For Review: K-12 Online Conference Proposal, Effective Criticism in 21st Century Education Technology
As per Wesley Fryer’s comment, I’ve put together a proposal for the K12 Online Conference, 2008.
The topic is ‘Effective Criticism in 21st Century Education Technology’ and draws on both past analysis and the excellent dialog re: NECC 2008.
Before submitting, I’d like to get some feedback on this proposal from those who participated in NECC, are actively involved in K-12 new media and/or take an interest, public or private, in education technology.
I look forward to your comments, and thanks in advance. For reference, please see the proposal guidelines.
1. What is your first and last name?
Matthew K. Tabor
2. What is your email address?
3. What is your website or blog address, if you have one?
4. In what city, state, and country do you live?
Cooperstown, New York, USA
5. Please share a short bio about yourself and your role as it relates to your presentation topic.
Matthew’s background includes work in higher education, executive recruiting, consulting and government. He consults on graduate/professional school admissions, academic media and educates privately. He writes out of Cooperstown, New York.
6. For which strand are you submitting this proposal?
‘Kicking It Up a Notch’
7. What is the title of your proposed session?
‘Effective Criticism in 21st Century Education Technology’
8. In less than 250 words, please describe what you plan to share and do in your presentation. Clarify how you plan to produce your presentation (podcast, screencast, video, PPT, etc.) Remember, your presentation must be submitted in a downloadable and convertable file format, and have a length of 20 minutes or less. Please refer to the online call for proposals for additional requirements.
With Web 2.0 technologies and digital media comes criticism – the good, the bad and the ugly. Ed-tech professionals face a host of challenges: convincing peers that new ventures have unique value; selling communities on the benefits of fiscal obligations; combating centuries of education practice and theory, etc. Education technology professionals, in short, are steering a ship into uncharted waters, and they must take care not to make its passengers seasick, or worse – tipping it altogether.
Such a complex undertaking necessitates a new approach to criticism – an authentic, honest approach that addresses proactively the challenges, both conceptual and factual, to education technology programs. I plan to explore how bloggers, podcasters and other practitioners of new media can seek out and make use of the criticism of peers and the community at large to add value to their programs.
I will present an audio podcast that draws upon relevant examples of criticism in education media – what works, what doesn’t, and how education technology professionals can develop an outgoing, forward-thinking regimen for criticism and eliminate the worry and weight from even the most brash analysis. I will include some personal criticism - some that I have given, some that I have received - and examples from various education professionals [anonymity and/or consent of the authors will be required] so that we all might benefit from our diverse experiences.
9. Goals.
Purpose: To re-evaluate the role of criticism in education technology; to present an honest examination of everyday assessment.
Goals: To encourage K-12 new media authors and education technology professionals to re-examine attitudes toward criticism and embrace the benefits of criticism/analysis from a host of constituencies.
Objectives: To provide a brief summary of the role of public criticism in education; to discuss strategies for drawing upon the talents and offerings of various stakeholders in K-12 education; to examine strategies for coping with and utilizing public criticism.
Outcomes: Listeners will come away with a solid reflection on the role of public criticism in their own professional and personal capacities in K-12 education; they will be equipped with new strategies for inviting and channeling criticism so that it works for, rather than against, themselves and their projects..
10 Justification.
An important part of ‘Kicking it up a notch’ is developing the resilience necessary to withstand serious challenges from both the inside and outside, as well as utilizing strategies to take the bane of many professionals’ existence - criticism - and re-channel it into a feedback system that, over time, increases the value of the offering and the impact of the individual. Too often the perspectives of those outside the K-12 establishment are avoided; rather than marginalize those stakeholders, we must discuss approaches that encompass their feedback and make use of their insight.
As we amplify our efforts, so do our critics - and the result can be either a symphony or cacophony. It is necessary to examine the complex relationships between the differing visions of K-12 education - the administrator’s, the teacher’s, the student’s, the parent’s, the taxpayer’s, those of boards of education - and the common ground shared by all those stakeholders. With the proliferation of Web 2.0 and technology use in classrooms, friction increasingly develops between these players; the effect of our ‘amplified possibilities’ rests on our ability to make use of those challenges.
12. Full Disclosure.
Nothing to disclose.
13 Responses to “For Review: K-12 Online Conference Proposal, Effective Criticism in 21st Century Education Technology”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- A Bit More Education Techno-Twaddle; Why I Avoid NECC, 2008 Edition at Education for the Aughts - American School Issues and Analysis - [...] For Review: K-12 Online Conference Proposal, Effective Criticism in 21st Century Education Technolog...Survey: Would you be interested in an ...
- NECC and EdTech Apologetics and Discussing EdTech Stereotypes at Education for the Aughts - American School Issues and Analysis - [...] A Bit More Education Techno-Twaddle; Why I Avoid NECC, 2008 EditionThe Apocalypse is Nigh - Stager on Twitter, Flickr ...
- K12 Online Conference Proposal: Denied at Education for the Aughts - American School Issues and Analysis - [...] EdTech Apologetics and Discussing EdTech StereotypesFor Review: K-12 Online Conference Proposal, Effective Criticism in 21st Century Education Technolog...A Bit ...
Matt,
Pardon me for getting off your post’s topic, but you have always shown genuine concern so I want you to be aware of my current series of posts at: http://es-kay.net
This is the comment I have placed on some blogs:
I received quite a rude awakening today. I would have never thought my desire to be a teacher would one day lead to me potentially serving five years in a state penitentiary for felony child abuse. That is exactly where I found myself today (see http://es-kay.net/?p=379) due to my choice to take a summer position as an aide for special education students. I was making eight dollars per hour (one-third my normal salary) trying to prevent mentally handicapped students from hurting themselves or others.
For someone who never got in trouble in the twelve years of my public education, who didn’t know what being suspended meant, I got the scare of a lifetime today. The ease with which I was accused and the conditions that led to it make me question my decision to be a teacher. My idealistic notions of teaching are being shattered and the pedestal I placed the teaching profession on is crumbling before my very eyes.
Matthew
Very interesting topic. I wonder what you think of the following suggestions:
1. A greater emphasis on seeking criticism. What you have said comes over as a bit too reactive rather than proactive
2. Judging when NOT to respond to criticism. For example, I tend not to respond when the criticism is made anonymously, or when it’s simply a personal attack. For example, when someone commented on one of my blog posts, “You sir are an idiot” [sic], my only response was to say that I’d published it because it perfectly illustrated the point I was trying to make. I didn’t see any purpose in engaging with the commenter, because he had already established that he was not interested in reasoned argument by insulting me on a personal level.
3. Good to include real-world examples. How about running a survey and citing from a wider range of examples?
Hope that helps
Terry
Goader,
No need to apologize - I’m glad that you drew our attention to your post. I’m interested to see how your union responds/supports you. I feel badly that you have to go through this - no one should have to - but I know you’re resilient enough, and have such a deep commitment to professionalism, to endure.
Terry,
Thanks for the comments - it’s good to hear from you again.
1. Your point about seeming reactionary rather than seeking criticism is precisely why I wanted to make this proposal public. My intention here is to take a brief look at reactionary criticism and then address strategies to seek it out. I may have, as you said, come across too much on the reactionary side… which is obviously exactly the opposite of what I wanted. Time to re-read and revise…
2. I’m struggling a bit with the ‘not responding to criticism’ element. It is a hugely important issue, and to be frank, it’s a decision that can make or break our efforts. I’m not sure how much depth I could bring to that area considering there’s a 20-minute limit. I think that it could be factored in to a slight degree - some simple, solid rules, for example - so that it might be addressed more fully in a followup session.
3. A survey would be a great idea, and if the proposal is accepted, there will be enough time to collect. I’ve saved a ton of examples for about a year now, but that’s only coming from about .00001% of the education blogosphere.
These comments definitely helped - I hope more people will help work out the kinks.
Matthew
1. I think it’s a matter of a change of emphasis slightly rather than a revision as such.
2. If you develop a set of “rules”, you could make them available on an accompanying pdf or a blog post, and just refer to them in the podcast.
Terry,
1. Agreed - I’ll revise to change the focus slightly.
2. That’s a good idea, additional media that could go more in-depth into things that won’t fit or are fringe issues.
I really like it, Matthew.
There are far too few critics in this venue/field and I think we’re at a point in time where additional constructive criticism (or learning how to do it appropriately) would greatly help members of our growing, online community.
I wonder, however, if your focus is actually valid: “With Web 2.0 technologies and digital media comes criticism – the good, the bad and the ugly.” It just seems that so many have accepted Web 2.0 without a critical eye. We need folks like you to keep us honest.
I wonder, however, if others would welcome your differing viewpoint. I recently mourned the fact that both Ryan Bretag and Gary Stager publicly mentioned how they didn’t feel that their viewpoints would be welcome at an event like EduBloggerCon.
Without honest, constructive criticism, we will never grow to our full potential.
Best of luck,
DD
Darren,
Thanks for the comments - I think that an honest skepticism [not trashing tech. for the sake of giving everyone a hard time, obviously] could play a larger role in ed-tech. I think that everyone would benefit tremendously from it.
I’m less familiar with Ryan Bretag’s work [I'll check it out shortly], but I did read Gary’s comments. He’s long been in the minority on some Web 2.0 initiatives [I largely agree with his views in that sphere] and at a certain point it seems useless when you’re outnumbered a billion to one. I think that the ed-tech community should take greater note of dissent - the Bretags and the Stagers should be sought out rather than ignored.
And that’s a large part of what I’m proposing here - being proactive about criticism, skepticism and analysis, making it an important part of every ed-tech’s regimen. Certainly a few will pop up who are stirring the pot just for the sake of it, but those folks are quickly [and rightly] ignored when their arguments lack merit. The genuine dissent will reap rewards for all.
As for being welcomed, there’s certainly been plenty of resistance for me - intimations that I wrote posts for Technorati rankings, that I’m out to bring down the ed-tech social order, etc. Bretag and Stager are likely right, but if we commit to honest analysis, we’ll see benefits in both the long and short runs.
Healthy scepticism. Whenever I hear about a new tool or a new practice, I always ask a question consisting of just two words: “So what?”
At the end of the day, if it doesn’t lead to (a) an improvement in X, and (b) a greater improvement in X than could have been achieved at a lower cost (however measured) then it has too little value to be entertained any further.
> I think that the ed-tech community should take greater note of dissent - the Bretags and the Stagers should be sought out rather than ignored.
I couldn’t agree more.
Critical thinking about what we’re doing will do far more to benefit our practice and thinking than surrounding ourselves with like-minded yes-men.
As far as Bretag’s work goes, check out this post first - I think it will resonate with your line of thinking.
Terry and Darren,
Since your comments address similar points, I thought I’d hit them in one shot. I’d say ‘kill two birds with one stone,’ but the last thing I need is PETA on my case.
There are plenty of ed-tech’ers who would be at a loss for words if they were faced with an on-the-spot question of, “So what?” Many of those who would have a response would weigh it down with eduspeak that dances around the real issue.
That’s the reality of much of ed-tech, and it comes from two sources, in my opinion:
1. Not having been exposed to strong, relevant professional criticism that prepares ed-tech’ers for answering the question;
2. Deviating from that mindset of healthy skepticism that encompasses Terry’s a) and b), as well as Darren’s more general point about critical thinking.
When guys like Bretag have to plead for such basic things as proper criticism before adoption/evangelism, we need to recognize that the sector could use a robust change in attitude - and anyone concerned about education, technology, or where the two meet should be strong advocates of this professional criticism.
You need to mention lots of times how you have read “The World is Flat”. ;-)
I think what education needs more of is healthy, constructive criticism. We’re getting too lax about doing everything the same. old. way. every. time. If no one challenges our thinking, then how can we grow as educators?
Your proposal, and the constructive feedback you’ve received from fellow bloggers, is great. I hope you will press forward with this.
I also love the LOLCats picture. ;-)
The progression of the education system starting with the basic K-12 system then progressing through post-secondary education. K-14 refers to K-12 plus 2 years of post-secondary where training was received from vocational technical institutions or comminuty or junior colleges. The K numbers refer to the years of educational attainment and continues to progress upward accordingly depending on the degree being sought…..,
http://calaguastourpackage.comEnjoy your day