Making Connections Meaningful

College football bowl season is drawing to an end, and while some are breathing a sigh of relief, I am saddened as it marks the beginning of seven dismal months until it starts up again. While I bristle when I hear coaches say that they coach young men how to succeed in life, certainly football and life and some similarities, I will acknowledge that all sports have lessons to teach. The best lesson I can see is that in an age where teenagers are accused of being completely self-involved (see The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in an Age of Entitlement), team sports are an area where they are forced to cooperate if they truly want to succeed. Essentially, they have to give up their own sense of self and join the whole in order to secure the big prize, often a championship of some sort, that they could not garner as an individual. (One could easily argue that this is still a form of self-promotion.)

Christakis and Fowler make some interesting observations about individuals’ desires to be part of something rather than alone in their book Connected. They suggest that humans are truly social beings and that “the function of loneliness is to promote reconnection” (56). So we don’t really want to go it alone and here we have contrasting messages. Teenagers want to be the center of attention, but they want to be a part of a network as well. Of course that answer seems clear enough, you can’t be the center of attention if there is no one there to pay attention to you.

Examining this concept of team and taking this desire to be networked brings me to my current quandary. I had the great opportunity this week to give a presentation at the truly amazing St. George’s School in Newport, Rhode Island. Their faculty is clearly top-notch and with all of these presentations, I certainly take away more than I offer. But after presenting many of my ideas on how to integrate technology into the teaching of English, there were some pointed questions. One was about assessment; one was what do you take out (both of these are age old) and the third, (another dinosaur of a question, but still just as relevant today as years before) how do you deal with group projects. Needless to say, I really had no answers to any of these questions, and I took a stab at each. But the cooperative question truly stuck in my mind due to this book Connected as well as the fact that this is why we try to sell technology to teachers. We preach that we can truly generate an authentic audience and better collaboration through the use of these web 2.0 tools and other technology. Terrific, still doesn’t solve the age-old problem of one kid doesn’t do the work and another does. Christakis and Fowler have a label for these collaborators and free loaders and they suggest that a network often doesn’t work without a punisher (220). Now it has been suggested that I have a heavy hand in my classroom, but I really am not interested in taking on the title of punisher in each of the collaborative projects I create for the classroom. (I think the title of grader is certainly more than enough.) So how do we create these group projects so that they don’t need a punisher. The only answer I can see is to create a situation where the students feel like they need each other. They have to see that the only way they can achieve the goal, and the goal has to be attractive enough to all involved that they want to pursue it, is by working together. Just like a team, you can only win the championship when all of the disparate parts are working in tandem, we have to create the same environment in these group projects. Whether it is a combination of skill sets (you need linemen and quarterbacks) or a multiplicity of voices, it needs to be clear that the goal cannot be reached alone.

So how do we translate all of this into group projects in the classroom? First we need to examine all of the projects we have previously deemed necessary as group projects. We as educators seem sold on the value of collaboration, but bristle at the idea of doing it ourselves. So why would students be any different, yet they flock to each other on Facebook. The challenge continues that we must harness the power and desire for a network into projects we deem valuable in the classroom if only for the purpose of teaching the simple lesson that individuals can achieve far more as a collective group than by themselves. As Christakis and Fowler put it, “All of these challenges require us to recognize that although human beings are individually powerful, we must act together to achieve what we could not accomplish on our own…The miracle of social networks in the modern world is that they unite us with other human beings and give us the capacity to cooperate on a scale so much larger than the one experienced in our ancient past” (304). Through this we can thwart the constant bemoaning of teenagers (and adults) of what can I do, I am only one person. Tell that to the Obama campaign or to the protesters of the Iranian elections this summer: One person did quite a bit.

The Visual Literacy Imperative

I’m not going to lie, I like Youtube. When my brain is fried, but I’m not quite ready to go to bed, there is nothing better that some video of a cat chasing a flashlight into a wall or a dog spinning around imitating the sound of the blender. Truly the world is a better place. With the arrival of the video function on the iPod Nano and the rise in popularity of the Flip camera, I can only hope that there will be more videos of squirrels drunk on fermented pumpkins.

But the proliferation of video has me keenly interested in how this affects our students’ view of the world. We already knew they demand more stimulation of their senses than previous generations, that they see the world in splashes of color and now clearly they see it constantly in motion. As an English teacher, how do I continue to engage learners with what must seem the most mundane of media: the printed word? Maybe even more importantly, how do I help these students understand the millions of images they are being bombarded with hourly?

First of all, I think we have to acknowledge that it is here to stay. Whether it is a simple project making a video of a scene from Shakespeare or shooting a video for the SAT Vocab contest, this is something these students like to do and it sticks in their brains. But now it is also incumbent upon us to help them understand what they are seeing. The iPod Nano comes with video effects from Thermal to Sepia to Motion Blur. In my mind, there is no difference between determining the result of an effect applied to a video and understanding the goal of an author when using a specific tone in his work. While they think it is easier to determine this visually, it is simply because they have more practice and exposure to visual media rather that words on a page. If they read as much as they watched television, surfed the net and went to movies, we would have rhetorical geniuses.

There is no doubt that we feel the pressure to add more and more to our classes everyday, and believe it or not, I am now advocating one more addition. We need to teach students visual literacy. To help them understand how they are being manipulated by images, but also how they can take control of those images to tell their own stories. Just as Mike Masnik wrote on Techdirt that technology has not been the end to writing, but has bolstered it, video will not be the end to books. Students will always need some place to look for ideas whether it is to react to them or mimic them. Books will thrive hand in hand with the visual age: It is our job to help students see that this is truly a perfect match.

The Big Green Monster

Every Mother’s Day, my mom and I go to the nursery and pick out flowers for our gardens. This year, I decided to try my hand at vegetables as well. I bought two cherry tomato plants and some cilantro. Well, the cilantro died almost immediately, but my tomato plants chugged along until early in the summer before they started to take over my entire yard. Finally, in late July the tomatoes started to arrive and they haven’t slowed down since. I have picked literally hundreds of tiny tomatoes and that does count the ones my dogs have gotten away with. While this process must be rather entertaining for the neighbors, every afternoon I high hurdle over the fence that ineffectively protects the plant from the dogs and then crawl under the plant and paw through the leaves trying to find all the little red gems.

For the past few days, as I have been bobbing and weaving my way around the green monster, I have thought that this activity is the perfect metaphor for using technology in the classroom. The key to finding all of the tomatoes is looking at the leaves from literally 50 different directions. They hide under branches and leaves and every new way you hold your head looking at the plant, you literally stumble upon another handful of tomatoes. Similarly, through twitter networks and RSS feeds, teachers are literally looking in hundreds of different directions and every so often, they discover a new tool or strategy to implement in the classroom. Each day that I am out in my tomato patch, I smile thinking about what the neighbors must think and laugh at my dogs waiting patiently outside the fence hoping for a snack. I also relish the aerobic/pilates-like activity this has become and find the search as relaxing and enjoyable as the reward. My hope is that this holds true for folks in the classroom as well. Just like we hope for our students to enjoy the journey of learning as much as the results, I hope teachers enjoy the pursuit of new technologies as much as the actual reward of finding something new to implement in their classrooms.

Is Tech Where It’s At?

I am staring out of a rainy window in Memphis having just finished the Lausanne Laptop Institute. Having done a reasonable amount of traveling lately, I have been overly exposed to the public and its ridiculous habits. Without going on a tirade about people’s absurd behavior when exiting a plane, I keep thinking of the constant cell phone conversations that I got to overhear in the past two weeks. They almost always started with “Where you at?” Well, despite the grating of terrible grammar, it does give me pause to think. After a summer of heavy reading and a couple presentations here at Luasanne, I can’t help but pause to think about where we are “at.”

One thing that has been perfectly clear to me is the success of the launch of our one to one program. Those that know me know that I was not for laptops in any form and was brought reluctantly into this whole process. But I must applaud Elizabeth Helfant and my colleagues who did some serious heavy lifting in the years prior so that once the magic day arrived, almost one year ago, it was as seamless and meaningful as possible.

Despite this success, I am still left wondering about and assessing the role of technology in education. Thomas Newkirk in his book Holding on to Good Ideas in a Time of Bad Ones discusses the early mechanization of education where many thought of a good education as a factory churning out identical products. He quotes one expert of the time as saying, “Teachers cannot be permitted to follow caprice in method. When a method which is clearly superior to all other methods has been discovered, it alone can be employed. To neglect this function and to excuse one’s negligence by proclaiming the value of the freedom of the teacher was perhaps justifiable under our earlier empiricism, when supervisors were merely promoted teachers and on the scientific side knew little more about standards and methods than the rank and file” (18). He goes on to discuss how in the process of reforming education, too much attention was given to research and little was paid to the actual classroom teachers and their “wisdom of practice” (19). At first this may seem like a perfect argument for technology and a way to convince the reluctant adopters. But as a classroom teacher, I support the “wisdom of practice.” All of this makes me worry, even just for a minute, as so many of these experts that travel around and educate us about technology use in the classroom have been out of the classroom for years. Are we walking down the same slippery slope that Newkirk is describing?

David Warlick recently discussed the results of two polls he ran. The first stated that teachers could still be good teachers without the use of technology and the second claimed that a teacher that is not using technology in the classroom is not doing his job. How can these results possibly exist side by side? Where will these two points converge?

All of this is not a drawn out way to announce that I am abandoning the tech side of the world. That would be impossible: I just joined Facebook. It is simply a cautionary note that we not go blindly into this new world. I believe that technology makes the classroom a more dynamic student-centered learning environment. I simply hope that we stop, look at what we are doing, reassess and make sure that our original reasons are still sound or that our new ones are even more solid. I know that my students are engaged in the literature and the class and writing sooner and more often with the use of technology. In the absence of hard date and research, this will just have to do for now. Finally, this is also a pledge from me that I redouble my efforts to make sure that on the eve of this new school year, I am doing everything I can to make sure my classroom is the best place possible for the students who will reside there these next nine months.

Lausanne Presentation on English Tech Classroom

Lausanne Eng Tech Presentation

View more presentations from lmittler.

The Runaway Mindset

When I was in fourth grade, you know this story better go somewhere fast if it starts like this, I wrote a story called “The Runaway Lima Bean” starring an adorable bean named Ferdinand who escapes the table and has a series of madcap adventures. It was an immediate hit and even published in a children’s magazine. My writing career was launched and just as quickly, ended. I was a one hit wonder like Bow Wow Wow and Vanilla Ice.

According to Carol Dweck’s book Mindset, I had a fixed mindset. I had some ability in writing, but didn’t want to risk losing my fame, if you call it that, so I shut down and, despite everyone’s urgings, never wrote again. This guaranteed that I would not fail and have to face the fact that I did not have as much talent as I thought I did. The same thing is happening day-in and day-out in our classrooms. Teachers have mastered Hamlet and Dickens, quadratic equations and Pythagorean theorems, but don’t have the growth mindset that Dweck argues leads to even greater success.

In the world of literature, a growth mindset makes you’re a dynamic character while a fixed mindset makes you static. Dweck states, “ In one world—the world of fixed traits—success is about proving you’re smart or talented. Validating yourself. In the other—the world of changing qualities—it’s about stretching yourself to learn something new. Developing yourself.” Her research reflected these differences most clearly when individuals faced setbacks. In the fixed mindset, if I submitted another story and was rejected it would prove to me that I was a failure with no talent: People may even be laughing at me. But in the growth mindset, while I would still be disappointed, I would seek information from others on what I could revise and how I could work to be better at writing: the growth mindset is about the challenge of solving the problem.

Malcom Gladwell in his May 11th New Yorker article titled, “How David Beats Goliath” takes this theory even further. While explaining how a less-talented team of twelve-year-olds could make it all the way to the championships, he states” The full-court press is legs, not arms. It supplants ability with effort.” When speculating on why other teams aren’t quick to pick up on the benefit of the full-court press he adds, “because relentless effort is in fact something rarer than the ability to engage in some finely tuned act of motor coordination.” It is just easier to have the talent than to hustle. Clearly Gladwell is suggesting that the growth mindset allows the underdog to beat the favorite with a fixed mindset.

Teachers’ approaches to technology in the classroom seem to fit perfectly into these two mindsets. The fixed mindset teachers who feel that they have full command of their material and their classrooms bristle at the thought of taking a risk that may counter this understanding. Planning a lesson with technology that fails would send the message that they were in fact not good at teaching. Growth mindset teachers thrive on the constant learning that educational technology provides. Trying something new and failing only offers them more information for improvement. Growth mindsets are about effort and constant learning: exactly what technology provides teachers and students alike. Educational technology offers a unique opportunity for all of us to build our growth mindsets.

While this may seem like an indictment, it should be thought of optimistically. Changing mindsets is a paradigm shift that does require work, but it opens up the world of possibilities. It also gives those of us with fixed mindsets permission to be imperfect, to try and fail, and go on with the number one reason we all became teachers: our love of learning. Dweck quotes a CEO in her book as saying, “I never stopped trying to be qualified for the job.” This is the life of the teacher in the 21st Century. While we will never have full command of all the possibilities Educational Technology experts and Web 2.0 provide, it is our responsibility to keep up our efforts to learn and try new things. Isn’t this what we hope our students do?

Even with my new understanding , I haven’t rekindled my writing career, but I plan on using my newfound growth mindset to take on other tasks like surfing. A fixed mindset, and maybe even a practical one, might say that a Midwestern woman nearing forty should not be taking on the task of learning how to surf. A growth mindset simply says, just try.

Balance Happens

Last November I attended a clinic during the NCAA Division I Women’s Field Hockey Final Four. It was sponsored by US Field Hockey and taught by the men’s and women’s National Team coaches, Nick Conway and Lee Bodimeade. We talked strategy all weekend and one of the first things that Nick said was, “At the start of the game, look at the defense of the opponent and decide how you are going to attack.” Seems simple. To me, it was a complete shift in thinking; when I started games, the first thing I looked at was the opponent’s offense and decided how I was going to defend them. A simple shift from defending to attacking and you view the world in an entirely new way.

This past weekend the same happened for me in the way I see the teaching of writing. For the past few weeks I have been involved in the English Companion Ning’s discussion of Maja Wilson’s book Rethinking Rubrics. The exchanges have been akin to an invigorating graduate school debate without the extra homework and inconvenient class times. In Chapter Three, Wilson writes:

“When our purpose in reading student work is to defend a grade, we do not apply any of our natural responses to text. Encouraged by the performance levels on the rubric to rank students against an external standard, our readings of student work are based firmly in a deficit model. We look for mistakes, inconsistencies, and unclear thinking to justify which square in the matrix we will circle” (30).

While this seems obvious, it was as big of a shift of defending to attacking in how I coach. When I look at student essays, I am looking for mistakes to correct and not potential to develop. Instead of approaching their work as a reader, I approach it as a corrector.

She goes on to say:

“The consequences of this skepticism are great. In our search for mistakes, we often miss potential. We should never assume that student papers will be perfect; our job is to help students realize what they cannot yet do. This involves a subtle but important shift in our view of the texts they create. It means that we articulate for them what they have succeeded in doing, explore the meaning in what they have written, and help them connect what is not yet there to what could be there” (30).

I now need to think how I can best achieve this shift, how I can balance my need to produce effective writers who can create complex sentences with proper agreement and punctuation with this newly introduced understanding of how I can be developing these writers as well. This becomes even more vital and intricate as so many new types of writing come into play. As I have been reading this book, much attention seemed to be paid to personal essays, but we have students creating wikis, blogs and participating in nings. How do I help them see the potential of their writing in these contexts as well? Sometimes that seems easier with the increased ability to provide instant feedback, sometimes harder since I can’t get my pen on their screens to point out the errors, but maybe this is where the balance happens.