Conversations
A little while back, Terry Freedman wrote an excellent analysis of the NotK12Online situation. I agree with him on many of his points and concerns, and have had similar discussions with other members of our committee as well as other colleagues. Better yet, he models quite nicely the kind of constructive critique that I wish I saw more of online.
I get the sense that folks have made their minds up about what we hope to do with NotK12Online, which is pretty frustrating, because the little bit of information that’s out there doesn’t really match up with, or support, people’s assumptions.
But you know what they say about assumptions, don’t you?
In an attempt to set the “record” straight, as well as to push our thinking and open ourselves up to some feedback and constructive criticism, I thought I’d share some unofficial thinking about some of my and my committee’s plans and hopes for what NotK12Online might look like.
To begin with, NotK12Online is, ahem, not a conference for rejects. I regret that it was even mentioned in the letters that went out to K12 proposal submitters, and I understand the feelings of folks who took that mention to be a statement of intent or purpose. That said, if you believe your ideas to be worth sharing, I hope you’ll share them, whether or not you do so via NotK12Online.
NotK12 isn’t a separate conference, either. It’s an attempt to host an unconference-ish extension to the main event that continues, extends, and further problematizes the entire metaphor of an online conference. In addition, I hope it will serve as a scaffold for folks who need one to help them begin to share their learning online. For those who don’t need such a scaffold, I hope it will provide a needed push to publish good work that would otherwise not get shared, as well as a channel or two of compelling content. For still others, it’ll be a distraction. That’s okay. Feel free to exercise your filter.
I don’t need to tell many of the readers of this blog that such a scaffold or structure is completely unnecessary and contradictory. What I feel I do need to say, though, is that in my work with other teachers, some folks would find value in such a structure; they may well need a stepping stone into online reading, writing and thinking.
So what will NotK12Online look like? Well, it’s pretty much an aggregator populated by user submissions. If you have a piece of content that you think matches our guidelines, then you’ll publish it elsewhere, perhaps via your own blog, perhaps somewhere else, depending on the kind of content you’ve produced, and come to the NotK12Online site and tell us about it. If it fits our criteria, published on the site, it gets shared. Folks who want to respond to the content will be directed back to the original site of publication. Content shared via our site will be available via RSS. That’s pretty much it. (For now. But we’re always interested in suggestions and ideas about making it more useful. Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments.)
We’re supporting two types of content at NotK12 so far this year, presentations and critiques. Any material that fits into the categories of the conference is fair game for the presentation channel. The critique channel is the one, though, that I am most excited, and worried, about.
One of my biggest complaints about conferences and online conversation in general is that most of the dialogue is usually cheerleaderish in nature or completely inflammatory. It’s too easy to just ignore or write off ideas and people with which or whom we disagree. My hope for the critique channel of NotK12Online is that we can help promote the idea that we can and should all attempt to be, at least from time to time, critical friends for someone. (Terry, by the way, modeled this quite nicely in his post. So, too, has Sharon Peters - with Terry - in a recent podcast conversation about NotK12Online. ) Critics of events like K12Online have valuable points. K12Online presenters are not the be-all end-all experts on the content of their presentations. Can we mix it up a little and productively extend the conversations of and about the conference in a way that’s useful?
I believe we can. And maybe NotK12Online can be a piece of that progression. Then again, maybe it won’t be. But it’s worth it to try.
I want to put you into the middle of a conversation that I’ve been having with myself and the media for almost four years now by putting you in the middle of a conversation that’s been running on Mark Glaser’s PBS blog, MediaShift. In an entry posted today (that I learned about from Tim), Mark continues the story of Alana, a student in a journalism course at NYU who has been blogging her class. Mark brings us into the story:
After New York University journalism student Alana Taylor wrote her first embed report for MediaShift on September 5, it didn’t take long for her scathing criticism of NYU to spread around the web and stir conversations. Taylor thought that her professor, Mary Quigley, was not up to speed on social media and podcasting — even though the class she was teaching was called “Reporting Gen Y.” And Taylor felt that NYU was not offering her enough classes about new media; she cited the requirement that students bring print editions of the New York Times to class as one example of their outdated mindset.
Not surprisingly, Quigley was not happy with the story and was upset that Taylor had not sought permission to write her first-person report about the class, and told Taylor it was an invasion of privacy to other students in the class. By Taylor’s account, Quigley had a one-on-one meeting with Taylor to discuss the article, and Quigley made it clear that Taylor was not to blog, Twitter or write about the class again. That was upsetting to Taylor, who had been planning a follow-up report for MediaShift that would include Quigley’s viewpoint and interviews with faculty.
What follows in Glaser’s post is a very thorough examination of the issue and the specifics of policy at NYU and the opinions of several of the journalists and teachers involved in the events, as well as some other thoughtful commentary, especially the commentary from Floyd Abrams, whom Glasner labels as “a veteran media lawyer who has argued First Amendment cases before the Supreme Court.” Abrams, asked if he felt blogging a university class would violate the privacy of other students in the class, answered:
My own view is that while student commentary that is critical of ongoing classes can lead to a level of tension in class at the same time it makes extremely difficult a teacher-student relationship…it does not violate the ‘privacy’ of the classroom and should not be banned or punished. Would it be illegal to do so? It certainly wouldn’t be unconstitutional since NYU isn’t a state school and thus subject to First Amendment limitations. Whether it violates NYU rules I have no idea. I would be very surprised, however, if NYU permitted a student to be punished for writing such a critique. Surprised and disappointed.
The comments to the post are getting quite interesting, too, as journalists and teachers hash out the place of social media like Twitter and blogs in the university classroom, specifically as tools for teaching and practicing journalism.
I’d strongly encourage you to read Glasner’s post, the original piece by Alana Taylor, and the comments showing up in both places, as well as on other sites. They’re continuing to complicate for me the nature of a classroom, whether it is a public space, a private space, or some funky hybrid that exists in between.
While university classrooms, where the students are adults, are different from K-12 classrooms, I continue to think about the nature of classroom spaces and discourse, and the stance that public educators should be taking in regards to the environment that we’re finding ourselves in these days, where students are plugged in and networked via devices that we have no control over. More and more, students are literally bringing their own networks and publishing platforms with them to school. And that means the nature of classroom spaces will continue to become more public, whether or not we want them to.
This isn’t a new issue, but I find the fact that journalists and media folk are stuck in the middle of the same mess as the rest of us both reassuring and frustrating.
So here’re a few of my (continuing) questions:
- In a world where the tools and the access are no longer (and probably never really were) within the control of “us,” the educators, what limits do we set on their use at school that actually begin to balance students’ rights to communicate and reflect and process with the legitimate educational and institutional need to control some of what is and isn’t “public” information?
- How do we balance minors’ needs with the fact that we work for public institutions and should be open to public oversight?
- How does transparency mesh with some of the more delicate issues in the classroom?
- Where do students’ rights to talk about their experiences begin to conflict with other students’ right to privacy?
- Are public school classrooms fundamentally public spaces or private ones? (Or that funky hybrid in-between?)
Blanket bans of personal technology or of writing about certain situations or classes don’t and won’t address these needs in a meaningful and educational relevant way. We need to be thoughtful now about how we teach students to share as the ability to do so becomes even more pervasive in society than it already is. If I’ve learned anything in the last few years, it’s that there are no easy answers here. And for the most part, we’re dodging the questions at school.
I’ll share some of my thoughts about how we might proceed in a future post.
In this podcast, recorded Friday, I talk a little bit about NotK12Online, the fine folks who will be helping me to put it together, some of my/our initial ideas, and the juicy paradox of the whole endeavour. I’ve got a great committee of folks assembled to do the beginning planning - but we’ll need plenty of help. Below are links to the NotK12Online planning committee. We’re all eager for your ideas, input and suggestions regarding NotK12Online. It’s new. It’s different. It’s a walking contradictory paradox. I love it. Please contact us via the various communication links below:
Twitter - jackieb
e-mail - jackie.ballarini AT gmail.com
Twitter - wbass3
e-mail - bbass3 AT gmail.com
Twitter - ecram3
e-mail - ecram3 AT gmail.com
Twitter - budtheteacher
e-mail - budtheteacher AT gmail.com
I always enjoy a good double meaning in a title, so I’m pleased that this podcast, recorded during my drive home from NECC, is called what it is. I find myself driving at the moment, refreshed and recharged. That’s what I wanted out of the conference. I’m pleased it worked that way, and grateful to lots of folks for all the conversation and push back. It is good to be in community (or communities, or whatever) with smart folks. I wanted to get this podcast up, mostly for my own benefit, before I lost some of that momentum.
I’m off to the beach for a week, hoping to top off my batteries, and will be doing my best to be offline - but I’d welcome your comments here on the podcast as a way of keeping me driving and moving when I return.
Oh - and below is a piece of the conversation that I mentioned in the ‘cast. Thanks to Kevin Honeycutt for recording it and Darren Draper and David Jakes for facilitating the conversation. Not sure if a complete recording exists, but you’ll get the gist of the conversation, one of my favorites.
You can find most, but again, not all, of the K12 Online Conference presentation I reference online over at Wes’s place.
Goal: Work to build multiple and overlapping communities of learners in our district who have knowledge, expertise and/or interest in the hardware and software and services that our district is supporting. Help those communities to begin to learn from each other and to support each other in their teaching and learning. As best as I can, document and share the learning and stories of the community.
I’m aware of so much potential in our classrooms and schools, and so many new tools that are coming online in the district that can be used to help students and teachers create deep and meaningful opportunities for learning and reflection in our classrooms. These are tools like laptops (three new elementary schools, opening in the fall, will have laptops for every teacher; many more schools are investing in laptops for some teachers to be used with) interactive whiteboards, and/or clickers and document cameras, software like ActivStudio, which we’re trying to standardize on across the district, and services like Moodle, which powers our St. Vrain Virtual Campus.
There are a multitude of projects and programs that already meet and discuss some of these issues - but there’s nowhere to go to see all of those conversations, or for folks who aren’t already connected to those groups to have the opportunity to find ways into the conversations. I also know that, with so many resources out there, we need to do a good job of aggregating all of that stuff somewhere (or somewheres) and then helping people to find that space.
Also, if we can work to build and/or sustain these communities, we can work to develop leadership on instructional issues in our district. Better yet, we can help teachers to teach teachers. That’s a good thing. I believe very strongly that the answers to most of the important questions facing schools and teachers and learning and students aren’t going to come out of school districts - they’re going to come out of classrooms. It’s my job to help get the stories out there and the people connected.
Good morning. I’m live blogging today from the CASL Kickoff to TIE 2008. Christopher Harris is the keynote speaker. Please join the conversation by asking questions and sharing comments.
I guess the biggest frustration to me regarding the “Oh no - we didn’t realize the policy and now we’re certain that ISTE’s out to get independent media and citizen journalists and quash the edupunks and destroy any chance of education reform ever in the history of forever!” hysteria over ISTE’s NECC audio/video policy is that so many of my colleagues, people whom I respect and value, are probably going to end today or start next week thinking that this conversation and its tone was/is/shall forever be a fine example of the power of blogs and new media to make change. And that would be wrong.
The problem I have with seeing this as a victory is that the bloggers in this one come out looking like a cross between Chicken Little and Tony Soprano. And that’s not a good thing. In the past 24 hours, I’ve read misstatements, threats, assumptions, and lazy research. “I’m taking my ball and going home” lines, too. From educators. Attempting to solve a problem. It’s disappointing. A rational, responsible, and patient tone would have been much better than some most of what I’ve seen and read in regards to this issue.
I’ll be the first to say that I’m pleased to see the policy changed, albeit temporarily. It was an old rule that didn’t fit the current media landscape. ISTE, I hope, would be the first to say that. And I’m pleased that so many bloggers felt compelled to address the issue. But I’d like to think that some more patient and questioning language might have been used in the “investigation.” Questions inviting dialogue, perhaps, rather than assumptions and anger. I felt like we were headed up the mountain to the monster’s castle, pitchforks and torches in hand.
We’d never let our students get away with this type of conclusion jumping and invective. And so, we shouldn’t be happy about the methods, but we should be pleased about the outcome. I hope the folks who make it to the table in future conversations on this and other matters of policy and disagreement are those who approach with patience and kindness, checking their assumptions at the door. And I hope that, if I’m ever guilty of such poor choices in language and attitude, that you’ll be quick to call me on it.
My goal here is not so much to place blame - but to suggest that perhaps we could all do better. I know I’ve been guilty of getting excited and forgetting to do a gutcheck in the past. Let’s all try not to do that. There are too many rules and policies and issues and problems and situations that need changing and will require our best work.
The more I work as a professional developer and teacher of teachers, the more I am resolved that I will do my best to never create a resource for one situation that cannot be useful in another. There are too few of me and too many needs in my district to do otherwise.
I think, though, the careful consideration of audience and purpose that I engage in before creating a resource is a valuable one for all readers, writers, and creators. Perhaps there’s value, in a connective writing class, in spending some time on rhetorical analysis, specifically in the vein of thinking about multi-purposed work.
This isn’t a new statement for me to make, either here or in my classroom(s), as I’ve always operated under the assumption that the best writing happens when writers consider their audience and their purpose for writing, allowing them to determine the focus they should take in a particular piece. This idea (often called the rhetorical triangle, with each of the points defined slightly differently by the person(s) doing the defining) can and should be expanded to include all kinds of composition and writing, not just print texts. This leads me to the teaching point that I would want to include in my connective writing work:
As much as possible, all texts should have a life outside of the classroom.
This “extra-curricular life” can take multiple forms, and won’t make sense for all types of writing and creation, but I strongly believe that we should never create something that will die after a teacher has blessed or cursed it with a grade. I’ve always believed that, but the more I learn, the less I’m willing to suggest that such multi-purposed work should only happen at the end of a course, after all the practice work is completed. Project-based learning, too, embodies this philosophy, as projects should have a life outside of the classroom.
What does “extracurricular life,” or multi-purposed work, look like in a professional learning experience for teachers? One way I attempted to create a multi-purpose-able resource in CyberCamp was through the series of Works in Progress (WiP) presentations that we asked every participant to do. As I explained at the beginning of CyberCamp:
One of the values of CyberCamp is sharing. Talking about what we’re up to is a good way to better understand our own work, and the act of sharing it with a group is useful, too, because it allows your fellow CyberCampers to help you out, be it through good questions, suggestions, or becoming an extra set of eyes and ears in the world seeking resources to help you with your project.
Because sharing is so essential, we’ve set up time here at CyberCamp for everyone to have a 20 minute block of time in which to share their work. Each day, we’ll ask two of you to share what you’re working on and then we’ll give ten minutes to the CyberCampers to give you some constructive feedback. We’ll be talking more about what “constructive feedback” looks at CyberCamp, but know that you’ll be getting help - not criticism.
Again, because sharing is so essential to what we do, we’ll be adding an extra level of sharing to your process. We’ll literally be sharing your Work in Progress conversation with the world and archiving your presentation here on the blog using a tool called Ustream. This will allow you to share your work with, and to learn from, the world. While that can be scary, trust us when we tell you that your work is important and worthy of being shared.
Not to toot our own horn (or whistle, to stick with the camp metaphor), but it seems to me that a twenty minute investment of class time here (thirty minutes if you leave time for some feedback) leads to an excellent archive/snapshot of a work in progress, a chance to get very specific feedback, and a permanent record of the event that is available for further scrutiny, reflection and commenting. Not bad, as far as multi-purposing goes. Add in the fact that these presentations also become resources for other people working on similar projects as well as models of our activity for future CyberCamp experiences, and we’ve got some handy multi-purpose resources.
Other examples of multi-purposing in CyberCamp include our project proposals as well as our blog. Pretty much, any well-written blog (as a whole, not each entry) is a fine example of multi-purposed writing. But perhaps that’s another post.
One of the struggles, of course, with trying to build multi-purpose resources, or to find ways to ask learners to do so, at least one that I worry/wonder about, is making sure that I’m never putting the needs of future learners or secondary audiences ahead of the learners who are the “primary” audience for a particular activity/event/experience. Let me try to say that better - we can sometimes create problems for our class when we try to create opportunities with “outsiders,” particularly if we’re forcing a connection that maybe isn’t organically or authentically there. Connections just for connections’ sake are bad ideas, maybe even educational malpractice. The trick becomes figuring out where those lines and boundaries are, and when to say no to kind invitations to meet/Skype/join up with others who may or may not be in a similar place, educationally speaking.
Another struggle, I suspect, is figuring out how to contextualize those creations in a way as to make them as useful as possible. I’m beginning to practically understand why so many higher ed folks talk about learning objects and repositories and a slew of related issues, and struggle with those things, too.
