The Death of Big Ideas or: Who Wants to Get Fired?

Why haven't any of us been fired?

Seriously.

A revolution of any kind, a massive change in any industry makes the powers-that-be angry. I'm sure there were people who lost their jobs at music companies who suggested actually putting content online as mp3s. The same goes for movies.

In education, people have struggled to make things happen. People have fought filters and their bosses to get access to the tools they needed. We have had several instances of people having projects canceled, but as far as I know, no one has lost a job over their implementation of 2.0 tools in their classroom.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not wishing for anyone to have this hardship placed on them; but it does make me wonder, if no one is directly challenged and threatened by our ideas, are they really that revolutionary?

I'm happy to see more people come onboard and begin using these tools themselves for their own learning and in their classrooms to extend their reach, but I haven't seen a massive, new idea in the edublogosphere for a good long while now. While we occasionally get all atwitter (bad pun intended) about a new tool that shows up on the scene, we've pretty much got all the video conferencing, blogging, photo, etc., etc. platforms and software that we need.

We know a lot of things. We've learned plenty about using social tools in the classroom. We know that kids blogging, taking photos and editing podcasts is a Good Thing. We know that kids have to learn to be safe online. We know that the important thing is not the tools ("Gotta learn Blogger")  or even in the pedagogy behind them, but is in the different type of learning that these things make possible.

I've noticed this on my own blog as much as in other places in the edusphere. Most of the posts we are writing and most of the things we are doing now is refining how we use The Tools. But once you've got 'em, you've got 'em.

Is it time for us to move along?

There is still a lot of research that needs to be done, but much of it is beyond the ken of classroom teachers. While we've got mountains of anecdotal evidence and everyone has their lightbulb stories, the stories of kids in their classrooms who get it and forged new paths because of the tools they are using. But we still need authentic PhDs. from authentic research institutions to come along behind us (or along with us) and write the papers we can take to our superintentendents and our principals. But what else do we need to do?

It's time for us to start thinking through bigger ideas. Blogs are not new anymore. Neither is Voicethread or flickr or wikis. But what about curriculum design, and power and democracy in classrooms? What about questioning who gets to organize learning experiences and perform evaluation? What about setting kids loose to solve community problems? These are things that are more of a direct challenge to the way that education is more traditionally organized. These are the kinds of things that might manage to get us fired. When classrooms stop looking like classrooms and begin looking like something else, then we know we're on the move to something else.

Photo Credits:

Fire? What Fire?: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1440/1485881035_445373b0ec.jpg
Question Everything: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/62/202872717_a8a4799419.jpg

Tags: clasrooms, education, school, web 2.0, power, learning, blogging, wikis

Comments

[Adina Sullivan]

I think you are right in that there hasn't been anything truly new recently, but I also think that mainly applies to those of us that are actively involved in the ed tech community. There are a large number of educators who still think of blogs, wikis, digital storytelling, podcasting, VoIP, etc. as very revolutionary/impractical ideas. Many are coming on board slowly as they see the evidence from us that they are value-added activities. This is why your point about needing quality research is important. We need that added support to justify what we do in the classroom so that administrators will both support us and push for the reluctant to join us.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't continue to progress with "massive new ideas", but we do also have to continue to focus heavily on bringing educators on board with the tools we already know. Until those tools we already know are more broadly used and more learners have the opportunity to benefit from them, I don't think we can turn our attention entirely to forging on bravely with the next big thing. Thinking, debating, and dabbling though are certainly still called for :-) .

[Scott Weidig (VanishingPoint)]

Wow, you greatly articulated something that I have been feeling for a long time. I really, honestly, feel that we will not see any tractionable change as a profession, in classrooms, or for our students until we address the lack of curriculum change and increase the curriculum development skills of our new teachers. We need to focus less on the tools and more on consolidating them into functional curricular advances.

Scott

[Diana]

I changed jobs this past summer and started over after working for nearly a decade in the same school. Throughout this time, I spent a massive amount of time at the school, district, community and state level to move a conversation forward regarding changing the way we do 'school'. At the end of my tenure there I was pushing pretty hard to bring about some changes that some in the district really found untenable. It was then that I knew if I stayed I would have to agree to continue in a setting that I felt was not good for students or move on. If I had stayed working for my former principal, I believe I was on my way to getting fired. I didn't want to get fired and I didn't want to continue fighting a battle where my personal well-being would be the collateral damage.

I think one of the reasons that no one is getting fired is because they aren't staying in the classroom. Those individuals that are aware of the types of changes that need to be made often tire of the relentless and unproductive fights with administration and the stagnating pace of change in the educational enterprise. Doesn't the ridiculously high turn over rate of new teachers speak a little to the 'ripe for revolution' atmosphere?

[Richard Kassissieh]

Well put. I would be interested to see this rewritten for an audience of superintendents, principles, technical support providers, and curriculum designers.

Richard

[Bob Cotter]

I don't know. I'm certainly not tired of the old ideas, particularly since I'm still trying to work on ways to get more than a handful of the very good teachers in our district using the tools you mention. Don't you think that before moving on to bigger ideas, it is necessary to get some grounding in these older ones?

Our district has a strong Learning Community Team... based primarily on Literacy and Numeracy. Literacy is thought of mostly as reading and writing outside of the use of technology. I'm pleased that a long standing goal of mine, to get computers in the hands of teachers, has finally been realized with the Board of Education offering every teachers with an assignment a MacBook. Before Christmas, about 150 of those got handed out and another 60 will go to staff after Christmas. Part of the commitment on the part of teachers was to attend workshops on making effective use of the laptop and much of my work with them will be based on these old ideas.

[Dean Shareski]

Adina likely says it best.

I would also add that the fact that much of this revolution is already going mainstream, gives it a level of credibility. This is not like a Summerhill approach or even a pure PBL approach that are purely educational concepts. The prevalent use of technology is occurring in the business world and in lives outside of school. When your neighbour asks you, "what exactly is twitter?" you know the ideas aren't all that revolutionary anymore.

[Rick Biche]

Has it been in the past three years that the peak of "cool new tool" posts and "things have got to change" posts peaked and dropped? I guess I would question whether either of these types of ideas are revolutionary where the first is just applying current social trends to the classroom, and the second, well, how long has that mantra been going on? I don't think this in any way diminishes what many in the ed tech community have worked so hard to do in these past few years. That is to show, as you said, the "different types of learning these [tools] make possible". On the most superficial, yet easiest level to grasp, this means student engagement. More deeply it is learning to learn in the context of current social change.
Is it time to do deeper you ask? Absoulutely, it always has been. I would love to see a huge increase in the number of posts offereing serious reflection on student learning. Whether of not technology was used seems of less relevance at this point.

Of course, for many of us, the tools are still cool, a lot of fun, and likely to keep getting better. Keeping that enthusiasm alive is important to me too.

[Clarence Fisher]

Sorry I've been slow to respond to the great comments that are rolling in here. Just two responses to try to sum some of this up.

Adina: I think you are right in that there are many, many people who still need to adopt these technologies in their classroom. I am more than willing to help where I can. But does this fact that many people still need to come on board mean that we should not push ahead? We cannot hold back waiting for people to catch up with those of us that are "ahead." There is certainly a lot of evangelization that needs to be done, but I don't think this fact means that we now stop and wait.

Diana: I completely understand what you are saying. I push many people's buttons in my own situation when I advocate for change. I also think that you have a great point about people stepping up and out of their classrooms. Many of the leaders in our community here have stepped up out of their classrooms in the time they have been writing online. Their talents have been recognized by their districts and they have logically promoted them. While there are many classroom people blogging, many of those who have been here for sometime have moved up. This obviously changes their focus at least somewhat. It is good to have more leaders blogging who can effect change on a larger stage, but it leaves fewer of us writing from our classrooms.

[Ric Murry]

Clarence,

Beautifully written. Passionate and precise.

I want to answer the question you pose, and ask two questions in return.

Answer - No one has been fired (or at least it has not been publicized as such) because we all need the money, especially in the world economy we face and will be facing. "Be glad to have a job," may become the most common phrase of 2009. Is Web 2.0 really worth getting fired over...is it?

Questions - (1) Why is it so important that some Ph.D. say that these technologies and methodologies are valuable before Superintendents/Admins believe it? Is it that something is untrue until approved by a philosophical theorist?

(2) Agreeing with you even more deeply in asking - Have these tools really changed anything we are doing pedagogically? Is the IWB much more than a chalkboard? Is a blog anything different than a Composition Book (especially if schools policy prohibits publishing to the world for comment)? [Again, is the possibility of a comment from another country really worth getting fired for?] The tools have really become a newer way for us to recycle old methods, haven't they?

Fully on board with your final paragraph. What will get people fired, is a totally new definition of education, and therefore function of how we educate. Get kids to become citizen journalists, even in the USA, by recording government meetings, school board sessions, courtroom proceedings, and other community or business events, and you would see firings. You would also see change, and perhaps a better "educated" generation. Kids would have a reason to write, read, learn math, and become interested in ecologies if they were the ones uncovering the "stories" behind the headlines.

I'll wake up now. Back to reality. :-)

[Rodd Lucier]

There is something big that has happened in the last few years, and that will continue to happen. The thing we have accomplished on our own, that our predecessors failed to negotiate:

We have one another!

When we have questions, ideas, or reflections, there is a community of support that can be present to us virtually immediately!

In the past, innovators had to blaze a trail on their own, unaware that others were doing similar work. Now, as we move forward, we can do so as a group of like-minded peers. With such support, we can't be fired... can we?!

[Clarence Fisher]

Ric: I think if used "properly" (in ways that promote negotiated meanings and connections and the bringing in of multiple viewpoints into the classroom), that blogs and wikis can be very different from other methods. I am just arguing that we need to go beyond these now and look deeper.

Rodd: You, as usual, bring a good point and a new way to look at things. Our connections and our network is new; something that I think has never been seen before education. It is Different to have access to colleagues around the world.

[Roberto Gauvin]

Hi Clarence! I used your post to express some ideas in ICT vision development in New Brunswick.

http://carnets.opossum.ca/roberto/2009/01/new_brunswick_on_ict.html

Thanks for the inspiration !!!

Have a great year !

[Sharon Peters]

Clarence, much of what you said resonated with me. Yes, we need to be able to demonstrate to education leaders that our practices have been validated by academic researchers. I am encouraged to hear about more academics that are publishing on the uses of these tools and environments (I think of Konrad Glogowski and Cheri Toledo, just as 2 examples). I also want to point you to a great book recommended to me by George Siemens - Cambridge Handbook of Learning Sciences (2006) which is a compilation of research that examines successful technology integration to promote deep learning.
I also think you are right on about the need to go further with our students. I have become intrigued with what one of my colleagues calls "reality-based" learning which takes PBL even further. It is about creating authentic learning opportunities for our students that empowers students to promote social change in some way. I am going to attempt two small such projects in the new year to see how it goes. And, of course, I will be relying on the tools and environments of the internet to facilitate those learning projects along the way. All the best for the new year! Thanks for making us think, Clarence!

[Bill Fitzgerald]

Hello, Clarence,

If innovation is operationalized as introducting tools that support/facilitate greater connection between learners within, between, and beyond the classroom space, then we have a stunted view of what innovation can and should be. Innovation is a mindset, not a technology. At their best, technological tools fade into the background in the service of supporting people as they question everything -- and then attempt to create their own answers.

Innovation will not come when we have "authentic learning" as a target. As a catchphrase, or as a goal, authentic learning is almost as mythical as a unicorn. The notion of authentic learning has been reduced by hackneyed overuse. File it alongside 21st century literacies.

Revolution will be fomented by revolutionaries. Great teaching can be a revolutionary activity, but most/many of us have excellent reasons not to engage in revolutionary activity (mortgage, family, etc -- as you point out, revolutionaries get fired). If we wait for academics to study/quantify/validate the worth of the learning activities we consider revolutionary, we'll be waiting for a long time. There are exceptions, of course -- Chris Sessums springs readily to mind here -- but on the whole if we wait for an academic validation of revolutionary activity in the realm of learning, we'll be dust before we see the data.

So, the question I have: how are we shaking things up? How are we working -- individually and/or collectively -- to solve the problems we see? Change can occur without truly revolutionary activity, but it can't occur without effort.

Cheers,

Bill

[Tom Hoffman]

Education and the internet are a natural fit. They were made for each other -- the internet and the web were in large part created by academics for academics, for sharing information, collaborating and learning from each other.

Fundamentally, computers, the internet and schools go together, and most people believe that -- we spend lots of money buying computers for schools and connecting to them to the internet.

But there are bumps in the road. It is full of porn! Adults you don't know, misinformation, etc. It is the wild, wild West. It takes people time to adjust and it takes a while to figure out which technologies are flashes in the pan and which will stay around for decades.

But fundamentally, it makes sense. Fundamentally the web is not that disruptive to educational philosophy or pedagogy.