If you had asked me a few weeks ago why I don’t think games will be big in schools, I probably wouldn’t have been able to tell you why. I simply haven’t been able to articulate the reason why I don’t think they will ever really be incorporated and integrated into schools.

Until now.

I read this article by Constance Steinkuehler at the University of Madison-Wisconsin and Dmitri Williams at the University of Illinois: “Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as ‘Third Places’.” (BTW, you can see the article with my highlights and annotations via Diigo here, in case you are interested.) The article is about how online games, in a social-networking kind of way, provide “Third Places” for users to hang out, share, explore, and learn. I totally agree with this comparison. The article goes into depths comparing various games and users to the definition of Third Places as defined by Ray Oldenburg in The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community.

The epiphany happened for me when I read this quote (emphasis mine):

First and foremost, third places are defined as neutral grounds where individuals can enter and leave as they see fit without having to ask permission or receive an invitation (as one might in a private space) and without having to “play host” for anyone else. Compare, for example, weekday attendance at the workplace to happy hour attendance at the neighborhood tavern. The former is a second place, marked by financial obligation and rules that structure who is expected to be where and for how long; the latter is a third place, marked by relative freedom of movement. [. . . ] To oblige any one person to play requires that explicit agreements be entered into by parties (much like making arrangements for a recreational team sport), since the default assumption is that no one person is compelled to participate legally, financially, or otherwise. Unless one transforms the virtual world of the game into a workplace (e.g., by taking on gainful employment as a virtual currency “farmer” for example, Dibbell, 2006; Steinkuehler, 2006a) or enters into such agreement, no one person is obligated to log in.

Do As I Say by Viewmaker
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License

And then it hit me: I think this is why we will never see games take off in current schools. The game cannot be the Third Place because school is a Second Place. Students are required to be there, required to participate, and marked by rules that structure it.

So, it’s my current belief that until schools are reformed into neutral grounds marked by relative freedom of movement, we’re not likely to see games become something big within them.

General media comparisons and studies pertaining to their overall instructional impact have yielded little that warrants optimism. Even in the few cases where dramatic changes in achievement or ability were found to result from the introduction of a medium such as television, . . .  it was not the medium per se that caused the change, but rather the curricular reform that its introduction enabled.

I am Here for the Learning Revolution by Wesley Fryer
Attribution-ShareAlike License

This is why, in my opinion, the state of education is so sucky today. Our (educators’) use of technology for learning is hampered by the glass ceiling of curriculum. Only when the curriculum changes will dramatic changes in learning occur. Currently, too many schools are trying to fit square pegs into round holes; that is, teachers are using fabulous technology (IWBs, Tablet PCs, iPod Touch, VoiceThread, and more) to teach curriculum that is still content-based.

These technologies should be reforming curriculum. Why aren’t they?

How can we move this forward? How can we change curricula so that it allows teachers and students “dramatic change”? What is standing in the way, and how can we overcome this obstacle?

Clark, R.E., & Salomon, G. (1986). Media in teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp.464-478). New York: Macmillan.

Stay Warm by Erik Charlton
Attribution License

Frank gives us a few web resources now and then that he wants us to look at; whether for inspiration or understanding, I’m unsure. Whatever the case, they are usually interesting reading / viewing, and probably things I would not find myself were I surfing around on the ‘net. Communication Arts magazine has reviewed many different kinds of interaction designs, and given awards to a few. They’re worth checking out, if for no other reason than just to see some of the new, cool, hot designs on the market these days — everything from web design to physical spaces. I’ve been bouncing around their site, looking at different designs and trying to understand what makes them “good.” While sometimes that is obvious, what I find even more fascinating than the designs themselves are the responses to the question CA mag asks of the designer:

What was the most challenging aspect of the project?

Some responses: (emphasis mine)

• “The most challenging part of this project was keeping it simple, staying true to the core ideas and avoiding ‘feature creep.’ . . . I had to stay focused on the original goal—not reinventing the wheel but rather enhancing it.” Sebastian Bettencourt, art director/writer/interface designer/information architect/project design and development, Beyond The Fold
• “One of the primary challenges to designing TokBox was understanding and embracing user interactions that are unique to live video calling.” Chris Fox, design director, TokBox
• “For the Loudspeaker team, the big challenge was caring for the original idea—amplifying the voice of a great cause—as we built the site.” Scott Brown, creative director, The LoudspeakerSite
• “It was a challenge to keep each individual story entertaining and short (there were many ideas that were thrown out because they were too long or just not fun to watch).” Trevor Van Meter, creative director; Luke Lutman, Flash programmer; and Brian McBrearty, composer, Crappy Cat

And this question:

Did you learn anything new during the process?

Responses:

• “I learned that inspiration comes from experience. It comes from rethinking everyday activities and from reconsidering everyday interactions.” Sebastian Bettencourt, art director/writer/interface designer/information architect/project design and development of Beyond The Fold
• “One of the first things we had to face was the huge risk of that transparency, and what it really meant. No approvals. No editing. In the end, it was actually freeing to give up all control to the audience.” Gary Koepke and Lance Jensen, executive creative directors, Modernista!

This has got me wondering about how design influences learning. How conscious are educators of keeping it simple, staying true to the original goals, giving students experiences (rather than instruction), and giving up control to the users? How would schools be different if we did all of this, all of the time? Would there still be schools? If so, what would they look like?

I’ve just finished reading a whole whack of stuff about the history of constructivism and constructionism in educational theories. Fascinating. But in it all, I came across a gem of a reference that helps (I think) support my point in an argument with Dennis Harter about the IB Learner Profile. To sum up, our Twitter discussion was about whether the IB Learner Profile adequately covers the area of collaboration. Dennis thinks it doesn’t; he feels that it should be a separate attribute in the Learner Profile. I, however, think it is adequately covered under Communication. I think this because communication does not exist in a vacuum. To be an effective Communicator, you must know how to work with others effectively. To me, the terms “communicator” and “collaborator” are NOT mutually exclusive. You cannot be one without being the other.

So, I was reading a chapter from Psychology of Learning for Instruction by M.P. Driscoll (2005), and came across a cross-reference to some research done by Roy Pea (1994) and Edelson, Pea, and Gomez (1995).  I looked up the article (PDF) by Pea, Edelson, and Gomez, “Constructivism in the Collaboratory,” which describes how the authors set up a learning environment based on constructivist theories which allows learners to collaborate in an open-ended investigation. Here is the quote that got me; it is from the conclusion:

The collaboration tools enable students to engage in this scientific practice in a social context that includes other students, teachers, and scientists. The resulting social interactions enhance the learning that students achieve through the transformative process of communication. (p.16)

Basically, the authors are concluding that collaboration enables social interactions, and these interactions — and therefore the collaborative efforts — are achieved via communication. So, one cannot be collaborative without communicating effectively. Communication is essential to collaboration, and can not be achieved in any way other than via communication.

Roy Pea, in his article (PDF) about how multimedia (specifically computer-supported collaborative learning, or CSCL) can help or transform communication between learners, comes to a similar conclusion earlier. His article is about how the complex construction of CSCL needs to be re-thought in light of new ways of communication. He says, about communication in relationship to collaborative processes:

I therefore propose describing this third view of communication as transformative. The initiate in new ways of thinking and knowing in education and learning practices is transformed by the process of communication with the cultural messages of others, but so, too, is the other (whether teacher or peer) in what is learned about the unique voice and understanding of the initiate. (p.288)

What to make of all of this? I would posit that recent research suggests that communciation is an essential part of collaboration: communication changes the way we collaborate. It cannot be separated from it, and therefore the IB Learner Profile is justified in applying these two domains together.

Works cited:

Edelson, D.C., Pea, R., and Gomez, L. (1995) Constructivism in the Collaboratory. In B.G. Wilson (1995) Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Pea, R. (1994). Seeing What We Build Together: Distributed Multimedia Learning Environments for Transformative Communications. In Journal of the Learning Sciences, pp. 285-299.

Other times, change hits you like a sledgehammer and you sit straight upright in your chair, wondering, “When and how the heck did this happen?”

Today is one of the latter: I’ve been hit with the Change Sledgehammer. 

While on Twitter, Karl Fisch tweeted about his latest post titled “Things Just Changed. Again.” Intrigued, I clicked the link. Within minutes, my world has changed.

• Read Karl’s post.
• Watch the screencast, which will introduce you to Wolfram Alpha, a “computational knowledge engine.”
• Pick your jaw up off the floor. 
• Tell everyone you know, especially educators.

We’re trying to take as much of the world’s knowledge as possible, and make it computable.

One of the many wonderful teachers I have had the pleasure of working with is Twee Merrigan. Twee is a dynamic and focused teacher whose openness and generosity is not only overflowing, but infectious. Her energy is genuine, and she wants her students to be genuine, too. I think this is what I appreciate most about Twee — that she expects you to be no one other than who you are. However, Twee recognizes that sometimes things get out of balance. And, let’s face it: things are often out of balance for various reasons.

Let’s look at education for a minute. (Not forgetting, of course, that this is an education blog, first and foremost!) One of the reasons I began this blog was an effort to balance some inequities I saw that were unaddressed in The System:

• the unfairness of some prevalent methods of assessment and grading practices
• the treatment of viewing and speaking skills as secondary to reading and writing
• the lack of access to technology in schools, or — even worse — the use of abundantly available technology being used to “do” teaching and learning the way we did 15 or even 5 years ago, despite the fact that our world has changed
• the lack of student choice in “standard” classrooms, being primarily driven by choices made by curriculum, teachers’ backgrounds, or admin decisions

Twee has recently written about how to, in the words of The Doors, “Break on through to the other side.” She suggests we re-name Global Warming and Economic Crisis to Global Balancing and Economic Re-alignment. Think about this for a minute. This is really what we are trying to do: we are trying to balance everything in the world.

So my question of the moment is this: How do we re-align education? 

My initial response is, “I have no idea.” My second response is, “I have a thousand ideas!” And then I get overwhelmed — out of balance again. 

Secondary questions, beneath the “How do we re-align education?” umbrella are:

• Can we re-align education? or does it have to be completely re-designed — that is, do we have to throw it all away and start all over?
• What parts of education need the most alignment attention? Is it the issues of academic vs. creative knowledge, as Ken Robinson emphasizes in Out of Our Minds? Or is it something else?

Thus ends my initial post on how I hope to approach education issues: with the hope of re-aligning and putting things in balance. I don’t profess to have any answers — only more questions. But please feel free to post your own ideas in comments. Or Tweet ‘em to me.

070305 by COCOEN daily photos
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

I always read posts like these with only half-interest, I must admit. Why? Because I am philsophically opposed to standardized testing, particularly as it is used in American schools. Where I am from (Canada), standardized tests are linked directly to curriculum and used in an entirely different manner. I had no idea what US-style standardized tests were about until I moved overseas and began having conversations with my American colleagues. They later took on a whole new meaning for me when I had to write one myself: the GRE was required for applying to my top choice graduate schools. Ugh! I learned very quickly in my preparation that these kinds of standardized tests have nothing whatsoever to do with teaching and learning.

I’ve been lucky, I guess, that I’ve also never had to teach in a school where standardized testing has been emphasized. In Canada, my students wrote mandatory government exams in grades 3, 6, 9, and 12 (or 4, 7, and 10, and 12 in B.C.) — but again, these are always connected to the provincial curriculum. And my students wrote the Canadian Achievement Tests in grade 7, but schools never used this to “pin” teachers. In fact, such tests (in my experience) were never about the teachers at all. Schools I taught in used the CAT to help identify students who might need learning support, or a gifted & talented program. And such is the way international schools I have worked in have used standardized tests like the ITBS and the ISA.

slide.012-002 by keepps
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Internationally, I have only ever taught at MYP schools. And this comment, left on the Bridging Differences post I mention above, is one of the reasons why:

To get the kind of reliabillity that a multiple choice test delivers, the kids would have to spend a week to answer all the open-ended response questions, rather than the hour or two that the multiple choice test takes.

The writer of this comment, ceolaf (who leaves no URL with his/her comment), wrote a lengthy explanation as to why we need, whether we like them or not, some kind of standardized test because of the reliability issue. He further states: 

The failure of THOSE tests that we hate does not in any way prove the superiority of our assessments. Our assessments have their own flaws.

I have two things to say in response to these two bits:

1. I beg to differ.  And, 
2. This is why I love MYP.

Image by in da mood
Attribution-NonCommercial License

This post is a response to Clay Burell, blogger for Education on Change.org, one of my new favorite online networks. I’ve followed Clay for a long time both on his personal blog, Beyond School, and in his new home. He’s one of the few educators whose ideas truly make me think, and I admire him for his tenacity and his forthright initiatives, which are all too often very difficult to maintaing in this field. This is not the first time Clay and I have disagreed, but it is perhaps the first time we have disagreed so strongly. You might want to read Clay’s original post first, and the comments that follow — a lengthy debate about Bill Gates’ TED talk and Clay’s response to it. Clay’s last comment to me challenged me to find and quote him on the unjustified assertions I accuse him of. Before I go further, please note that I see this as very healthy banter.

Well, maybe it’s gone past banter now…?

Clay, the links you reference to KIPP schools *are* valid. But I thought you were writing this post about Bill Gates and his TED Talk, not KIPP schools. Therefore, many of the references to KIPP don’t really belong in this argument about whether Gates is attacking teachers. Perhaps instead you’d like to write a(nother) post on why KIPP schools don’t work and why people like Gates shouldn’t support them. But your post title references Gate’s TED Talk, of which KIPP is a part, not the whole.

On making connections and jumping to conclusions

There are many places in your post and your comments where you make links between ideas, words, and concepts which simply are not logical or obvious. What follows are examples of your doing this.

“I think what Gates is getting at is firing teachers and dismantling public schools in favor of privatized charters”

The word dismantling means taking them apart, destroying them. Thus, I think it’s reasonable for myself (and others) to have concluded that you were referring to the end of public schools.

“Mosquitos cause pestilence. Let’s drive that point home with massive projections of them – and then release them into the audience.

Then let’s talk about undesireable people that our society can do without.”

And later,

“Let’s close the ‘pestilence’ – ‘teachers’ pattern with the final frame of two more diseases: pneumonia and AIDS.”

Really Random? by Dan Morelle
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Here, and in your video, you make a connection between pestilence and teachers, but Gates doesn’t do that. Gates simply says mosquitos cause malaria. Poor structure on his part, yes, but he’s NOT talking about undesirable people that our society can do without – that’s your unfounded and unsupported conclusion. Nowhere does Gates use the word “pestilence” or anything resembling it.

“Then let’s sell two things: technology that will collect test scores we can use to fire teachers (he doesn’t say this, but that’s why “Some people are threatened by this stuff,” as he so dismissively puts it); and a book on the “great teachers” at KIPP schools (two of which are currently accused of intimidating teachers for moving to unionize).

It’s a push for technology and charter schools.”

Gates is not making a plea here to push the technology for standardized testing. He’s pushing a new model, KIPP, yes. But technology? Huh? He’s saying that some people are threatened by new models and new ways of thinking of education. Your jump to it being “a push for technology and charter schools” is an unreasonable one. (I’ll come back to the charter schools issue in a minute.)

Another instance of you making an assumption and judgment is when Gates says: “the teacher improvement data could not be made available and used in the tenure decision for the teachers. And so that’s sort of working in the opposite direction. But I’m optimistic about this, I think there are some clear things we can do.”

But you translate this as:

“He does liken teachers who resist test-based evaluations to ‘the problem.’ “

No, he does not “liken teachers who resist test-based evaluations to ‘the problem’.” He talks about teacher improvement data – which could, actually be a LOT of different kinds of data, not necessarily test-based – and how it could not be used to decide tenure, and how THAT is a problem. (And, it is a problem.)

“Gates doesn’t have time for those studies, apparently. To him it’s ’simple.’ We need KIPP schools and no more unions.”

Again, Gates doesn’t mention unions, and he uses KIPP only as an example. Which reminds me, I think we are talking at cross-purposes regarding the “privatization of public education.”  To me, privatization means tuition or business ownership. Charter schools are, as far as I know, publicly funded — ie., taxpayers dollars. So what do you mean when you say “privatization of public education”?

One more jump-into-the-inaccurate-accusation lake: when you mention Gates’s

“use of statistics and scientific-looking graphs to justify the scapegoating.”

So the next time any teacher or tech integrationist  — or anyone for that matter — uses statistics and graphs to prove a point, and that point happens to be about specific group of people, they are propaganda-ists?

On Emotion and Blogging

I observe the similar juxtaposition between the structure, symbolism, and rhetoric of Gates’ talk and a propaganda film that happens to have been a product of an historical era that causes emotional reactions from people.

That’s just it – I think you’ve made this too emotional. It’s not. It’s a big-name CEO sharing his thoughts about what he thinks needs to be changed about teachers. You are taking it personally, for reasons unbeknowst to your blog audience.

Yes, propaganda relies on emotional appeals – like yours, I’d say. But Gates? I didn’t see any emotional appeals in there. None at all.

Blogging about an intial reaction, finally, is not a problem. That’s what bloggers do. The reaction was justified with the similarities I’ve already repeated ad infinitum.

Perhaps this is what bloggers do when they are simply sharing and not aiming to convince. If you want us to believe you (and Change.org exists, well, for regular people like us to create change), you will provide reasoned and logical responses, not knee-jerk first reactions. So tell me please, what was your purpose in writing this post? Was it simply to express an emotion? or was it to persuade? This is, I think, what Jean was getting at with the reference to the selling. It seems as though you were trying to sell an idea, and doing so in an emotionally charged way (as Jean says) just doesn’t hold water with me. In fact it makes your points, even if they are worth listening to, less credible. My point here: if you want to express emotion and outrage in an initial reaction, go ahead. But perhaps the Change.org venue is not the place. Or, you can title your post differently. Purpose and audience: you know they are the two golden keys to effective writing.

It’s a JUMP to CONCLUSIONS mat! Get it!?
by Katkreig Attribution-NonCommercial License

You know, Clay, that I respect you greatly and have keenly followed your work and ideas for some time now. But this post has really rubbed me the wrong way. Even if your points are not valid, the method in which you’ve chosen to present them is inflammatory and rash.

This week, you win the Jump-to-Conclusions Award… which reminds me of a funny scene from one of my favorite movies, Office Space. If you haven’t seen it — a must-see for anyone who has ever worked in a corporate American-style office — watch the clip below. [Warning: this clip has some strong language]

(And yes, I did know Gates was a college, not HS, dropout. Thanks to Carl and Alfred for correcting that. Sorry – I was writing rather quickly.)

I have written about the Green School on this blog before, but back then I was writing about a desire to visit and a missed opportunity. Shortly after that post, then-director Brad Choyt sent me a kind e-mail inviting me to visit the next time I was in Bali. Green School also graciously posted a link to my blog on their website, an act I sincerely appreciate. I stayed in touch with Mr. Choyt since then, and so when I knew I was going to be in Bali for a yoga retreat, I sent him an e-mail. He responded immediately and plans were made with the Admissions Manager to arrange my visit.

January 9th arrived and I made my way out to Green School with a new friend* from my yoga retreat. Ami, the Admissions Manager I had arranged the appointment with, met us at the parking lot. She was friendly, inviting, knowledgeable, and accommodating. Our tour began on the west side of the campus and ended on the east side – the campus is divided into east and west, separated by the gorgeous Ayung river. It’s a beautiful eco-friendly campus filled with unique and sustainable ideas for living: compost toilets, hydropower, permaculture, you get the idea.

I’m not going to write about what the campus looks like, what they’re doing there, or why they’re doing it: you can find out all of those things by visiting their website and doing some quick Google searches. But I will highlight some of my biggest highlights, insights, and concerns. It was a pleasant, educational, and insightful visit. Keep in mind as you read that I approached this visit not only from a holistic educational perspective, but also from an experiential teaching-learning perspective; I frequently asked myself, “How would I teach if I worked here?”  Please also keep in mind that this post is not intended to “report” on Green School’s progress in any way. My purpose is to share what I saw and experienced in my first visit (hopefully of many) to Green School, and to share what were for me some of the highlights, insights, and some of the Big Questions I have had since returning to Hanoi.

Sustainable Structures, Sustainable Living and Learning

One of the first questions I asked Ami was about the unusual structures we had seen upon driving into campus – what looked like giant bamboo yurts. She informed me that they were indeed bamboo yurts, and were staff and faculty housing. Whoa! Now that is something I had not seen before. I really wanted to go back and take photos, but couldn’t – staff were on vacation and had not been informed that a visitor would be around taking photos, so it was a no-go. However, upon returning to Hanoi, I have discovered that theflattestcat has photos of these yurts posted both on an old blog and his Flickr photostream, so go check ‘em out. (They’re not licensed under CC, so I can’t reproduce them here.)

Green School classrooms are… well, they’re not classrooms in the traditional sense. However, they’re not classrooms in the metaphorical The-World-Is-Your-Classroom sense, either. They are somewhere in between. Made of bamboo and hardened mud, they are essentially covered open-air structures, each with a cooling space. They have fans, blackboards (yes), desks, shelves, cubby spaces for storage, and more. Green School also has wireless all over campus including classrooms.

While all of this – housing, classrooms, offices made of bamboo and mud — looks really cool and I love the idea of a structure made from sustainable materials, it raises practical and logistical issues:

• Where does one keep resources? From what I could see, the school is not yet well-resourced (they don’t yet have a library, and Ami told me that currently each teacher keeps a classroom library). Granted this is their first year in operation, so I suppose this is to be expected.  But I’m wondering, if teachers are creating or bringing in resources – books, instruments, costumes, posters, puppets – where on earth do they store them so that they do not get destroyed by the elements? Obviously, keeping them in your classroom isn’t the best idea, and if you’re living in a yurt… It just seems to me that no matter what, your stuff is going to be a victim of earth, air, and water. Perhaps this is what Green School wants – for teachers to think completely differently about the way they use resources. And, this is great.  I just wonder how that works, particularly for the upper grades (Green School currently only goes up to Year/Grade 8). Yet, according to the Year 7/8 classroom blog, they are studying The Giver and using novel study packages. So where are they keeping all these books so that they don’t get eaten my mould? How will they stop those study package pages from turning yellow? And a bigger question – why are they using study packages? But wait – I’ll get to that question later.
• Where are things like music, drama, and P.E. taught? Are they entirely outdoors as well? I presume that given the philosophy of Green School, such activities are integrated into regular classroom activities. But even when done this way, these activities require special spaces, and I did not see much in the way of compensation for this while at Green School, other than the soccer pitch and the Mepantigan Center.
• How economically practical are these structures? First, a disclaimer: I know very little about the economics of sustainable building materials and energy costs, so what I’m about to say might just sound — well, ridiculous. I’m hoping someone will leave a comment about this particular concern to educate me a bit. Ami told us that the hydropower costs $15,000USD per classroom. Admittedly, I realize now I made unclear notes and I know absolutely nothing about “regular” energy costs in a school; I did not ask her if that was per year, per month, or per week. Let’s assume that it’s per year – is that a feasible amount to spend on energy per year? Honestly, I have no idea. It sounds like a lot to me, but I suppose that is the drawback of using sustainable, renewable, and eco-friendly resources. This is really not my area of expertise; call me curious with a healthy dose of skeptical.  Ami also told us that the upkeep of the bamboo structures is really expensive – they must be cleaned regularly due to the exposure to the elements.
• For how long will classes be combined? Currently there are two grade levels per class (Year 1-2, 3-4, etc.). I suspect this is simply because of low student numbers at the moment (current enrolment is at 103 from PK-8). But is it feasible for this to continue? When curriculum is articulated clearly, teaching mixed grades can be a challenge. Not insurmountable, but certainly a challenge. I have mixed feelings about this issue.

Technology and the 21st Century

With a wireless campus, I would expect to see technology everywhere. Not so at Green School. The only technology I saw was in the business and administration offices. When I asked about this, I was told that students are encouraged to bring their own laptops. “Great!” I thought, initially. But now, having thought about it more, I wonder about how effective this system actually is. It reminds me of a post Julie Lindsay wrote back in October, asking what model schools use when implementing 1:1 programs. This option, “a student-purchased environment” only truly works when all students’ families can afford to purchase the technology. At Green School, I wonder about 20% of the student population — Balinese students who are there on scholarships. Who pays for their laptops?

I also did not see any projector screens or speakers in any of the classrooms I visited. I was told that these are available when teachers need them. It is worth considering that technology in general was likely not out in the open in classrooms because school was currently on break, and leaving it out obviously exposes it to the elements. However, it did make me think about use of technology at Green School and allowed me to reflect upon how I use technology for learning. Considering I use both audio and video in my current classroom on a daily basis, I had difficulty imagining how I would cope without regular access to them. Teaching and learning would change dramatically, and I’m not sure it would be for the better. Even when not all my students have laptops, these two pieces of equipment, when attached to my laptop, enable learning for all students, via visual stimuli such as video, text, and other images.

The issue of how to combine sustainable living and technology in a learning environment is perhaps the biggest challenge to any school. Green School looks like it is committed to tackle this challenge, but I’m not sure it has happened upon any real solutions yet.

Leadership

I must admit I suffer from a bit of Red Flag Syndrome in this area. It was strange, to say the least, that the director I had been in contact with until a few weeks before my arrival, Brad Choyt, was not the director I met when I arrived at Green School. Indeed, I was told almost immediately upon arriving that Brad Choyt was no longer director and that he “finished his contract” in December 2008. This surprised for a couple of reasons:

1. I subscribe to Green School’s newsletters, and there had been no mention whatsoever of a leadership change. Upon my return to Hanoi, however, the most recent newsletter (January 16th) was signed by the new director and contained a link to CNN’s feature on Green School. (A very cool video – go watch it; I can’t embed it here for copyright reasons.)
2. Green School’s website also does not indicate any kind of leadership change announcement. At least, I couldn’t find one – perhaps it’s there embedded somewhere and I missed it.

Of course, any time an organization has a quick and unannounced leadership change, there is cause for eyebrows to be raised. This is no exception. I did, however, have the pleasure of meeting the new director, Ronald Stones. We chatted briefly – maybe 10 minutes – about his new position at Green School and he seemed clearly excited, even if somewhat overwhelmed, by the unique challenges ahead of him. He is a warm gentleman, clearly knowledgeable in the area of international education and has the background to prove it. Of course, the international teaching community is small and we quickly discovered that we have mutual acquaintances and colleagues.

My first impressions of Mr. Stones were very positive, though our conversation did raise another issue which for me is, as my grandmother would say, a real doozy.

Curriculum

This is perhaps where my greatest concerns lie. While sustainability and technology issues are concrete and ultimately solvable with creative thinking, the issue of curriculum (and its blood-brother, assessment) is a monster much more dense.

Being from a primarily IB World School background (UNIS is the third IB World School I have taught at in the past 8 years), and in particular an MYP specialist, one of the first questions I had for Mr. Stones was about curriculum. I have spent much time on Green School’s website, since my last post about them and I love the philosophy statements written on their curriculum page; they reference both Waldorf-Steiner and IB curricula philosophies. Being curious, in September 2008 I asked the MYP Regional Manager for the IB Asia-Pacific if Green School was going to implement IB curriculum. He told me then that they had not, as of yet, contacted the IBO at all. I found this rather strange; applying for IB authorization, regardless of which programme, is a lengthy and time-consuming formal process. Green School’s website states their curriculum is “within an IB framework,” yet they have not formally initiated the authorization process. This is a bold move, in my opinion, to formally state this but to not initiate it.

I told Mr. Stones my background, and that I was very curious about Green School’s curriculum. His initial response indicated curriculum was an area of interest and concern for him, and it caused my Red Flag Syndrome to surge again slightly. To his credit, Mr. Stones clarified and went on to say that at the moment curriculum was a challenge for the school. (Note that I think this is probably to be expected, considering they are such a new school and only in their first year.) He explained that they needed something more concrete in place, as at present there was not enough of a continuum. I appreciated his honesty greatly, and I have to give Mr. Stones much gratitude for being brave enough to talk with me about curriculum, considering he had only been on the job for little more than three weeks. He said the current curriculum seems to come from a variety of sources and that one of the schools great tasks was to ensure that the curriculum was clearly articulated. He lauded the school’s strength of having faculty from a wide range of traditions, backgrounds, and experiences, but indicated that it would be necessary for everyone to be on the same page in order to move forward.

Wow, what a task! And I must say, that is one challenge I am glad I am not part of. To come into a school half-way through its first year and try to pull in all the curriculum threads from various teachers who have already been teaching there – to me, herding cats sounds easier. I have already worked at one international school where MYP was being implemented after having tossed out the British National Curriculum, and it was not pretty. When it comes to curriculum philosophy my belief is, and my experience indicates, that everyone has to be on the same page before any teaching begins.

Too many schools, educators, administrators, and parents take educational philosophy for granted. They assume that others believe what they believe, and go on their merry way. The difficulty arises when a stakeholder says, in Jerry Maguire style, “Show me the money” and you have to find evidence of that philosophy in concrete daily learning activities. One of the most useful professional appraisals I experienced was in my first international school, when my principal asked me how my teaching philosophy manifested itself in my classroom – she wanted me to show her something concrete and tangible as evidence that I was walking the talk. That exercise has stayed with me in the seven years since, and I think daily about how my classroom and my students’ learning experiences concretely reflect my philosophy. I must be the change, as Gandhi says. It’s no surprise that that principal who challenged me is now the Director of the IBAP – she required me to rise to meet the very expectations I was demanding of my students.

Green School has plenty of ideal, grounded, progressive philosophy ideas about education in this century and beyond. It seems to have the right idea. But where is the curriculum? What is the actual documentation that will indicate what students will learn and how? And where is it manifested within classrooms? I suspect Mr. Stones and his faculty will be trying to find that delicate balance between idealism and structure. At some point, someone will demand, if they haven’t already, “Show me the money.” Mr. Stones seems to have the experience and the know-how to move Green School in the right direction in this respect, though I admit I do not know his background in curriculum matters and those of philosophy. I will be watching eagerly to see how it all works out.

Green, But Growing

Green School is a continual work in progress. Such is evident when visiting the campus – construction is everywhere, and Ami commented several times how often the physical campus is changing. Last week there wasn’t a gymnasium; this week there is. Current construction continues on the Heart of the School, and there is a general sense when walking around their idyllic campus that things will continue to evolve. Change is good, and Green School gets that.

While currently Green School looks, well… a little green in the educational world, I do sense a firm future for them. At some point they will stop being novices and will have a stronger foundation in their educational niche. While revolutionary and cutting-edge now – perhaps even to the point of awkward — it is a place I envision becoming quite a beacon in the realm of international education. I daresay it’s a place I might be intrigued to work at in a few years’ time. They are at the forefront of a new movement and as such are one to keep an eye on. For now, though, I will watch curiously from the sidelines and see how the lotus unfolds.

*Special thanks to Emily for use of her camera during our visit!

My mind is fresh from a weekend of intense PD with Jeff Utecht, who fervently shared his philosophy and expertise with me and my colleagues at UNIS Hanoi.  It was, in all, a fast-paced but much needed weekend full of tips, tools, and tidbits to think about and implement. I am sure all of who attended Jeff’s sessions had some big take-aways from the weekend; one of the big ones for me was the concept of the community in the 21st century.

What role does the community play in education this century?

The answer, I think, is complicated.  Jeff talked about how the community has to be built first, and how sometimes we as educators don’t get to choose where that community is — whether it’s Facebook, Twitter, SecondLife, or ClubPenguin.  But I wonder: Don’t we as educators have a responsibility to create that community?  Of course we should tap into communities already in place.  But when it comes to the “New Learning Landscape“, I think teachers do have an embedded and non-negotiable responsibility to build the community with our students.

One of the challenges we face at UNIS is that our digital, online community is currently quite closed. While I have argued before that this is not always a bad thing, that the walled garden can be a great place to learn tools and play with ideas, I do think that there comes a time (particularly at the HS level) when the community must branch out.  The fact that our students in grades 10 and 11 all have tablets (the first stage in our 1:1 roll-out) means that their community instantly was widened when they received their tablets.  Having that tablet in their hands means they can reach out all the way across the world if they wish — they are connected. And why should we stop them?  Not only does this new technology broaden their contact base and therefore extend their community, most of our students are third-culture kids who have lived in 4 other countries and are already part of an extended community outside our school doors.

If we are going to commit to the new literacies of the 21st century, we should enable our students to reach out to those communities, to find their authentic audience, and create their own learning environment.  To deny them of this is irresponsible.

I’m grateful for Jeff’s ideas this past weekend and I think it is a great start for the journey with our students down the intertwined road of communities and literacy.  Jeff got us thinking in the right direction, and armed with our wikis, blogs, Twitter accounts, and Nings, I daresay that our teachers and students are well on their way to embracing communities both within and beyond our doors.

And speaking of the community’s role in education, I happened across The KnowledgeWorks Foundation (courtesy of Lindsea, a member of my PLN and a contact of one of the KnowledgeWorks founders).  The KWF is an educational philanthropic organization with some philosophical golden nuggets that make it stand out as an organization.  The trademarked motto of KWF is “Empowering communities to improve education.”  How fab is that?  And if that’s not enough to get you browsing around their site, check out their Mission, Vision, and my favorite, their Values Statement:

Fanatical belief that all students have a right to a great education

Wow!  Finding the KWF was a great way to end my weekend, and I look forward to seeing what their community initiatives in education will bring to education in the USA and elsewhere.  You can also follow them on their Future of Ed blog.

All this excitement about communities, Web2.0, and literacy has made me very excited, but I’ve been so busy that the engagement has also made me rather ill — I have been fighting a nasty cold for about a week now.  So as I sign off this post, tea in hand, I hope that my community of learners and colleagues will understand if I’m “below the fold” for the next little while, laying low while I recover.

Photo1 by ortica*
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License

Photo2 by Librarian by Day
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License