We shouldn’t be focusing on trying to use blogs or podcasts or wikis; we should be trying to teach relevant material in a differentiated manner to students who are given some choices and who complete meaningful work designed for a real purpose and a specific audience. If it happens that we use Web 2.0 technology to do so, so be it.

It’s been good reading your contrarianism over at your blog. Your skepticism isn’t universal. You haven’t advocated for “nothing” or even accepted that the choice is one between “all” or “nothing.” I wish I saw more of the same academic egalitarianism from bloggers who think we lecture too much.

Most disturbing to me was a complete lack of understanding among some of these folks of the painfully obvious fact that every student is different and that when we talk about lecture, discovery learning, wiki–making, or what have you, we are talking about TOOLS for getting students to learn. These tools, like tools out in the garage, work well in some cases and work terribly in others, depending on the job and the context. It’s all-or-nothing with some of these people.

All this to say that you have to consider the source when reading these blogs. I got tired of edubloggers telling me that I was a lousy teacher because I lecture and I don’t use [insert Web 2.0 app here] all the time, when in fact the assumptions they make about the so-called digital natives are often flat-out wrong and are never supported by real evidence. So, I just chose to ignore them. It’s easy to do, especially when you start looking and find that few of them have spent time actually teaching students in the last ten years. Some of the worst actually just hop from one conference keynote address to the next and wouldn’t have the faintest idea what to do if put in charge of a real classroom with kids that could not care less about your flickr or wiki or blog or whatever.

I only consume edublogs and ed-tech-blogs that offer consistently substantive commentary and have some verifiable credentials when it comes to teaching. That, sadly, narrows the field down rather a lot.

School 2.0 can’t just be about the technology, and I don’t think it is. It’s got to be about taking the “old-school” ideas that have served generations of students well and remixing them in a way that makes them relevant to the 21st century. Whether that means using technology in new and innovative ways, rethinking the literary canon, teaching different kinds of writing, adding more global studies-type course, expanding foreign language departments beyond European languages, or anything else, the key needs to be openness and collaboration.

Dan, teach the tech freaks in your district how to lecture effectively, since that seems to be one of your big strengths. Show them how to make great presentations. Let them show you some new ways of doing things. Find the middle ground. I sit outside a Civics class here on a regular basis and listen to a colleague lecture, and it amazes me how well he can hold students’ attention. I recently showed him how to have his students make wikis. It all fits together.

Just serious, Dan, you need to drop the tone down a couple of notches. Let’s not have this thing blow up like it did a few months ago. Remember that?

Six more days.

http://tinyurl.com/2533fm

I see you’ve caused yourself some controversy again. =) Part of what makes you such an interesting read. You’re provocative, which of course sometimes provokes people. Your sentiments and underlying intents and willingness to upset the apple cart are fabulous – sometimes your language gets too strident and gets in the way of your message. There have been a few occasions where I thought you were heading down the path toward a Robert Downey, Jr.-esque implosion but you’ve always managed to pull yourself back out…

Keep up the great work. Stand up for those teachers who rationally reject much of the technology snake oil that comes unaccompanied with the proper vision and support structures. If leaders did a better job, we’d have fewer concerns. That said, I rarely blame the leaders either because very few have any kind of tech-related training or experience. They’re just winging it.

Christian, you’re doing great work too. Hope you two resolve this minor dust-up.

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn’t “digging” for anything – just trying to determine your intent before I jumped to an assumption. I’d read your previous post re: boys club – I thought that was the reason for the inclusion of the “XX” comment, but it wasn’t clear (to me at least). Now it is, so thanks.

As for the true meat of the conversation, I right now fall somewhere in the middle. I don’t know how I’d label myself – 1.0, 1.5, 2.0? Nor do I feel the need to put a label on myself. I read your blog (and Christian’s and Chris’ among others) to find ways to enhance my teaching (and my learning). Do I want my students to be engaged, of course. Do I want them to be literate? Yes, in many different mediums.

What I’ve learned from my recent descent (ascent?) into blog reading has inspired and refined much of what I’m planning next year, so I thank all of you. Most importantly, it has allowed me another venue in which to reflect upon teaching and learning.

Also, I just like to state that I am impressed by the conversation that has unfolded here and on Christian’s pages.

(BTW, I need to learn HTML, so I can “properly” take part in this conversation – be patient with me, this is one of my projects once summer school ends).

I didn’t mean to address you in particular – I don’t know your work and I don’t know the exchange that Dan hasn’t linked. But my experiences with tech folks sound a bit like what Dan is talking about.

I have had issues with
1) tech for tech’s sake arguments
2) we should be teaching kids tech arguments
3) treating tech as the major goal (remember teaching in a content area?)

If you do these things, then yup, I have issues. But if you don’t? Really, truly, my comments weren’t aimed at you.

Sharing my friend’s story on Christian’s blog was certainly no attempt to “ascribe pigheaded motivations” to anyone, least of all my friend. Can I emphasize yet again that this is my best friend and probably the best teacher I’ve ever met? It had nothing to do with you (I had never heard of you), except an apparent similarity between the assessment approach you’re using.

It sounds like that assessment approach is innovative and helps you do your job better. Good for you. You are welcome to disagree with my preference for a different approach, and I won’t take it personally unless you start calling me names in a public forum, which has never been too cool.

As far as my tone goes, I thought it had been the same all along. Your tone, on the other hand, seems to be polarized between conversational and angry. My grievous mistake seems to have been that I missed your hanging question by forgetting to check back on Christian’s site…but I have since answered it anyway.

re: “a teacher unconvinced by (but not ignorant of) your methods”
I’m not sure what my “methods” are, or how they would convince anyone of anything. I shared a story contrasting two methods of teaching and assessment that my friend had tried and told me about. I thought it was a pretty interesting contrast, and it got me going on some of the ideas I’d love to see tried in school more often.

Nobody has to try them — I just think it would be cool, especially for my own kids. In my most recent response, I linked to a school that is doing similar things and it sounds fantastic to me. I have no idea if they’re building School 2.0 or School 0.8 (Beta) and I don’t care. If you think they’re stupid (or that I’m stupid for liking their approach), I guess that’s fine.

And you’re right: “…it’s far easier to demonize than engage.”