Rethinking Computers in the Classroom -- Starting a Think Tank?

[Roger Bullis]

Hi,

This article in Business Week suggests that .....

"In many schools, PCs have failed to aid students' learning or improve test
scores, or equip them with the analysis and communications skills that today's
workplace demands, according to studies. The problems include a reliance on
paper lesson plans that don't factor in technology, and inadequate teacher
training and technical support. Also at fault, say educators, is American
classrooms' occupation with teaching kids strategies for raising standardized
test scores to meet provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. That often
leaves little room for creative extras. Other times, school boards buy computers
to prove their technical savvy to politicians and parents, without thinking
through how kids will actually use the machines."

It goes on to suggest that schools need a new curriculum plan to solve the problem.

So let's develop a New Curriculum thinktank.

Roger

[Dr. Jorge Olaf Nelson]

Here are my thoughts (based on the National Council of Education and the Economy's "Tough Choices Tough Times" work).

[Betsy Suits]

Jorge,
Great Powerpoint! I agree with every component in the 21st Century Curriculum. It all stems from the basic skill of being able to analyze and problem solve. Technology is a tool to support an integrated curriculum based on cross curricular themes. Students engaged in projects across the curriculum will utilize technology to analyze and solve real world problems. Now wouldn't that be engaging and fun?

[Dr. Jorge Olaf Nelson]

Thank you, Betsy! The curriculum issues have been out for a couple of years from NCEE (published 12/2006) and still resonate with me, too. And the addition of the Global Issues Network from Rischard's work makes it relevant for the entire planet.

[Jan Nelson]

I would modify the Creative slide a bit and restate the part regarding patterns. I suspect that creativity is not about patterns IN Chaos, but what happens when experiencing the disruption of Order by crossing the boundary into Chaos and then at the re-entry point re-establishing Order in a new way. This can be thought of as a join between complexity theory and creative deconstruction where the patterns you seek are really emergent from complex systems stirred up by Chaotic exposure.

A student alone is a complex system but self contained. A classroom, a more complex grouping of these systems with some direction in common, a school a clustering of these systems into a yet more complex system that lives within a larger educational system inside a Community... In the largest context of Community, Chaos is interjected into the smallest component of the system, the student, at what seems like random and unmanageable times and intensities and all components of all systems and subsystems may interact in multiple ways. Complex systems are inherently NOT in equilibrium. To me, this implies that complex systems (e.g. a student) should not be managed to equilibrium, but nurtured in that state to promote the creative deconstruction and subsequent reordering as the child experiences their unique resonant "frequency" of movement between Order and Chaos over time. Like complexity science suggests, the relative health of the system dictates how much time it (he or she) can spend in either state before being harmed. In fact total Order is death to any system as is total Chaos. They are both essential and are the two states of existence for all complex systems to emerge, evolve and thrive. But the system must move continuously between the states.

What are the implications to your curriculum and in particular how technologies are used as adjuncts to increased student achievement? I believe that it is possible for students to study other complex systems through the data gathered about those systems, attempt to surface the emergent behaviors of those systems, their adaptations and health... and in that discovery, perhaps learn more about themselves. Technology is great at supporting the study of things so complex that it is very difficult for one human to grasp alone or to visualize in ways that make their understanding available to others.

I recommend that folks dig into complexity theory a bit (try looking into the work at the Santa Fe Institute), but also just use live.com and run some queries on keywords/phrases like "creativity and complexity theory" to seek out what others are now considering as the root of "creation".

Finally, note that I called out a personal resonance. I think it useful to think of how we exist at the "edge of Chaos" as akin to the vibration of a violin string when a horsehair bow is drawn across it, a wave pattern that is infinitely variable depending on the force and speed with which the bow is used. As educators, you hold the bow.

Jan

[Roger Bullis]

Jorge,

If we agree with your 5 steps, and I see no reason not to at this point, what is the next step? Developing the specific curricula/courses? Has anyone taken it that far?

Roger

[Dr. Jorge Olaf Nelson]

Not that I know of. The academic side is a no-brainer - "more of the same" content, yet creativity, technology, world-view and emotional intelligence are new areas for school to focus and here is where the rubber meets the road for us.

Jan points out how we need to re-think creativity with complexity in mind so students can better understand the systemic issues they will have to deal with so they are neither brain-dead (Order) nor overwhelmed (Chaos). I live.com'ed as he advised and found a great paper that can be used as a philosophy for creating the New Curriculum (see attached).

So far, curriculum has been thought of as a stand alone - a program of studies that is orderly and regimented across schools world-wide. This can be thought of as Order or brain-dead. As Montuori writes, "...a rigid, pre-determined order on our activities with the view to achieving a goal".

What complexity teaches us (and Montuori would probably agree) is that, instead of a orderly program of studies as methodology for learning it may behoove (is that really a word?) us to create opportunities for students to create their own strategies for learning. Listen to the meaning in Montuori's thoughts, "...Strategy, on the other hand, is a living process of interaction, in which the participant(s) in the activity are free to constantly adapt their course of action to accommodate and/or provoke the unforeseen, the creative. Strategy means creating a generative context that allows for the development of many different possible, self-generated ways of achieving the set goal--including the reflection, questioning, and potential abandonment of the goal itself."

Rog, what I see most important in the New Curriculum is not the curriculum per se, but more importantly how a set of engaging projects will integrate the New Curriculum appropriately for the myriad levels of development based on psychology of the learner and the skills sets needed for their life's strategy.

Technology will assist us with a digital individualized education plan for each child based on their (and their parents) desires for their self-chosen path to a successful life from K to 100, not just K-12. If we have a 40 ft. container of projects that include academic subject content as well as tech, EI, world-view and creativity and have them work on, perfect and then display their completed projects for personal and group assessment of "goodness" then they come away with a sense of accomplishment as well as the day-to-day experiences of frustration and all the other realities that life does and will offer them along the journey and deal with these successfully as well.

Instead of a transcript that supposedly reflects 15 years of formal education each child walks away from the K-12 experience with their own 40 ft. container of hand-crafted projects that shows their interests, their motivation and their expression of individuality. Something like Wall-e's apartment of recycled junk he finds on his daily rounds which have meaning and use to him and him alone yet we can see his personality and ambitions as well.

[Roger Bullis]

Jorge,

I agree with everything you state. I'm thinking strategy. A curriculum which looks like the curricula template that the don't-get-it-folks expect, but is radically different beneath.

Radical change will not be embraced by everyone, so I would suggest a plan for radical change which moves somewhat gradually without people thinking "radical".

We all remember "classrooms without walls" and "new math" and "no child left behind" -- all failures in one way or another but with noble goals. Will the target audiences out there be skittish? Of course. Will teachers be nervous? Of course. So how do you reduce the anxiety that academic change naturally embraces? I remember the old saying. "It is easier to move a graveyard than change a university." Ditto for the ed system.

Maybe a change/creativity/curriuculum book needs to be written about this.

And I assume you guys are familiar with the creativity books written by Edward De Bono. If not, the one I'd recommend highly is "Teach Your Child How to Think."

I will be on the road to Wisconsin for the next few days.

Peace.

Roger

[Dr. Jorge Olaf Nelson]

Rog,

Thinking about organizing curriculum or career paths even better...
...Don Williams from Microsoft Ed Research showed me this and the analogy might be a way kids could use for their interests which spark other interests, etc...

I typed in Trower and found interesting links to others I forgotten about...

[Pat Cummings]

Presently, the effectiveness of any educational innovation (computers in the classroom) is primarily gauged by a subsequent change in “test scores”. 1) Put computers in the classroom. 2) Test students. 3) Scores up? Good…computers are great. Scores down or not changed? Bad…. you are wasting money and proving the inefficiency of school systems. This is the state of our research-based educational reform that is the foundation of No Child Left Behind. One needs to bear in mind that the term research-based can be a little like low fat found on product labels…..rather misleading.
Are the tests sensitive to measure the desired effect of the computer influence?
Is there a means of auditing how computers are used?
What about the basic tech literacy of the instructors?
Are the skills sought in the educational environment in perfect synchronicity with those in the workplace?
Should politicians be the primary architects of these decisions?

The questions could go on and on but maybe it is best to stop by quoting by quoting my dead buddy Mark Twain, "Sacred cows make the best hamburger."

[Dr. Jorge Olaf Nelson]

Let's eat!

Thanks, Pat, for your thoughts.

Hey - how DO we go about changing the system if it's broke?

[Ora Jonasson]

Roger, I agree with two of the points expressed above. First, we have to eliminate the standardized test score as our primary measure of learning. The word "standard" itself limits the scope of learning. Second, we have to further develop the skills of educational facilitators with the tools of the present and the future. I think classroom is an outdated word in itself. Learning communities, theme clubs, exploration groups, adventure teams, these are the concepts that lead us forward. A sharing center might contain individual PCs linked to a central monitor that can display ideas on large screens with acess to the whole group. Everyone is a guide, everyone is a learner. Ora Jonasson

[Dr. Jorge Olaf Nelson]

Hi Ora,

Your thoughts reminded me of a New Century Classroom I created at David's site and it's still there. I initially created this around 1999, when I wrote Students Own All Resources. Your words reflect mine from the past ;-)