The author of the comment may have glanced at the post, but was a bit selective about what to process and what to ignore. My post outlined a few problems with NECC - such as intellectual diversity, for one, as we’re not all Constructivists - and then I engaged over 25 commenters in meaningful discussion [that's still ongoing].
I received even more e-mails than comments, with about half saying specifically that they wanted the discussion to be private/anonymous/etc. I published my post on Wednesday evening and immediately e-mails/comments poured in. I spent the next 8 hours - until about 3am that night - responding to them both.
That, the sustained discussion and the conference proposal should demonstrate a bit of sincerity here. No idle complaining, just a commitment to improving an important sector in education.
Many of us get a lot out of the conference, however, after reading that you’re not very interested in k12,
I haven’t a clue where this comes from. In the last year I’ve written nearly 200,000 words about K-12 education, and I put more time into K-12 education than anything I actually get paid to do.
I don’t know that necc is the best use of your time.
I have received quite a few of these gentle suggestions over the last few days.
You just seemed very very defensive and negative about necc.
I’d loved to have written volumes of effusive praise for NECC, but honest analysis of the situation didn’t call for it - and plenty of others wrote about their positive experiences and the value they derived from the conference. And though some winced at my post, turning a blind eye would have been infinitely more damaging.
Also, know that you are a persuasive writer and that you DO have an influence on others.
Thank you - that’s precisely why I engaged the ed-tech community in this discussion.
You have the right to your opinion, but the many of us who have to scrimp and save to go to NECC (it is not in the budget of my school) don’t appreciate you lumping us all in together and stereotyping us all. You really talked down to the “lot” of us in your post basically making us feel like idiots.
The author of this comment, and the education technology community as a whole, can decide both how to feel and how/if they would like to respond to my call for dialogue. There has been tremendous variation in reactions.
So, have your opinion, and that is fine, however, respect those of us that disagree.
I do, and I have engaged those with whom I disagree as much as possible. That engagement is a sign of respect for opinions and those who hold them. That respect hasn’t always gone both ways, but such is life.
It is your right to do as you wish but stereotyping is ALWAYS hurtful. And you basically said you didn’t want to go b/c of the people that would be there — that is me and some other people I think are great.
The commenter couldn’t be more wrong about stereotypes. They aren’t always hurtful.
First, I hasten to point out that it’s a bit difficult to write about an event attended by 17,000 people [does that include vendors?] without making a few generalizations. Strike that - it’s impossible. Any group that large will have its share of the helpful, the harmful, and everything in between, and I’m not about to break down into dozens of subgroups to inject the utmost fairness into the debate. Reality and common sense occasionally dictate constraints.
More importantly, the education technology sector, in my opinion, can be stereotyped effectively. Here are a few sweeping generalizations that I’m comfortable making:
EdTech folks are decent people. My interactions with education technology practitioners have been more pleasant than with any other sector in education - hands down. Though I usually disagree with the hows and the whys of their initiatives, those who practice them are well-meaning and thoughtful people. If I wanted to have a beer with any ‘stereotype’ in education, it would be an ed-tech’er.
EdTechs are deeply committed. The professional development undertaken by education technology practitioners is frequent - it occurs on the job and in their personal lives. William Arrowsmith, an education theorist who is underappreciated and underutilized, said that one would expect a classicist to live classically. Those in education technology uphold this tradition of what can be characterized colloquially as practicing what they preach. If the general population of education professionals collectively made 1/10th of this commitment, we’d all be better off.
EdTechs have fun. This is really an offshoot of my first stereotype, but it’s distinctly different. Great attitudes and loads of smiles - that sums up the majority of ed-tech’ers. Whether it’s reading blogs or listening to the joviality in podcasts like EdTechTalk, there’s no question that they’re a fun bunch.
I’ll stop at three - you get the idea. Any sector that can claim these three stereotypes is lucky.
Stereotypes, despite what Reading Rainbow professed, aren’t always bad.
Now, can we get to work? There’s still an open invitation to review and comment on my proposal for the K12 Online Conference. Terry Freedman’s comments were quite helpful, and I’d like to hear from you, too.
Referred to in India as the “ICSE Standard X exam”, the assessment is taken over several days and tests the students’ proficiency in math, chemistry, biology, physics, world history, English literature, English grammar, Hindi or Sanskrit and geography. In a nation as advanced as the United States, shouldn’t American 10th grade graduates be as proficient in these subjects as students in the developing world?
Really, you’ve got to take a few of these tests, or at least skim through them. If you’re an American educator who believes in our academic superiority, it may open your eyes a bit.
I’m not a Doomsday guy, I haven’t given up hope, and I don’t think the end of public education in the United States is nigh. I do, however, think that there are things we can learn from other systems across the world - and the first step is to familiarize ourselves with curricula and practices in India, China, and others so we might compare them to our own.
Here’s the full release for the Third World Challenge - I seldom reproduce things in full on this site, but this one does an exceptional job making the case for why we ought to be looking far and wide… and with open minds.
Are You Smarter Than a Third World Tenth Grader?
Free online challenge exam allows participants to test their knowledge against Indian tenth grade final exams
(ASPEN, Colo. – July 1, 2008) Bob Compton, executive producer of the documentary film Two Million Minutes, announced today the release of the “Third World Challenge” powered by IndianMathOnline.
The Challenge is available to all who are interested, free of charge, and is based on the national tenth grade proficiency exams taken by students in India. It is now available on the Two Million Minutes website at www.2mminutes.com and at www.indianmathonline.com.
The Third World Challenge was developed as a result of the widespread American belief that the academic standards in the U.S. are higher than those in so-called developing countries, such as India and China. An advocate of the need for educational improvement in the U.S., Compton felt individuals should see for themselves how they compare to a global standard of education. “I personally do not consider India or China to be ‘Third World’ countries, because I have been to both countries and have business interests in each,” said Compton. “However, when a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education commented that America has nothing to learn from ‘Third World’ education systems, I just had to create this Challenge.”
Referred to in India as the “ICSE Standard X Exams,” this assessment is taken over several days, testing the students’ proficiency in seven subjects. Four exams are compulsory: English literature and grammar, Hindi or Sanskrit, a combined exam on world history, civics, and geography, and environmental education. Two exams out of nine possible choices are in the area of math, science (chemistry, biology, physics), economics, computer science, agricultural science, etc. Most students aiming for top-tier colleges typically take math and science.
Finally, the student must select one exam of a dozen subject exams ranging from computer applications to performing arts to fashion design to yoga. “To be crystal clear, not every high school offers classes for every subject. With 50% of urban Indian students attending private for-profit schools, there is competition among schools to offer the curricula Indian parents seek – and most Indian parents want rigorous English, math, and science curricula because that gives their child the best shot at a great college,” said Compton.
“There’s a global standard of education out there, and American students are falling further behind that standard every year. That’s dangerous for both the student and for America because the new industries and the best jobs of the 21st century are going to go to the best educated,” said Compton. “So I decided to bring a sample of the ‘global education standards’ to Americans, providing them the opportunity to see first-hand how a “Third World” country measures its students’ academic achievement.”
In most high schools in India, a 10th grade student can pass on to the 11th grade if he or she has proficiency in at least five of the seven subjects on the Standard X Exams. However, the country’s most highly regarded high schools require complete proficiency in all seven subjects before they push on to 11th grade. Most of the exams require writing expository or explanatory essays with very few multiple-choice questions. The Standard X Exam is a pivotal point in students’ lives and is largely indicative of what careers they’ll ultimately be able to pursue. When college graduates in India are interviewing for jobs, they’re often asked to provide their scores on these exams.
“Only a few short years after the completion of 10th grade, American students will be competing for jobs with students from all over the globe,” stated Compton. “It seems only reasonable that in a country as advanced as the United States, our students should be competitive at the 10th grade level with students in the developing world.”
The Third World Challenge is powered by Indian Math Online, which is an online math assessment, learning and practice system centered on the student and monitored by the parent. It is based on Indian national math standards and permits the student to accelerate his or her learning or do remedial work while allowing parents to monitor their child’s progress and quickly identify areas of weakness.
“The Third World Challenge we are offering is a sampling of the actual Standard X Exams which everyone in India, including myself, had to take as a 10th grader,” stated Suresh Murthy, president of Indian Math Online. “It’s about the equivalent of America’s SAT test, only longer with more subjects and in-depth questions and with few multiple choice questions.”
The Third World Challenge offered on the site was made entirely multiple choice so it is simpler to grade and is more objective for Americans. Sanskrit and Hindi are also excluded from the US version.
Please visit www.2mminutes.com or www.indianmathonline.com to take the Challenge. Good luck!
About Two Million Minutes
Titled Two Million Minutes, this documentary film takes an in-depth look at secondary education in the United States as compared with India and China and examines the implications this may have on the U.S. position in the global economy during the 21st century. Two Million Minutes is currently screening across the country. For more information, please visit www.2mminutes.com.
About IndianMathOnline
Indian Math Online is a web-based learning system developed with the principles of mathematics as practiced throughout the Indian education system. These principles include: Start Early, Test Frequently, Practice Continuously, Build Steadily, Involve Parents Actively. By following these steps, children in grades K-12 will learn mathematics in a way that is challenging and proven. Assess, Learn, Practice, and then, Assess again - all based on a solid, stable math standard. That is our simple process for ensuring that children become proficient in the most important language of the 21st century - MATHEMATICS! Please visit www.indianmathonline.com for more information.
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.
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.
*** An offshoot of this discussion is a proposal for the K-12 Online Conference 2008 titled ‘Effective Criticism in 21st Century Education Technology.’ If you have a moment, please take a look at the proposal and offer feed back - your time and expertise are both appreciated. ***
NECC is the National Educational Computing Conference, an annual event put forth by the International Society for Technology in Education at which school-related folks can get together and talk technology.
It’s a big draw for the ed-tech’ers from the US and other parts of the world - particularly Australia, I think.
Back in May, Miguel Guhlin asked if I was going to make it to Texas for NECC [this was when he invented and attributed to me a line about admiring Ann Coulter, then dropped off the face of the earth when I called him on it].
I said not sure, but I probably should have just said, “Nope.” And now that NECC is underway [until July 2], those of us who follow the ed-tech blogs are getting blitzed with NECCness.
Courtesy of Dean Shareski, another wonderful guy in ed-tech with whom I mostly disagree, below is a video of the EduBloggerCon 2008, one of the early events at NECC. Fire up those Macbooks, sit on the floor and talk tech! But before you watch, here are some highlights from the 4-minute video:
Web 2.0 helped raise money for Darfur - and the lacrosse team’s wiki went crazy!
Let’s be “very honest with ourselves… they don’t want us to be able to communicate and connect… much of school is about control”
“Waiting 3 years for it to click.” “What to click?” “It clicked.”
Make note of people video-recording one another. Really, at one point two digital camcorders appear to be pointed at each other.
Obligatory super-dooper-different’n'kool title of “The Real Unconference” with the also-obligatory discussion of professionalism.
It’s an excellent 4-minute summary of why I didn’t go to NECC - and likely won’t next year or the year after.
The EduBloggerCon is a tiny part of NECC - I understand that, as some sessions are more sensible than others - but the sheer lack of intellectual diversity [a statement which will undoubtedly be criticized as inaccurate], the techno-fandom, the 100% Process/0% Content split will keep me away. If I wanted to sit on the floor with a notebook, I’d go to a Halo 3 LAN party. At least those have HotPockets and Mountain Dew.
Time to peep the aforementioned NECC crash course:
So, NECCers, when you’re ready to take a hard look at technology initiatives, technology spending, the necessary limits of technology in a liberal arts education, the folly and incompleteness of 21st Century Learning [or whatever is fashionable at the time], the limits of Web 2.0 and the like, shoot me an e-mail and I’ll register.
Perhaps for NECC 2009, ISTE might entertain a bit more intellectual diversity in its workshops/speakers? Perhaps a few folks who inject realism into the debate?
You can shoot me an e-mail for that, too. I’m kicking myself for not trying to get on the docket for 2008.
A quick roll back to the end of December, when a blog post appeared on a leading ed-tech site and summed up the ed-tech attitude better than the treatises that come daily [as Mr. Downes says correctly, the education blogosphere's favorite topic is the education blogosphere. This is truest, I think, for ed-tech].
A teacher asks a common sense question about Web 2.0 in his art classroom - and it elicits outrage. How dare he question the value of technology?
The response, titled “Enough already.” expressed outrage at the stupidity and ignorance of a teacher who has the gall to ask “Why?”:
I’m thoroughly disgusted by this type of question:
How can an art teacher effectively incorporate technology into the classroom beyond photoshop and powerpoint? Is it even necessary for an art classroom to have all of the technological advancements of the modern age? Artists have been doing alright for hundreds of years without all of the computers, so what is the big deal? Source: Forum - Classroom 2.0 9/12/07 4:01 PM Benjamin Worrell
Technology has changed how we communicate, collaborate, work together. It changes how creative minds feed off each other, increasing the number of connections people are able to make with one another, allowing the spread of ideas and thinking and playing. Imagine what would have happened if The Impressionists-did I mention I hate art?-hadn’t been able to share their ideas with others.
Why do we have to keep asking how technology will change how we approach teaching art or any subject? The fact is, it’s changing how people interact at the most fundamental levels OUTSIDE the classroom…you either use it, or you don’t. If you don’t then what is it about your field that is isolationist, anti-social, and insular? I ask because that’s what you’re choosing to teach.
There…another post about something I know nothing about (ART). Am I way off or what?
Thoroughly disgusted, indeed!
’tis the climate in education technology, folks, and it’s why I don’t go to NECC.
UPDATE at 12.01am EST:
I wanted to reproduce one of my comments below - it touches on one of the themes above.
… I want to talk about the imagery in the unofficial NECC logo [I made certain to include it in the post] and the irony of using that particular imagery. As background:
We’re coming up on the 40th anniversary of the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico. It was at those Olympics that Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists silently to indicate solidarity with the black community and black nationalism:
That image of Smith and Carlos served as the image for the Black Power movement for decades, and it’s still an oft-represented scene. Throw “black power” into Google Images and take a peep:
Whatever one thinks of Smith’s and Carlos’s display, Black Power, nationalism, etc., is a non-issue. We can all agree that the symbolism of the fist in the air - the imagery from which that NECC logo of a fist holding a mouse and citing the ‘revolution’ draws - is one of challenge, resilience and struggle.
And it’s that ‘challenge’ bit that causes the ed-tech’ers to squirm, squeal and cry foul when it comes to them. If education technology wants to be taken seriously locally/nationally/internationally, if it wants to command professional respect, it will seek out and encourage challenges to itself.
That’s a far cry from what we’ve currently got - an echo chamber and lip service to ‘challenge’ that only seems to go one way. When you think about it, the irony of using the Smith/Carlos fist is a stark reminder of where education technology is and where it ought to be.
UPDATE at 12.52am EST:
Since the topic at hand is NECC, I thought I’d re-link to my PLN. They are still all the rage, aren’t they? Anyway…
Someone e-mailed to ask me what exactly ‘twaddle’ meant.
I don’t have OED access anymore - Good Lord, I wish I did - but I think it comes from the obscure/arcane twattle. dictionary.com says that too, but if it’s not the OED, I’m not too interested. Can one of you folks with an academic OED subscription confirm/deny?
The essence of ‘twaddle’ is… something silly, unnecessary, useless, trivial, etc. It’s surprising how many words we have that evoke their meaning when said aloud even if one has never heard that word before.
Say it out loud - twaddle. Doesn’t it sound like something not to be taken seriously?
And, I learned early on that as I trudged through life, I’d need as many variations on the words “nonsense” and “bullshit” as I could find - so I committed ‘twaddle’ to memory.
