This Message Center is organized and operated by David Vitale

Observations and Anecdotes from the National Educational Computing Conference (June 29-July 1).

"The value of involving students in social networking remains directly tied to the scaffolding, skill building, and mentoring provided by teachers. Just getting them online won't make a difference." ~Jamie McKenzie

According to McKenzie, much of what stifles progress in organizations is what's known as group think.  He defined it as:  the majority that silences the smart minority point of view. The tendency of the majority is  to squash unusual creative thought. Merely getting people together doesn't necessarily produce desired outcomes. McKenzie's publication is From Now On (the educational technology journal)

McKenzie often cited Peter Senge- who stressses the importance of teaching groups to work open-mindedly together, exploring ideas as well arguing about them. Open minded exploration involves the suspension of assumptions and the willingness to possibly be influenced by others.  He concluded with a discussion on group dynamics and a definition between vertical thinking and lateral thinking. Vertical thinking is very sequential and logical with lateral thinking being "off the beaten trail."  

Edward DeBono developed the idea of six distinct ways in which a human brain thinks and that these can be leveraged to produce more effective group work.  The six "hats" as they're referred to are:

• Neutrality (white) - considering purely what information is available, what are the facts?
• Feeling (Red) - instinctive gut reaction or statements of emotional feeling (but not any justification)
• Negative judgement (Black) - logic applied to identifying flaws or barriers, seeking mismatch
• Positive judgement (Yellow) - logic applied to identifying benefits, seeking harmony
• Creative thinking (Green) - statements of provocation and investigation, seeing where a thought goes
• Process control (Blue) - thinking about thinking

The keynote address on Tuesday featured a debate moderated by  Robert Siegel from NPRs All Things Considered.

The question:  Are Bricks and Mortar Schools Detrimental to the Furture of Education?

Turning Point electronic survey devices were at each place to tally the count of attendess who agreed or disagreed with the above question/statement.  The breakdown:  63 Disagree, 37% Agree

This question really boils down to whether one thinks that teachers can help prepare students in a digital and information age. Bricks and mortar locations work well with technology, but not if people within them are doing things that are no longer relevant then it's the people, not the programs or setting that matter most.

The panel consisted of Michael Horn (co-author of Disrupting Class), Gary Stager, and a high school student (sorry, no link) who took the position that bricks and mortar are detrimental to the future of education.  The opposing side consisted of Brad Jupp (newly appointed policy advisor to USDE secretary Arne Duncan), Cheryl Lemke, CEO of the Metiri Group, and a high school student from nearby Virginia. 

The arguments in this debate were not all that compelling in that there were familiar refrains for schools as community centers and as places where people "get together to learn somethng" (Brad Jupp).  In a nutshell, I think both sides made the case for improved teaching and learning, no matter where it takes place.   

Gary Stager's comments essentially supported the viewpoint that it's not the building, but what happens in it that makes a difference. There are great things happening educationally in non-physical locations.

In a lighter moment it was Stager who quipped(paraphrasing) "Don't tell me that online learning stifles socialization skills when the number one infraction in schools is...talking." He also noted that SMARTBoards basically reinforce the idea that the front of the room is where the teaching and learning takes place.

Cheryl Lemke  reinforced the idea that good teaching is not exclusive to bricks and mortar or vritual learning. There's no single best venue (one best system). Bricks and mortar are important to health and social services, and community services a la Jupp's argument. Students' capacity to perform well in virtual settings must be built by teachers. The determination to perform well in distant environment simply doesn't just "happen" to students who do so.  According to Lemke, research suggests that hybrid models are increasingly important structures to develop.

The debate gained momentum after Stager and Lemke spoke. But all participants essentially spoke past each other by acknowledging that there's a place for multiple venues for learning. I think the question was poorly constructed, but the points made on each side sensible and well articulated.

The post debate survey tally showed that more votes swung in favor of developing options within brick and mortar settings with 73% disagreeing with the initial question and 27% agreeing. 

posted July 2, 2009 « back to Message Center home

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.