Interesting discussion about transparency…

5 comments

Posted on 30th January 2007 by Chris in General

I have been following an interesting discussion in the comments of my recent post about Transparency gone too far. I keep going back to Christian’s post on anonymity, or rather the lack thereof. I keep going back to one singular question…

In this age of the Internet, is there such a thing as anonymity any more?

When I started blogging, it never occurred to me that I needed to consider hiding my identity. It seemed natural not to.

The author of the original post in question posted this in the comments:

Yeah, you definitely don’t want to say stuff like this with your name or workplace attached to it. Mine is an interesting position on the continuum of blogs: I’m anonymous because I don’t want to censor myself in situations like yesterday, but I also like to engage with people on issues of curriculum and instruction. Does that make it weird for people who interact with me on these various blogs? I don’t know. I just want to be able to tell the truth about how urban public education looks to me.

Ben’s point about the danger of venting obscuring real issues or solutions is well-taken. Ideally, the point of all the reading and writing on the web is to find more solutions and more success. I think that it’s important to bring out not only the issues that we face with students and parents and culture and content and NCLB and all of those challenges, but also the issues that we face inside our own schools.

Understandably, those of you speaking in public with your names attached shouldn’t air the dirty laundry. But the management — or mismanagement — of schools is definitely part of the reason our educational system isn’t working as well as it could be. I never really knew that until I became a teacher, and so I feel like it’s worth sharing especially when it gets overwhelming. So thanks for reading and engaging. Having a voice, even to a small audience, is helpful

I think the part of this discussion that most strikes me is this statement, “Understandably, those of you speaking in public with your names attached shouldn’t air the dirty laundry.”

Does that mean those folks who choose to remain anonymous should air the dirty laundry?

I am certainly not claiming we should spin public education to be all rosy and flowers, but how much of the underground frustrations and backoffice conversations should we broadcast? Is is any wonder that bloggers are sometimes considered to be teachers who get frustrated with the job and take to the blog as a type of whistle-blowing? Miguel has a great piece on this, based on an article in the Houston Chronicle.

Notice I mention public education, because private schools are a whole different breed. But isn’t it interesting that the article mentions Vicki Davis, and isn’t Westwood a private school? The sole point I make is that bloggers can get into trouble with the desire to remain anonymous in a public school setting.

Cue Christian:

Be public about who you are, what role you have…anonymity while somewhat logical at first has no real currency in time. Give one of your decently tech-savvy kids 1 hour and challenge them to find the identity of any anonymous blogger. And then wonder how long it’ll take your boss if they become curious or get an anonymous email from an ‘interested’ colleague.

Yup. That is my worry.

Continuing the comments discussion, Bill Bishop popped in and left this thought…

Wow! From a legal perspective, I would say that he could be looking for another job. If you are going to vent, you should do it in a professional way. Although, we could all find something to agree with in his/her post, the way he/she went about the post lacks tact. I have posts at my site that may or may not relate to my experiences, but I hope that I never get mad enough to blog it in an unprofessional way. If I do someone point it out to me and I will remove it. Chris your title for this post may be the understatement of the year. Transparency gone to far: I’d say so!

To which our original author responded…

WBishop, do you think that having these sorts of posts out in the world is useful? More or less useful than something that “may or may not relate” to reality? Aside from the risk I’m taking of getting fired if somehow my anonymity is compromised, your other objection seems to be my tone. I can understand that, because I’m definitely harsh.

Question, though: Do you think I could have communicated the same reality in a more “professional” or tactful way? Would my words lose some of their impact if I described with great respect and deference what it’s like to struggle against a bureaucracy of the incompetent?

I guess I’m just not sure how you decide when transparency becomes a bad thing or goes too far. I’m comfortable with the risk, and I feel it’s a small risk. So is it crossing the line when transparency shows us things we don’t want to see? If transparency never reveals anything uncomfortable about our institutions, are we really being honest about what’s going on in urban public education?

Tough questions for a tough issue.

I don’t claim to have any good insight into this, I can see both sides of the coin. What do you think?

Debunking constructivism

3 comments

Posted on 27th January 2007 by Chris in Grad School

An alarming title, but please note that I neither necessarily agree with constructivism nor disagree with it. I am working through my graduate courses and finding lots of alternate perspectives. Our recent readings have taken us through authors that appear to be openly against constructivism. Below are what I posted to our Blackboard discussion board. These are by no means a definitive statement, just my stream-of-consciousness ramblings as I try to work this out myself.

I work very hard not to blindly accept anything, but to search out the truth through intellectual means, reading, critically analyzing, seeking counsel, etc. This is just my present thoughts on the process.

Begin potentially pointless ramblings…

EDET 652 – Thoughts on the readings for class #3

A theme that is clearly running throughout the articles this week is the idea that the instructional method is what should be considered, not the delivery method.

Clark (1994) hits the ground running with the introductory statement from which the above was captured, “learning is influenced more by the content and instructional strategy in a medium then by the type of medium”. That statement alone has caused me to think a great deal about my own teaching. As the instructor of a foreign language course I have to find new and exciting ways to keep the content fresh and make the “sales pitch” required of me so keep student interest in foreign language at a higher level. To that end, I have been known to utilize downloaded video clips from Discovery Education’s unitedstreaming(r). I am careful to screen the clips before showing them, and at times split the clips into shorter segments and interlace them throughout a larger lesson presentation. This helps keep class moving at a quicker pace as well as prevents feelings of monotony. I have noticed that the videos serve much more to support instruction that has already happened as opposed to introduce new content. Could this be due to the fact that the learning is actually occurring in the context of guided instruction and does not occur so much in the context of multimedia presentation? I am beginning to wonder…

The rest of the Clark (1994) article supported the “method versus medium” argument, and I moved onto the Kirschner, et al article. I quickly hit a snag when I read the statement, “learning, in turn, is defined as a change in long-term memory”. I take slight issue with this statement in that I would not define learning in quite such narrow terms. Websters’ defines learning in the form “learn” as “to acquire knowledge of or skill in by study, instruction, or experience” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/learning) whereas Princeton defines it as “the cognitive process of acquiring skill or knowledge”, (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=learning) focusing more on the process than the information. Princeton’s definition seems to lend support to the idea that learning consists of what happens during instruction rather than the result of instruction. Do both of these (the listening to instruction and the result of instruction) result in a change in long-term memory? Possibly. I suppose that depends on the quality of the instruction. Nonetheless, Kirschner et al’s argument seems to depend on this narrow definition of learning as the cornerstone of their rejection of constructivist principles.

I should note that I am certainly no radical constructivist by any means. A lot of constructivism seems to fawn after the slippery slope of “engagement” more than the desire to infuse students with knowledge. I disagree with the radical constructivist approach of handing students a box with magnets, string, etc and expecting them to “discover” anything. Students need guidance, more than just in instruction, but in the context of relationship. Minimal guidance, limited coaching, “guide on the side” mentalities can easily fail by blurring the line between appropriate behavior and interaction between student and teacher.

It is clear that cognitivism has the favor of those involved in the writings we have read thus far and the instruction we have received. I do not disagree with cognitivism, only desire to expand my extremely limited knowledge. Not having a background in education, I find myself unequipped to analyze these writings critically and fear that I may be blindly accepting them without the thorough thought needed to reach synthesis.

Can anyone provide me with an alternate perspective? Where is the research supporting constructivism?

Upgrade complete to WordPress 2.1

0 comments

Posted on 27th January 2007 by Chris in Software |nextgenteachers

So the upgrade to WordPress 2.1 went flawlessly! All my plugins work, although I am having an odd issue with Akismet that I have yet to solve. No worries, I use Spam Karma 2 so Akismet was really just a second line of defense.

I followed the instructions to the letter, and backed up EVERYTHING just in case.

I don’t see a major change, but do like the ability to change the front page to a static page, although that was possible using a plugin before.

I am avoiding upgrading the NextGenTeachers blog for now because of an issue with FeedWordpress. It’s patchable, but with our first show coming out soon I don’t want to risk a meltdown.

Transparency gone too far?

8 comments

Posted on 26th January 2007 by Chris in General |nextgenteachers

Now this is transparency. Given my recent dealings with whether or not to blog things that happen at work, I am a bit surprised to see this type of openness and cynicism coming through.

Will this make future employers less likely to hire this teacher?

Would it make you less likely to hire this teacher thinking that if something bad happens, he’s going to run to the blog?

I am not knocking him, just asking curious questions…

understanding » Day of Conflict

Technorati Tags: , ,

How to carefully upgrade to WordPress 2.1 (link)

0 comments

Posted on 25th January 2007 by Chris in Web Resources

Solid post about how to carefully upgrade to WP 2.1.

I have also found some cool plugins by reading it!

Maria Langer, the Official Web Site* » Upgrading WordPress to 2.1: Dealing with Plugin Compatibility

Technorati Tags: , ,

Edublogosphere.com

3 comments

Posted on 22nd January 2007 by Chris in General |nextgenteachers

Some months ago I registered edublogosphere.com and installed Pligg. I was really just playing around trying to learn new software. Pligg is a Digg style CMS which allows folks to submit and vote for stories. It never got buy-in, but I never tried to support it much. I might have blogged about it before, but never gave it much thought. I figured if it took off, I would jump back in, but had little desire to push it.

There is a new someone in town doing the same thing, at www.edumio.com. Cool, have it.

Trouble is my edublogosphere.com site got ragged on last night during EdTech Weekly when they were mentioning the new site. The new site is also running on Pligg, and is using the default template. When they were talking about it, they asked if the new site had more than one person submitting stories. I’m aware the edublogosphere site isn’t doing anything, it never really was supposed to.

So I am left with a few options.

1. I recently upgraded to the new version of Pligg which has a cool RSS Importer. If I were to use it, I could theoretically add every feed from my aggregator, set up a little cron job, and have it import  every feed I can find in the edublogosphere and allow folks to vote the top stories up to the top. It’s a lot of work, but would be kind of fun to see that many feeds in one spot.

2. I can let it die and redirect the little traffic to edumio. It’s all about the cause, you know! I am all about supporting folks with similar motives and more time to do this stuff.

3. I can revamp the site and try to get buy-in. But why? I see this as the tossed-out option, just mentioned for the sake of mentioning.

So what should I do, option 1 or option 2?

Sit down sit down sit down sit down sit down you’re rocking the boat

1 comment

Posted on 21st January 2007 by Chris in Grad School |nextgenteachers

Anyone get my bad Broadway reference? Yup, Guys and Dolls.

So I started graduate school last week and it has already shaken my foundation. It’s interesting to note that it didn’t take long, and that I am not upset about it. You see, like anyone else, I entered the land of higher, higher education with certain preconceived notions about why certain things happen the way that they do. Certain things have just seemed to come intuitively since I’ve been teaching (1.5 years) and I just took them and ran.

Does that make them right?

Teaching thus far has been a lot of flying by the seat of my pants.

I didn’t go to college for education, I have a Bachelor’s in Spanish with a minor in Criminal Justice. I teach Spanish because I speak it and have mastered the second language from a learning standpoint. Does that make me qualified to teach it?

Hmmm.

I did an alternative certification program designed for folks like me with degrees in something other than education and it taught me a VERY surface knowledge of educational theory, but more time was spent on the more pressing needs; how to prevent burnout, classroom management, document document document. Little time was spent on why there is such a push for more technology. Little time, if any, was spent on research. No one could aptly defend why we do what we do from a research standpoint.

Not many folks blog about the research.

We just seem to go with what feels right, or what seems to work, or what seems to act as a salve to our fears of getting behind in this flattening world.

Are we acting out of intuition, intellect, or inspiration? Is acting out of any of these appropriate? Sometimes.

Do we need to stop and spend some time figuring out whether or not what we’re doing is having any real, quantifiable effect?

Yup.

That’s the hard part, though. It doesn’t terribly interest me to spend time studying kids that have spent a year blogging and those that have their work posted up merely around the classroom to determine whether that change has any effect on anything other that the ellusive-yet-unconvincing “engagement”.

And if we do evaluate them, on what basis do we so such? High stakes testing? Isn’t that falling back into the trap of the “old school” pedagogy?

I have heard a series of quotes lately that begin with “It’s not about the technology” and end with “It’s about the ___”.

I probably should cite these, but I am pretty sure Warlick says it’s about the information (yup) (read this comment, too) and Lehman says it’s about the pedagogy (not in the words I’ve used, but close), and Clarence Fisher has weighed in, too. A quick Google search reveals that other folks have their own ideas, such as…

It’s not about the technology, it’s about…

  • the people
  • the individual
  • the business
  • the community (Jimmy Wales via Mitch Kapor via Andy Carvin)
  • the changing human experience
  • what the technology can do for you
  • behavior (Christine Borgman)
  • the interaction
  • the human aspect
  • the connection
  • the student
  • how businesses operate and the global economy (O’Reilly ONJava Blog)
  • the content

So what is it about, then? Is the answer relative? Can it be about one thing for me and another for you? I bring all this up because my professor said (and I am going to ask him to read this for accountability purposes!)…

It’s not about the technology, it’s about the design principles.

Mind you, this is in a class entitled, Design and Evaluation of Academic Games and Simulations.

We talked about the fact that technology is not universally motivating, a concept that for some reason I never quite realized. You see, I am quite motivated by technology, and I wrongly assume everyone is. I need to look no further than my mother (who will not read this, lamentably) to see this proven.

He also said that technology must be in service to the cognitive processes. All that to bring us to the final question,

Why isn’t more research being cited in the edublogosphere to support the bandwagons we all seem to be lunging for?

Where is the research that lends scientific evidence to the claim that blogging is better than writing on paper? I am not saying I disagree, but where is the objective data? This is but one example?

If there were research, would I be able to determine whether it was valid or not? Was there selection bias during the research candidate selection process? Does the research identify the under girding principles that are guiding the instructional practices? Or are we operating out of our intuition that something is wrong, and this feels like a good solution.

Have we really identified the problem?

I certainly do not claim to have any answers. Truth is, I used to have a strong preference towards reading authors that were deceased.

Dead.

They can’t change their minds. If they’ve written something when they were nearing the end of life, better, because they have had at least lots and lots of anecdotal evidence.

They’ve tried and seen what has worked and not worked.

Please understand this posting is more for me to explore my thoughts and shake my foundation. I am just beginning the journey of teaching and plan to continue in this field for many years, and the more time I spend laying a solid foundation the better.

Maybe I need to take a step back, spend a little more time evaluating why I am doing what I am doing.

Yeah, that’s exactly what I need to do. If I can articulate the why, and show the results, well, isn’t that what we should be shooting for? But how do you define the results?

Uh oh, there’s that vicious cycle starting again…I’d better hit publish before I come full circle.

Thanks for sticking with me through this. Graduate school is certainly going to prove to be the kiln that bakes my teaching into pottery, hopefully it comes out with a stamp, dokimos.

Ubuntu Installation without erasing Windows

1 comment

Posted on 18th January 2007 by Chris in Software

I have been joking recently that I would love to run Ubuntu and Windows in a situation akin to the Mac/Windows relationship possible through Parallels.

Trouble is I don’t want to erase my current Windows installation.

I have Ubuntu installed on a laptop, VMWare server brought in (see earlier posts), and Windows XP Home SP2. Works nicely!

Now onto my desktop, where I have had Windows XP Pro running for years. I have three hard drives, with over 150GB of used space of stuff I don’t want to lose. It’s the digital archive of my life. Needless to say, this article caught my attention.

Ubuntu Installation Now Easier than Ever in Windows – CyberNet News: Keeping you plugged in!

Just look at this screenshot!

The homepage for the Prototype project will tell you more about this idea. For more opinion, go read the Cybernet news article mentioned above.

I might try this! If I get brave, I’ll keep you posted on the progress!

Technorati Tags: , , ,

WordPress 2.0.7 available, man that was quick!

1 comment

Posted on 15th January 2007 by Chris in General |Web Resources

Apparently there were a couple issues in the 2.0.6 version of WordPress. So they have already issued a new version. As always, I recommend you go get it and install it quick!

Their blog article here,

Download link here.

Web design in the context of web 2.0

3 comments

Posted on 15th January 2007 by Chris in nextgenteachers

I claim to be no web designer. I can still code some mean HTML but have never been able to manipulate graphics to my liking, no matter how open source the program is. So when I sat out to throw together a custom front page for the NextGenTeachers, I offered to code it, as long as someone else designed it. Little did I know I was in for a shock.

You see, I have not designed a website that I intended to get a decent amount of traffic in some time. Oh sure, I redesigned two sites in the last few months, but those were using templates from open source web design and was fairly easy using Kompozer.

Now that I am working on a site for NextGenTeachers, with some awesome design work by Doug Belshaw, I am left wondering how to proceed. We’ve got a solid set of icons and graphics, but it’s on a plain white background. This doesn’t seem terribly web 2.0ish.

I have to admit, I am absolutely captivated by web 2.0 design, and there is one web site in particular that makes me want to shake the hand of the designer. I have contacted the gentleman who runs the site for an interview for this blog regarding his site and use of open source software in the build. It is built using Ruby on Rails, and I understand he learned Ruby for this site.

Impressive.

More impressive is the design. It is simplistic, clean, and wonderful. It has an automatically updating rss feed which is based a javascript (that I really should search for, I see it in the source code).

The catalyst for this series of design-based changes in my thinking was an article I read that really resonated with me. It talks about how years ago us geeks all went the exact opposite direction from Arial, and now it’s making quite a comeback. The article deals with many of the characteristics of web 2.0 design, or at least characteristics that we have come to associate with web 2.0 sites. I can’t necessarily articulate them, but I feel like I know then when I see them.

I recognize that web 2.0 is about information and collaboration, not web design elements. As a matter of fact, I have a post I’ve been working on for some time called “Does Web 2.0 equal Ajax?”. I get that. O’Reilly defines it well. I will make no attempt to even summarize it. All I know is I am hunting for a web 2.0′erizer. I want to take these icons, put them in a blender, and have it spit out the design.

I want to focus on the content, maybe hack it a little.

I am horrible at creating graphics with rounded edges, big fonts, pastel colors, and the like. Maybe plain is ok? Doesn’t content rule anyway?

And no, don’t worry, there’s no flash in sight. Yeesh.

« Older Entries