Open Content Movement

Education Week recently published an article about the move towards open content use, which means utilizing free teaching tools/databases on the internet to aid or guide instruction. To me, this makes sense. Are we not moving toward a time when almost all knowledge is free and accessible? If you log on to Itunes, you can download free lectures from dozens of universities. M.I.T. offers free courses online to high school students. Wikipedia is the largest and most successful--perhaps--experiment in the history or human knowledge.

Traditional textbook teaching is anachronistic (or should be). Textbooks used to be a main information source, a pillar of knowledge...when we didn't have so many digital resources available. Textbooks do provide teachers with guidance and unit plans, but they don't necessarily foster the creativity, curiosity, and other desirable traits in our students. We should be moving to a point where we spend just as much time training students to filter, explore, and investigate the countless information resources out there. Should we continue plodding through core content standards without leaving ample time to use open content? Heck no!

Overlooked Research and Theory

I remember speaking up at a faculty meeting and proclaiming that I don't give zeroes as grades. I believe they skew data too much. After all, what is the point of grades and grading? I thought a few coworkers wanted to bite my head off when I shared this bit of knowledge. I had challenged my own beliefs, done some reading, and come to a conclusion. Apparently this type of critical self-reflection and research is much more rare than it should be.

I'm afraid Teaching could be plagued by anti-intellectualism and a dearth of critical thinking. Why do I say this? After all, there is a massive amount of pedagogy research, teaching and learning theory, human development theory--among other sources of useful knowledge out there--but much of it remains untapped or ignored when the rubber hits the road.

I, too, ignored the possibility of actively applying theory the first few years in the classroom. Young teachers are overwhelmed enough as it is, trying to establish themselves and their classrooms without worrying about constructivism, behaviorism and multiple intelligences. But as soon as I started thinking about why I teach, how I teach, and how what I do relates to established theory, my own teaching took off.

Decades of efforts at education reform haven't seemed to accomplish much. How about principals and administrators refocusing efforts on teaching and learning theory and applications? If I were a principal, I'd require my teachers to outline their teaching practices and beliefs as they relate to established theory. It's a start, at least. Too many things that we do continue because it's the way it always has been. I can't think of a more pathetic stance if we truly want to do what's best for kids.

With all the social science available to aid our teaching and learning, however, I still believe teaching is more art than science, more about relationships than data, and more about engagement and effort than grades.

Politician talks sense?! And new sound project...

For those of you who are frustrated with the way politicans speak about education, testing, and accountability, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland offers some refreshing discourse in this Columbus Dispatch news piece.

Recycling sounds, voices, and other digital material opens up countless possibilities in constructing meaning. I've been lucky to practice some sound editing skills at graduate school this summer. Listen to this sound collage/commentary about NCLB.

Texting, IM, E-mail, Social Networking and Traditional Literacy

For those of us who teach middle and high school students, we've all interacted with students who send approximately 7,431 text messages a month. Or spend countless hours primping their myspace pages, all while maintaining 13 instant message conversations. I'm not here to condemn the way in which hypertextuality is changing the way we communicate. But I do wonder if schools and teachers have taken much time to discuss these powerful trends.

Many English teachers have probably maintained a traditional view of literacy, in which critical, close readings of texts is valued. Narratives are unpacked, so to speak, and analytical writing is taught (at least to a degree). Focus on assignments is necessarily to develop critical thinking.
Within the world of our student's communication, however, focusing on a single task is one of the last things kids are prone to do.

I think the popularity of these new forms or communication has to do with their relevance to spoken word. Humans are drawn to the spoken word and orality. As a technological innovation, radio broadcasting took the nation by storm. The human brain is wired to thrive on the imagination required to create imagery when listening to spoken word. Maybe this is a stretch, but I see student obsession with hypertextuality as a way to enjoy forms of text that imitate the spoken word.

Which leads me to my next point--I don't think our students are encouraged, or deliberately taught very often, to engage in successful discussions or socratic seminars in class. These are rich forms of communication that teach critical thinking and have far more value than texting or instant messaging. It's easy to text a friend, but more difficult--and useful--to discuss with the same friend about elements of a novel or characterization.
I try to foster discussion skills in class to provide a counterbalance to the hypertextual communication that students relish.

On a final note, can traditional views on literacy be reconciled with these new trends? If so, how? What are the pedagogical mplications of widespread use of texting, IMing, social networking, etc.? Why else is this communication so appealing to people? Do teachers need to change their teaching/communication methods to reflect what's out there in society?

Welcome!

Thanks for checking out Questions for Schools. I intend on posting weekly prompts, thoughts, and or observations.

Until next time,
-Paul