Open Source Hardware?

flickr CC image via dimnikolov

So we have a litany of open source software in cyberspace, when will the connected youth of today enjoy open source hardware as part of their education?

The open source concept is brilliant. Open systems in general appear to be winning the day in so many social contexts, and open source software has changed the education system drastically for those who choose to access it. A standing position in my teaching circle is if you're paying for software at all, you're paying too much. I'm wondering why open source software has caught on so widely, but open source hardware hasn't. To me the two are natural partners.

As Moore's Law goes, anything in the software world would be considered yesterday's tool practically as soon as it is introduced... before new software gets wide-spread recognition, developers are taking advantage of exponentially-expanding digital capacity and already working on something better, faster and more enticing to the consumer. Exponential growth in digital capacity fuels the software marketplace for sure, but it also fuels the hardware sector. As digital capacity increases at a faster and faster pace, today's hardware is quickly replaced by something better, faster and more enticing to the consumer also.

So where do the laptops, cell phones, e-readers, etc. go after a year or so when consumers have replaced them with the latest improved tool? Other than being recycled for parts, or in a drawer or closet to be forgotten, I'm not sure I know. What if the same huge software companies that work so hard to create better tech tools and applications understood that perhaps the largest potential market research sector they could be exposed to is short on hardware needed to use the software in question. Kids in schools are often wanting for relatively up-to-date hardware tools, and six months old would be more than current to them compared to the five and six year old computers they commonly are limited to as a result of budget constraints. If huge-scale software firms got into the recycling business, they could put their software in the hands of students who had something to use it on. Isn't that a win-win situation?

Let's take Google for example; if Google were to create a recycling protocol for those wishing to donate their old laptop, cell phone or whatever to them for reconditioning and installation of whatever Google software could be loaded onto them, and then donated these devices to schools under a partnership agreement that the schools would use their software exclusively with the expectation that feedback would be provided to improve it, I would be jumping over other teachers to sign up for that program... schools get their hardware and the software applications it enables, and Google would get real-time feedback from perhaps the largest cohort of connected technology users on the planet so they can continue to improve their products more efficiently and pragmatically.

What do you think?

Silence is many things...

flickr CC image via Brett Jordan

Silence can be a virtue or a curse, a tool or a weapon and a hindrance or an enabler. I'm either annoyed or fascinated by silence; it all depends on the person being silent.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, (@nntaleb- a pretty damn sharp guy...) tweeted today about silence. He first said, "usually, what we call (a) 'good listener' is someone with skillfully polished indifference"... and then revised the statement to restate, "some reticent people use silence to conceal their intelligence; but most do so to hide the lack of it." This got me thinking for sure.

In education, there is no shortage of playing "the game"; people saying what they believe will get them what they want or allow them to avoid what they don't want, and refraining from what they should say in attempting to avoid scrutiny or punishment. Nobody within education is immune to the politics that surround everything we do, (I would assert that everything, period, is political... why would teachers think they are immune to this?) Choosing when to speak, and when to remain silent is an art in and of itself, and definitely worth constant consideration and practice.

Taleb firstly equates silence to listening with his original statement suggesting indifference on the part of a silent (good) listener. I know many who are highly skilled at appearing intrigued and engaged as they listen to what others are saying, (usually at the same time they are really just thinking about what they are going to say next.) Taleb's revised statement characterizes silence as a tool used either to hide one's intelligence, or conversely, a lack of it... kind of the opposite of the "if you can't dazzle people with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" saying. The theme I'm taking away from Taleb's statements, (and he is a regular producer of useful and thought-provoking aphorisms,) is that silence can be many things.

I have said before that teachers need to find their voice in education, so why am I talking about silence? I'm talking about silence because it's the silence that balances the voice.

Teachers need to learn how to pick their spots so to speak; to choose their hills to die on before they jump into the fray and say too much. Teachers need to get informed and aware of current issues and ideas within education before they speak. That's just the way smart people operate. If you're not ready to be one of these smart teachers, please don't speak.

On the other hand, there are highly intellectual and insightful teachers who for whatever reason, are reserved when they should be bold. These teachers who know need to step up and lead us forward confidently and capably. For these latent, would-be educational leaders, (and especially for those that need their leadership,) silence is a curse.

Within an interpersonal context, silence can be a tool or a weapon. Really strong leaders, (and all teachers are called on to lead at some point- even if that leadership never leaves the context of their classroom- teachers lead students,) use silence as a tool when they need to divert negativity, aggression or innuendo. One strategy I like to use involving silence when teachers, parents or students come to me with a huge problem, (problems are always huge to the people experiencing them,) is to ask them after they've let me have it about their concern, how long it took them to articulate what they were bringing to me, and what they wanted me to do about it. When they answer me with whatever time they come up with, I tell them that I will respond to their issue or request for action after I've thought about it for the equal amount of time. It's interesting that by the time this period has passed, much of the stress of the original problem seems to have passed too. In this case, silence is an enabler... sometimes people just need to be heard and not spoken to.

As a weapon, silence can be particularly effective, but not necessarily in a positive way. Just as all teachers are occasional leaders, they also occasionally need to be led; that's just the way it is. When managers of education have an axe to grind and leave people hanging out there in the ether without direction to illuminate their inadequacy; this is not good. I submit that silence as a tool is much more appropriate than when used as a weapon. It's in this context that silence is always a hindrance to collaboration, progress and solution-focused processes.

So whether I'm annoyed or fascinated with silence really boils down to the question of leadership in education, and how effective educational leaders are regarding their choice to use it. Some are pretty good at it... some not so much.

I get annoyed when uninformed people blabber on without any substance to what they are saying, and fascinated by those among us that have an uncanny ability to pick their spots.

I am fascinated by those who pull silence out of their strategic toolbox when they need to enable others, but get very annoyed by those who use silence as a weapon to demean, belittle or just put people in their proverbial place.

Have you thought about how you use silence lately?

Authentic Learning is the Kind We All Remember

flickr CC image via stevendepolo

As much as I was dangling them in junior high school, I cant remember the rule about participles. Maybe a more authentic lesson would've helped me get it right on the test.

In all seriousness, I was speaking with parents at parent/teacher interviews last week about the difference between how kids were taught a generation of students ago, and how we are teaching their children today, (or at least how some of us are trying.) I can remember doing worksheet after worksheet correcting sentences that contained dangling participles, but although I know one when I see it, I couldn't give you a really good description of what one is. Perhaps it's not important beyond knowing what one looks like so I can avoid using them in my writing. That's where authentic learning comes in.

With regard to developing writing skills, why not allow students to simply write? They can write about whatever they want in so many many different forms... and I'd know they used dangling participles because I would read their writing. After reading, I would provide feedback regarding how to do it differently and more appropriately. My kids love to write; they do it all the time. When we're at home and they ask me to read their writing, I don't give it a mark as if it were one of the worksheets I did so long ago; I just tell them that I'm proud of how hard they worked, and then I suggest some things they could do next time to improve their writing. They seem to appreciate this feedback. If it works with my kids at home, why can't it work for my students at school?

One way for teachers to provide more authentic learning opportunities for their students is to provide choice in the manner students desire to show us what they can do, and then use formative feedback to assess how they're doing. I had some really good teachers in junior and high school, and I remember many writing assignments they gave me; all with an element of choice embedded within them. One of my favorites was a poetry assignment within which students were to choose animals that each of their classmates reminded them of. The teacher made a list of students and the animals that were matched to them, and then we were to choose one from the list that matched our name and write a poem about ourselves as characterized by the traits of that animal. Another one was to write a manifesto that was designed to change the world... just like that; whatever we wanted to write. I chose to write a statement about how to solve the world's eventual overpopulation problems. Yet another was to write a first-hand account of the scariest thing that ever happened to me without using a single adjective. I wrote about my first spill of one of our horses.

I'm sure that all three of the teachers that assigned me these tasks provided feedback; after all, that's their job- to assess my writing- but the fact that I remember these assignments at all over twenty five years later is a testimony to their skill in designing writing activities that are fun, meaningful, motivating and dare I say, authentic.

I am certain my love for writing is in no way attributable to those damn worksheets. Other than remembering having to do them, those worksheets didn't leave me with a lasting impression at all.

Why not teaching schools for teachers?

clickr CC image via foxypar4

Doctors receive real-time training and support from their profession during their internship. This process is generally recognized as an automatic and routine element of physician training. Teachers, on the other hand, if they are lucky, only get a few weeks of practicum experience during their pre-service training, and they don't receive any tangible on -the-job training at all. If internships are good for doctors, whey wouldn't they be good for teachers?

Teacher training doesn't appear to be keeping up with things. The training pre-service teachers receive in university has been under scrutiny at least since I was an undergrad, and things don't seem to be improving. Unbelievably, like I was required to take a course learning how to laminate things and use a photocopier while I was in university, today pre-service teachers are required to take classes learning how to use digital technology in the classroom. It's ironic that teachers in the field are starting to understand that teaching about technology is ineffective when compared to using technology to teach, and the newest teachers among us aren't getting this message in their own training. They should be using 21st Century technology as a tool in their learning. This is just one example of the unimaginative and static hoop-jumping pre-service teachers are required to participate in.

To improve the situation, I believe it would make a bunch of sense for teachers to continue their practicum work during their pre-service training, but to also be expected to work under a mentor for a period of time after graduating from teacher college in what I would call a teaching school. Teaching schools would employ intern teachers just like teaching hospitals employ intern doctors. I see great possibilities to get new teachers into schools where they can begin to ply their craft as apprentices without the high levels of stress and anxiety new teachers routinely describe as they are thrown to the wolves in their first years. I also see great possibilities to connect in more meaningful ways the work that is done preparing teachers in pre-service training, and the real-time, action research-based work that is done in the field. There is such a chasm between the theory teachers learn in college, and the practical use of these theories in the field. We need to bridge that gap.

Doctors intern, lawyers article and even engineers participate in a mentorship of sorts before receiving their final accreditation from their professional governing body. It's time for teachers to do the same if we intend to raise our stake on the professional landscape. A collaborative, three-way partnership between government departments of education, teacher preparation institutions and school boards makes sense to me if we are truly interested in establishing a holistic and effective framework for teacher training and accreditation.

Is there a wrong reason to teach?

flickr CC image via denise carbonell

I have heard the phrase "teaching for the wrong reasons" enough times now that it's become annoying to me. It has become common for teachers who intend to criticize their peers to use this statement. Please tell me, what are the wrong reasons to be an educator?

During a recent Twitter dialog I was involved in, I heard someone used this phrase once again, and I challenged her to define what she meant by that. She cited a flexible schedule, low intrusion by management, time off when kids are off and teacher independence as "wrong reasons"... seriously. I had a tough time imagining any of these things as wrong. These are perks to be sure, but who in their right mind would become a teacher for any one or all of these reasons alone? Liking and appreciating these perks doesn't make  teachers bad people, it just proves they are human. I also found it contradictory that I often hear teachers talk about too much control over what we do, and this person was listing low intrusion by management and independence as wrong reasons to teach.

Now, of course there are those who may read this and counter with an assertion that there are individuals who don't have kids' best interests as a priority, and that some of them may become teachers. What exactly would be the draw though, if in fact these people didn't really care for the kids in their care? It's certainly not the money, and although teachers are generally well-provided for in the health care and pension departments, we aren't that far ahead of any other vocation that someone would hate kids and still become a teacher just to get these benefits. Notwithstanding the cohort of sociopaths that seem to find their way into every profession and vocation, I find it very difficult to believe that a teacher would knowingly hurt kids.

We speak out of both sides of our mouths when we say that marginalized students need extra support and remediation, but also that marginalized teachers should be fired. "Bad" teaching often results from bad teacher preparation, and I could go on forever about that, (another post for another time.) Undergraduate teacher training is still locked in Second Way (see page 8 of the Google preview at this link) philosophy. The teacher preparation process needs new thinkers, new ideas and strong candidates in order to improve this situation. A paradigm shift to Fourth Way thinking is required... good teaching will require support, coaching and care from those established teacher leaders that feel passion for what they do, and are connected directly to the teaching and learning process in schools; not tenuously at a distance as some tenured education professors seem to be. The teacher preparation process needs tacit leaders who can connect pre-service teachers to the grassroots reasons teachers do what they do, and provide some teflon from the negativity that some among us appear to want to perpetuate without explanation.

I invite you to consider something about the negative teacher in a similar fashion to the way you may consider the negative student. In their book The Art of Possibility, Rosamund Stone-Zander and Ben Zander discuss the strategy of giving people an 'A.' Giving people an 'A' is all about seeing the vulnerable person behind the perceived problem, and looking for the latent positive elements that person brings to the table. I really like this concept. They also speak about the virtue of seeing negative people as those who are truly passionate by nature, but have just been disappointed or unsupported too many times. Taking these perspectives allows us an opportunity to re-frame problem teachers as simply vulnerable, faltering colleagues that desperately need our support as opposed to our judgement.

I also invite anyone who actually believes there is a "wrong" reason to get into teaching, to let me know what that reason would be.