> eric brunsell

Last week in one of my classes, we were discussing the importance of being able to identify general relationships by looking at a graph. The example that we used was that of an inverse relationship.  We also discussed the importance of supporting claims with evidence.  In a completely unrelated setting, I re-discovered an important relationship.  In educational writing, the number of buzzwords is inversely related to the substance of the article.  The evidence, ASCD’s Education Update (February 2008).

I took interest in the President’s message, titled “Twenty-First Century Thinking,” a report from her (and the ASCD Board of Directors) attendance at the Australian Council of Education Leaders Conference (ACEL).  The theme of this year’s conference was “New Imagery for Schools and Schooling: Challenging, Creating and Connecting.”  According to the president, the speakers represented the theme through words like reinvent, reimagine, rethink and re-create. We must respect the past, assess the current, and look forward to the future. The keynote speaker made a convincing case for rethinking a new essential curriculum and challenged attendees to throw off the shackles of 19th century schooling and rethink how learning happens.  Throughout the conference speakers echoed this sentiment, saying that the world is smaller and more interconnected. Basically, this sums up the first 3/4 of the message.  So, how did this theme impact the ASCD Board?  Read on–

 In the Board Meeting, they discussed ways of reimagining, rethinking and re-creating ASCD.  The current strategic plan is 5 years old, and they are in the process of developing a new one. The ACEL conference sparked a rethinking of their planning process.  They articulated an understanding that an organization like ASCD needs to be flexible and forward thinking.  The moment a plan is written down, it can become an anchor to the past rather than a pathway to tomorrow. They realized that the format of the strategic plan constrains creative thinking.  The planning process continues, but in a different way than in the past.  They don’t know what it looks like, but it appears there may be a new path for envisioning the future.

 Yup, that’s it - re-imagine, re-think, re-invent, re-create, re-gurgitate.  Is this the best that our educational leaders can do? Or, is this just a fancy cover for them having too much fun in Australia and not enough work?

Here’s my challenge to anyone that made it through the buzzwords.  Stop re-thinking and start doing.  What are the “shackles of 19th century” curriculum and what should a 21st Century curriculum focus on?  Should the pedagogy be different, or should we start actually doing what research has told us is good teaching?

I subscribe to the social constructivist “camp” of learning theory.  Unless you are a true psychology geek, you probably could care less.  Basically this view focuses on the interaction between the social context and thinking and learning.  Socio-cultural theorists (like Vygotsky) view the learning process and knowledge construction as a result of individuals interacting in social environments (interpsychological plane) to create shared knowledge that is appropriated by the individual (intrapsychological plane).  Culture is a fabric of shared meaning and understanding.  Participants in a culture are molded by and contribute to that micro-culture.

PLN’s are a fantastic example of social constructivism in action.  These loose networks of individuals create new knowledge socially, but each individual interprets and uses it differently. Anecdotes are thrown around throughout the network about new things that were learned, reflections on applications of new ideas, and collaborations opening new paths of thinking.  It is obvious to those “inside” a network that learning is occurring and new knowledge is being created.  If you are inside a network, you understand the power that they have for professional growth.

Theory and practical experience both show that PLN’s are valid. What will it take for them to go mainstream?  We can turn again to theory here by looking at Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).  Each individual has a body of “knowledge” that they can master without help.  They also have a body of knowledge that is impossible for them to master (at least at this stage of their learning).  The zone in between those two bodies is where proximal development occurs.  It is the body of knowledge that can be learned with assistance from experts (either directly through mentoring or indirectly through well crafted text, videos, etc.)  — ie, scaffolding.  It is unlikely that many educators will jump straight from a simplistic use of e-mail and web browsing to an effective learning network without this scaffolding.

Many of these scaffolds already exist. The difficulty is that they are often scattered across multiple sites. I would suggest that we create a central (more likely, multiple centers) “hub” that can be used in traditional professional development to help introduce educators to the ideas of PLNs.  The hub would provide common tools and resources for each of three developmental stages  of creating a PLN.  It would include things like video introductions to Google Reader (or similar), del.icio.us, and other ‘must have’ personal tools, a “sandbox” blog with multiple authors that could showcase easy to use web2.0 tools (ie: flickr) with comments on application examples, a list of twitterers with “model” networks, etc.  We could also modify a good idea  and create “60 days to a PLN.” I do have an empty wiki @ http://plnmentor.wikispaces.com/  if anyone wants to collaborate!  The wiki is empty now, so please let me know if you want to help build it.

Check out this great science project from Shaun Fletcher. Students use Voice Thread to create multimedia presentations related to the diversity of animals.

I can still remember my first “professional development” session as a classroom teacher.  I was excited because the topic was technology…and then, it started.  First, we went through the phone system manual line by line (dial 77 if you want to listen to voicemail, dial 3 to delete voicemail, etc.). Next, we accessed or e-mail on our VAX mainframe terminals. Finally, we ended with a bang…we learned how to use the copy machine.  I’m still amazed that one of my veteran colleagues actually asked if the paper had to be inserted “back-to-back” in order to make a double sided copy.  Ten years later, I have participated in and led hundreds of professional development experiences.  Some good, some bad.  However, in almost every case, professional development was being done to me OR I was doing it to them. 

In 2001, Garret and his colleagues identified multiple components of effective professional development.  The two most important components are duration (60-80 hours) and collaboration.  Additionally, it was vitally important that the experience aligned with participants’ goals.  The Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 provide evidence that, in practice, professional development seldom matches these components. Rarely, is it a dynamic, collaborative experience conducted over an extended period of time.

Not too long ago I was introduced to the concept of personal learning networks.  It didn’t take me more than a day or two to realize the power of PLNs as a way for educators to take control over their own professional development.  Learning from (or more appropriately, with) my PLN is dynamic, collaborative, focused on my goals, and sustained.  Of course, if you are reading this, you get it.  I’m relatively tech savvy (aren’t we all).  Compared to you I’m probably a novice, but compared to most of my colleagues, I am an “expert.” So, what can we do to bring PLN to the masses?

(NOTE: I’m not writing this in a vacuum. This post  and those it references address this question and many others….a MUST READ!)

I think we need to take a developmental approach to PLNs. At its core, constructivist learning can be broken into three phases – engagement, building knowledge, and applying knowledge.  In the engagement phase, educators need to become comfortable with the landscape. They need to learn how to ‘organize’ the web. They should learn how to use an aggregator and social bookmarking. They need to identify a few blogs and begin reading and commenting. As they gain comfort, they should join a community (ie: classroom2.0) and eventually start following people on Twitter. 

In the building knowledge phase, educators are ready to start ‘messing about’ and contributing.  They should define a purpose for their participation in their PLN and set some goals. A manageable goal may be to try one “new” thing each month. As they mess about with new ideas, they should start a blog to make their experiences public.  Periodically, they should assess their PLN and add (and remove) new resources.

 The applying knowledge phase needs to take Scott Schwister’s  question head on. “How do we show the learning that happens through personal learning networks?” Educators need to become active inquirers as they try out new ideas.  In the building knowledge phase, educators were ‘messing about’ and making decision on reflection and gut instinct.  They were playing with new ideas.  This is a great way to explore, but it doesn’t necessarily provide evidence that the new ideas are improving teaching and learning.  In the applying knowledge phase, I would suggest that become more rigorous in how they try new things.  Ted McCain’s 4D problem solving model can provide a structure here (Define, Design, Do, Debrief). Define questions that you want to answer, design a way to collect data, do it!, and then debrief…did it work.  

Wow…this post got really long.  I would really appreciate feedback. Will you give me the nickname ‘Captain Obvious’ or is this the beginning of a solid framework?  I’ll post soon on this topic with some ideas for an infrastructure needed to help navigate this developmental approach.    

Jeff Uthecht has a great post on evaluating technology use in the classroom. 

1. Is the technology being used “Just because it’s there”?
2. Is the technology allowing the teacher/students to do Old things in Old ways?
3. Is the technology allowing the teacher/students to do Old things in New ways?
4. Is the technology creating new and different learning experiences for the students?

http://www.thethinkingstick.com/?p=623