As with anything the way that I attempt to convey my message is dependent upon the message I am attempting to share, my purpose and my intended audience. Mullen (2011) noted that persuasion is at the root of what we do as researchers, teachers and with our colleagues. We are often trying to convince others of our intended purpose (para 1). He went on to explain logos as the use of argumentation to convey data, statistics and information in a logical format. It’s research based. Pathos, Mullen noted, serves to stir up people’s emotions and appeal to what Chip and Dan Heath referred to as the elephant sides of our brains while logos appeals to our rational rider. Lastly, ethos reflects not only how you speak but the individual integrity you bring to what you are saying. It’s your credibility based on your previous results (para 4-6).
As I look back on the leadership resources that I’ve reviewed they fall into two groups. Resources that are more easily accessible may be considered more popular reading while highly academic pieces follow more rigorous standards and processes before they are published. Does one have more value than the other?
I was certainly drawn to the page turning pop culture books. They not only shared statistics and data they made it come alive by sharing stories and personal experiences. It appealed to my logos and pathos side. A powerful combination when you get both the rider and the elephant headed in the same direction. Over the course of my ETAD program, I came to re-appreciate not only the ideas and data that come from more academic writing, but the rigorous process of publishing respected work. It appealed to me on both a logos and ethos level; moreover, the academic work often forms the foundation for more popular books.
I noticed frequent citation of each other’s work within the more academic realm including both formal studies and academic articles. If you hit on the right concept and trace the research back it forms a long chain of reference. Daniel, Schwier & McCalla (2003), for example, often cited the work of Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) with regard to social capital. Even Google has run with this concept by highlighting the number of times an article has been cited. I’m certainly drawn to the articles that have been cited many times. It seems to reason, they are more credible. It doesn’t necessarily mean those articles have the information I’m interested in learning more about. To apply Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s concept of intellectual capital, the more connections between cited articles the higher the intellectual capital.
In reviewing, Covey’s Speed of Trust references, it’s apparent that Covey wants you to know where the information comes from and he has organized his references by chapter highlighting where he found the material. His references range from interviews, quotations, conferences (i.e. Stanford Leadership Conference), many articles – some of which included newspapers while others included the Harvard Business Review; he noted formal studies, surveys and annual reports. Overall, his resources pulled from both popular culture and academic sources as did Chip and Dan Heath’s in the Switch.
Not all of my pop culture reading and articles provided detailed references. Some simply mentioned the reference in the context of the text. They clearly stated who the information came from, but a list of references wasn’t included in the copies of the books that I read. It is something that I’m more aware of since my return to grad school and it makes me wonder why they didn’t note their sources more directly.
McGonigal’s Super Better book, for example, provided a detailed chapter by chapter break down of the science. In fact, she has even dedicated a website called showmethescience.com to share the research behind living gamefully. In fact, McGonigal’s references tended toward the more academic side citing numerous journals and academic studies. In fact, Super Better, itself has been involved in two clinical trials. So while there is certainly differences in how pop culture authors cite the research, there is ethos embedded into the writing. Sometimes, however, the ethos may come from their status in society not from the detailed references that they provided.
I did notice that Covey’s work was referenced on a few occasions in other pop culture books. I think how often some of them cited each other depended on how recently the book was published. With regard to the concepts of leadership, different authors often mentioned the names of respected and well known leaders instead of citing other books about those leaders.
Having learned more about social and intellectual capital, it’s often what the pop culture leadership books are referring to or at least in part. Again it depends on the message and the particular focus the author is attempting to convey. As with anything, we need to acknowledge that while the main purpose of writing a book or publishing a study is to better the common good and increase what we as a society know. There is a financial factor involved. As a reader, it’s important to actively think about the material you are reading and it sources. Citizens have to be able to make informed decisions and not just go with what sounds best.
Lastly, it’s about the audience. Writers compose their text with a specific audience in mind. Academic writing has a very specific audience and purpose, as does pop culture. The latter perhaps to make the research more accessible to a larger group of people in a variety of social circles. Perhaps how you write and the language you use defines the community of practice to which you belong. Shared language and codes help build positive social capital as does following the expectations and norms of the group. Each group has a different form and standard of what’s considered acceptable when sharing information including different ethical responsibilities.
ETAD 898 has provided a unique opportunity to delve into the topic of leadership from both sides of the spectrum. While some topics distinctly came up in each realm others were more subtly connected. Communities of practice weren’t formally mentioned in the pop culture books, however, the characteristics were discussed in relation to teams and various groups. Researching leadership from both perspectives has increased my appreciation for the ongoing need for both types of writing. In the end it’s about sharing our explicit and if we are willing our tacit knowledge with members of our group. The more diverse our network and sources the more we can grow our understanding of the world around us.
As I reflect on what leadership means I’m drawn to Kruse’s attempt to define leadership.
“Leadership is a process of social influence, which maximizes the efforts of others, toward the achievement of a goal”
(Keven Kruse, What is Leadership?, 2013)
Leadership is not about your position or title, it’s about the choices you make within your circle of influence. Covey (2006) explained that you can begin by leading yourself. Great leaders start by recognizing the value of ongoing professional and personal development. Regardless of whether you are involved in education or in business, it’s about making purposeful choices to help your team work together to reach a goal. A team can be your friends, family, your educational colleagues, your classroom of students, the people on your home based business team or the people in your department at work.
Leaders are integral members of teams which are similar to communities of practice (CoPs). Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) noted that CoPs are voluntary, vibrant and productive groups that foster ongoing relationships amongst group members, which builds value and engagement and in turn contributes to social capital. While every reading acknowledged teams or groups or followers, communities of practice was not a common phrase in the popular literature. The strategies suggested for developing vibrant, voluntary communities of practice are simply good strategies to consider for all teams in any context.
As Stephen M. R. Covey (2006) said “leadership is getting results in a way that inspires trust” (Speed of Trust, p. 40). Leadership is a multidimensional concept that not only focuses on the task at hand but on how you go about achieving the goal. It’s like going on a trip. We all need to be headed to the same destination, but the paths we take and the stops we make along our journey all depend on how we are going to get there.
There’s many ways to reach your destination. The concept of differentiated learning is based on the idea that we have a common outcome to achieve, but the learning and instructional strategies we use to get there depend on our choices. You can hop in a car and drive yourself. Going it alone will eventually get you there, but you may have to make more stops along the way to get everything done. You could car pool with people that you trust, but that means you have to carefully choose your team so they can fit in the vehicle. You could hop on the company bus, train or plane. There’s lots of ways to get results, but not every path will be as efficient or support the coevolution of social and intellectual capital.
In a Good To Great article, Collins (2001) explained that it’s all about getting the right people in the right seats on the bus. As the bus driver (leader), you have to start with WHO is on the bus. The right people will bring a diverse and unique set of intellectual capital with them. It also means that you have to get the wrong people off the bus. Building strong social capital within a group starts by creating a culture of excellence where individuals are motivated to be part of strong, dynamic team.
Part of creating a culture means defining the boundaries. Dr. Henry Cloud (2013) explained we have to lead in a way that people’s brains can follow. You won’t foster strong, interpersonal connections and create a trusting environment by creating fear. You have to keep the team focused on their goal, inhibit the barriers that will distract them and provide the opportunity to create routines in their working memories. Sinek (2014) agreed noting the importance of creating the circle of safety and how all of our actions as group members trigger brain based responses that either reinforce the relationships or create trust gaps.
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) referred to the organizational advantage of companies that have both high intellectual and social capital as creating innovative, trusting and cohesive teams. While trust is not the only component of building social capital, trust was mentioned by Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998); Daniel, McCalla and Schwier (2003); Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002); McGonigal(2015); Sinek (2014); Cloud (2013); the Heaths (2010); and most definitely by Covey (2006) in The Speed of Trust. Trust was the common thread in the majority of reading that I did.
Covey (2006) gave specific trust building behaviours to practice. Cloud (2013) discussed how trust permeates the culture you create. It “is the starting point … [that] makes it all work” (Boundaries for Leaders, p. 171). Both McGonigal (2015) and Sinek (2014) focused on the body’s response to hormones like oxytocin which help foster trusting relationships. Trust is an integral part of creating healthy social capital, which in turn creates a strong, leadership culture. As Covey (2006) stated and Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998) noted, when trust goes up, the costs both financial and relationship go down. Trust increases the likelihood of knowledge exchanges which also generate intellectual capital.
Daniel, Schwier & McCalla (2003) cited Nahapiet & Ghoshal’s (1998) different aspects of social capital.
Structural – how members connect with other people in the community; how does information spread (Daniel, et al., 2003, p. 5).
Here’s where I see an interesting connection to Gladwell’s work in The Tipping Point. Although he asked what causes a word of mouth epidemic, the question is essentially the same as asking how information is dispersed through a person’s network. Gladwell (2006) talked about “connectors”, the people who are linked to many different people in a variety of social circles. While the articles on social capital didn’t mention the common links in the network, I would propose that the efficient dissemination of information flows out through key connectors with in the community. Gladwell (2006) likened it to the game the six degrees of Kevin Bacon. While we live in a social media age, there are still key influencers online that we all follow or are connected to through our online network.
Next Gladwell (2006) mentioned the “mavens,” individuals that are extremely knowledgeable about specific topics. They are your go to people. When a maven answers your questions there’s a high probability you are going to follow their advice because you trust them and know that they are suggesting the best option for you. Networks high in social capital will include mavens and connectors. Both have a high knowledge capital and are willing to share their tacit knowledge with the group.
Finally, Gladwell (2006) explained the “persuaders” are the members of the group that can change people’s minds. They are able to convincingly share and spread ideas.
Next Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) noted the relational dimension. There are 4 components: Trust which we noted the value of earlier; norms; obligations: and identification.
Both Covey (2006) and Cloud (2013) noted the importance of clear boundaries for a team. People need to know where they are going, clarify what’s expected and be supported by a culture that trusts them to get it done.
Chip and Dan Heath (2010) explained you have to shape the path. You have to create the environment which not only encourages people to make the change but shapes their choices. The Heaths’ strongly emphasized the significance of a shared identity. In fact, they noted it’s our go to decision making model. We may reason out our decision using the rational model, but when in doubt the elephant wins and we decide in favor of our identity. Avolio, Walumbwa and Weber (2009) agreed that activating an identity to which people can relate, helps to build a shared identity (p. 427).
Gladwell (2006) likened this notion to the broken windows effect. We are shaped by our environment and the people in it. Culture is how we make sense of the world and our behaviour shifts according to the environment and context in which we live and work.
Daniel, Schwier & McCalla (2003) also noted the value of network ties and configuration as essential aspects of how we access information, which connect back to Gladwell’s connectors, mavens and persuaders.
Lastly, the cognitive dimension is based on building meaningful connections in a shared context. A shared language helps teams facilitate the exchange of information which creates an opportunity to build intellectual capital. Daniel, Schwier and McCalla (2003) noted the significance of shared narratives (p. 6). Just as Carmine Gallo (2014) explained in Talk Like TED, stories not only help us organize the world, they are given preferential treatment in our memory. Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998) also highlighted how stories are a powerful way to not only transfer explicit knowledge, but if you look closely at how the story flows the tacit knowledge is embedded, as well.
Bolden, Gosling, Marurano and Dennison (2003) pointed out that although there are many different leadership theories, there is no one size fits all leadership style and each theory lends itself to different styles, followers and situations (p. 8). Knowing what style to apply depends on your context and situation and it’s an important part of responding to the needs of your team
Melrose, Park and Perry (2015) reminded us of the value of articulating our personal philosophy. Before we can decide what or how to reach our destination, we have to understand why we chose that teaching approach in the first place. Reflecting on your personal philosophy of learning and leadership is an important part of growing as a leader. We all have a go to framework that not only helps us organize our learning, but it’s what we default to in times of stress. In his TED Talk – How great leaders inspire action, Simon Sinek explained
people don’t buy what you do they buy why you do it.
Whether it’s selling a product, implementing a change or teaching a new skill. People don’t buy in because you told them to, they are drawn to your why. Just think about the teachers and leaders that have inspired you. It was likely their genuine enthusiasm and leadership style that you connected with most. A strong understanding of content is important but unless people understand why the concept is important, it’s just data.
It doesn’t mean that your why or your personal philosophy of leadership or learning won’t change. They will continue to evolve. What’s important is that you are an active part of the evolution. It’s the small actions each day that become the habits shaping your path and in turn your life. Make sure you are becoming the leader you want to be not just the one that happened.
Sometimes the smallest actions say the most. Body language and non-verbal communication surfaced on several occasions during my research. From Amy Cuddy’s (2012) research on how body language can change the hormones released in our body and in turn how our brains think to McGonigal’s (2015) physical resilience power-up strategies, body language is embedded into social capital without us even realizing it. Our brains will judge within seconds whether members of our network are trustworthy or not. It’s not even something we need to consciously decide. Our primitive brain is always working to protect us. Sinek (2014) pointed out if the trust begins to fail our brain chemistry changes and we are no longer focused on the team goal but rather our individual survival. Ruggieri, Boca and Garro (2013) noted face to face leadership is established through “body language, vocal inflection, eye contact and clothing” (p.98), which is reinforced based on the group’s response.
Winkler (2010) mentioned in several theories the results a leader produces are dependent upon the a group’s favorable response. In the idiosyncrasy credit theory of leadership, for example, a leader rises as they gain credit for upholding the social norms and expectations of the group. Once they become a leader their credits enable them step outside the boundaries and push the group in innovative directions, but only as long as the group finds the results favorable. Too many withdrawals in your leadership credits means you will lose control. Similarly, Covey (2006) discussed the significance of making deposits not just withdrawals in your trust account. While Winkler (2010) didn’t directly define the concept of social capital, it permeated the majority of contemporary theories that he discussed.
As I re-read my Super Better post wondering how I was going to connect gaming and resilience to leadership, I was drawn back to McGonigal’s (2015) keys connections between our thinking and behaviours that contribute to post-traumatic and post-ecstatic growth.
Learn to benefit find connected to Chip and Dan Heath’s (2010) find the bright spots which pairs with the strength based leadership focus.
Finding the heroic story encouraged us to connect to our story and how we identify with our network.
Cultivating connectedness builds relationships.
Being flexible and adopting a challenge mindset will help you and your team find the best solution rather than the one you think should work.
Lastly, taking committed action links to following through with what you say you are going to do (Cloud (2013) & Covey (2006)).
All of which help build social capital.
While gaming may not be your thing, the value in Super Better lies in the small, achievable challenges that build resilience. If you are focused on developing a team of strong leaders, building these strategies into your community of practice will not only strengthen the resilience of the individuals, but the team as well. As Collins (2001) said, you need the right people on the bus and then it doesn’t matter what detours you encounter the team will make it happen.
What about e-leadership?
Avolio et. al. (2009) noted that e-leadership comes with its own unique set of challenges based on the physical distance, as well as, the type of technology; moreover, face to face is not the same as virtual environments (p. 440). Ruggieri, Boca and Garro (2013) explained that online transformational leadership encouraged increased communication, self awareness and increased levels of team identification. By focusing on more than just the transactions that occur within a group, transformational leaders build the skills of their followers in multiple dimensions. In short, they foster the growth of well rounded, leaders working towards a common goal.
As I reflected in an early post. I learned the most from online classes lead by transformational leaders where we were encouraged to share our ideas without the fear of being wrong. The true building of intellectual capital is in the sharing of and reflecting on ideas. You don’t grow unless you share, make connections and think more deeply about your experiences. All of which rarely happens without a positive, social capital rooted firmly in trusting relationships. As Sinek (2014) noted, “the people always have the power” (p. 67) and the true power lies in realizing that we are all responsible for protecting the circle of safety. The circle is what supports the coevolution of social and intellectual capital which creates an organizational advantage (Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998); Daniel, Schwier & McCalla (2003)).
Driscoll (2005) cited Wenger (1998) as she noted how our learning trajectory changes over time. Whether you are on an inbound trajectory headed toward full group participation as an insider or sustaining relationships in related communities of practice as a broker or on an outbound course, people are always interacting with communities of practice in different ways (Psychology of Learning for Instruction, p.168-169). Driscoll (2005) noted the work of Lave & Wenger (1991) when she explained that becoming an insider takes time. Newcomers start on the periphery and through their interactions with oldtimers (full participants) slowly progress toward full participation. As new members join the group, the once newcomer becomes a mentor as they move closer to becoming an old timer (Driscoll, 2005, p. 166).
Learning trajectory is an interesting way to think about home based business entrepreneurs. There’s a strong core group that is very active and in some cases includes the founders. As teams grow, newcomers learn the business and progress toward full inbound participation, but just as often as new people join others are on their outbound path. It’s an ever evolving community of practice held together by the core members. As Driscoll (2005) shared with reference to the work of Lave and Wenger (1991), there is no illegitimate peripheral participation. Access to most specific home based business groups requires actual membership before detailed sharing of knowledge occurs. Whether people choose to engage and move from legitimate peripheral to full participation, depends upon the social and intellectual capital within the group. The community of practice needs to welcome the new members and in turn new members must choose their level of participation (Psychology of Learning for Instruction, p. 167-166).
While it may at times be necessary for someone to actually take the lead, it doesn’t mean that all members can’t practice positive leadership. We all have a choice to participate in and help strengthen the team. The strength of a team lies not in in one person but in the complex interconnections between the explicit and tacit knowledge shared by the group. Perhaps in the end effective leadership is less about the person leading and more about creating the conditions in which we can all learn to lead. Avolio et. al. (2009) discussed leadership as an emergent state in which team members collectively lead each other (p.431). Providing opportunities for each person’s strengths to contribute to and lead the team when appropriate creates a unified and cohesive group that can take on any challenge.
So what’s my story? What did I learn? ECI 830 has provided many thought provoking opportunities for reflection on the Ed Tech world. Here’s my attempt to try and sum up my learning journey. Because Alec & Katia classes are different than my Blackboard based U of S Educational Technology and Design (ETAD) classes, I’ve included a short section at the start of the video that highlights how we learn in this class. It will be added to my ETAD Portfolio because after I’m brave enough to post my summary of learning and share my last debate reflection this will conclude class 9 of 10 on my ETAD journey. Next up is an independent study on Leadership – Is there a difference between our face to face and online worlds?
So here’s my video….
—The first part is more my style and then, like a fellow ECI 830 student mentioned, I stepped way outside my comfort zone and attempted to rewrite a song. (I should mention my husband plays in a band (guitar and vocals)… I don’t sing…in public…or very loud… so this is way outside my comfort zone – hopefully your ears are okay after;) It’s hiding at the end of the video.
–I’ve attempted to rewrite & perform the Johnny Cash version of I won’t Back Down – It’s now called, “I Will Step In.” Special thanks to my husband, David, for recording the guitar & background vocals and not laughing at me while I attempted to sing it:) He helped edit the musical track together for the song. (It was quite the process, first he recorded the guitar track, then I had to sing, then he added the harmonies… glad he’s a DJ, rockstar, shop teacher. And did I mention… he always sings the Johnny Cash songs that the band plays – he said it was important for me to sing my story.)
Our debates reminded me of the Story of Two Wolves shared by a Grandfather to his Grandson.
“A fight is going on inside me,” he said to the boy. “It’s a terrible fight and it’s between two wolves.”
“One is evil, he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt and ego.
“The other is good, he is joy, peace, love, hope, serentiy, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.”
“This is the same fight going inside you – and inside every other person, too”
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, “Which wolf will win?
He replied simply, “The one you feed.”
There’s always two sides to the story, to the issue – careful which one you feed.
Thank-you for watching! I truly appreciated learning with everyone!! Truly one of the highlights of my Masters class journey. I can’t thank you enough for sharing your stories and different perspectives. It’s truly added to the richness of the class.
Wishing everyone a restful and re-energizing summer and smooth sailing your Masters’ journey.
No need to keep reading – this is just my reflection on how I came to learn what I did in ECI 830:) It’s a more detailed description of what I tried to put into video with a top 10 things I learned.
What’s my story?
The non-video version
Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase. – Martin Luther King Jr.
It started with a decision to apply to the ETAD program in April of 2014, a letter welcoming me to the program and the fun of trying to register and figure out classes. Class #1 started in September of 2014, the same day my daughter started Kindergarten. Coincidentally, the same summer the Color By Amber came to Canada and I started a home based business all while I worked as a Learning Consultant. Because when opportunity comes along you just have to go for it.
Change is an ever present force in our lives and you can either fight it or learn and grow . So why not step out of your comfort zone and see just want you can do.
Fast forward to the count down to my two remaining classes. I reached out to Alec Couros to see what might be available at the U of R and he suggested ECI 830 – Contemporary Issues in Educational Technology – one SUGA agreement and a “hey, so we just found out your are in our class from Katia and her I am. Working on finishing class #9. (Okay this post means the class is almost finished 🙂
The more learning I do the more I find we are all connected by the stories we tell and those that we share. ECI 830 enabled me to step out of my ETAD comfort zone and meet a whole new network of amazingly talented, reflective and creative teachers. So here’s the story of ECI 830….Contemporary Issues in Educational Technology… which is really a fancy way of saying in the world around us;)
Having just finished a full year of amazing Kitchen Parties with the legendary Rick Schwier, I was excited to join my fellow colleagues each Tuesday night at 7 for our Great Ed Tech Debates.
I use zoom with my business team so it was great to see it in action live with an entire class.
Instead of textbook we shared articles each week and instead of lectures we debated ed tech topics.
We shared evidence of our learning through blogs, which is something that I’ve always wanted to do but have just never had the time to do consistently.
We used WordPress to share our ideas and interact with each other.
In ETAD, we typically posted behind the blackboard walls in discussion forums so this provided a public forum for us to share our ideas.
I’ve never met these educators before but they are shaping my stories by choosing to share theirs.
Twitter gave us another chance to connect and share our ideas and grow our personal learning network.
Finding that online community that energizes and encourages you to grow is like finding a treasure. Together we shared not only our stories but our articles, blogs, podcasts and TED Talks all intended to help us better understand the Ed Tech issues all around us.
While the class talked about focusing on Ed Tech trends and issues, it’s really a course that any citizen would benefit from. Our topics don’t just affect our schools and our students, they affect our lives and our children….that’s who our students are. These issues affect all of us.
Alec and Katia carefully crafted the debate statements to get us to dig deeper and think more reflectively about how the issue affect us and our teaching.
Let’s break that down who’s affected….
You – students, parents, teachers, admin, division, community members…
your kids, your family, your friends
your social media connections…
The conversations that you have matter and whether you choose to step in or just listen impacts the ripple effect of your legacy.
Does technology enhance learning in the classroom?
Technology is all around us. It comes in many forms from the pencil with an eraser, scissors, to mobile devices, to the cell phone in your hand, to 3D printers. There will always be technology. It’s not inherently bad or good, it’s what you do with the technology you have that has the ability to enhance learning.
Should you teach anything that can be Googled?
Google is an integral part of our lives, if I said just Google it – you’d know what to do. Does our 24/7 access to information replace what we need to teach? It all depends how you teach; moreover, how you assess? If your students can just google the answer, what is it we are teaching them? Let’s remember that for information to become knowledge we have to think about it – Google doesn’t think about it it’s programmed to find connections– it’s up to us to use our brain to make sense of the world we encounter and as educators it is up to us to reflect on how we authentically assess students in a information based world.
What we choose to value in the learning process is going to echo forward for years to come.
Our class challenged the notion that memorization is bad, just think of all of the processes you’ve learned that have become automatic. It’s about what we choose to memorize and the purpose of investing in it. I’m more of a connectivist – yes there’s knowledge I need to hold in my own brain but there’s also an immense of amount of knowledge that I can connect to in my learning network (Google or the human kind).
Is technology making our kids unhealthy?
Is it making all of us unhealthy? Again it’s developing an awareness. Each week I find myself stepping back and looking at my world through a more reflective lens. Is my love of technology making me unhealthy? Or rather do I need to be more aware of the lifestyle choices that I am making? Tech is just a tool – before mobile devices, TVs were bad influences and before that books contained information that might just make us want to stay in one place until we finished the story.
As Audrey Watters pointed out, we always seem to have amnesia when it comes to new technology – as if we are the first ones to struggle with the challenges of tech. Are our problems must be more significant than those before us.
Isn’t it really about how we choose to use the tech? It’s how I choose to shape my life? You have to find the balance.
Is openness and sharing unfair to our kids?
Again it’s about the choices you make…. although I may be a bit biased. In a social media, knowledge based world where your life, as Alec pointed out, seems to be public by default and private by effort. I think we (educators and parents) have to teach our children how to become thoughtful, digital citizens that are aware of how their actions will impact their future. Every generation has things to learn and learning what and how to share may be one of the top five things to understand. Like the agree side explained, you are essentially creating a digital tattoo that will live years beyond you.
What do you want your legacy to be?
Is technology is a force for equity in society?
Let’s step back from technology – how do you create equity in your classroom?
Tech has the potentialto be a force for equity, but it depends on how you use the tools you choose to use, how you choose to use them and the prior knowledge that your students bring to the table.
Equity doesn’t just happen, people consistently choose to look, listen and reflect on the environment they are creating in their class. In a diverse world, it’s important for us to recognize that culture shapes the way our brains make sense of the world. So you are going to have to step out of your comfort zone and choose to value equity.
This is the week I learned about Storientation = sharing your story builds connections, listening to the stories of others develops trust and being aware of your organization’s story shapes the path you are on.
Like Malcom Gladwell shared in the “Tipping Point” and Chip and Dan Heath explained in “The Switch” – it’s the small consistent choices that we make that truly shape the path and move us toward our goals. Tech is only one piece of the puzzle.
Is Social Media ruining childhood?
Social media has changed childhood.
As educators and parents, we need to be aware of what we choose to share and the medium we choose to share it in. If you are choosing what you post on social media, you are branding yourself. Changing the identity of a brand isn’t easy so learning strategies to think through things before you post is an important strategy in continuing to build a digital footprint. You wouldn’t send your child to the park unsupervised to spend the day with strangers, so use your not so common, common sense.
Make the effort to be aware of the world you live in and make the best choices you can to help build resilient children that have a well developed tool box of strategies to not just cope but thrive in today’s social world.
Has public education sold it’s soul to corporate interests?
Of all the debates this this one opened my eyes… not that I was oblivious to education’s connections to business. It’s part of life. Schools will always need supplies, tools and tech from the non educational world, what tugged at my heart was …it’s not something I actively reflect on very often. I love google, office, windows, android, apple, share point…. I use the tech I have access to – to create the best learning opportunities I can for my students and staff. If it’s free, all the better… but how do my choices ripple out? When I choose to use Google Apps because it’s free for education do I ever stop to have the conversation with my students about why I chose this tool?
I’m reminded of a conversation I had with my Coordinator or Student Support Services. Attribution theory – as we reviewed IIPs she reminded me it’s great to explicitly teach students the strategies they need but we also need students to learn to think about why choosing that strategy in that context works. It’s important for them to attribute their success to choosing the tool or strategy appropriately.
After all if I tried to use one thing for everything, it just wouldn’t work, but if I step back and choose the tool or strategy that best fits the situational need, then I’m more likely to find success.
What have I learned on this journey?
If you are too comfortable with what you know maybe you haven’t thought about it enough
Learning is messy and that’s good.
It’s all about perspective. We each come to the table with different ideas and strengths and that’s the best part – it’s how we learn by sharing ideas and challenging each other to think outside our comfort zone
If you walk into a room and you think you are the smartest person you are in the wrong room! You become like those you interact with, so choose to surround yourself with people that are going to challenge you to grow outside your comfort zone in positive ways.
The more I learn the less I know & there’s always more to learn
There’s always two sides to every issue, every story has at least two sides. It’s important to respect and listen to the challenges and questions raised by those that lie outside your initial zone of comfort…. you always have to listen first.
Dean Benko explained that you have to find the balance – when you do you will find a state of flow.
It’s not about the technology its about what you do with what you have… then again in our last debate … does it matter the kind of tech you have?
Data and information are just that – knowledge is created by individual minds drawing on individual experience.. making value judgements based on their experiences….tech makes info and data easier to access, more visual and what seems at first easier to interpret… but that of course depends on who created the parameters of what to graph out? Just because it looks pretty doesn’t mean it’s any more valid – you have to think critically and look deeper.
Our ultimate goal is to encourage our students (our children) and those around us to become an engaged, multi-literate learners that care enough to think critically about the information, the environment and it’s sources that they encounter and choose to make a decisions based on their experiences. As Toffler says, the future belongs to the those who can learn, unlearn and relearn.
To reach the end is really to begin again and write the next chapter.
If you teach them how to share it’s more than fair!
This week the Great EdTech debate challenge fell to our team. We represented the Disagree side of the debate which focused on: Openness and sharing in schools unfair to our kids.
If you are interested here’s our opening arguments.
As I first read through the questions, I wondered is it fair not to share? Teaching in and of itself is sharing of knowledge. Our goal as educators is to share our knowledge of a concept in a variety of ways that encourages deeper understanding in our students. As Wiley and Green (2012) pointed out in Why Openness in Education, we even judge educators on their ability to share and impart understanding to students (para. 5 & 6).
So sharing is part of what we do as educators…. rather it’s the what, how and where we share that we really need to think about? If you think back to when you were growing up, some of us perhaps, didn’t have to worry about the photo someone snapped at a gathering or comment that was shared. Our networks were smaller. Perhaps your embarrassing photo made the yearbook or a friend actually had the roll of film developed. The chances of widespread distribution and repercussions were on a smaller scale. Now don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t fun if the wrong person got a hold of a photo or some how continued to share things. It wasn’t however on the same scale as social media provides today. So keep in mind that many of us who are now parents didn’t grow up in a world with social media or cell phones (mobile phones came in bags and you could only use then in case of emergency because who could afford the cost per minute).
Is the answer to attempt to remove technology from our lives and avoid any device that could capture our image so that facial recognition software can’t identify us? I guess you can try but for the large majority of us it’s not practical; moreover, sticking our head in the proverbial sand won’t make the issue go away, but someone might make a nice meme out of it.
In my experience it’s about having the courage to step into the conversation with students and talk about what’s going on. Is oversharing happening? What type of images are being posted? What if you just like or comment – does that make you part of it? It also means that we need to model or attempt thoughtful digital citizenship the best we can. This means that we need to know what engaged, thoughtful digital citizens do. While we may not all have access to Digital Learning Consultants and I have to say thank-you to Thad, Kirk and Robert for their ongoing encouragement and support during my years as a teacher and consultant. It makes a difference to have knowledgeable and reflective people to talk to about digital issues. So as the Agree team mentioned during the debate, we live in the real world and ongoing to access to PD and support people may not always be possible; however, we do live in an age where there is ample helpful information online about digital citizenship and digital footprints. I first learned about the elements of Digital Citizenship on Mike Ribble’s website.
What about oversharing? You know it’s going to happen and it’s like a digital tattoo. It has the potential to fade but never really go away. How do you prevent it? I think it begins with open communication with our children. As educators and parents, we have a great opportunity to talk about the pictures we take and how we share them. When you snap that pic and post it to Facebook, do you talk to your child about where you are posting it? Am I posting it publicly for everyone to see on my profile or am I sharing it with a select group of people in a secret Facebook group? Think about the conversation potential that exists with our Pre-K and K teachers as they document and share student learning with parents. I’ve seen our early learning teachers engage in thoughtful conversations about what they are sharing and who will see it. As a parent, I really appreciate getting the updates of what my daughter is doing in class. Plus hearing her voice as she explains it is priceless. Sharing matters.
Worried about oversharing? It’s happening all around us and it may be impacting our lives more than we know.
On the flip side, I remember back to a time when I was co-teaching my Bio 30 class with a teacher of a grade 5 class in a different community. We skyped everyday and each grade 12 was paired with a grade 5 student in the 1:1 learning project. We talked often about the expectations and how we needed to be engaged digital citizens, yet a grade 5 overshared info – nothing earth shattering but enough that the Bio 30 student was concerned. What it did do was generate a healthy discussion about what was appropriate to share in our wikispace discussions and how we can learn from the experience. We were working in a safe private space, so it was a great learning opportunity for all of us. One that will hopefully remind us all to think before we share.
So starting the conversation early will help engage students and teachers in thoughtfully sharing positive experiences to grow their digital footprint, which in turn helps model the practice to parents and family that may not have considered those aspects. Kathy Cassidy shared in her video that yes what we share in social media is permanent but because of that it’s a great way to look back and see how much we have grown. She also talked about the value of modeling how to use social media and in doing so how we influence student’s understanding of the world and practice empathy.
Steven W. Anderson shared Meredith Stewart’s tweet, “If you aren’t controlling your footprint, others are.” He encouraged readers to start building their brand – their digital identity. You do this by sharing and creating positive online footprints, but as the Agree team pointed out – you need to watch out for bouncing. When a photo that you have shared gets used for something else. As Anderson pointed out, not only do you have to actively build a positive identity you have to monitor it. Alec Couros noted in our follow up conversation that just googling our names doesn’t truly include all of our digital footprint. We need to consider the data that is tracked in all the apps that we use.
Alec discussed how facial recognition technology is now available and when he showed us how it worked with his own images, we realized just how many people there are out there that look just like him. (I mean exactly like him! They in fact are using one of his photos as their profile picture). We have to learn how to be aware of the footprints we are actively creating, as well as those that are being created without our consent.
Should all of this scare you as an educator away from sharing? or considering the sharing of student work? It’s important to consider the positive impacts of sharing. Rather than only relying on standardized assessments to ensure academic standards are being met.Bence asked “what if learner work were shared on a wider level so that the work could speak for itself. She shared examples of how being transparent with what’s happening in the classroom has added “another layer of authenticity to education” (para. 4). Learners have become more active participants in their own education especially when they know the audience is more than just the classroom. As with any online venture in education, Bence encouraged educators to check with their schools and districts to ensure practices align with responsible use.
Here’s part of our closing arguments from Tuesday night – sharing matters and it’s important to teach our children how to share.
You are welcome to check out our team’s resource list. We’ve selected a number of articles and guides to help educators grow their understanding of sharing.
What will matter in the future as our Facebook babies grow up and realize just what their parents and teachers have shared? I can only imagine where we will be when I think about how things have evolved in the first half of my teaching career… or even in the last 5 years for that matter.
What matters today is that we start the conversation. Hopefully if we start today and engaging in ongoing conversations about digital citizenship, we will all learn to pause before we post and think about the potential ripple effect.
Regardless of social media or old fashioned information sharing asking ourselves the following question will impact how we try to live our lives.
What legacy do you want to leave behind?
Special thanks to Lisa and Haiming! What a great team – glad to have had the chance to work with you!
As I’ve had a chance to read through other blog posts, these are a few that have stood out to me:
Jeremy B explained we all need to engage in digital citizenship education. He suggested introducing it to parents at meet the teacher nights as a way to engage parents. He noted that it’s also about sharing the resources we have with parents.
Erin B shared her decision to share student work using Seesaw and how she shared expectations with parents and students. It’s making the time to explicitly teach the students about digital citizenship and then apply it to their learning that truly makes a difference. Learning about digital citizenship in authentic situations truly makes a difference.
I really enjoyed Amy’s blog post. In particular, she referenced a an article by Geddes that questioned how quickly we post. She pointed out that when we had to go to our computers, log in, find the photo, upload, add the comment and then post – that we were more thoughtful. Has tech made it so easy that we’ve eliminated our thinking time?
Justine – made a very interesting point – our digital footprints can change as our names do which build on the conversation started by Amy S. I also agree that sharing a letter home with parents that invites them to participate and be aware of the social media use in a classroom is important. If you remember Mark Prensky’s Digital Natives vs. Digital Immigrants articles, Justine shared a great way to think of the differences in ways that we use the internet as Digital visitors vs Digital Residents. She also shared this quick video.
Just listed to Alec’s TED X Talk. A very thoughtful look at the value of understanding our digital identity and just how connected we are. Lots of great ideas to think about here.
Tyler’s post Unfair? Nope.pointed out the value of helping students learn about digital citizenship and have the opportunity to practice it. Plus he also shares some very helpful resources.
Luke’s post about “The More We Share, the More we Have” raises many thoughtful points about why we share what we do and the value included in it. You’ll also want to check out the oversharing video – well worth the watch.
Kelsie shared many great points but when she shared the Terms of Service – Didn’t read it website things got really interesting.