Dangerously Irrelevant

Cable in the Classroom is sponsoring
its annual Media Smart
Research Award:

Media literacy is a key 21st Century skill because it provides a framework
and method to think critically about the media and technologies students and
adults use for information and entertainment. Media literacy means knowing how
to access, understand, analyze, evaluate and create media messages on
television, the Internet and other outlets. It also means knowing how to use
these and other technologies safely, productively and
ethically.

The deadline for
emerging media literacy scholars to submit materials is May
31.

Lately there’s been a bunch of conversation on this blog about The Gaming Krib, a service designed to help parents and children ‘balance … playing time and learning time.’ Most of the comments (both here and on Twitter) about the company and/or its underlying paradigm have been pretty negative. Michael Vitelli, President and CEO, has kindly agreed to do a podcast interview with me on May 9 to talk about the need his company is addressing as well as its approach to solving that need.

Check out my previous post and The Gaming Krib web site. Then, in the comments area for this post, please submit some questions that you’d like me to consider for the interview. Rather than answering them here, Michael and I will save them for when we chat. Thanks!

Just a couple of reminders…

• Submissions for the NECC button design contest that Wesley Fryer and I are sponsoring are due May 1.
• Submissions to be considered for CASTLE’s advisory board are due May 5.

I’ve got my next contest already planned. Dan Meyer has got one cookin’ too – he’s just waiting for the NECC button design contest to end!

After 3 years, it’s time to set up an advisory board for CASTLE. Although I have a few people in mind that I’d like to invite, I also thought it would be great to tap into the expertise of my readers. Duties would include reviewing curricula, giving feedback on current initiatives, suggesting ideas for future projects, connecting us with external partners and/or opportunities, etc. All work and collaboration will be done electronically. Time commitment shouldn’t be too strenuous and the work (hopefully) will be interesting.

Interested in serving on the CASTLE advisory board? Drop me a note describing your professional background/experience and why you think you’d be a good advisor to the only center in the U.S. dedicated to the technology needs of school administrators. International applicants are welcome. Deadline is Monday, May 5.

Questions? Leave ‘em as a comment to this post so all can see my replies. Please note that, if interest is high, I can’t take everyone and will have to make some difficult choices. Thanks!

Credits: F Minus by Tony Carrillo, Dist. by UFS, Inc. [permission for use granted 4–24–2008]

We have a choice to make for ourselves and the organizations that we lead: cynicism or hope. Moving forward or remaining still. Not starry-eyed, quixotic optimism but a realistic, determined belief that we can figure this out and do this. Or a stagnant, regressive retrenching, an unwillingness to invest in the proven and potential capacity of humanity. Which will you choose?

And when today cynics dismiss as and impossible dream or naïve idealism proposals to create the institutions of a truly global society let us remind them that people used to think black civil rights a distant dream, the end of the cold war an impossible hope, the ending of apartheid in our generation the work of dreamers, debt relief for the poorest countries an unrealisable idea … And so let us have confidence we can discover anew in ourselves the values we share in common,  … and let us have confidence we can create a global covenant across nations to make peace and prosperity real in our generation.

 - Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister (courtesy of Richard Florida)

Stephanie Sandifer recently blogged about the concept of ‘teachers as learners’:

Rather than immediately engage in a technology purchasing frenzy, take some time to begin discussions on your campus about how to transform your school into a place where teachers see themselves first as LEARNERS who are invested in improving their instructional practice through reflection and inquiry

This is an old edublogosphere theme. For example, here’s a post by Will Richardson from way back in 2006:

In a world where knowledge is scarce (and I know I’m using that phrase an awful lot these days), I can see why we needed teachers to be, well, teachers. But here’s what I’m wondering: in a world where knowledge is abundant, is that still the case? In a world where, if we have access, we can find what we need to know, doesn’t a teacher’s role fundamentally change? Isn’t it more important that the adults we put into the rooms with our kids be learners first? Real, continual learners? Real models for the practice of learning? People who make learning transparent and really become a part of the community?

So what do we mean, exactly, when we say we want teachers to be ‘learners?’ The operationalization of the answer to this question is important, I believe. For example, I once asked a group of high school guidance counselors in Minnesota, ‘How do you know if you’re a successful high school guidance program?’ They responded, ‘When every student has a meaningful connection to at least one adult in the building.’ I said, ‘That’s great! Now, how do you know when you’ve gotten there? How do you know where you are now? How do you know if you’re making progress?’ And then there was silence – crickets chirping – because they didn’t know how to operationalize what they said was the ultimate measure of success for themselves.

I’ve asked similar questions of school administrators:

If, like 98.7% of all schools and districts in the country, your mission and/or vision statement says something like ‘blah blah blah blah lifelong learners blah blah blah,’ how do you know when you’ve gotten there? How do you know if you’re making progress? What does that look like? Can you tell me?

And, again, crickets chirping – because they can’t operationalize what they say is the ultimate intended outcome of the organization.

So what’s your answer? If we want teachers to be ‘learners’ – if that’s important to us – how do we define that? What do we look for? How do we know if we’ve got it?

If we can’t define it, we can’t recognize it / hire for it / reward it / remediate for the lack of it.

Anyone want to take a shot at it?

One year ago: Don’t hold your breath

[cross-posted at the TechLearning blog]

Last June, during Change Week at Dangerously Irrelevant, I blogged about Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory. In that post I mentioned that one of the most underutilized aspects of Rogers’ work was the concept of perceived characteristics of innovations (PCIs). PCIs are those things considered by potential adopters that affect how likely they are to move from awareness to adoption. Rogers noted that issues of relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and usability were important when thinking about innovation adoption. The key is that the perception – what’s inside the potential adopter’s head – is what’s important.

Rogers’ work ties in nicely with another concept that I’ve recently been thinking about: technology affordances. As Gaver (1991) noted, affordances are aspects of an object ‘that are compatible with and relevant for people’s interactions.’ In the context of digital technologies, affordances are the characteristics that let us answer the question, ‘What do these tools do for me?’ For example, the digital camera has a number of affordances that a traditional film camera does not, including easier manipulation/alteration of raw images, ease of sharing, and elimination of the need to print unwanted pictures.

The idea of affordances intersects with the idea of perceptions. Gaver has a useful diagram in his article:

Quadrant B represents the situation when the affordance of a digital technology is actually there but is not perceived by educators. For example, essay grading software can do some powerful things but I have seen educators simply refuse to believe that the software works the way it does. In contrast, Quadrant C occurs when educators believe a digital technology might do something for them that it actually cannot (ever bought a technology that didn’t live up to its promise?). In an ideal world, educators would be in either Quadrant A or Quadrant D, rejecting or adopting digital technologies with full understanding of what those tools can or cannot do for them.

Of course we don’t live in an ideal world. In fact, it’s difficult for non-technology-savvy educators to have accurate perceptions about digital technologies’ affordances simply because their level of knowledge and understanding is so low. This leads to vendor pitch susceptibility, inappropriate buying decisions, improper implementation, incorrect rejection, and a host of other issues.

Those of us who are using these tools – who are often living and breathing these tools – need to internalize the diagram above. Although a tool may fall into Quadrant D for us, it may fall into Quadrant B or C for someone else. Indeed, for many, residence in Quadrant A is quite appropriate for the instructional task at hand, even when we might say it falls into Quadrant D.

So is this all a fancy way of saying ‘don’t use technology in unthoughtful or inappropriate ways?’ Maybe. Or maybe it’s a way of saying that teachers will reside in Quadrants A or B unless we help them navigate the implementation dip that’s required to get to Quadrant D. Either way, I believe that it’s a useful framework as we think about school staff and where they fall regarding the innovations we often ask them to adopt. If we technology advocates can’t both show and persuade our potential adopters that a particular digital technology falls into Quadrant D for whatever they want to do, we’re not doing our job. And it’s not enough that the technology actually would be helpful, that it actually has the affordance. When it comes to adoption, the perception is as important as the actual capability of the tool.

Citation: Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances.

Related links

• Diffusion of innovation
• Change Week wrap-up
• The aggregate impact of individual choices
• Implementation dip

Hey, principals! Superintendents! Teachers!*

On a related note, here’s what I’ve been saying a lot lately…

* Seth Godin, Free Prize Inside (p. 47)

As I said last May…

In the blogosphere we pay a lot of attention to the folks who blog. We rarely, if ever, recognize those folks who comment. But of course the power of blogs would be greatly diminished if folks weren’t willing to add their commentary to others’ posts.

So continuing my idea from last year, here are my first two recipients of this year’s Fantastic Commenter Award (who can now post this badge with pride!):

• Charlie Roy
• Gilbert Halcrow

Do you know someone who always leaves great comments? Please recognize him or her with this badge (or make your own!). [Note: you must be given this award by someone else. You can't just recognize yourself!]

Fantastic Commenter Badge

• 150 pixels wide
• 125 pixels wide
• 100 pixels wide

Recognize someone today. You know he/she deserves it!