Can a Question About Blogs Really Be That Controversial?
change September 22nd, 2007I just finished reading an interesting blog post by David Warlick (check out 2 Cents Worth) who has taken a hit by some in the blogosphere for lauding the use of blogs in education. The comments against Warlick are revealing and an example of the road blocks that prevent meaningful integration of technology into the curriculum. His post was this simple observation: in an effort to attract technically savvy teachers school administrators might ask not only what journals they read but what blogs they read. What a great question! Ray Dewar posted a comment that took the conversation a step further. He says that to answer the question of a candidates technical fluency he asks each about the technology they use on a daily basis. Simple. Extraordinary.
Sacrilege.
There was a flurry of comments questioning the validity of blogs, their scholarly relevance, and their place in education.
Well if it’s validity that’s needed then read the 6/03 article in The Chronicle: “Scholars Who Blog“, or better yet get it right from the source and read 1 of the over 125 blogs on the site Professors Who Blog. Still not convinced that there is a place for blogging in education? Try Googling “using blogs in education site:edu” and you’ll get over 338,000 hits!
The point is that education needs students, staff, and faculty who are willing to try ‘new’ technologies to collaborate, share, inform, think and question. So then, why not ask candidates to assess their 21st century literacy skills? It might be the start of something big.
JENNY
September 25th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Interesting — I’m not a Warlick fan — he’s a cheerleader for this stuff, which is really useful, but part of that is he does sometimes have a bit of an overacceptance.
But when you see that mindset that he’s fighting against, where somehow technical proficiency remains separate from teaching in a way that no other industry tolerates — and that’s seen as a GOOD thing… well, cheerleading doesn’t look so bad.
I hope I’m not misread… I think a great teacher is a thing to be treasured, and if someone is Jesus on Skates in the classroom, I would never say to kick em out because they don’t know del.icio.us.
But I don’t think things work in that way — I think this argument comes from people that understand tech a bunch of tools and procedures, and not as an integral competency that deals with how we approach problems.
When I learn that someone blogs or learned del.icio.us, I don’t only check the skills box — my opinion of them is informed by the fact they were bright enough to recognize a problem and independently apply a solution.
Books were tech too, as were card catalogs, scholarly journals, calculators, podiums, pens and spiral binders….
September 26th, 2007 at 9:14 am
A cheerleader? That’s a bit of an understatement. Let’s get this straight. I’m an evangelist. But it’s not really the technology, the tools, the gadgets, the latest Web 2.0 app that I’m really promoting. One of my main keynotes starts and ends with, “Stop integrating technology. Instead, integrate literacy!”
I’m not interested in an administrator or a teacher, or a college professor who reads blogs because they read blogs. It’s because blog reading is an indication that this is a professional who is engaged in the ongoing conversation. They are not exclusively depending on the textbooks of their college days, and the peer-reviewed journals, though these are both essential parts of being a professional. But the are also paying attention to and perhaps even participating in the discussions of today, among practicing educators and the stakeholders of our education system.
There’s nothing really magical about blogging (or podcasting, or wikis, or del.icio.us). They didn’t exist only a few years ago, and they may well not exist in any meaningful way two years from now. But the conversation will continue.
I know that you’re engaged by where you put your ears.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Integration of technology literacy might be the push we need to get beyond the idea that a syllabus posted on the web is ‘integration’. I’ve been grappling with this since ‘99 and it might be the frame that resonates with higher ed that moves this thing forward.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Look at that! Ouch!
I’ll have to be more careful in my language. I actually do listen to your podcasts because it’s great the way you get teachers to talk about tech and really find out what’s going on in classrooms and how you collect best practices — and your blog is in my google reader though I don’t always get to it.
And you’re right — evangelist. Cheerleader is wrong.
I guess what I meant is that you do a great job getting people very pumped about technologies and more broadly technological literacy — and most of what you’re doing is talking to the unconverted and recently converted — so I don’t read you much myself …
So what I should have said is I’m not really your audience — does that make sense?
Sorry, feeling suddenly a little embarrassed here. I guess I meant you are sort of the Kathy Sierra of School 2.0. Your real talent is as a popularizer, and sometimes that comes off as being overly excited but that’s what popularizers do…
Great, I’m just going to dig myself in deeper. Ugh. Maybe if we cross paths at a conference we’ll get a drink? I’m not half as arrogant as I sound.
On substance though, we’re in agreement. Tech is not a bag of tools. It’s a way of approaching things. And web 2.0 tech in particular is a way of conversing.
And if you’re really going to pass up the chance to converse in a medium where David Warlick ends up replying to your comment about David Warlick — if you decide to forgo that because “you’re not a tech person” then — well, that just says something pretty important.
So I think we’ve established:
1) You’re an evangelist.
2) We’re in agreement on this issue.
3) I owe you a beer.