Quick, tell me how much you know about the people in the following list:

Maybe you recognize a few of those names? None? Well, those are the most recent recipients of the Roald F. Campbell Lifetime Achievement Award, an award given by UCEA “for the purpose of recognizing senior professors in the field of educational administration whose professional lives have been characterized by extraordinary commitment, excellence, leadership, productivity, generosity, and service.”

I know many of those folks personally. They are some of the brightest, most dedicated educators I could ever know. They are incredible scholars and thought-leaders in the field of educational leadership. They are VERY deserving of that award. But, let me ask you this…Have YOU ever heard them speak? Ever read anything they wrote? If not, why not?

I just don’t know what exactly. So, mostly as stream of consciousness and in chronological order…

*This started when Lisa Thumann tweeted about a keynote speaker at BLC ’10 who referred to the so-called “10,000 hour rule” for mastery or expertise.

*I asked her if the speaker had a warrant for that knowledge claim beyond Malcolm Gladwell (who I knew wrote about this in Outliers).

*She confirmed that the speaker did, in fact, cite Gladwell in connection with the “10,000 hour rule.”

*George Siemens chimed in with a more learned take on the situation and linked to a research handbook and a related blog post where he commented with some information relevant to the “10,000 hour rule.”

*The post itself is interesting as an exercise in research and pushed me to think about how to create an activity for doctoral students in educational leadership wherein they identify a commonly accepted “fact” and trace it back through the literature to see if that fact holds up.

*In the meantime, I recently learned about yolink. I don’t exactly know what it is other than it seems to be like Google alerts, only better. So, I took yolink on a test ride. I created an alert for [10,000 hours Gladwell].

*In the first day, I got an alert with three blog posts: One, two, three, and one web link.

*On the second day, I got one web link.

That web link from the second alert is most telling. Granted it’s a website about horse racing tips, but the author writes:

“While not famous amongst the general public in his own right, Gladwell is a New York Times bestselling author whose research on extraordinarily successful people led him to come up with the 10,000 Hour Rule.”

So, apparently, Gladwell came up with the 10,000 hour rule. Ha! Hardly.

I have little to no subject matter expertise here (irony?), but if you read the comment from George Siemens to which I linked above, and work through some of the information, you can learn pretty quickly that all Gladwell did was synthesize selected research about mastery and expertise. There’s nothing inherently wrong with syntheses of research. But, there are problems when research is selectively chosen for a synthesis with no explanation of how that research was selected. And, furthermore, there are problems when the person(s) who conduct syntheses of research are cited as THE source of the findings.

We can quibble about the quality of Gladwell’s work, and I’m on record with a negative take on some of his work. But, what I won’t stand for are individuals given a stage and a big audience (of educators!) who point to Gladwell as the source of the research. Malcolm Gladwell did NOT come up with the 10,000 hour rule.

So, again, I don’t know what this is all about and why it has me all worked up. But, there’s something here…something about, but not limited to, research, original sources, crap-detection and, well, expertise.

Help me make meaning of this?

I’ve been working on a book review of DIY U by Anna Kamenetz to be published in the open access, peer-reviewed journal in education edited by Dr. Alec Couros (aka @courosa). At the same time, some folks initiated a “discussion” of the book through a Twitter chat.

So, it occurred to me that I could/should think about this review differently. I asked Alec “permission” to approach the review as a curator (rather than solely as the author). That is, what if I were to invite others to contribute text, ideas, thoughts, artifacts, etc. and my role was to curate all that? I’d take the responsibility of starting the article/review and ultimately make all the decisions about what gets included and how it all gets arranged (hence, the “curation” term).

Alec was agreeable, so…let’s do it!

HERE IS A LINK TO A GOOGLE DOC I’VE STARTED

Please note that I am “curating” this review. If you’d like to contribute, please scroll to the bottom of the document and add your name to the table and indicate the color of the text you’ll be using. All contributors will be listed as such in the final published article/review.

Also, I should credit some of my thinking on this to George Veletsianos who introduced me to the notion of participatory scholarship. I’m eager to see how this idea of curating an article works out and how we might think about it as a form of participatory scholarship.

Please come and participate with me!

Think about *all* the implications that come from shifting our language from learn(ing) from to learn(ing) with. (and words matter, right David Jakes?)

That’s the “shift” that has to happen. (apologies to Karl Fisch)  That’s it.

“Learning from” was often necessary when one party in the learning transaction(s) had greater access to information than the others. There are hardly any differences in access to information anymore.

“Learning with” has always been possible, but it was limited by our capacity to be in the same place(s) at the same time(s). Those limitations are all but gone now, too.

I don’t want to learn from anyone anymore, and I don’t want students to learn from me anymore. I’m willing to be a lead learner, but I want to learn with everyone.

Those with whom I network for learning purposes through Twitter, blogs, Nings, etc. are largely members of an amorphous educational technology community.  That community is fond of throwing around terms like “change” and “reform” connected to schools or education and most often the “change” or “reform” is largely related to advances in technology. The gist of the argument is that technology has changed the world we live in but not schools so schools need to catch up (or something to that effect).  Schools are becoming “dangerously irrelevant,” right Scott?

There are also frequent references to those other educators who do not “get it.”  Yet, it is never clear, at least to me, what the “it” is that other educators are supposed to “get.” There are references to School 2.0, Classroom 2.0,etc.  Significant technology integration is certainly implied, but even that is a loosely defined concept.

Many of the same individuals with whom I learn and interact online will be attending Educon 2.2. at the Science Leadership Academy (SLA) in Philadelphia this coming weekend.  That event will involve lots of conversations, largely around technology and the future of education. Chris Lehmann, the principal of SLA, has long been clear that Educon is not an educational technology conference.  In fact, the conference is guided by five axioms which you see below:

That’s not a bad starting point for framing the “it” that “others” are supposed to “get,” but like all standards, they are vague and high-minded.  I believe “we” (myself included) would all do well to think long and hard about what “it” is that “we” are aiming for and figure out a way to articulate “it.”

What troubles me more than an overall lack of an operationalized vision of the change that “we” want are the many flawed arguments made in favor of “it.” That is, to justify a vision that I argue is not clear from the start, there are a host of arguments being made within the amorphous ed. tech. community that are logically problematic. I summarize and briefly discuss some of those arguments below:

The “Digital Natives” Argument – yes, I’m well aware that “we” have largely denounced the digital natives-immigrants dichotomy, and I’m on board with that.  However, I see a new, related line of thinking that is equally problematic.  It has to do with the notion that kids are really comfortable with technology, they use it a lot, so we should bury them in it at schools too.  When the recent Kaiser Family Foundation report was released, it spread like wildfire among “our” networks/communities.  Here are the money lines: Today, 8-18 year-olds devote an average of 7 hours and 38 minutes (7:38) to using entertainment media across a typical day (more than 53 hours a week).  And because they spend so much of that time ‘media multitasking’ (using more than one medium at a time), they actually manage to pack a total of 10 hours and 45 minutes (10:45) worth of media content into those 7½ hours.

Well, there you go. Given *that*, how can we NOT make our schools more “relevant?”  HOLD ON…what’s the logic there?  Just because that’s what kids do on their own time, that’s how we should engage them in schools?  Why is that exactly?  Maybe, actually, what we need to be doing is using that evidence to argue for maximizing face-to-face time.  In fact, this gives me even more reason to argue for the “flipped classroom” model that you see discussed here.  Let’s “disrupt” or “interrupt” kids time online by, where necessary, providing content or instruction via digital means so that when they come to school they can learn to interact with each other and learn socially while face-to-face.

The Economics Argument – this is the argument based, often, in the works of (non-economists) Daniel Pink, Richard Florida, etc.  It is a big part of presentations done by folks I admire greatly, including my friend/colleague Scott McLeod.  Watch and/or listen to Scott’s presentation to the NEA and you’ll hear a lot about the changing nature of the workforce and how we need to reform schools to meet those changing needs.

I get that, kind of.  Here’s the problem.  If you make that argument, you have to believe that one of the fundamental purposes of schooling is, in fact, to prepare kids for the workforce.  That’s not at all something I believe.  For me, first and foremost, schools are in the business of preparing kids to be active, productive citizens in a deliberative democratic society.  Schooling for citizenship and deliberation, not employment.  I want to remove all references to “workplace” or “workforce” or “economy” from any and all school mission statements.

If I argue or advocate for technology integration in schools, it is based on the idea that we need to recognize that the Web is causing us to rethink what citizenship means and is increasingly becoming a space where important deliberation happens (see e.g. the ways in which social media impacted the last presidential election in this country).  We need to help kids become deliberative  and to express their ideas and thoughts in productive ways in spaces that are digital and PUBLIC.

That said, building upon my notion of maximizing face-to-face time, let’s think about ways to use school time to foster civic engagement and deliberative habits. As far as I’m concerned, every kid should be required to take a debate class.

The Business Argument – this argument was bolstered by the publishing of Disruptive Class which is based on the theory of disruptive innovation developed by of one of the book’s authors, Clayton Christensen.  The general premise there is that technology will increasingly allow us to individualize/customize learning and makes learning possible anywhere/anytime and that is an innovation that will disrupt the model of formal schooling as we know it here…unless, of course, schools figure out a way to head off that disruption at the pass.

Let’s say we accept the book’s premise. Then what?  It was NEVER clear to me in reading the book what it is that schools need to do in order to not get “disrupted.”  Are student-centric learning technologies that customize learning the disruption or the prescription against disruption? I may be missing that, and if so, I’m willing to listen.  But, if “we” include the “Disrupting Class” thinking in “our” arguments, “we” need to be prepared to then tie the vision of the “it” that “they” are supposed to “get” to the logic of disruptive innovation.  In other words, it’s not enough just to say that the current model of schooling is going to be disrupted.

That said, I’m not accepting the book’s premise, largely because I’m missing the last link  in the chain of logic.  I also still don’t understand why the author’s went after K-12 education and not higher education.  Higher education is a choice (to a degree). Up to a certain age, though, public schooling is mandatory.  It’s also, for most people, a public enterprise and not a profit-driven one, and I don’t think the theory of disruptive innovation works in that context.  For a more thoughtful critique of Disrupting Class, I encourage you to read this critique by Andy Zucker of the Concord Consortium.

The “Bored Kid” Anecdote – OK, @bengrey, your turn under the bus. So, lots of attention was given to the story of Aaron Iba, the now former CEO of AppJet, the company that created EtherPad.  Ben wrote about Aaron’s story here.  Lisa Nielsen wrote about it here and here.  Aaron’s story is not a new one.  And, I know Ben and Lisa and others know that.  In fact, that was pretty much their point.  Since forever, kids have been bored in schools.

Well, guess what?  For all of the Aaron’s out there, I can point to a…well…me. School worked beautifully for me.  I’m the perfect anecdote for maintaining the status quo in schools.  I loved school. I got to learn, largely by myself, and that’s what I liked.  Teachers soothed my ego and made me feel smart and great and I achieved at high levels. So, why isn’t anyone blogging about me and how schools work?

Additionally, the Gladwellian tactic of finding a case to fit an a priori belief is not compelling to me.  I think case studies can be immensely interesting and meaningful, but only if done thoroughly and systematically.  Gladwell gives us bits and pieces of his cases and, as a result, we can’t know how well that case “fits” his theory because we don’t know enough about the case.  Same with Aaron Iba. Do we really have enough information here to know the whole story? To conclude that the schooling system failed Aaron? Writing a good case study is hard to do.  When done well, though, they are deep, rich narratives that are full of meaning; they aren’t meant to be “generalizable” though.

One last question about the “bored kid” anecdote: what makes you think the “it,” the “new” school or modes of learning that you apparently have in mind though haven’t quite fully articulated will be not boring for everyone?

In sum, then, I think “we” are putting broken carts before the horses. “We” are concentrating too much on the “why change” argument without first fully and clearly articulating what it is “we” want from schools.  Furthermore, the “why change” arguments, I argue (meta?), are fundamentally flawed.

There are lots of reasons for the institution of schooling to be transformed.  Likewise, there are lots of reasons to consider the affordances of ubiquitous computing for learning.  I ask you to help me think through those reasons in ways that are well-informed and logical…especially those of you with whom I hope to have fully maximized face-to-face experiences this weekend at Educon. I look forward to deliberating with many of you there!

]]> http://edinsanity.com/2010/01/29/the-logic-of-our-arguments/feed/ 22 http://edinsanity.com/2010/01/29/the-logic-of-our-arguments/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/edinsanity/EducationalInsanity/~3/BJO1HIht98o/ http://edinsanity.com/2010/01/19/mlk-day-post-a-rooney-rule-for-public-education/#comments Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:06:54 +0000 Jon Becker http://edinsanity.com/?p=421 In 2003, the National Football League instituted the Rooney Rule which dictates that all professional football teams must interview at least one minority candidate for an open head coaching position or any open senior football operations position.  The rule came about because Dan Rooney, the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers, lamented the lack of minority [...]]]>

In 2003, the National Football League instituted the Rooney Rule which dictates that all professional football teams must interview at least one minority candidate for an open head coaching position or any open senior football operations position.  The rule came about because Dan Rooney, the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers, lamented the lack of minority head coaches throughout the history of the league.

There has been much discussion about the efficacy of the rule, especially lately.  And, there’s no way to attribute causality, but currently, 6 of the 32 teams have African-American head coaches (and, as of the writing of this post) there are rumors that Leslie Frazier may become the head coach of the Buffalo Bills).  That’s progress, but there is still disproportionality in a league where a little more than 3/4 of the players are African-American.

In education, as of 2007, approximately 45% of all public school students were categorized as a race other than Caucasian (SOURCE). As of 2007-08, approximately 16.9% of all public school teachers were categorized as a race other than Caucasian (SOURCE). Furthermore, as of that same year, 19.1% of all public school principals were categorized as a race other than Caucasian (SOURCE). Looking specifically at African-American students and educators, 15.3% of the students are African-American, 7% of the teachers are African-American and 9.6% of the principals are African-American.  We’re quickly approaching a day when the public schools in the United States serve more minority students than Caucasian students.  Yet, we’re nowhere near that with respect to teachers and especially leaders.

At the highest levels of school leadership, the numbers are even more disproportionate.  Reliable statistics on the superintendency are even harder to come by, but one estimate holds that 2% of all superintendents in the United States are of African descent.  Another estimate puts that at 5%.

I don’t want to go too much further here as my intent is to be mostly descriptive so as to raise questions.  I will, though, gladly point you to work done by colleagues of mine.  The paper to which I link here is based on a series of studies including the dissertation by the lead author.  Drs. Jackson and Shakeshaft reach some interesting conclusions, including discrediting the myth that there are too few African-American candidates in the pool or pipeline for superintendent positions.  I also note the conclusions about African-American superintendents in predominantly Caucasian districts. Their conclusion is essentially that African-Americans, especially males, need not apply. How many of YOU know an African-American superintendent leading a school system that serves mostly Caucasian students?

I urge you to read the Jackson/Shakeshaft paper, and even the small body of literature to which they offer citations.

So, what do you think? Do we need a Rooney Rule in public education?

[NOTE: don't bother with any legal mumbo jumbo about the current jurisprudence on affirmative action and/or equal protection. I know where we stand there. I'm just raising some issues here...I think.]

Once upon a time, when I was a graduate student at Boston College, I studied under a professor named Dr. Michael Schiro.  He had published a book called Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns.  In that book, he spells out four “conflicting” theories of curriculum. I won’t detail them here other than to say that each of the theories (or ideologies) is backed by psychological theories/principles.  For my final paper for his class (this was over a decade ago, but I remember it like it was yesterday), I challenged his whole premise and asserted that there were essentially only two schools of thought with respect to curriculum: one school based on principles of developmental psychology and the other based on behavioral psychology.

This wasn’t completely novel thinking, but for a masters level student, it was pretty heady stuff.  Years later, I read Kieran Egan’s article, “Why education is so difficult and contentious” wherein Egan asserts that “thinking about education during this century has almost entirely involved just three ideas -socialization, Plato’s academic idea, and Rousseau’s developmental idea.” Egan goes on to argue that “[a]ll educational positions are made up of various mixes of these ideas. The problems we face in education are due to the fact that each of these ideas is significantly flawed and also that each is incompatible in basic ways with the other two. Until we recognize these basic incompatibilities we will be unable adequately to respond to the problems we face.”  In other words, attending to academics, socialization and child development were each flawed goals for schooling and when pursued simultaneously, they conflict.

Leaving out the socialization piece, Egan’s thesis further strengthened my belief in the ultimate pitting of principles of development psychology and behavioral psychology in the enactment of schooling. Lately, I’ve been imagining this as more of a continuum than a dichotomy.  Interestingly, this new(er) thinking has been influenced by my observations around parenting as much as schooling.  I’m a father of two kids under 5 years old, and we interact with lots of parents of young kids.  What I have noticed is adults who tend to parent in ways that are heavily developmentally-focused, heavily behaviorally-focused, or some mix of the two.

These observations and ideas are not entirely original, but there’s another dimension to add that I think is equally important to my own (maybe original) developing theory of schooling and parenting.  This second dimension (or continuum) has to do with intentionality.  That is, adults interact with kids in ways that are more or less intentional.  Some things we do with kids are done with great intention, while other things are done without much thought at all (sometimes even by accident).

If we cross these two dimensions, we end up with something like this:

[how's that for advanced use of my tablet PC?]

So, the more deliberate/intentional/purposeful adults are in their interactions with children (as educators and/or parents), the further to the right of the graph they are.  The more developmentally-focused one’s actions are, the higher on the y-axis they fall (and the more behaviorally-focused one is, the lower on the y-axis they fall).  For instance, consider rewards systems for kids (e.g. “read 25 pages per night and earn 5 gold stars on the reading chart!” or “poop on the potty and earn 5 M&Ms!”). Those are interventions based on principles of behavioral psychology.  Thus, they’d be pretty far down on the y-axis.  Where that interaction would be plotted with respect to the x-axis depends on how purposeful the adult(s) was(were) in choosing that strategy. I submit that many educators and parents engage in such activities without much thought as to why they are doing it.

I try not to be judgmental about how people parent their kids. We all have unique needs and circumstances and have to make very personal parenting decisions.   My wife and I are very, very deliberate about our parenting. It is hard for me to imagine that anyone has read more books and thought more about parenting than my wife.  As a result, just about everything we do as parents would be plotted far to the right on the graph above.  We’re also very committed to a developmentally-focused orientation towards parenting called Attachment Parenting. So, we try to be as high and far as possible into the upper-right quadrant of the graph above.  That works for us.  It doesn’t work for most; I fully recognize that.  All I’ll say beyond that about parenting is that I am concerned that too many parents are not intentional enough about what they do.

In fact, I feel pretty strongly that all of our interactions with children should be as intentional as possible.  With respect to schooling, I strongly favor developmental approaches; I’m not shy about that bias.  However, if educators use behavior-based approaches, I can be more supportive if it is done so with great purpose/deliberation (e.g. “I know there are consequences, particularly with respect to motivation, to implementing a rewards program, but I believe the benefits outweigh the disadvantages…”). In most cases, though, behavioral approaches to teaching/learning are undertaken without much deliberation.  This default, behavior-based orientation to schooling troubles me immensely.  I have great fears about exposing my children to that form of schooling.

Some other thoughts about the graph:

• I believe that the majority of educators and parents engage kids in ways that would be plotted in the bottom half of the graph.
• In the world of schooling, I believe the majority of interactions between adults and children would be plotted in the lower-right quadrant.
• I believe very few interactions between adults and kids would be plotted in the upper-left quadrant.  Especially in the Western Hemisphere, the default parenting orientation tends toward behaviorism.

That’s all I’ll say for now. I hope to revisit these ideas on occasion.  I also hope you’ll help me think through them.

[NOTE  #1: this was originally posted on February 7, 2008.  I am re-posting it here as part of the #edublogBT idea/meme about which I wrote yesterday.]

[NOTE #2: at the time, I had designs on posting a weekly blog post about educational research.  I think I got as far 4 or 5 entries before that idea faded. I'd like to, at some point, revisit the "scientifically-based blog post" idea. I think it's a niche I can help fill.]

***

Might as well start right at the top of my own pecking order. To me, one of the very best, if not the best, articles I have read is called, Factors Affecting Technology Uses In Schools: An Ecological Perspective, by Yong Zhao and Kenneth A. Frank from Michigan State University. This well-designed, mixed methods study examined teacher and student use of computers from an ecological perspective. The authors start by referencing the introduction of zebra mussels into Lake St. Clair. The mussels were first introduced in 1988, and by 1990, they could be found in all of the Great Lakes. In fact, in a very short period of time, the introduction of the zebra mussel has caused tremendous ecological change in the Great Lakes. While recognizing that computers and zebra mussels are very different, the authors imply that their goal is to understand why “computer uses” as an invading species have not caused disruption to the schooling organization.

Their first major finding confirms some of my own empirical conclusions; the vast majority of the variance in computer use exists WITHIN schools, not between schools. I think that’s a really important but rarely understood finding. One of the many implications is that we are much more likely to be able to identify high-end computer using teachers than high-end schools. Schools are not the right unit of analysis in examining differences in technology use. Other findings:

• Teachers niche in the ecosystem – English teachers were much more likely to use computers than their peers.
• Teacher / Ecosystem Interaction – teachers who reported feeling pressure and support from colleagues were more likely to use computers more. Also, where there were too many competing invading species (other “programs” or “innovations”), computer use suffered.
• Teacher-Computer Predisposition for Compatibility – teachers who found computers to be more compatible with pedagogical beliefs and practices used computers more.
• Opportunities for Mutual Adaptation – teachers that had more time to “play around” with computers used them more for teaching/learning.

Overall, the authors found great support for the ecological framework. I think the study is framed beautifully, carried out well and reported eloquently. Most importantly, the findings resonate with my own empirical understandings of technology integration. I’d love to hear your thoughts…

I have an idea. Maybe it’s a meme. Who knows? Who cares?

Anyway, the idea has three origins. First, it dates back to a dinner conversation in Chinatown (D.C.) during NECC ’09 with (CAUTION: name-dropping to commence…) Joyce Valenza, Doug Johnson, Wes Fryer and Scott McLeod. I forget how the discussion started, but we ended up talking about resuscitating old blog posts. I thought it would be interesting to somehow curate a collection of self-nominated “favorite” or “best” blog posts.

Second, I’m fairly convinced that many of “us” use our blogs less regularly since Twitter came upon the scene. Sometimes I struggle to write anything that is more than 140 characters.

Finally, I’m reminded of when Scott McLeod used to recognize blogs that deserve a bigger audience (DABA). I know I’m not alone in thinking that there are individual blog posts that deserve a bigger audience.

So, here’s the idea: resuscitate a blog post that was written “before Twitter” and be sure to include the tag: #edublogBT.

For those of us that blogged reasonably regularly before we starting tweeting regularly, that should be pretty easy.  For those of you who started blogging and tweeting about the same time (or started Tweeting first), you can’t play…Well, I suppose you can still play and revive a post that you wrote a while ago that you would like to reintroduce to the world.

I have some ideas of how I’d curate this collection of posts (which all assume you are good about including the “edublogBT” tag.  If you have other ideas, fell free to share them in the comments here.

I’ll (re) post my first “edublogBT” post tomorrow.

Wanna play?

photo credit: Jasmin Baltres PhotographyI

According to some studies, charter schools are good. According to other studies, charter schools are not so good.

There are some good charter schools. There are some bad charter schools.

On the whole, then, charter schools make no difference.

[Peer-review *THAT* fellow academicians!]