What's old to some is new to others: guest post by Vivian

As a newbie teacher, I vividly remember sitting in the teachers' lounge listening to the old farts (probably over 35) scoffing when a new teaching techique or resource was discussed. The refrain usually went something like, "Yeah, we tried that 20 years ago and it didn't work - and it won't work now." I vowed never to utter those words.

Maybe I am slipping, becoming an old fart despite my vow. Vivian, a member of Jeff Utecht's Coetail cohort, takes me to task over yesterday's post in which I complain (and share others' complaints) about some of the professional writing being shared being unvetted and old hat. 

Thank you, Vivian - I needed your reminder that not everyone is old and jaded... Read on. Shared as a guest post with permission. (You can read more of her insightful commentary on her blog ChezVivan.)

Dear Doug,

Maybe I'm naive but I find it hard to believe that educators are mindlessly tweeting things. We have better uses of our time. I wonder how much of the frustration that is being described is due to professional boredom. You're at the top of your game so obviously a lot of what you read turns out to be "...an article discovering an idea that millions of educators have known for decades, but this time with diminished expectations."

How much of the frustration is that you (not you, personally--but you meaning the frustrated ones) are just satiated beyond belief with too much content and over-eating is making you cranky.

I'm a newbie on Twitter (two months) and blogging (three months). I'm ecstatic about the learning I'm doing through Coetail. I bet a lot of my Tweets are "old news" to you die-hard seasoned veterans. Good thing I know that there are other Coetail newbies that are following me and they will find my tweets useful (even though they are old news to everybody else). If I didn't have my Coetail buddies who are also new to Twitter and learning about 1:1 integration, I would seriously be intimidated by these comments and be afraid to tweet anything again.

When you shared the link to that ranting blogpost, I tweeted back to you, "Didn't catch the Twittername to make sure that I never follow someone so wise that he's forgotten what it's like to be a newbie." I still stand by that comment.

The nature of Social Media is that there is A LOT content. Someone made the analogy to it being like a "firehose" of information. No one forces anyone to read anything on the internet. If you're fed up, you can just close your browser and get some fresh air! We all have our rants internally but we have to take care regarding our online rants. To the writer of the original ranting blogpost, I wonder if his Twitter stream has altered at all? Probably not. So, what's the point of having the rant because the only result is maybe that he's frightened off a lot of young twitterers.

He mentioned in his article that some seasoned colleagues are tweeting links to rubbish. If so, then have a quiet word with that certain individual. That would make a difference, I'm sure.

Finally, there's an assumption that he is the correct judge of what is rubbish or not and an assumption that he is the fount of accuracy and knowledge. Woah. That's dangerous territory to assume that your judgement is always accurate. I bet there's someone opening up a link to HIS writing and thinking, "What a load of rubbish!" and wishing someone had not tweeted him this link. Should he also write a blogpost rant about it?

Food for thought. Here is my perspective as a two month Twitterer that has learned so much through Twitter and probably re-Tweeted a lot of exciting stuff (to me) but maybe old hat to those that are supposed to be my leaders and mentors. Yes, someone of it was probably rubbish too, but I didn't know it was rubbish as I AM LEARNING.

You're all trying to encourage teachers to build a PLN and then you all write blogposts like this? I don't get it.

I return to my main point. What is the nature of Social Media and Tweeting? The nature of the medium is that there will be rubbish that we have to sift through. Don't like the nature of the media? Then try something else: Online Research Journals. Don't like what someone is tweeting, unfollow them.

Please don't let me be this jaded in a few years!

Thanks for listening!

Vivian

Thanks for commenting. I needed to hear this.

Doug

What professional materials do you read - and why?

Today ... it's the difficult work that's worth doing. It's worth doing because difficult work allows you to stand out, create value and become the one worth choosing. Seth Godin

Spring - the season of discontent. At least is always has been for me. As the weather gets nicer and the bike trails clear, the lawn and flower beds peep out from under melting snow banks, and the end of the school year gallops toward us at a breakneck pace, I always question whether I belong in education at all. Wouldn't I have made a better forest ranger, electrician, pharmaceutical salesman, or long-haul truck driver? As I wrote in a column some years ago:

Spring has always been the time I seem least content with being in education. I am usually pretty fed up with the antics of students, teachers, administrators and a few parents. I am actively questioning whether I actually taught anybody anything during the year or any of my department’s initiatives did anything for kids. I am worried about the next round of budget cuts. 

This spring it seems that I am not the only one suffering from this malaise.  I received this question from a friend in Wisconsin last week:

I believe a great deal in professional organizations, as I'm a member of several, but I'm starting to get a little tired of ISTE's Leading & Learning. I just don't find it a compelling read for some time now ... do you feel the quality of L & L is slipping? Or am I getting to be an information snob?

Hmmm, I find myself skimming rather than actually reading most education journals, not just L&L. In fact, I am skimming a lot more professional reading period, whether is a book, a blog, or a whitepaper. But is the reason the content, the sheer glut of content gushing past, - or is it personal boredom?

In his little diatribe "Please stop spreading manure," Gary Stager writes:

Almost daily, a colleague I respect posts a link to some amazing tale of classroom innovation, stupendous new education product or article intended to improve teaching practice. Perhaps it is naive to assume that the content has been vetted. However, once I click on the Twitter or Facebook link, I am met by one of the following:

1. A gee-whiz tale of a teacher doing something obvious once, accompanied by breathless commentary about their personal courage/discovery/innovation/genius and followed by a steam of comments applauding the teacher’s courage/discovery/innovation/genius. Even when the activity is fine, it is often the sort of thing taught to first-semester student teachers.
2. An article discovering an idea that millions of educators have known for decades, but this time with diminished expectations.
3. An ad for some test-prep snake oil or handful of magic beans.
4. An “app” designed for kids to perform some trivial task, because “it’s so much fun, they won’t know they’re learning.” Thanks to sites like Kickstarter we can now invest in the development of bad software too!
5. A terrible idea detrimental to teachers, students or public education.
6. An attempt to redefine a sound progressive education idea in order to justify the status quo.

I don’t just click on a random link from a stranger, I follow the directions set by a trusted colleague – often a person in a position of authority. When I ask them, “Did you read that article you posted the link to?” the answer is often, “I just re-read it and you’re right. It’s not good.” Or “I’m not endorsing the content at the end of the link, “I’m just passing it along to my PLN.”

Despite the fact we disagree on many issues, Gary, I am right there with you on this one. I get the sense too many "experts" are more concerned about being the first to tweet or blogging the most links that any sense of vetting has gone by the wayside. Nothing should be "just passed along to my PLN" without some kind of personal commentary explaining why the piece is worth sharing. (I still think we'd have a better, more discriminating social network if we had to pay for each posting. See The Signs of Over Communication.)

And I have to say I was disappointed but not surprised by the non-reaction to last week's set of posts articulating a fairly comprehensive set of considerations that a district can use to evaluate the state of its technology use. These posts were long, not wildly inventive, or even fun to read. But for many people, I believe they would be useful. But they weren't controversial, a quick fix, or shiny. So I ask myself, would I have skimmed them had I not written them?

As readers and writers, are we doing "the difficult work that's worth doing?", as Godin asks?

BFTP: The hard questions about technology

A weekend Blue Skunk "feature" will be a revision of an old post. I'm calling this BFTP: Blast from the Past. Original post April 22, 2008. If you have a moment, go back and read some of the comments to the original post, including a very thoughtful one from my smart daughter.

Artichoke in New Zealand has a terrific post: "Things you seldom hear discussed at an (e) learning conference."

First, he suggests a TED video by long time educational technology skeptic Clifford Stoll. For many years, Stoll has had the courage to ask what sort of message we send to children when we plunk them down in front of a piece of machinery rather than spending personal time with them.

“...kids love these high-tech devices and play happily with them for hours. But just because children do something willingly doesn’t mean that it engages their minds. Indeed most software for children turns lessons into games. The popular arithmetic Math Blaster simulates an arcade shoot-’em-down, complete with enemy flying saucers. Such instant gratification keeps kids clicking icons while discouraging any sense of studiousness or sustained mental effort. Plop a kid down before such a program and the message is, “You have to learn math tables, so play with this computer.” Teach the same lesson with flash cards, and a different message comes through: “You’re important to me, and this subject is so useful that I’ll spend an hour teaching you arithmetic.” (Stoll, Clifford, “Invest in Humanware.” New York Times, May 19, 1996.)

I have always enjoyed reading the hard-eyed look at educational technology by critics like Stoll, Jane (Failure to Connect) Healy, Larry (Over Sold and Underused) Cuban, and especially the Fool's Gold and Tech Tonic reports by the Alliance for Childhood.

Perhaps even more compelling than the Stoll article, Artichoke begins a response to the late Neil Postman's Five Things We Need to Know About Technological Change in which he succinctly summarized the concerns Postman often addressed in his longer works:

1. ... all technological change is a trade-off. ...  culture always pays a price for technology.
2. ...the advantages and disadvantages of new technologies are never distributed evenly among the population. 
3. ...Embedded in every technology there is a powerful idea, sometimes two or three powerful ideas. These ideas are often hidden from our view because they are of a somewhat abstract nature. But this should not be taken to mean that they do not have practical consequences. 
4. ...consequences of technological change are always vast, often unpredictable, and largely irreversible 
5. ...When a technology become mythic, it is always dangerous because it is then accepted as it is, and is therefore not easily susceptible to modification or control. 

OK, this is a teaser. Read and comment over on Artichoke [the post is still there in 2013]. He raises some outstanding questions about technology in education based on the Postman's ideas.

Oh, for the antithesis of Postman, check this out by Ray Kurzweil - "Expect Exponential Progress":

Yet as powerful as information technology is today, we will make another billionfold increase in capability (for the same cost) over the next 25 years. That's because information technology builds on itself – we are continually using the latest tools to create the next so they grow in capability at an exponential rate. This doesn't just mean snazzier cellphones. It means that change will rock every aspect of our world. The exponential growth in computing speed will unlock a solution to global warming and solve myriad other worldly conundrums.

Thanks to its exponential power, only technology possesses the scale to address the major challenges – such as energy and the environment, disease and poverty – confronting society. 

Technology - bane or boon to our world? How educators use (or don't use) technology with students will be the determining factor.