Ratcheting up my learning from a distance…

The past few weeks have each been marked with really exciting opportunities to work alongside teachers as we consider what new literacies pedagogies mean for our teaching. An exciting month… Toronto, Kansas, Kentucky, Texas, New York, Maine — and in each place, with each group there is something comforting (and, in all honesty, increasingly challenging) in knowing that we’re all thinking deeply and intentionally about how we leverage new tools to help engage the learners with whom we work.

As much as I learn from setting up, facilitating and engaging in the discussion that workshops and face to face sessions open up, my learning jumped into an entirely new place yesterday. And, I get increasingly excited as I continue to think on it…

While preparing my remarks for a literacy institute at Fordham University, I started my computer, fired up my wireless, and, as I do now out of habit, fired up Twitter. I’d known that NECC was this week (as I’m missing being there and have caught more than enough flack that my schedule wouldn’t allow for me to be there), but really “knew” that something was happening as my TweetDeck “overfloweth.”

With a partial eye on what was happening in the room and some attention on the slides I was receiving ahead of my talk, my attention was captivated by the stream of content coming out of the EduBloggerCon 2009.

I was able to attend sessions without ever stepping foot in the room – and it was dizzying. Where I’ve had instances of these experiences in the past, I’ve never had such an onslaught of immersive media and discussions. I found myself viewing a ustream feed, tweeting and receiving tweets, following discussions in coveritlive, viewing pics shared in flickr — and was literally swimming in resources, discussions, perspective, and ideas. As a learner, I found myself “in the zone” or in a state of “flow.”

I “sat in on” three sessions over the course of the day – a couple of hours of content that continued to push and challenge my thinking as I spent subsequent hours making meaning with and exploring what I learned. Robust. I have many, many questions (some that I hope you can help me consider and others that I’m hoping my continued “participation” in the fuller conference this week – while in Maine this time – will begin to explore).

I want my students to be engaged in interest-driven, participatory learning. I want them “immersed” and swimming with the same giddiness and flow that I was feeling. Was my learning a result of the combination of my specific network (of experts), the tools which brought content and the dialogue which wrapped around it straight to me, and the questions/goals that I brought to the interaction — or was it something else? How do I use that experience to inform my pedagogy? What kinds of scaffolds do kids need to be able to move through the multiple data streams (or do they need them at all)? And, the question I’m mulling over now… was I engaging in new literacy practices or simply using familiar literacy practices within a different learning space?

One thing IS certain. I’ll be following closely over the days to come…

Where I’ve been – and a possible shift in where I’m going…

I am a tenure-track assistant professor four years out of my doctoral program (and two years into my current appointment).  What that means is that I often feel split right down the middle when it comes to the writing I want to do vs. the writing that “counts.”   And, my absence from my blog writing has much to do with this – as time spent blogging is time apart from data sets and writing publications that stand a chance of getting cited in other spaces, etc.   My reviewers offer steady feedback that my “academic writing” is strong, but that pulling away from practitioner pieces (and talks) would demonstrate “more commitment to impact (again as measured by the values of the university).”

Sitting in my blog reader this morning was the echo/push that I needed to re-see and possibly affirm my thinking.  I’ve been a hungry reader of danah boyd’s work for several years.  Today’s post to her blog emerged from a talk she presented at last week’s CHI 2009 conference.  In reflecting on what it means for research to have “impact,” she offers:

While it’s easy to argue that publishing at the top journal or conference is the best way to keep an academic job, can we honestly say that publishing in these venues is the best way to have impact? Especially when these articles are locked down and made hard to access?  In my area of research, I would argue that the answer is no… my research has immediately implications and applications. I want to be in conversation with scholars, to be informed by academic thinking and critique, but I also want my research to get into the hands of those who can put it to use.  In my case, that means getting my research out to parents, educators, policy makers, technology developers, and youth, groups who would never think to turn to [a research conference] to learn something. The “impact” of my work cannot be measured by citations or “best paper” awards…. My goal as a researcher is to get my work into the hands of all who find it relevant.
Gutsy, smart, spot-on ideas.

So, in using this as a lens through which to think about my own work, I immediately put pen to paper, writing for a good hour on how I defined impact and what it was I wanted my work to accomplish.  (Why I did so on paper and not within the blog is another post all together.)

Yes, I work in a system that values a certain kind of publishing – and I knew that going into this job.  And, yes, I expected “push-back” when it came to the degree to which I write for teachers.  But, the reality is that my audience doesn’t turn to a journal on research in teacher education to learn.  So, to use danah’s frame, the impact of my work is measured less by citation count than by shifts in teachers’ pedagogy and, perhaps more importantly, the engagement, motivation, and learning of each student in their classrooms.

So, the question emerges… Could a blog be useful in disseminating research findings?  (Or, bigger, can a blog that is mostly public be a space for the meaning making that happens prior to drafting a manuscript?)  What social media are useful in getting my research into the hands of the teachers, parents, administrators, tech coordinators, media/library folks, etc. who need it?  And, is moving down this path generative?

An invitation…

Eleven preservice secondary English teachers in my methods I course here at Virginia Tech will be Ustreaming their end-of-semester 5 minute micropresentation/Pecha Kuchas on Monday at 5:15 ET.

This is a risk for them – and I am certain that they expect no one outside of our immediate class community to be interested in what they have to say about teaching, learning, students, etc.  Can you help me prove them wrong?

Five Minutes…

We do a lot of reading.  That said, there are some folks’ ideas and blog updates that regularly push the boundaries on my thinking.  Chalk up another one for Darren Kuropatwa, Clarence Fisher and friends…

The smart folks at ManACE gathered a lineup of eight presentations (offered by Darren, Clarence and others who I haven’t met but actively read), asking them to talk for 5 minutes using 20 slides (each for 15 seconds).  The prompt – “Awakening Possibilities: Five Minutes to Make a Difference.” I’ve been watching the archived ustream of these talks – struck by the impact that an innovator can have in a brief, packed period of time – and inspired by the potential that this same prompt/task/frame could have in teacher education.

So, a bit of a risk (one that will either play out nicely – or which will crash and burn) – preservice teachers who are closing out their field experiences this month (observation/mirror teaching this term with student teaching next semester) typically write a paper reflecting on the “take-aways” from the semester and forecasting how those ideas will inform their practice in the spring.   The new plan?  Recast (and perhaps disrupt?) the task along the lines of the five minute frame… We’ll include these along with other work in our site within the VT site in iTunesU.  I’m curious about how this will impact breadth and depth of thinking, and how/if students leverage the multimodal writing to communicate/amplify their ideas…  And, in the spirit of modeling the practice that I expect them to carry into the field, I’m compiling one as well.

I’m finding it to be a ridiculously challenging task – in part because I’m never good with a time limit – and because the brevity creates a new issue — meaningfully communicate without becoming a sound-byte.  Luckily, I’m relying on images to do some of the narrative work – but that will only get you so far…

How would you use your five minutes?

NCTE 2008 – thinking about “shifts”…

In many ways, I’m adding to a conversation post-NCTE 2008 (see Bud, Troy, Brendan and others) — but my thoughts are still fresh and new as I wanted to take some of the “break” to move from saturation/incubation to having something coherent to say and explore.

From the inception, I think that the theme to this year’s convention was risky — moving from the gentle “nudges” present in previous years to a full-fledged shove into a vision of what the 21st century English classroom could/should/might offer.  Like many first “shots,” there were some new ideas/features to the overall convention that worked – but require some revision before a second attempt.  The tech-to-go kiosks were certainly in this category.  They were an experiment – and one that carried some risk despite the really talented line-up of folks who were facilitating dialogues and “manning” the stations.  It would be significantly less than honest for me to say that I was happy with the space we were given, the set-up, etc. – but I am completely honest in saying that I sincerely hope that what we proved/established was the absolute need for a playground of sorts where teachers come to explore new ideas, ask questions in a “safe” environment, follow-up on an idea heard in a session that tripped their thinking about their teaching – and which necessitated real-time professional development, etc.   And, we need smart, smart people pushing our thinking…

I’m still a little unsure about where NCTE takes this next.  Two years of conventions have paid close attention to new literacies, new pedagogies, etc. – and we’ve seen position statements and research briefs result out of the agendas/platforms anchoring each year.  And, despite this, I’m still hesitant.  There is an “us and them” thinking that seems to emerge from a close read of next year’s proposal that gives me a little pause…  Others will likely have more insights on this – and I look forward to seeing that conversation emerge as we all make meaning out of the convention…

Two big ideas that I’m mulling over right now…

1.  There were two teachers who returned to the tech-to-go sessions for all but two of the sessions – Gale and Cathy, both 10th grade English teachers from Florida.  I overheard their conversation in the hall as they left on Sunday morning, both wanting to stay longer but recognizing that this was ultimately the final “installment” of new topics in the kiosks.  I smiled at the idea – but was seized by where their conversation turned — hinging around the question “but do our students know enough about the technology to do this?”

As much as I wanted to pounce, I pulled back and listened (close proximity provided by a crowded escalator, and long, narrow hallways) as two teachers (who were neither born digital nor living particularly digital lives) came to a big realization — that they had stopped listening to their students’ talk about the literacies that they were bringing into the classroom because the language used about those practices was foreign, unfamiliar, and not “academic.”  And, as teachers, their first goal when they got back to school after the holiday was to listen differently – and to use what they learned from that to drive their teaching in the upcoming term.   (Wow.)

2. Two speakers “riffing” a bit during a presentation on 21st century skills and the young “digital native teachers” who had just been hired into their high school English department… As they described the young teachers’ skills, interests and early teaching, one of the two speakers paused, thought, smiled and shared (clearly thinking this for the first time) – “I think that there is as much difference within this generation of millenial or digital teachers as their is between their generation and mine.”  The room was quiet with nodding – nodding that was marked by thinking as opposed to nodding out of habit or kindness.  (It was infectious to witness a “shifting” in perspective — and to participate in the resulting dialogue of the implications for teachers and students in that school.  Made me REALLY wish we were ustreaming that session…)

3.  An outburst during the middle mosaic – “I’d never imagined that!” (when we too-quickly discussed ways of pulling together the best of our pedagogy and the unique literacies our students bring into the classroom).  Sounded a bit like a “eureka” mixed with the fatigue of Saturday afternoon at a convention – and the bit of “drag” and questioning that comes when we try to fit ideas into the box of the school year as it has already been defined.   (I’ve written that out onto a sticky-note and afixed it to my monitor to make sure I keep hearing – and voicing it.  To me, that comment wasn’t about the technology or learning about new literacies.  It was about what pulls us to spaces like conferences where we work together to make meaning from what happens in our classrooms – and from which we draw new energies for what might come next.)

As always seems to be the case for me, I’m at a place where I have much more thinking to do about what I saw, heard, experienced, and learned this year.   I have a collection of notes scrawled on corners of pages, tattered napkins with ideas that made sense at the time but require some decoding at this point, and bookmarks galore ripe for exploration and thinking. Regardless of where the dialogue in NCTE “shifts” next, I think that the conversation starts on a new age.  I’m impatient for that… (And, different from where I might have been in other years, I don’t think I’m alone.)

But, they are supposed to be digital natives… aren’t they?

I’m collaboratively teaching a pilot course this semester that brings together preservice English, social studies and music education students — all centered around the study of digital humanities, web 2.0 tools, and conducting action research during the student teaching semester from which our folks can actually walk away and say “here was the instructional value added” of teaching in the ways we’re trying to model in the class.

All of this was predicated from the notion that our students (ages 20 – 24) were coming to us with skills/talents/interests that map into their role as “players” in a generation that has always known a digital world.

This started to get disrupted a bit as we examined their early thinking about learning 2.0 and digital technologies, but as it was the first day of class, we pushed on.  First reading for the course – Born Digital (a really compelling, new read that most of the students were talking about as they entered the classroom – always a good sign).  First task for the second day of the course – using a flip video camera, interview one another (approximately 2-5 minutes, depending on the direction and track of the conversation) in pursuit of the question “Are you a digital native?”

20 students in the course.  On the first day of class, we’d asked the same question using pollanywhere – 38% yes, 33% no, 29% A What???  On this second day, 20 students in the course (each who had done some signifcant reading and had experienced activities during the first day which were designed to really rattle their thinking) – 18 no, 2 yes.

Where this was striking to me, more compelling were their comments…

“A characteristic of the digital native – they are somewhat less original than others as ideas are so quickly distributed.  I don’t want to be that.  I am transitioning into this culture but I remember and miss life before technology.”

“I am not a digital native.  Computers aren’t my thing.  I reject that whole scene.  Technology doesn’t come naturally to me… I think deeply across one source.  Digital natives read on the surface and mix across sources.”

“I collect beta tapes.  Now, you get a cell phone in elementary school.  Big gap there.  I don’t consider myself to be in that.”

“You’re talking about someone who can adapt what they know about technology and move that into what is new.  I’m kind of up to date at this moment, but there is too much new stuff to say that. I’m not that flexible.”

“My life is online with facebook, photos… But, that is me the person, not me the teacher.”

“I resist being up to date.  Maybe it is this generation, but I’m not.”

“I’ve never done what I see in this class – blogs, wikis, ipods.  So, if I thought I knew something, that has shifted.”

“My parents are more digital natives than I am.  They send me picture messages with sound, and I have no idea how they did that.”

“I don’t know how to use an ipod.  I don’t have a digital camera.  I email.  That shuts me out of that, right?”

“We’re all behind.”

“Maybe I’m a digital adolescent.  I can figure it out, but I’m not immersed in it – and don’t go there first… or even second.  I check my email… other than that… umm…”

“I might be.  I use the cell phone to get money from Mom and Dad.  But I have no idea what a flip, a meno, a kindle is.”

“I’ve thought about this a lot.  I am one.  I’m not as savvy as I’d like, but I like to know what is going on.  I’ll give it a couple of hours – or all day and all night.  That’s play.  I’m a multi-tasker who isn’t afraid of change.”

Where am I going with all this (keeping in mind that I have so much more unpacking and thinking to go)?  We have a growing body of literature in the field of education that argues that THIS GENERATION OF TEACHERS will be the ones to really move student learning through their unique grasp of new literacies and technology.  Not only do my students here (at a highly technical university) not have the schema of what this looks like in terms of their teaching – they also are not engaging in the kinds of practices that are generalized to be happening across their generation.

As seems to be usual, I’m left with more questions than answers as I think this through… Are my students unique?  Were the researchers who forecasted this large shift in the pedagogy, practice and literacies of young teachers just wrong?   After all, aren’t these preservice teachers/students supposed to be digital natives?

The “terms” by which we define ourselves…

When I first started teaching differently through the use of technology and new literacies in the English classroom, it wasn’t pretty. I made a lot of mistakes, most of which served as entertainment for the tech-savvy students in my classes. Elliott, one of the more talented – and perhaps surly, students in the group that first semester, worked with me before school, during lunch, after school – all moments where he feverishly sought to “teach the teacher” (with great glee and delight). At the end of the school year (while I was nowhere near a place where I’d made meaning out of all we’d experienced together, he left a sign for me on my window-sill, reading “techie” – a term I’d teasingly called him and a gift that I valued more than I do my diplomas.

I’ve kept that sign hanging in my classrooms and offices since.

Last week, a graduate student in the program I run stepped into my office, read that sign and offered, “what a cool sign! You are a teach-ie, aren’t you?”

I looked up, surprised by his misread – and halfway wondering if it was deliberate. And, as it popped around in my brain for a minute, I realized that I liked this way of reading the sign much better. Techie infers technology junkie who always has the newest and greatest tool/gadget (which likely fits me as I write this using a MacBook Air with an iPhone sitting to the right of it and Tweetdeck in the background so I’m still “in touch”). “Teach-ie” communicates the kind of critical inquiry, questioning and thinking that I think marks my new work. The “teach-ie” in me wants to push against boundaries and work harder to really see the ways kids come to us multiply literate — and to find ways that we can all communicate, navigate and work smarter amidst the rapid change around us. The “teach-ie” is also constantly learning, keeping up with the smart thinkers in my network, lurking over their shoulders by sharing links through tools like delicious, and sharing back through my participation in ning communities and other virtual spaces. I learned how to be a “teach-ie” by watching the practices of my teachie heros (Joyce, WIll, Darren, Clarence, Ewan, Bud and so many others).

So, a question that I’m “kicking around” – what is a better term for what we really do?

Raw thoughts on “change”…

As much as I’ve been mulling over some “draft” blog posts over the past week or so, the ideas I am compelled to share in this post are a little more “raw.”

In a training this morning, speakers shared state-level criteria for teacher evaluation. As I was giving it a quick scan for literacy-related content (and an eye on what I need to be moving into my methods courses so preservice teachers incorporate these behaviors like breathing…), the “technology-related” criteria rose up to meet my eye – “the teacher uses comprehensive materials, technology and resources that promote the development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills.” One reference out of 20 criteria – and it is a little bit hidden, lumped in with materials that could range from “silver-bullet,”packaged software tools, textbook resources, and anything that fits in the category of “resource.”

In mulling this over, I’m thinking that this language and framing functions as a deterrent to the kinds of new literacies teaching and thinking that I want my preservice teachers to value, know and practice (let alone what happens with the practicing teachers that I work with almost daily). If technology is limited to the “stuff” we use in the classroom, we aren’t really thinking about literacy or learning.

There is such a huge opportunity in the crafting of these documents to talk about technology in a really different way. What I’m not sure of – do we call this out by writing about new literacies? Do we call it out by seeding ideas about inquiry, authentic assessment, participation in global communities, rigor and relevance in teaching? Or, do we find a way to talk about learning 2.0 that is more “in your face” in the same way that these documents speak about rapport or assessment instruments? How do we change the language in the “echo chamber?” Is it about the volume of your ideas – or the language you use? Or, is it bigger?

Some of my colleagues argue that standards documents and policy documents don’t matter when it comes to the every-day in a school. I’m not sure I see how that argument holds weight – as the guidelines I am evaluated by as a teacher play a really significant role in how I think about my teaching and how I document what happens with student learning. Why change/grow/develop if it isn’t reflected in the criteria by which I am evaluated?

Another stream of thought – who is it that writes these documents, anyway? (Or, do I hold different expectations given the process – and involvement – that lots of us had in crafting the ISTE NETS)

Are you listening to this?… Why, yes. I am. But, are you?

I have spent the past two days immersed in BLC ‘08, asking questions of my practice and thinking, collaborating with others, and challenging thinking (that, like all discourse really tested me to realize what I know, believe, and enact). It has been a brilliant experience, and one I will likely continue to unpack for weeks to come.

That said, in this moment, having recently departed a single, 52 minute session that worked to dismantle much of the “glow” I was feeling from engaging with so many smart ideas, I feel provoked. Not mindful. Not patiently reflective. Blatantly PROVOKED.

Sitting in on Marc Prensky’s session discussing teaching programming, I came eager to hear ideas that would complicate my thinking, full well knowing that, like all sessions at an educational conference, not everything would resonate – but that I always have something to learn. Minutes into the talk, I found myself feeling uncomfortable as the heads in the room nodded in agreement with ideas that made me shift in my seat – that we needed to consider the relative merits of not teaching reading and writing given the power of technologies that can be programmed to do that kind of work for students. On screen, Marc used an image of a shooting gun – paired with “popping” audio – to call attention to his point that “things requiring reading and writing need to be shot down.” And, we were also told that “some teachers hate when I say this.”

Gulp.

The room nodded. And, a participant from my session yesterday on engaging reluctant readers with new literacy driven practices, turned to me, pointed to Marc, and mouthed the words, “Are you listening to this?”

Gulp again.

Yes, I was listening. But, were those who were nodding their heads?

There are myriad answers that I have to counter the ideas that I heard expressed in the session – but I find myself centering on the reasons that I teach. As an English teacher, it is my job to help students gain access to the literacies of power. As I listened to Marc, my mind cycled through what I believe – literacy is situated, contextual, social, multiple, active and a component of identity. New literacies don’t replace former literacies. This isn’t a situation of either “new literacies” or “old literacies.” (or worse, “new” vs. “old”) And, most importantly – I was hearing the critical theorists who I studied as a preservice teacher – thinking that “literary” texts are often laden with values that lead to oppressive material conditions that keep us socially divided. I teach students how to work as readers who interrogate these texts, who work to read the word so as to really read the world.

As an English teacher, I am not sitting in a dusty corner of a room, huddled up with an antiquated book and asking students to practice close reading. Teaching English is about opening up what counts as valued communication, inviting ALL students to engage in multimodal discourses, and to put their knowledge to work. We produce and consume media; expertise means leveraging tools and spaces in intentional, productive ways; and we participate in global communities that are keenly, deeply invested. English teachers likely DO bristle up when Marc speaks about “shooting down reading and writing.” He has really missed the point and, in very real ways, moved into a dangerous place.

Our students need us to do more than nod. We need to think. Deeply. I have been moved to do that by Ewan McIntosh who spoke yesterday about the power of divergent thinking and ways that new literacies and emerging technologies lead “the barely motivated to become activists.” I have been moved to do that by John Davitt who talked about the importance of balance across literacies by providing opportunities for students to demonstrate their knowledge through multiple modes – and to engage, where possible, with “struggleware.” I have been moved to do that by Darren Kuropatwa who showed me what it meant to be transparent when teaching – and to empower students to teach and attain a whole new level of credibility. If I teach in the ways that they inspire me to consider, I am empowering students to engage with literacies that value the ways that they are multiply literate — and to
have access to the academic literacies that provide an additional degree of “access.” They challenge me to be a gateopener, rather than a gatekeeper.

I needed to write today because this is too important to just let go. I feel the need to get loud. Blogging is a bit more “raw” than the writing I typically do – in part because I am writing to learn, to reflect, and hopefully engage with those who read and want to join in the dialogue. It has a bit of risk to it – but it is deeply honest (and, with any luck, the most “heard” writing that I’ve done).

So, yes, I am listening. But, were you?