Sunday's Reads

Before I knew it this morning, I had 20 Twitter links sent to my email from my phone. And it wasn't yet seven o'clock. That's how great the resources were.

 Here are a few of them - The Ten Best Presentations EVER --

 Even if you don't like them all, at least the title is intriguing.  The biggest presentation I give is the faculty response (and the last two years the keynote address) at our end of the year honor's banquet.  So these are fully of great ideas for me.

The top ten has some of my favorite people on the list - Steve Jobs, Guy Kawasaki, Malcolm Gladwell,  and . . . Seth Godin (whose Linchpin we are reading right now in College Comp 2).


****

Writing in Public.  This post from one of my favorite bloggers, Bud the Teacher, reminds me of some issues concerning the Literacy Collaborative at our elementary school.

A letter has been written by a grade level insisting that all the time devoted to it be stopped.  There are others who are unhappy with the curriculum, and there are others still who insist that it is not a curriculum but a guide.

As co-president of the Language Arts Committee, this falls on me.  Now, I have to be fair.  I'm the definition of a novice when it comes to teaching literacy, so I'm making no claims at all.

All I know is that many people who have spoken to me want to see change and clarity brought to how they teach reading.

And I know that there are people I greatly respect who are passionate devotees of the Literacy Collaborative.

So it's tend ground to tread.

But this post hits much of what we have to do on the head.

We can't just let our anger (either way) get the best of us.  We can't support what we like or what we feel is best for us (the bottom line is getting kids to read and - like it or not - seeing their test scores in reading improve).

1. Be impeccable with your word.
2. Don’t take anything personally.
3. Don’t make assumptions.
4. Always do your best. #

As this dilemma arises, I try to put myself in the situation.  I think of what would happen if we looked at instituting a strict five paragraph theme curriculum in our writing problem.  This is something I'm dead set against.

But I acknowledge that it's a fine format to teach students.  The problem is that for some students, that's the only form they ever learn to master . . . and that it can lead them to dislike writing.  (Just ask yourself when was the last time you enjoyed either writing or reading a five paragraph theme.  Better yet, ask yourself when was the last time you wrote or read a five paragraph them out in the real world . Okay, enough on that).

If my colleagues were calling for a strict devotion to the five paragraph theme, I'd state my theories on why it should just be one of many formats we teach.  I'd offer evidence and research.

I'd acknowledge that I still continue to teach several five paragraph themes in my classes.

Then I'd leave it up to my colleagues to decide.  If they decided to teach only five paragraph themes, I'd learn to adapt and go with it.  I have no doubt if every single kid wrote an effective five paragraph theme, we'd have everyone passing the BST writing exam (though we'd have very few - if any - scoring above average, but they'd be passing).

In short, I'd be impeccable with my word (be honest about how I felt about the five paragraph theme and the research about it).  I wouldn't take anything personal (I sure wouldn't shoot my mouth off at a meeting or storm out).  I wouldn't make assumptions (I wouldn't think everyone is out to get me or make my job miserable or that I know everything there is about writing).  And finally, I'd try to do my best (which would result in me trying to inject some voice and style into the five paragraph theme, which certainly can be done).

I sure hope that is how we'll move ahead concerning the literacy collaborative.

****

The title of this blog post, The redundant pyramid: how hierarchical learning structures are collapsing, is one of the most interesting things I've read in quite awhile.  Here is my favorite excerpt: 

The pyramid view of organisational hierarchy was relevant when communication was a chore: when you had to get people together in a room to speak and in the days before email, when it took time to write, print and post letters. Today, that’s all changed. Communication is instant: communities form around individual projects, specific challenges and special interests: agile groupings with fluid roles. There is still value in an organisational structure, in management and reporting lines, but they are only part of the picture: it’s valuable for us to explore these less formal relationships, the hierarchies of communication and creativity, which drive learning.

So why can't our classes become little communities, linked to other student communities in other schools, around projects or topics or causes?

****

How MIT Approaches Innovation in Ed Tech.  There's something here for every school to learn from: open course ware, on-line assessments, the great "conceive, design, implement, and operate" initiative (how often do our students get to do any of those verbs in our schools?), and technology enhanced active learning.

*****

Web 3.0?  How interesting.  What a great time to be a teacher.  What an even better time to be a learner.

****

An Ignite Talk? Quite interesting.  It's a take on the PechaKucha.  Only on speed.  For this Ignite talk, you get five minutes and fifteen slides.  But what' s so interesting about that?  The slides are put on auto advance.  So they change every 15 seconds - if you're ready or not.

What would teaching be like if we adopted this format?




*****

What the future of education might look like -