in in American education. Teachers College Record, 98(1), 7-45.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. W. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning. Palo Alto, CA: Context Center on Secondary School Teaching.

Miles, M. B. (1978). On networking. Unpublished manuscript, Center for Policy Research, National Institute of Education, Washington, DC.

Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring. Madison: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Parker, A. (1977). Networks for innovation and problem solving and their use for improving education: A comparative overview. Unpublished manuscript, School Capacity for Problem Solving Group, National Institute for Education, Washington, DC.

Rosenbaum, A. (1977). Social networks as a policy resource: Some insights drawn from the community organizational and community action experiences. Unpublished manuscript, Network Development Staff, School Capacity for Problem Solving Group, National Institute of Education, Washington, DC.

Schon, D. A. (1977). Network related intervention. Unpublished manuscript, Center for Policy Research, national Institute of Education, Washington, DC.

Sirotnik, K., & Goodlad, J. I. (1988). School university partnerships: Concepts and cases. New York: Teachers College Press.

Google Images: typing from nlm.nih.com networks-2 from the University of Chicago SocialNetworks9 from licasdigital.com

This post is a collection of rough ideas that stems from a link via Stephen Downes re: A discussion about PLE's from New Zealand. Stanley Frielick Moodle Moot NZ07. Slides and audio from the New Zealand Moodle conference. Frielick asks, can Moodle become more supple - that is, a more social, ubiquitous and permeable personal learning environment. I think it's a good question to ask - can Moodle migrate from the old LMS world to the new web 2,0 world? Stanley Frielick, Slideshare September 28, 2007 [Link] [Tags: Ubiquitous Internet, Audio]

Full disclosure: I heart discussions about Personal Learning Environments (PLEs). I even like the way the term rolls right off your tongue. Say it aloud: Personal Learning.

Simple, isn't it?

PLE and the Pleasure Principle
Frielick's discussion is a fun one to have. Can a course/learning management system be more PLE? -- that is, can it be designed more to be a social platform that is more supple, more flexible, more nimble, more happy.

Yes, I said "more happy."

Online social networks rely on social support. Support, mind you; trust, empathy, a shoulder. Without it, community suffers; why come back? A PLE should invite pleasure -- that without which not... From Wikipedia under pleasure: "Arthur Schopenhauer, 19th Century German philosopher, understood pleasure as a negative sensation, as it negates the usual existential condition, that of suffering." Shouldn't our time online investigating the world, watching videos, reading email, attending class, renting a room, shopping for shoes, paying bills, connecting, engaging, playing, negate our sense of suffering? So a PLE should be sweet and engaging! Perhaps Twitter is so popular because it is so simple, so supple, and happy. 140 characters to say your piece. Short, sweet, simple. Social support. Connectivity. Intimacy.

PLE as shoes
While plotting the PLE continues, I've come to appreciate multiple social networking platforms. Platforms are like shoes. I want one platform that's for play. I prefer another for work. In reality, I use multiple online community platforms for both toil and pleasure. Each is different in the sense that they fit particular needs depending on who I'm engaging and for what purpose.

Second Skin
The Internet is like a second skin. I have identity in multiple (uni)verses across cyberspace--sometimes overlapping, sometimes combining, sometimes alone. And while it might be interesting to have one multi-syllabic interface (Berners-Lee's semantic web?) that allows us to connect to and interface with the various communities and spaces we inhabit, doesn't that make our Web browser a PLE? Our desktop as the original PLE? In a way, the desktop serves a friendly metaphor for our personal learning space. Here is a space for me to engage in a number of activities. Here are my books, here are resources, pens, paper. From here we call upon friends, we talk with colleagues, or perhaps we only work here alone with no appearance of connection at all.

Intention
A PLE implies intentionality. Learning is not only personal, it is intentional. While social and developmental experience shapes much of how we see the world, we must choose to adopt some form of organizational structure to frame our experiences. Is this the role of a PLE? To house or support this framework, or is the framework, an a priori conceptual structure? Is it both? Should a PLE try to be a single platform or does it serve us best as a concept map?

 
PLE as the Tower of Babel (Confusion).
People/Individuals stay divided by platforms and applications as communities continue to anger the Internet gods in their attempt to unite humanity.

PLE as Organizational Structure
Diagrams of PLEs direct all activity clouds to a central unit, me. This picture makes me feel rather Ptolemaic, geocentric, in many ways. While every circle has a center, I like the notion of the center being undefinable. The center shifts, tied to a collective intelligence, the ghosts in the machine, or the wisdom of the crowds. But this view can also be limiting. PLE diagrams are essentially an atomistic view-- a representation of a single node within the larger universe/network. And like all matter these atoms connect, collide, excite, and repel each other, which is quite like what really happens in our geophysical worlds.

My ideal PLE diagram is depicted by these representations of Georges Seurat's Un dimance apres-midi a I'lle d la Grand Jatte (Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte).

Here we see a collection of people enjoying a beautiful day on the banks of a lake. Seurat's pointillist technique shows how the atoms, the variations, compose what we see as well as our existence. This picture could be (y)our life.

Notice the crowd. There is proximity; there is intention; there is pleasure and simplicity. This environment is both active and passive. There are others to engage, listen, and talk to. Or one could sit alone. There is water, the symbol of the substance of life, without which we are not... There are people sailing on the lake, people observing the lake, people absorbing the environment.

PLE and the Wisdom of the Crowds

Surowiecki notes that a wise crowd relies on independence, decentralization, a diversity of opinion, and and the ability to combine and collect as needed. This collective wisdom of the crowds can theoretically lead to greater cognitive advantage for people, the opportunity to coordinate and share an understanding of what's right and what's wrong. Thus collectively, a PLE cannot exist without connecting the dots.

The limiting factors of such a stance relate to incorporating too much agreement or division of opinions, too much centralization, or when choices are limited by a handful of decision makers (the "information cascade"). Of course there is also the threat of a  herd mentality overpowering other outside opinions.

GeNe(x)t
I imagine, based on my read of current literature, 3D networking platforms and applications will continue to expand in ways that will be easier to learn and navigate, better fitting my particular needs and interests. Second Life will become next years Friendster. MySpace will be so 5 minutes ago (like AOL). Perhaps there will be a return to the WELL, to places we grew up in, places that are nostalgic, that trigger pleasurable memories of the good ol' days, when life was simple. Not that things were better or easier earlier, but there's this sense of comfort in things that we "know" and grew up around.

PLE as Consumer Good

The first two full weeks of school are now behind me. My grade eight students have been given their blogs. They posted their first entries. The class blogging portal is slowly filling up with student voices. Naturally, I look forward to seeing how these voices will interact and intertwine.

What I am really concerned about, however, is my own voice. For the past three years, my three successive grade eight classes enjoyed blogging and created successful and engaging blogging communities. Most of the time, this development took place without me. While I certainly encouraged my bloggers, discussed their work in class, and posted comments to involve my students in instructional conversations, I have always been absent as a person. This year, I want things to be different.

This year, I want my personal voice to be present in the community. I will, of course, continue to be present as Mr.Glogowski, the grade eight Language Arts teacher. I will be present in my didactic and supportive role of an educator, of a classroom teacher who guides and explains. At the same time, I want to be present as Konrad Glogowski, the human being who has his own interests and views. I want to be present as an individual, not an individual reduced to one role.

In other words, I want the students to see me as yet another blogger in their community, as someone whose reason for being there is not only to support and instruct but also to learn. To learn from and with my students.

My own blog in our class blogosphere has always been used to post updates, assignments, commentary on student work, and words of encouragement. For years, it was called “The Language Arts Blog,” or “Mr. Glogowski’s Blog” or something equally official and unimaginative. The name of my blog has always reflected my one-dimensional presence in the community - the voice of a teacher. I don’t think my students ever perceived it as a blog - a place where the author shares his thoughts, ideas, or experiences and engages in meaning-making. It was a place that my students would visit regularly to read their latest assignment or download a rubric. I don’t think they ever learned anything from my own blog. They learned from the instructional conversations that I engaged with them on their own blogs, but certainly not from my own blog in the class blogosphere. It has always been an uninspiring place, a kind of online bulletin board.

Last year, I started experimenting by posting entries that reflected my own interests. However, I always made sure that they also related to the curriculum. When we read and discussed Animal Farm, for example, I posted some links to articles on totalitarian leaders or on the fragile nature of democracy in developing nations. There needed to be, it seemed to me, a clear link between what we were reading in class and what the students saw on my blog. Everything that I posted on my blog was designed to cultivate an adopted persona and to fit within the confines of the curriculum.

This year, I want to move beyond blogging only about course-related topics. I want my students to see what I am interested in, what makes me mad, what fascinates me, what I write like when I write as someone other than Mr.Glogowski, the Language Arts teacher. In short, I want to be myself and am beginning to take small steps towards this goal.

I started by giving my blog a different name. The titles I used before were too official, too limiting, too school-like. They were institutional and impersonal. This year, the title of my blog is “…looking at things for a long time.” It comes from a quote by Vincent Van Gogh, which, in its entirety, reads: “It is looking at things for a long time that ripens you and gives you a deeper understanding.” I chose it because I feel that it represents who I am as a person and a teacher. I chose it because I believe that the habit Van Gogh recommends in this quote is something that I want my students to develop as well. I want them to be critical, attentive readers and thinkers. I want them to take the time to achieve that “deeper understanding.”

I also chose an avatar. I chose the picture of the fern globe suspended above the Civic Square in Wellington, New Zealand that I took last year (almost exactly a year ago) while participating in the FLNW unconference. It represents one of the most inspiring experiences in my life as an educator and researcher. It also, as a globe, represents unity and peace - values that are important to me as a human being and educator.

In addition to using an avatar, I also used the “About Me” feature of my blog to post a paragraph that explains my reasons for choosing the title and the avatar. My students need to know the reasons behind these decisions - they will provide them with an important glimpse into my personality. They will help them see me as more than just their Language Arts teacher.

The “About Me” page of my blog also contains two quotes that represent my views on writing:

“A writer is somebody for whom writing is more difficult than it is for other people.”
- Thomas Mann

“Say all you have to say in the fewest possible words, or your reader will be sure to skip them; and in the plainest possible words or he will certainly misunderstand them.”
- John Ruskin

I also uploaded my own background image to further personalize my blog. It is no longer just a virtual class bulletin board. It’s becoming a place that reflects the values and interests of its owner:

Of course, these visual changes, while important, are not sufficient to transform my blog into a personal online space. Blogs, after all, are defined by writing, and not merely their appearance. So, this morning, I posted my first personal entry. I wrote about an article on the recent protests in Myanmar and commented on the treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese Nobel Peace Prize laureate who has been held under house arrest for 12 of the last 18 years. I also linked to a call to action video recorded by Jim Carrey. The post has little to do with what we are currently studying in class. I wrote about it because it moved me as a human being. I posted it on my personal blog in the class blogosphere because I want my students to understand who I am as a human being. Why? Mostly because that human being will walk into their classroom tomorrow. If we are to be a community of learners, we need to know each other as individuals, not people who, for six hours every day, play assigned roles.

In other words, I don’t believe teachers should engage in self-censorship. If we do, then our students end up interacting with an automaton, an actor performing a role. Our schools, administrators, and classrooms cannot demand that the richness that makes us human be stripped down because the students are only fourteen, for example, and should not read about human rights abuses, or because time in class should be used only to study the curriculum.

Tomorrow, I will post an entry about a book I started reading last week. It is entitled 28: Stories of AIDS in Africa. It does not relate to our grade eight curriculum. It does, however, reflect my interest in social justice and I will blog about it every time I finish a chapter or two because that is how I learn, that is how I interact with things that I find important. So, I’m beginning to use my blog to define myself as more than a classroom teacher. Mr. Glogowski, the teacher, is an important part of my life, but it should not exclude other aspects of what makes me who I am.

So, fairly soon, my students will see that I am more than my role as a Language Arts teacher suggests. They will see that I am a teacher who is also interested in social justice, foreign affairs, and human rights. They will see that I am a teacher who is also interested in photography and who collects old books and maps. They will get many glimpses into my life. I hope that they will understand that what makes a community is a network of human beings who have the freedom to be who they truly are and whose richness enhances the value of the community they inhabit.

If education is essentially a social process, then the teacher needs to be part of the learning community, not only as its facilitator but also as one of its members. When students are part of a learning community, a blog titled “Mr.Glogowski’s Blog” will stick out and suggest that the community is really a school-sanctioned place where Mr. Glogowski presides because he has already learned all there is to know about his subject. I do not know all there is to know. I use Web 2.0 to expand my knowledge and to engage in meaning-making. I want to be connected to the class community as a learner. I want my students to see how I engage in negotiating meaning.

I have taken the steps I described above because I believe that a teacher’s blog needs to be a personal space. It needs to be a place where I become visible as an individual and where my experiences - joys, disappointments, struggles, successes, moments of inspiration and epiphany - are shared with the community. It needs to be a place of authentic personal attempts at meaning-making, a place where I engage as Konrad Glogowski and not only as Mr.Glogowski, the content expert.

In her preface to Teaching Community, bell hooks argues that her book “offers practical wisdom about what we do and can continue to do to make the classroom a place that is life-sustaining and mind-expanding, a place of liberating mutuality where teacher and student together work in partnership.” There can be no true partnership in a classroom where the teacher can hide behind an adopted persona while students are encouraged to be individual learners and bloggers. We cannot expect students to engage as individuals, to blog as human beings, to share their experiences, passions, interests, and struggles if, as teachers, we are not willing to do the same.

And so, my inspiration for the coming weeks comes from Teaching to Transgress where bell hooks states:

When education is the practice of freedom, students are not the only ones who are asked to share, to confess. Engaged pedagogy does not seek simply to empower students. Any classroom that employs a holistic model of learning will also be a place where teachers grow, and are empowered by the process. That empowerment cannot happen if we refuse to be vulnerable while encouraging others to take risks. Professors who expect students to share confessional narratives but who are themselves unwilling to share are exercising power in a manner that could be coercive. In my classrooms, I do not expect students to take any risks that I would not take, to share in any way that I would not share. When professors bring narratives of their experiences into classroom discussions it eliminates the possibility that we can function as all-knowing, silent interrogators. It is often productive if professors take the first risk, linking confessional narratives to academic discussions so as to show how experience can illuminate and enhance our understanding of academic material. But most professors must practice being vulnerable in the classroom, being wholly present in mind, body, and spirit.

Share This