Regulate or develop self-regulators?

We just released the first report of data we've gathered using PaperCut, a printer/copier usage tracking software. There were a surprisingly large number of concerns by staff when we installed the product earlier this year, with references to Big Brother being common.

The intent of using this software is to build awareness of all staff about how much printing they do, what it costs both financially and environmentally, and how costs for printing on different devices (laser printers, color printers, copiers, etc.) vary. (See Self-awareness or surveillance.)

The goal is to reduce the amount of printing we do in the district, of course. But rather than set quotas and regulate how much individuals can print, we hope to develop awareness that leads to self-regulation. (This is akin to giving a person a bathroom scale and mirror instead of limiting their caloric intake on a weight reduction program.)

I firmly believe most educators will respond to this - and perhaps think of the approach when working with kids, working to create self-regulators rather than simply imposing limits.

See also "Paper-free committee-ment" and 'Three-ring binders: a little rant"

Bill Storm on Facebook

A few weeks ago,  Bill Storm in his on Ed Tech blog gave a strong and rational set of concerns about teacher use of Facebook. (Teachers on Facebook: Professional Roulette). In part, he wrote:

The organizational intricacies that contribute to the teacher’s ability to walk into a room, turn on the lights, have minor children walk in and face an expectation imposed on them by parents and wider culture are not random circumstances.  Your ability to teach that class is the outcome of a long and complex political and social process, and imbedded in that process are certain conditional facts driven by law.

Facebook fails you as a teacher because it ignores the following conditions imposed by the structure that provides for public schooling:

• Teachers are responsible for what occurs in their teaching environment.  When teachers set up a space in which to conduct instruction, whether it is their classroom, on the grass under a tree at the park down the street, or a page on Facebook, they assume responsibility for words uttered there.  It is expected that in the course of instruction and interaction that you are present at all times.  Facebook is a public space, and by definition it is free of structural supervision. If a teacher cannot actively supervise student interaction in a space the teacher uses for instruction, the space should not be available to students.  This is a no-brainer when we’re using a brick & mortar classroom; we carry keys.  In our professional role, social media is no different, but Facebook has no keys to distribute.

• Individual interactions between students and teachers must be above suspicion and reproach, with guidelines provided by law and a clear code of professional conduct.  We have all had students with whom we should not meet with alone, with private conversations occurring with a door open to the hallway. We have also all had students who seriously misinterpreted our words leading to uncomfortable confrontations, extending eventually to their parents.  Facebook provides a necessarily private, “windowless” space for such interactions, and it is only a matter of time before things will go wrong and a teacher finds him or herself in desperate defensive mode.

• Teachers need to be able to design the learning environment to optimize learning.  Instruction on a Facebook page is like gathering your class in the middle of Time’s Square before NYC got rid of the strip joints.  While you think you are interacting as teacher, students are chatting, the ads are rolling (marketed specifically to each student’s “Likes”), and they’re checking out your FB profile page.

• Parents have the right to access the learning environment taxpayer-paid teachers provide.  It is the rare adolescent who “Friends” a parent.  Even rarer is the parent who provides a computer conditional on being their child’s Facebook Friend, and even then kids respond by maintaining separate “parent-safe” pages.  Consequently, when teaching happens on Facebook parents are structurally denied access to an environment they are indirectly paying the teacher to provide.

• Teachers need to be able to provide a record of interactions they supervise.  By “supervise” I mean providing any learning environment that is part of a teacher’s professional role.  Once provided, under the law, supervision is assumed.  If students control the permanence of communications by being able to delete their posts, nothing short of a court order (good luck with that) can recover any toxic, threatening, libelous or injurious communication posted by a student.  Also, given the miracle of Photoshop, there isnothing short of a court order that can disprove a created private conversation between student and teacher.

So what’s a teacher to do?

Facebook is gaining in acceptance by educators. Our guidlelines for teachers using Facebook may seem overly cautious now.

But caution isn't the worst thing in the world when kids are involved. Don't jump on the teacher/student Facebook bandwagon just 'cause everyone is doing it.

Thanks, Mr. Storm, for some sobering advice.

Should learning be continual or continuous?

Should learning be continual or continuous? 

Continual is often confused with continuous. However, the meanings of these two words differ significantly and they cannot be used correctly as synonyms. Continuous refers to an action that continues in an unbroken fashion, as a continuous hum or buzzing sound. Continual refers to a repeated action that is periodically interrupted, as continual complaints about the dog from the neighbors. (Grammar Ramblings)

My first thought was that were I to describe ongoing learning to others, it should be continual - learning that is regular, but broken by non-learning periods.

But then I wonder if we aren't learning continuously anyway - processing our environment, reflecting, planning. Except, of course, when watching sit coms or Fox News.

__________________

I love this question from Leigh Ann Jones "Shelf Consumed" blog:

Conventional wisdom says the rich get richer while the poor continue to struggle.  Physics says a body in motion tends to stay in motion, and a body at rest tends to stay at rest.

So does it follow that people who are motivated tend to get more motivated while the unmotivated generally stay that way? 

Well?

I love it when an unmotivated student finds his or her passion. It makes an otherwise grim week memorable. 

The mark of a great teacher is not one who imparts knowledge, but who motivates. 

But yes, Leigh Ann, some people are definitely harder to motivate than others.