Me: I thought of you and had to pass this critique of cable news channels. I agree
with a lot of the notions here.

Him: Same could be said of the Congress and the administration.
He is guilty of the same things just by writing this blog.

Here is my reply to that last reply:

I agree to a point. But I can’t truly contact Congress, CNN, etc. directly enough and in a timely and sufficient manner that might be necessary for my real understanding. I’m not against mainstream media, it serves a purpose for keeping me (among other demographics) up-to-date, but so does Google News (check it out, it’s rich), Twitter (for reasons other than “what others are doing”), Facebook (for shared news from friends and family), Google Reader (where I can subscribe to ideas, news and people of interest) among other avenues to those generating news.

I think the difference is that readers and writers can directly interact, in a more timely and sufficient manner, with Godin and others interested in the topic through comments on his site, their own online writing, videos and more.  Granted that while most are not experts, the collective conversation (through a variety of online and offline resources) can lead to a better understanding of the news topic at hand. I’ll also say that the opposite can be true as well.

What I’m getting at is that if I want to dive deeper and really wrestle with a news topic, it’s necessary that I take in multiple perspectives to construct my own understanding.  Cable news channels have budgets to meet, revenue to generate and investors with deep pockets to please and that is a formula that is dangerous for open information and communication.

This isn’t meant to be an argument at all, but a window into my thoughts.  It’s such an interesting time to live in right now. It’s interesting to think about how much I’ve learn and grown professionally over the past 4.5 years through a combination of social and mainstream media. I think a mix of both is what I’m getting at. I tend to be heavier on the social media side because I can subscribe to it and read it anytime, anywhere. In addition a lot my work has been social media-based.

In the end, it just might be that I really dislike commercials.

Let’s see what transpires…

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/11th_grade.png

We are told repeatedly – most recently by President Obama – that we should watch out what we put in Facebook, because future employers may be looking. My own advice – that we should refrain from actually doing stupid things – doesn’t get any airplay; people are far more concerned about the recording of stupid things than the doing of them.

There’s more on this in Alan Levine’s Falsebook post. But my point here is this… focus on the problem, not the picture of the problem.

facebook,

Ben’s post includes an experience at a technology conference where he heard the confusion first hand from teachers wondering what the heck Web 2.0 is and means.  He includes a suggestion:

If we used terminology that is exponentially more clear from the outset, such as “Interactive Web” or “Social Learning Web”, we would effectively make more headway and likely allow more students access to these experiences in their everyday learning opportunities.

I’ve written before about how I’m trying not to use the term.  Since then, I’m not convinced of the likelyhood of a shift based on new terms.  Does changing a name change the game? 

What I do find interesting is Sylvia’s take from her That’s hot – Web 2.0 and the empty vessel
post:

So themes like Classroom 2.0 and School 2.0 become a shared idea with no real meaning. They signal that something is changing without anyone having to say exactly what that is. We can all agree that “Classroom 2.0″ is a good thing, because each of us fills that empty vessel with our own idea of what a new version of a classroom looks like.

To me, this says that we all have to internalize, individually, what’s changing today from the perspective of the learning goals of our classrooms.  There is no one recipe for using “Web 2.0″ in or out of classrooms. The most successful sustainable and meaningful models are ones that meet specific goals and evolve into a bit more with continued use and feedback.

I’m frustrated when I hear educators counting the days until students walk out of their classrooms. It seems so contrary to really caring about students, no?

Sasquatch music festival 2009 – Guy starts dance party

When we see movement in any idea or practice, we wonder what it takes to make it happen.  Seth Godin’s Guy #3 post had me wondering how this looks in education.  If a educator has a good thing going by way of a practice, project or attitude towards teaching and learning (that’s ultimately good for students) why shouldn’t more try it?   Too often we think that we either have to be the leader (Oooo… scary) or that we can’t partake in a “movement” because it’s someone else’s territory (insert #1 guy/girl) and we would just be copying.  Seems downright silly, really.

I wonder, how many quality educational ideas and practices fall victim to this train of thought?

Can you think of a time when you were a #3 and helped get the ball rolling on an idea?

What is it that prompts Guy #3 to be that guy?

So, this summer a colleague and I are planning to design a program using PicoCrickets that will allow us some quality learning time with students.  Our initial plan is to take this afterschool program on the road to schools and co-teach with educators in the open, collaborative and creative environment that PicoCricket’s allow.  I’m curious to see how much the educators learn by tinkering with the students and not just instructing them. 

I fully understand and accept our roles as staff developers, but why is
it that we don’t perform that role with a mixed student/teacher
audience more often than not?