Ann Michaelsen, PLP Advisory Board member, weighs in from Norway on the self promotion discussion. This post is cross posted from her blog Teaching English using web 2.0.
—
In this article Sheryl discusses what is acceptable in regards to promoting your own work and sharing your ideas and best practice online. She offers an example on how her new book “Connected Educator” was reviewed by Justin Yantho and her reluctance to share this comment online.

Because when I read Justin Yantho’s post I wanted to share it with the world. I wanted to scream to all my networks and communities, ” See, look… these ideas are important! Look what can happen if you think about the ideas and concepts we have shared in our book.” But of course to do something like that would seem arrogant and be cataloged as shameless, self promotion.

I wonder if this is true and I’m thinking it probably is. It is difficult to know the difference between self promoting in a bragging kind of way and sharing ideas in order to learn and grow. In Norway it is difficult to promote your work without seeming to brag about yourself. There are differences between what is acceptable in different countries. Sheryl quotes me when she says in, “Norway I was told that Americans are perceived as loud, rude, and arrogant, mostly because of our willingness to self promote.” In fact when planning ahead for our next conference in November 2012 I was told that Norwegians in general don’t like to hear Americans, and that European keynote speakers were more acceptable. I don’t want to take this statement seriously but even if I don’t like it I have to admit that unfortunately some people in Norway think like that.

When I invited Sheryl to speak at our conference last year we had a conversation about inviting female keynote speakers and Sheryl insisted that it was important to do so. I must admit I hadn’t really thought about it, but after our conversation it is constantly on my mind. It is my impression that at least in Norway female teachers are doing most of the work promoting the use of technology and 21st century skills for students in school. Why then are they hardly ever speakers at conferences or authors of books in these areas? I think Sheryl is right when she says that reluctance to self promote is a gender issue as well.

Self promotion is especially tough for women. In a culture where women are penalized or bombarded with guilt for self-promotion, often because of being connected to the stereotype of being powerful or pushy (i.e., not ladylike), it’s easy to opt to pursue other methods for success in an effort to be liked. But if you don’t rally for yourself, nobody else will.

That is so true, if you don’t rally for yourself, nobody else will. I think it is important to think about the opportunities we have to promote our work and how we should help each other. Dr. Jackie Gerstein has written a commentary post where she partly agrees with Sheryl, but in her ending opts to take the “self” out of promotion.

I will make a pact with Sheryl to do what she recommends, but I cannot agree to call it self-promotion. I will take the word “self” out of it and agree to promote the best practices, lessons learned, and successes earned by my colleagues and me.

I think I will agree to disagree here. I think we should be able to promote our own work. I will quote Sheryl: But sharing what we have to offer to the world does require taking small steps outside your comfort zone and being willing to put yourself out there on behalf of your dream or vision. It really boils down to passion and believing in what you do. I think it is both a question of gender and differences between countries and cultures. I have had many conversations in Norway about learning from others. I’m afraid that if we keep inside our comfort zone and only invite others who are similar to us and speak our own language, we will loose out on a lot of opportunities. We were recently asked why Norway, being such a rich country, is so far behind in the use of technology in school and I think the answer is that we are listening to the same people all the time. (Mostly Norwegians!) It is time to be bold and to learn from others. It is what the Connected Educator is all about. (A book I have read and really recommend all teachers to read). What kind of examples are we to our students? If you only listen to people you agree with you will not go far! If you do not promote your own work or that of others, we will continue to listen to the same voices. Let’s be bold and take those small steps. YES we should celebrate our work and that of others. To me it is as easy as using Twitter and Facebook. If you comment and share, people listen to you, comment and share back. If you only talk about your own work and never comment on others’, you end up alone. People will only listen to you if you contribute and they see the value of your work.

“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”
~ African proverb

This is my response and reaction to Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach’s Unselfish Self Promotion posted on the PLP Network blog. Conceptually, I am in agreement with Sheryl.  I discussed similar ideas in a blog post entitled Every Educator Has a Story . . . Just Tell It.  Where I have have difficulties is in the language of self-promotion.  I begin with an excerpt of my original blog post and then discuss my thoughts regarding the language surrounding self-promotion.

Every Educator Has a Story . . . Just Tell It.

This is one of my favorite cartoons ever.

(Image provided by www.fborfw.com)

The “punch” line is that every person on the planet has a story to tell.  I also know that every teacher story to tell.

Educators are doing amazing things with their learners in spite of (i.e., to show spite toward) the standards-based and accountability-driven movements. I’ve learned about so many exciting learning activities from educators who are publicizing their great projects via Twitter, Facebook, and Blogs.  I’ve read about global collaborations, interesting ways technology is being integrated into the classroom, kids making a difference in their communities, and great project-based learning.

This is my own call to action for educators to tell their stories of those rich and amazing things they are doing in their classrooms.

• Write a blog.
• Tweet about it.
• Make photo essays and upload to a photo sharing site like Flickr.
• Take some video footage and share it on YouTube, TeacherTube, or Vimeo.
• Ask learner to blog about it.
• Share on Facebook.
• Give virtual presentations at conferences such as Global Education and K12 Online.
• Ask local reporters to come to your classroom
• Others? (Please add to list.)

If all educators publicized the accomplishments they had in their classrooms using technology, hands-on activities, global collaborations, project-based learning; then an informal qualitative research project would result.  When educators are asked to provide evidence of efficacy to administrators, parents, other educators, funding sources, they could share these success stories.  This aggregate would become the collective narrative – story of education of our times in the beginnings of the 21st century.

This fits, as I stated, conceptually with Sheryl’s views

I have to know about your good work to celebrate with you. I can’t depend on someone else telling me about it. It will take too long, it is too risky, and I’d rather hear it with your passion and knowledge than a watered down version from someone who might leave out the pieces that are most important to my learning (https://plpnetwork.com/2012/04/03/unselfish-self-promotion).

Unselfish (Shameless) Self-Promotion

Sheryl’s title and theme of Unselfish Self Promotion revolve around the idea of self-promotion.  Self-promotion, in the eyes of many, including me, has negative connotations.  So to begin, I went to the dictionary to get a somewhat unbiased view . . . the act or practice of promoting one’s own interests, profile, etc. It is the practice of promoting one’s own interests.

The dictionary definition matches my own.  I believe that the power of words and language influence our attitudes, mindsets, and behaviors.  It follows, then, that the actions related to self-promotion are focused on a “me” mindset, “Look at me. Recognize, acknowledge, and admire what I am doing.”

As an active participant in social networks populated with educators, I have learned what to expect from the more active contributors.  Some I get excited about reading their thought-provoking blogs.  Others I know will share some new classroom strategies, and yet others will provide me with links to some new technologies.  Some, I have come to expect, will post a link that leads to something they have done or will do, or will lead to a post that talks about them.  Their own achievements are the focus of their call-outs.  When I see a tweet or Facebook post from them, I typically only make a passing glance.  These latter folks I call self-promoters.   Their social networking actions are geared toward their own personal accomplishments.

Do I have an aversion for the term “self-promoters” because I am a female or because I did not grow up with social media?  Will perceptions change due to social media and the idea of Me 2.0?  I am not sure.  But for now, I cannot engage in self-promotion to promote me, and cannot (will not?) have tolerance for those who promote his or her “self” as a regular part of their social networking.

As I’ve stated,  I agree with Sheryl that educators need to promote best practices, successes and failures in their learning environments, and noteworthy news that have the potential to advance the educational field.  Where I disagree is with the terminology used.  I do believe in promotion not self-promotion.  It is a subtle shift in language used, but in my mind, makes a world of difference in the resultant perceptions.

. . . so yes, I do think Sheryl’s rational for promoting the PLP Network is right on target:

Here is the thing: when I talk about PLP, I am not talking about me. I am talking about “we”. I am talking about all the amazing educators who are taking the concepts back to their schools/districts and doing amazing things — things I might never think of — that no one has thought of before.

If PLP is about enabling educators to become empowered and manage change in their schools, shouldn’t we be sharing the ideas, the vision, and the steps folks need to take to be successful (https://plpnetwork.com/2012/04/03/unselfish-self-promotion)?

I will make a pact with Sheryl to do what she recommends, but I cannot agree to call it self-promotion.  I will take the word “self” out of it and agree to promote the best practices, lessons learned, and successes earned by my colleagues and me.

Let’s make a pact to get over ourselves. If you are doing good work, if you have great ideas, if you have skills that could make a difference — Dance. Tell me. Tell us all. I, for one, promise to high-five, re-tweet and share with others so together we can leave education better than we found it.

The following was cross posted from 21st Century Collaborative.com

This post has been percolating for awhile. I never wrote it because I felt I couldn’t do it justice. That the idea was too important to not express it clearly. Besides, who in their right mind would defend self promotion?

But this morning, I decided to throw caution to the wind. Why? What was the catalyst for my risk taking behavior? A book review. Yep, a blog post about the book Lani Ritter-Hall and I wrote recently called the Connected Educator: Learning and Leading in a Digital Age. So how did that post lead to this one? Because when I read Justin Yantho’s post I wanted to share it with the world. I wanted to scream to all my networks and communities, ” See, look… these ideas are important! Look what can happen if you think about the ideas and concepts we have shared in our book.” But of course to do something like that would seem arrogant and be cataloged as shameless, self promotion.

My question is why? Why is it shameless self promotion? Why is it when you promote your own ideas, those you authored, trust, and believe, it borders on being seen as self serving?

Disclaimer: Now let me state upfront, when I talk about self promotion in this post I am not talking about people who are all talk. Not the folks who only talk about themselves and their opinions, most of which are not related to any call to action or hard work on behalf of others.

It is part of our DNA

I was talking about this issue with a friend and suggested maybe we have this mindset because our parents drilled it into us. “Don’t toot your own horn; if it is good you will get noticed.” My friend told me, “I’m from Canada, and for us it’s not a parenting issue, it’s a national issue.” In Australia they call it the “tallest poppy syndrome”, and in Norway I was told that Americans are perceived as loud, rude, and arrogant, mostly because of our willingness to self promote. In working with Catholic and Jewish schools, I have been told that arrogance is associated with pride and that we should err on the side of humility. But is marketing our own ideas and work prideful if we really believe what we have to offer is useful, transformational, or helpful?

Women and Self Promotion

Self promotion is especially tough for women. In a culture where women are penalized or bombarded with guilt for self-promotion, often because of being connected to the stereotype of being powerful or pushy (i.e., not ladylike), it’s easy to opt to pursue other methods for success in an effort to be liked. But if you don’t rally for yourself, nobody else will. And what if others have reinforced that your ideas are worth promoting – what then? Interestingly, for women there’s also the concern about potentially hurting other people’s feelings. Women are hesitant to self-promote or talk about their achievements because they don’t want to dismiss or alienate less successful people.

Rethinking Self Promotion

If you think about it, no one is more passionate about your work than you are. No one else knows the depth of your experience, expertise and ideas. And no one can elaborate on your work as convincingly as you can. By delegating promotion just to others, you’re taking away your best opportunity to demonstrate the value of your ideas. You are muting your best spokesman. Isn’t it logical that if we believe in our message, not promoting it would be selfish, as it would deny people the opportunity to learn from what we have to say or do? Humility is an important part of success and character growth — but humility should not mean that we refuse to open doors for others and help them reach their goals, dreams and aspirations by modeling our work and ideas. It’s about sharing, not coercion.

I am not suggesting we have to play the role of a pushy salesperson or a self-consumed and annoying person to get ahead. But sharing what we have to offer to the world does require taking small steps outside your comfort zone and being willing to put yourself out there on behalf of your dream or vision. It really boils down to passion and believing in what you do.

Promote the Ideas, the Vision, and the Dream

Anyone who knows me knows that I talk about Powerful Learning Practice (PLP) a lot. I believe in PLP. I believe in the work we do. I believe that the big ideas embedded in PLP’s model are the best hope we have for reculturing education systemically. This isn’t just about my livelihood. It’s my passion, my legacy, my way of leaving education better than I found it.

Here is the thing: when I talk about PLP, I am not talking about me. I am talking about “we”. I am talking about all the amazing educators who are taking the concepts back to their schools/districts and doing amazing things — things I might never think of — that no one has thought of before.

I am talking about how other educators are changing their learning environments. Take Voices from the Learning Revolution, a PLP sponsored group blog that contains zero marketing. PLP features our member’s work and their thinking about important topics in 21st century education. It’s a place where they can “self promote” their learning journey in community.

And I do not just talk about the “we” on our PLP website. I brag about PLPeeps anywhere others will let me do so. Some see that as self promotion. I was once turned down for a keynote for a large ISTE affiliate that had sought me out to present but had second thoughts when the committee discussion revealed the fear that all I would talk about was PLP. Which to be fair isn’t true — I keynote around the world and have yet to present on PLP. In fact, Will Richardson, my PLP co-founder and I have both agreed to rarely mention PLP in the keynotes and workshops we do because of the self promotion myth. But I have decided that in doing so we may be doing those who attend our sessions a disservice. If PLP is about enabling educators to become empowered and manage change in their schools shouldn’t we be sharing the ideas, the vision, and the steps folks need to take to be successful?

It’s sharing that drives change for children

Some of you reading this are probably thinking: “Well, sure you feel that way, you profit from people becoming part of PLP.” Yes, we do and so does everyone else who is part of the PLP family. But here is where the rubber meets the road— you do not have to be part of PLP to get access to the ideas and philosophy. We share it everywhere freely for anyone who wants to partake. My new book tells it all. It shows educators how to “do” PLP in your own local context. It has Get Connected activities that walk folks through the same kinds of things we do in PLP. Will’s book about PLNs also shares basic PLP philosophies.

To not self-promote the work we do is counterintuitive to promoting the shift we feel is needed for children to thrive now and in the future. If we truly believe that what we are doing, collectively, is changing education (and it is) then why wouldn’t we self-promote at every turn? Why would I let my fear of being judged for too much self promotion get in the way of helping make schools better places for children?

I am just going to say it: SHARING IS NOT SELF PROMOTION! That’s right — all bf caps… I yelled it. I told you I get passionate about this topic. Whether I am talking about PLP, my book, a blog post, a presentation or any other work I am giving myself over to on behalf of changing the world and making it better for children, then I am not self promoting! Rather, I am spreading ideas I believe will help you because I care.

And guess what: I am hoping you will reciprocate. I am hoping you will make me aware of your work, your ideas, your skills, so that if there is a way we can collaborate to make the world better, we can find each other to do so. Because if you are willing to take the backlash that comes from the myths of being “self promotional,” I will be able to find you, know you, and possibly work with you. In the 21st Century it is so important to know what those you know know. And how will I know what you know if you do not tell me? Brag a little, will ya? Make it easier for me to connect the dots. We are all busy and time’s a’wasting. I need to find you fast.

Dance When You Make a Touchdown!

I had someone famous who lives in Canada tell me once that my problem was that I dance when I make a touchdown. He said, “Like American football players, Sheryl, you tend to dance when you make a touchdown. Rather you should score and just act like it is business as usual.” I will say to you what I said to him: I will not only dance when I make a touchdown, I will dance more wildly when you do.

I have to know about your good work to celebrate with you. I can’t depend on someone else telling me about it. It will take too long, it is too risky, and I’d rather hear it with your passion and knowledge than a watered down version from someone who might leave out the pieces that are most important to my learning.

Let’s make a pact to get over ourselves. If you are doing good work, if you have great ideas, if you have skills that could make a difference — Dance. Tell me. Tell us all. Self promote. I, for one, promise to high-five, re-tweet and share with others so together we can leave education better than we found it.

Apple’s mega announcement of their new iTunes U courses and, more interesting to me, their new iBooks Author app has many of us thinking anew about the state of textbooks and informal learning and openness and a whole bunch of other things. It’s been interesting to watch the “debates” on Twitter (and elsewhere) between those in the “Oooo shiny” camp and those in the “Apple doesn’t get it” camp. I think I’m falling more toward the latter as it seems to me at least that this is more about repackaging the same old stale content into the same old interactive content provided by the same old content providers with little of the spirit of sharing that I find most powerful about the Web built in. Far be it from me to suggest Apple doesn’t have the right to float this model, but I’ve yet to see how this really advances education in meaningful ways without having something with an Apple logo on it in your backback or pocket to make it work. That’s a bug, not a feature.

But as I said, the interesting part of this announcement is the iBooks Author app which, in theory at least, moves us more toward construction than consumption. I know, I know…pretty much anything we construct with it becomes a part of Apple’s domain, and that part of it contradicts, I think, the best part of writing and sharing on the Web. Again, I may not have poked around in it long enough to know, but it doesn’t look like “authoring” via the app is collaborative, social, linkable…all the good stuff that at the end of the day fuels the learning that I, at least, do here online.

iBooks Author made me think immediately of a snip in an op-ed piece by Stanley Fish in the New York Times last week, a piece that anyone interested in the changing nature of authorship would do well to read. In it, he cites extensively a new-ish book by Kathleen Fitzpatrick titled Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology and the Future of the Academy.  These two paragraphs get to the salient ideas around the new tension to authorship on the Web:

The effect of these technologies is to transform a hitherto linear experience — a lone reader facing a stable text provided by an author who dictates the shape of reading by doling out information in a sequence he controls — into a multi-directional experience in which voices (and images) enter, interact and proliferate in ways that decenter the authority of the author who becomes just another participant. Again Fitzpatrick: “we need to think less about completed products and more about text in process; less about individual authorship and more about collaboration; less about originality and more about remix; less about ownership and more about sharing.”

 

“Text in process” is a bit of an oxymoron: for if the process is not occurring with an eye toward the emergence of a finished artifact but with an eye toward its own elaboration and complication — more links, more voices, more commentary — the notion of “text” loses its coherence; there is no longer any text to point to because it “exists” only in a state of perpetual alteration: “Digital text is, above all, malleable … there is little sense in attempting to replicate the permanence of print [itself an illusion, according to the digital vision] in a medium whose chief value is change.” (Fitzpatrick)

More about “text in process,” more about “collaboration,” more about “remix,” more about “sharing.” Forget for a moment the question of whether we are helping our students author in these contexts. (Hint: we’re not.) Are we seeing ourselves as authors in these ways? As I write this, do I see it as a “text in process?” Do I expect collaboration and remix? Do I understand the value of sharing and how to share it most effectively?

Admittedly, none of this is one or the other. I write and publish books and articles for journals who don’t embrace these shifts. Those are texts in finished form, little remix or collaboration possible. I’ve convinced myself at this moment that there is still worth in that, to attempt to disseminate ideas around the value and potential of an online, connected, networked education to those who trust those more traditional forms, even in a world which pulls me to just share and give it all away. (Oh, the irony!) But there is no doubt that I learn less from that process than the one I’m engaged in here and elsewhere. From the op-ed:

Nor is there any sense in holding on to the concept of “author,” for as Fitzpatrick observes, “all of the texts published in a network environment will become multi-author by virtue of their interpenetration with the writings of others.” Fitzpatrick insists that there will still be a place for individual authors, but with a difference: the collective, she says, should not be understood as “the elimination of individual, but rather as … a fertile community composed of multiple intelligences, each of which is always working in relationship with others.”

Notably, Fish plans to tear most of this apart in an upcoming post. But I think there is quite a bit worth defending in this vision. Publication is no longer an end point as much as it is a mid point, and to me, that’s a feature, not a bug. The interactions of other passionate readers on either side of the thesis happening in transparent, remixable ways adds another layer of learning to the reading and writing process that up until a short decade ago was really tough to make happen.

Given that shifted definition of “authorship,” I think I’ll take that over the Apple version. Not to say that iAuthoring won’t have some positive impact on the learning interaction as more new ideas are shared, but that doesn’t feel much different from the way we’ve been doing things in school for the past 125 years.

Let the remixing begin… ;0)

Dear Sheryl,

As always, you have me thinking. The idea of a “virtual” school built on the self-learning concepts of the Independent Project within a real school is intriguing to me on a number of levels, not the least of which is the marriage of the face to face learning environment with the online. As the ideas you’ve developed in PLP articulate, there are many contexts for learning today, not just physical space places which are still important, but now the anytime, anywhere, anyone contexts which the Internet supports. There’s no question that in the short term at least (and maybe the long term, too), schools as spaces will maintain their importance in our communities. But the idea that we go to school to learn outside of school intrigues me. We need to give our students a path to inhabit those spaces not just in a social sense but in a real learning sense, discovering, applying and creating new knowledge to their real life passions in ways that could change the world. We really need to begin to rethink the school space on every level. And I think it could be doable, provided, as you suggest, the mentoring “teachers” the kids get connected to are there to learn for themselves and to become part of the process. I know I play with the words more than I should, but what if we assembled a “learning staff” rather than a “teaching staff,” a group of adults who are experts not at content but at learning, at personalizing the process for each individual child? And generalists who can not only help point them in the right direction regardless their need but motivate them to dig deeper and harder when the going gets tough.

And I agree on the assessment piece as well. A few weeks ago, I got to visit Poughkeepsie Day School where Josie Holford is the head, a place where (sit down before you read the next part) there are no grades. Seriously…no grades. Shockingly, however, kids that graduate from there actually go on to college. One even “made it” to Princeton. Amazing, huh? ;0) I didn’t get a chance to ask more about it, but briefly Josie said the kids get narrative reports from teachers, do performances and self-assessment, and that all seems to suit everyone just fine. I’ve been thinking a lot about how at the end of the day, performance is really the only assessment that’s important. Can you do it? And if not, what do you need to be able to do it? Helping kids understand how to do that for themselves and really deeply reflect on their performance is something that schools seem to struggle with, for obvious reasons.

You’re right, however; you are the optimist in this duo. I wonder, can it happen? Can we really remove the barriers to learning (rather than create them) in ways that teachers and parents and the businessmen and politicians who have been bastardizing the definition for the last 50 years will support and encourage? Can we really move the conversation to where it needs to be, away from a Common Core and another layer of one-size-fits-all assessment to a place where each child is celebrated as a unique learner, not a cog in the machine? I hope we collectively can do that. I love this quote from Seymour Papert which Sylvia Martinez used in a recent blog post: “for those of us who want to change education the hard work is in our own minds, bringing ourselves to enter intellectual domains we never thought existed. The deepest problem for us is not technology, nor teaching, nor school bureaucracies. All these are important but what it is all really about is mobilizing powerful ideas.” Amen. And I also know that we “cannot not change the world.” The future is not something that is preordained, that we have no control over. In fact, we have the ultimate control if we find a way to act collectively.

So, is it time for a wiki? ;0)

Dear Will,

You know better than anyone that I am an optimist. I truly do see possibilities more than problems.

Well, I woke up this morning feeling empty. I woke up grieving for children. I blame it on a dream I had. A dream about unhappy students, hundreds of them, shuffling through halls with broken spirits and sad faces. Students who were disenfranchised and unempowered, who were doing what it took to get through school (all 12 years of it) because it is a mandate- required by parents, society and the state. Beautiful, creative, kids who learn so much naturally out of school but remain uninspired in school by teachers who have failed them. These same teachers also feel betrayed by a system that has left them disempowered as well. One that has ripped away their dreams of changing the world one kid at a time. The system is broken and it is going to take hard work to fix it… to reculture it…to transform it.

A Dream Come Real
I know it was a dream – or was it? I found myself wondering if the hard work we are both doing through our workshops, keynote presentations and Powerful Learning Practice is making a real difference. I woke up feeling frustrated that many with whom I learn daily, seem to, especially as of late, want an easy button. They simply do not have the passion or the drive to go deep. They give all the right excuses. “Right” meaning seemingly justified. Excuses like I have no time, I’m just a teacher, it’s out of my hands, we have to teach to the test, we have AP exams we have to prepare kids for, I need more, there isn’t enough money, the kids are not capable of learning on their own in passion based ways, the kids have to be policed, working conditions suck, the culture hasn’t shifted, we do not have the resources or technology, our parents won’t let us, they don’t seem to care, and on and on and on. I hear things like “I am trying to have powerful conversations but no one is talking back” or “these just aren’t my conversations” or “I am just not interested.”

Learner Led Communities
I know part of the answer to re-envisioning education comes in the learning communities we are creating – deep, sustained, communities that have hard, messy conversations and become safe places where we ask controversial questions that push for positive change. But part of the problem is getting participants to buy in and make time and truly commit to spending time in community, building trust and learning together. It takes time and energy and folks have to understand it is developmental. The shift will come if they will invest themselves, the very best part of themselves.

It will require a shift in dispositions, beliefs, and values. Such as these (from my soon to be published co-authored book on connected learning):

Dispositions of a Connected Learner
1. Propensity for and understanding of strengths-based appreciative approaches to learning;
2. Tendency for mindfulness (paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally);
3. Commitment to understanding, gained through listening and asking good questions related to practice;
4. Perseverance toward deep thought, demonstrated by exploring ideas and concepts, rethinking, revising, and continual repacking and unpacking, resisting urges to finish prematurely;
5. Courage and initiative to engage in discussions on difficult or messy topics;
6. Willingness to leave one’s comfort zone to experiment with new strategies;
7. Commitment to deep reflection about the efficacy of the work we do;
8. Inclination toward being open-minded and non-judgmental;
9. Dedication to the ongoing development of expertise;
10. Ardor for a culture of collegiality – that “None of us is as good as all of us” and that the contributions of all can lead to improved practice.

The disillusionment is pervasive though. I see educators everywhere so unhappy. And I see students, masses of students, so unhappy. Everyday, it seems, we all go to school because we have to go. Twitter lights up on a snow day. Something is wrong when educators are as excited as students at the prospect of a snow day. What happened to passion? What happened to teachers motivated by a daily drive to inspire their students?

I love what Joe Bowers says: “True accountability would demand that we ask children if they like school; then we would have to care about their answer – and be prepared to do something about it. Where interest lies; achievement follows. “

It is true — teaching to someone’s weaknesses only produces mediocrity. It is when we work through our strengths and our passions that we can achieve excellence. That’s appreciative learning.

Dream School
I have been dreaming lately, dreaming about starting a school, a place where kids can ask questions and follow their passions. A place where caring adults create the conditions where deep learning can thrive and are willing to get out of the way and let it happen. A place where we value what all learners have to offer teachers and students.

This school is a blended place with inquiry occurring both online and face to face. A school, like a lab school, where others could see self-directed learning in action. Then today I came across the Independent Project. Have you seen the clip at the bottom of this post? Please watch the whole thing and then let’s talk. I am thinking maybe we could start our dream school as a school within schools. What if the Powerful Learning Practice school was an opt-in program that traditional schools had for their students? Just like some schools have virtual classes as part of the choices they offer kids, what if this kind of self directed learning experience was also an option and it was supported by a connected learner experience online as well. Maybe we should reach out to our PLPeep schools and start there? This way it could serve a two-fold purpose. It could be part of our PLP Connected Learner School, and it could serve as the spark that shifts culture in the physical school where it resides in an authentic way — from the inside out. What do you think?

The Evolution of the Teacher
As teachers and educators, we have to shift from doing things TO students and instead create a dynamic learning environment where students take ownership of their own learning and pursue it passionately. In a connected world, with the Internet and powerful digital technologies literally at our fingertips, we would be foolish not to integrate those things into the learning experience. But when I talk about the shift, I am not talking primarily about changing the tools we use. I’m talking about transforming the way most teachers teach today – either because they were taught to teach that way or because the accountability system makes them believe they have to teach that way.

This is going to require a pedagogical shift. Assessment will become a proactive process embedded in learning itself. Rather than just telling us about the quality of the teaching, assessment will be designed to help the learner understand how to improve and learn more. The shift will require much more from teachers than just throwing out a few clarifying questions. When we let learning rule the school structure, teachers will have to evolve into much more than the delivery vehicle – the person who simply deconstructs knowledge into small, bite sized pieces that can be memorized and regurgitated on tests. Rather, teachers will become connected coaches who understand how to use appreciative inquiry to help students construct and validate their own learning.

Dear Will,

I have been thinking a lot about our conversation yesterday about standards, Common Core, and the dynamic tension education is experiencing between content and context. My perception is that Common Core has a narrow focus, which is good and in terms of framework to the curriculum – it works. However, my fear is that the  Federal government will play in this sandbox pretty hard, so I wonder if it will be just one more power grab.

Maybe the reason National standards bother me is I feel it is an attempt at mass control of education, a one size fits all approach, and one more way to send the message that learning can be standardized. Maybe it is because standardization in some ways is demeaning to educators. They should be the designers of learning and orchestrators of creative curriculum implementation and student ownership of learning.

I do not mind standards in and of themselves. They are a framework, a way for all of us to shoot for the same goal, to be on the same page or at least in the same ballpark. They are a minimum bar or a boundary that says when you cover this- at least get to here- but yet, not limiting anyone from taking the learning further.

I do not even mind outcomes. I think it is important to measure what we have accomplished, to look back and say we have been here and here and we have mastered these skills. A learning footprint of sorts. Even testing doesn’t bother me if it is one of many measures (data points) to show growth over time. Testing data should be used by students themselves to improve learning choices and reflect upon the learning experience. Testing should not be used by governments to decide funding, quality or make decisions about teachers. Testing should be tied to student outcomes and used for self-directed, appreciative growth.

In my mind the problem with State and National tests is they support a belief that we can create a standardization of the learning process. Standardization of learning is what I am against. The belief that somehow it is possible to standardize thinking, knowledge construction, aha moments, innovation, learning, creativity, and even teachers themselves.

Having agencies and governments determine content and common core doesn’t bother me. Give me the ingredients you want me to use, the map, the content I am to cover. Then get out of the way and let me at it. Let the co-learners in the room decide context– the how of what we will share, the teaching and learning processes and the why of how we learn it this way. Let us do our own wayfinding. Let us construct our own meaning and design, our own sense making activities. Let us show mastery of what we learned in ways that align not only with the standards but also with the self-directed processes and creative ways in which each learner chooses.

I love what Seymour Papert says, “Curriculum should be learning what you need to learn, when you need to learn it.” We cover the standards provided (Common Core) but the timing and methods are up to us, the community of learners in the classroom.

Teachers become part of the learning process. They bring the expertise in the art of learning, metacognition, research, and pedagogy. Their role should be to model best practice, to coach, facilitate, organize, ask good questions, negotiate learning contracts and to provide a safe, intriguing environment for learning. Teachers in the 47 states that have adopted Common Core should use it as an organizational construct, a framework, a guide- and avoid any suggestion of tying it to punitive means of standardizing the learning that occurs in the classroom.

We both know technology plays a powerful role in shifting what needs to happen inside of schools. The teachers and students we work with share horrible stories and are stifled by what is happening there. But like you, I am thinking we are having the wrong conversation-  it needs to shift from standardization of standards (common core content) to standardization of quality- of context (methods and dispositions).

What if content was a variable (rather than a constant) and how we taught (higher order thinking skills, creativity, student choice, and collaborative knowledge construction, and global connections) became the constant. In other words, maybe we need to standardize (make it business as usual) that learning should be self-directed and knowledge co-constructed. What if we had benchmarks for what a learner driven classroom looks like. Maybe that is the conversation we should be having. What if time was a variable (i.e. seat time and Carnegie units) and learning (individualized and student-directed) became the constant?

Just think– in a system like this the curriculum guides and common standards could covers broad themes and topics of exploration.  The lead learner’s (teacher) role would be to come up with interesting questions and thought provoking problems that help guide participant learners (students) in choosing what interests them most about the topic. There could be topics for self exploration, group exploration, and team exploration. These topics and structures could weave together to create an entire unit of study around a global theme across disciplines. Each project could include a collective action and service learning outcome that was student designed. Kids would think about the purpose of what they were creating to inform and make the world a better place (in addition to how well it aligned with content standards).  But they could create their own standards/outcomes for the learning too- what they wanted to get out of the experience.  They would use various media and technology to publish their artifacts of mastery. For example, what if they created a global project and part of the outcomes measured was how global it became?

Curriculum would be co-created and co-developed under the broad topic for the course and would be allocated based on interest and experience. Students could choose dilemmas and innovations to be created in a studio design approach and shared with the rest of the class/world as an expose’ or showcase experience.  If projects were crowdsourced out to student/teacher networks, other classes could join in and build and learn together. Rather than simply having a system of common core standards related to content criteria,  schools could do action research that resulted in benchmarks for creativity, connectivity, collaboration, collegiality, and other amazing words that start with C <wink>. (You get my drift).

The teacher could operate in the role of curator and bring in important content and resources he/she felt added to the understanding and expertise of the student designers. Technology would have an important role to play, but quietly in the background supporting the learning.

But then, as you said in our conversation, what would this look like in schools with 59 kids in a class? Could it work? What do you think?

Subscribe to Conversations from the Edge

Get instant notifications of new Conversations posts via RSS or email.