Teaching 21st century skills - oh, the irony...

A colleague of mine earlier today sent out a link to the article A Taste of Web 2.0, as published by T.H.E. Journal. While the article spends eight pages discussing a variety of web-based tools - many of them free or with ad-free educator plans - that might be desirable to teachers and even school administrators, one thing that caught my attention was the short summary on the first page:

[E]ducators have concerns about risks for K-12 students and wasting time. Many are banning school use of the very applications (e.g., social networking, blogs, wikis, chat) integral to online learning systems[...]. Even without a ban, another contributing factor for avoiding Web 2.0 might be educator fears about changing their teaching methods to better engage learners. The International Society for Technology in Education [hyperlink added]...indicates that to learn effectively and live productively in an increasingly digital world, students should know and be able to use technology for creativity and innovation; communication and collaboration; research and information fluency; critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making; digital citizenship; and technology operations and concepts. Thus one might say such banning limits development of skills valued for the 21st century. [emphasis added]

Later in the article, Wikipedia is cited as an example of a Web 2.0 site that is addressing the need for "21st-century-skill instruction" - greater encouragement of citations in articles, encouraging contributors (read: students) to verify posted information. Thus, Wikipedia users are now given one more tool to help them think critically - not everything on the web can be taken at face value; what is the veracity, the "weight" of this particular piece you're reading? (Does this effort mean that Wikipedia is really Web 2.1?)

Emil, a teacher at my school who also received the email about the post - he teaches networking, robotics, and engineering - replied back with the teacher-in-the-trenches perspective:

I see the distraction factor daily. I think it is not so much a teacher’s risk or inability or fear to use the tools as it is “knowing” the tangents that kids will go off on that are not related to a given project. We all do it to a certain extent, but the kids go off with total abandonment. We have a sense of responsibility to get the job done, that we have NOT passed on to the kids. They would play games, blog, etc. all day every day with no focused purpose if we let them. We must show them a purpose to their exploration. THAT I have not found a way to do just yet, as there are no real consequences for anyone’s actions...except for the teacher of course. Any recommendations??

Sorry, Emil. The bad news is that I don't think it's a quick fix - we're talking about changing the fundamental way a lot of us (myself included, although less and less every day) think about education. How can we structure classroom learning that does impart some "weight" to what students are doing in the classroom? The irony is, I think that allowing students to use these tools - to start to produce learning products that are on the world's desktops, not just the teachers - can provide us with a venue for that kind of instruction, but until they get that kind of instruction, we can't trust them to use these tools.

The other disparity is that while the change is occuring within education - from one teacher to another, conversation by conversation - it is a slow change, like most in education. But the pace at which technology and its tools changes might find us prepared to use Web 2.0 in the classroom - and we look to find that we're now facing Web 3.0 (or 4.0, or...)

But when students do get a chance to use these tools, man, can they shine! I'll close with this additional anecdote that Emil shared:

...you should see the networking of my Robotic Club kids and their phones, texting other clubs in the robotics world when a new release is eminent. The providers are being “Hush Hush” just before the info is made public. Kids can connect and get the lowdown as fast as it is put out. Sometimes, before it hits the official websites. When they have a purpose, stand back and be amazed.

When [standardized tests] have questions/tasks that expect students to social network and engineer a solution to a problem instead of taking a multiple guess test, then maybe we will have a handle on it. I look forward to that day.

Me too, Emil. Me too.

The Future of Education... ?

Edutopia had an interview with Alvin Toffler, a well-known futurist and author of the revolutionary book Future Shock. In the interview, Toffler discusses some radical ideas about the current state and structure of education. He proposes a radical shift in the public education system - one that would be a herculean undertaking, given that change in education is always met with resistance and hesitation. If a change is made and the theory isn't sound, one or more generations of children can be affected.

While a complete, one-shot overhaul is highly unlikely and could certainly be detrimental, many of the ideas proposed are starting to make their way to the forefront of education reform thinking. Here's my take on them:

How does the 24/7 internet change education? Many classroom teachers still cling to the notion that the classroom is the primary source of learning, that teachers are the primary disseminators of information, and that students must be told what to learn through lesson plans and state standards. Does classroom teaching need to have such an emphasis on the study of facts, when most (or all) of those facts are quickly available at one's fingertips? Students have more opportunity now than ever before in history to become self-guided learners - perhaps education needs to focus more on how to learn, rather than what.

With distance learning and content management systems like Moodle, the classroom no longer needs to be a physical location.

The current compulsory education model was designed for an industrial society - does that apply any longer? While some might argue that the school day mirrors the work day of a larger percentage of the working population, is it necessary for all students to attend school on the same schedule? Barring scheduling issues due to transportation, extended days may become a more viable option for students who are invested in their education, by taking opportunities to study additional interests outside their normal course of study. More and more students are working to support themselves or even their families - how do we integrate that into the school day?

How much "general education" do students need, compared to focusing on what they love? Should we revisit the age at which students can specialize in what they study? Should students be able to choose a major in high school as well as in college?

Does this lend credence to the idea of home schooling? Home schooling gives students an opportunity to study more of what interests them, and even subjects that don't in a fashion that does interest them. Home-school teachers and parents are able to take more liberties with what and how they teach, as long as students are still meeting the state requirements. Is it because they have a smaller "class size" and more personal attention, or can innovative teaching methods really be effective?

School 2.0

I stumbled across this amusing video illustrating the differences between (using techie parlance) School 1.0 and School 2.0.




On his 2¢ blog, David Warlick has several posts about School 2.0. He has developed an excellent graphic organizer illustrating it - hopefully he won't mind if I reproduce it here.




Several things strike me as I look at the diagram:

• School 2.0 uses verbs like create, evaluate, express, and respond.
  School 1.0 uses verbs like read, listen, and remember.
• In School 2.0, learning is active. In School 1.0, learning is very passive.
• School 2.0 is learner-centered or involves teacher-learner collaboration.
  School 1.0 is very teacher-centered; delivery of information is "from on high."

I like his diagram, but interestingly, the casual observer might think that School 2.0 looks like School 1.0 - figuratively and literally. And for many educators, they assume it does. I've seen many teachers introduced to new technology only to implement it in an old-fashioned classroom - still teacher-centered, still strictly guided instruction. With respect to David, I'd like to revise the diagram, so that it not only reflects the difference in verbs, but also illustrates how School 2.0 would look, feel, and function differently.

It takes a huge paradigm shift - and an awfully daring leap of faith - to transform a classroom from 1.0 to 2.0, not to mention what it would take to transform an entire school, school system, or national public education system.