The Habit of Close Talking after Quick Connections

Thanks to Seth Godin for the inspiration here:

I grew up with an Apple IIe and a floppy disc. My adolescence involved the cringing sound and loading speeds of AOL. Remember that car-crashing wheel screaming sound of AOL loading? Ugh. Click here to hear the song. Ugh. Why did I just click that!? My hair just stood up.

Capture the flag and hide-n-seek remained a game of improv - not knowing who was where. There were no text messages that read "Game Over." Soon enough, the text message replaced the walkie-talkie in my pocket.

Over the years, we are getting more connected as a human race than ever in the history of mankind. The irony here is that even though we are more connected, meaningful relationships are at an all time low.

Students can ignore the face-to-face conversation and engage in a clitter clatter of a text message or tweet. Confrontation can be ignored. Building relationships can be substituted with adding a new "friend". 

LIkes replaced high fives and handshakes.

Recently, I've had the good fortune to learn from the works of Phil O'Brien and Pete Bacevice. Both have greatly influenced my thoughts on how social media can be a beautiful tool to connect like-minded individuals to build ideas into eventful projects - Linchpinesque projects. Too many fail, however, because it's far easier to go on to the next follower or next like. The key is to take this new connection from this new-school form of connection into the realm of an old-school chat. 

Work is the creation phase. There's a dip involved where one goes from idea to creation that is stressful and requires one to take a vision into reality. This is good stress. Positive stress. The stress that makes one happier in the end than ever before. It brings on smiles and a perhaps a thicker wallet.

Slow work and meaningful conversations will take one out of what Phil O' Brien refers to as mild rage, the state where one realizes they are not working at their full potential. It's kind of like driving a car with three wheels. It's working, but it's wobbly and doesn't feel right and is far from efficiently enjoyable.

What do you think? How do you define close talking and purposeful work? Have you had success with building an idea to creation through a quick internet connection? 

A School in the Cloud

At the 2013 TED conference, Sugata Mitra had one wish granted to him. At TED, genies appear in the form of someone with clout like Bill Gates, Al Gore, or a Steve Jobs figure. These are the ones sitting in the audience, willing to help the TED prize winner obtain his wish. 

This year, Sugata Mitra, wished for a school in the cloud. Watch it here:

And he caused a bit of a ruckus in the education community. Just check out the comments at the Huffington Post here. In just two days time, over 300 comments flooded this article, ranging from praise to high quality criticism and unnecessary rude comments.  

I'd like to address the rationality behind these range of comments. Here comes in the work of Chip and Dan Heath, in what they write in Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard. But to understand, you'll have to think back to the magic days of riding an elephant at the local circus.

Imagine being perched upon an elephant. A really big one. Like a Dr. Seuss elephant. And you're trying to steer the elephant to turn. Not the easiest thing to do.

This metaphor is what Chip and Dan Heath use to help explain the difficultly in making a large organization switch. The elephant is full of emotion, the rider full of rational thought. The rider knows change is needed, but the elephant is so full of emotion he continues to lurch forward, ignoring the turning efforts of the rider. 

Unless the rider gives gives clear direction where to go. 

The education system is the elephant. Sugata Mitra is the rider, so is Seth Godin, so is Daniel Pink, and so is you - if you believe that the current education system just isn't working. 

This is what I call The Transforming Education Paradox:

The Elephant: The emotional side. 

"I don't want to lose my job, nor do I want to worry about money or feeding my children." This only begins the emotional argument behind why so many in the school system (teachers, principals) may feel anger towards Sugata Mitra's TED talk. Taken at face value, Sugata's "School in the Cloud" concept may seem to denigrate the value of a teacher by labeling them "Grandmas" that act as encouragers. But, let's look past the verbiage that may offend the teacher or principal. After all, teachers and principals in the American k-12 public school system must go through a rigorous academic process to gain the credentials needed to perform these jobs. To keep their jobs, teachers, for example, must have a 4-year bachelor's program in their content area and a master's degree, to boot. Oh yeah, and they must achieve 175-credit hours in professional development every five years (i.e. see NYS teaching credentials). 

Rider: The rational side.

There's a building. It's a school. There are rows of desks and chairs. This isn't working anymore. The world is using technology where schools are still banishing smart phones. Are schools supposed to be preparing students to be the best they can be in the given world at that time? Many would argue yes. So, let's bring more technology in. Strike a deal with Datalink and each student gets a tablet for $35 or cheaper. Have teachers use their scholarly brilliance to design the best learning environment for students. Act as an encourager. Create projects that synthesize real-world skills. Use the SOLE method and have students present their findings. Perhaps this isn't any different than the teacher who already uses experiential learning and creates a student-centered classroom. This is good teaching, after all.

It makes sense that most teachers who see Sugata's wish may take offense that the teaching profession as we currently define it, may be becoming obsolete. Sugata argues that "Knowing is obsolete". As content specialists, teachers may therefore be obsolete in the definition as content specialists. It may no longer be necessary for teachers to have all the answers or a wealth of content knowledge.  Perhaps the focus on being a teacher now is more like a scientist. Teachers will use their knowledge of pedagogy and learning design to craft a classroom or lesson that best gets students to discover learning and achieve the lesson's objective. Here comes in the rider.

When change is needed most it is often so far removed from the general public's ability to conceptualize the change that an incipient outcry occurs. Think Copernicus and the heliocentric theory. Think democracy. And think back to when school was first mandated. The masses all said, "No way. Ain't gonna happen."

What do you think? What would a school in the cloud look like?

​

a buzz-cut classroom

What role does structure play in the learning environment?

Colin Powell says that kids need structure. He uses his military speech to distinguish proper etiquette for students. "At ease" means students can chit chat and "at attention" means perfect posture and military stance - a level of uniformity. 

His matter of fact rhetoric and austere persona demand a cut-and-dry level of attention. He says you will be amazed at how soldiers act once they trust their drill sergeant. Drill sergeants in school - I don't know how I feel about that. And I REALLY want to hear your opinion!

Children, once fed by their mothers, give the mother a respect unmatched by another. Likewise, students once fed by a teacher give respect and thats "when the education process begins," says Powell. 

Hmmmm. I have to admit, I agree there. From my experience and with other teachers and administrators I've talked with, we all admit that if you don't have a student's attention learning struggles to take place.

But, here's the gray area….Is it the teachers role to instill these military-like demands of respect. I believe it actually boils down to the structure of the learning environment. If the class is a set of 6 x 5 rows to fit 30 students, then perhaps a military-like disciplinary approach is in order to make order…and make learning. This is the learning that began before the Industrial Revolution and did very well - REALLY WELL - to make factory workers who take orders and produce product. Is this what we need students to do now?

Turns the rows into round tables, add in smart-tablets, an internet connection with a spice of personalized curriculum and then this military-like, cookie cutter, sir yes sir may not be the best disciplinary approach. 

I believe it's important to question just as it's important to listen. Powell has a very good point; a raucous class will not learn effectively. And a quiet buzz-cut classroom that doesn't ask "Why?" doesn't learn either. 

I cannot wait to hear your thoughts on this. Post links, TED talks, drop names, and let's get this conversation going. 

Thanks to Phil O'Brien from Climbing Fish for bringing this to my attention (pun intended).