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.