The Invention of Air, PLNs, and School Transformation

I just finished reading Steven Johnson’s The Invention of Air. It’s the story of Joseph Priestley’s scientific discoveries, religious and political thoughts, and his influence on the founding thinkers of the United States. But it’s also a history of his Personal Learning Network (starting with “The Club of Honest Whigs,” which included Benjamin Franklin and Richard Price), and, combined with Richard Florida’s work, has me thinking again about the optimal conditions for learning at our point in history.

Consider this quote from page 51:

Ideas are situated in another kind of environment as well: the information network. Theoretically, it is possible to imagine good ideas happening in a vacuum . . . But most important ideas enter the pantheon because they circulate. And the flow is two-way: the ideas happen in the first place because they are triggered by other people’s ideas. The whole notion of intellectual circulation or flow is embedded in the word “influence” itself (“to flow into,” influere in the original Latin). Good ideas influence, and are themselves influenced by, other ideas. Different societies at different moments in history have varying patterns of circulation: compare the cloistered, stagnant information pools of the European Dark Ages to the hyperlinked, open-sourced connectivity of the Internet.

This describes nicely how I think about my Personal Learning Network, and how social and professional networking in general can help circulate, discuss, and refine ideas. Ideally, this would also describe schools; places that were not defined as much by prescribed curricula, but by a climate of intellectual curiosity and a culture of ideas, where good ideas influere other good ideas.

He continues on page 52:

The idea of proprietary secrets, of withholding information for personal gain, was unimaginable in that group. . . .But Priestley was a compulsive sharer, and the emphasis on openness and general circulation is as consistent a theme as any in his work. . . No doubt Priestley saw farther because he stood on the shoulders of giants, but he had another crucial asset: he had a reliable postal service that let him share his ideas with giants.

The label “compulsive sharer” describes quite a few of the folks in my PLN, and tools such as blogs, delicious, Twitter, rss feeds and Skype help enable that compulsive sharing. Priestley’s aversion to proprietary secrets also seems to apply to the folks in my PLN, where the ethos is “the more you share, the more you learn” – and the more we all benefit. I think Priestley would also appreciate Creative Commons. But I wonder how many of our schools – and the educational processes we have in place - really encourage compulsive sharing, either in-person or virtually?

Johnson continues on page 53:

The open circulation of ideas was practically the founding credo of the Club of Honest Wigs, and of eighteenth-century coffeehouse culture in general. With the university system languishing amid archaic traditions, and corporate R & D labs still on the distant horizon, the public space of the coffeehouse served as the central hub of innovation in British society.

. . .You can’t underestimate the impact that the Club of Honest Whigs had on Priestley’s subsequent streak, precisely because he was able to plug in to an existing network of relationships and collaborations that the coffeehouse environment facilitated. Not just because there were learned men of science sitting around the table – more formal institutions like the Royal Society supplied comparable gatherings – but also because the coffeehouse culture was cross-disciplinary by nature, the conversations freely roaming from electricity, to the abuses of Parliament, to the fate of dissenting churches.

Again, sounds like PLNs, and specifically tools like Twitter – “conversations freely roaming” and a “network of relationships and collaborations.” And I wonder if our current education system might be “languishing amid archaic traditions.”

Later he returns to the idea of compulsive sharing and documenting not only the product, but the process (page 63-64):

Part of this compulsive sharing no doubt comes from the fact that one of Priestley’s great skills as a scientist was his inventiveness with tools. He was a hacker, not a theoretician, and so it made sense to showcase his technical innovations alongside the scientific ideas they generated. But there was a higher purpose that drove Priestley to document his techniques in such meticulous detail: the information network. Priestley’s whole model of progress was built on the premise that ideas had to move, to circulate, for them to turn into better ideas. . . . It was a sensibility he shared with Franklin:

These thoughts, my dear Friend, are many of them crude and hasty, and if I were merely ambitious of acquiring some Reputation in Philosophy, I ought to keep them by me, ‘till corrected and improved by Time and farther Experience. But since even short Hints, and imperfect Experiments in any new Branch of Science, being communicated, have oftentimes a good Effect, in exciting the attention of the Ingenious to the Subject, and so becoming the Occasion of more compleat Discoveries, you are at Liberty to communicate this Paper to whom you please; it being of more Importance that Knowledge should increase, than that your Friend should be thought an accurate Philosopher.

This resonates for me in relation to my own blogging, where I often think of blogging as “rough draft thinking”, or “thinking in progress,” and where I count on commenters and linkers to help me refine my own thinking. I believe one of the big hurdles for getting folks in my building to blog professionally is their fear of not having a polished piece of writing, or of being not completely correct about something. (These are both things I’ve obviously overcome!) But that seems to fly in the face of how so many of the scientists and philosophers that we revere in this country did their own thinking and sharing and, with the amazing ability we have to share today, it saddens me to see how few of us are really taking advantage of this capability (both professionally and with our students).

Further into the book, on pages 73 and 74, Johnson takes up information networks:

The true shape of an idea forming looks much more like this:
That network shape is one of the reasons why external information networks (the coffeehouse, the Internet) are so crucial to the process of innovation, because those networks so often supply new connections that the solo inventor wouldn’t have stumbled across on his or her own. But the long life span of the hunch suggests another crucial dimension here: it is not just the inventor’s social network that matters, but the specific way in which the inventor networks with his own past selves, his or her ability to keep old ideas and associations alive in the mind.

To me, this describes tagging and the digital archiving (and sharing) of thoughts, so that not only can you learn from others, but you can go back and reflect on and learn from your own “past self.” I believe we miss so much, and our students miss so much, because we view so much of what we do as transitory, and not worth keeping or revisiting. What is it about self-reflection (again, both professionally and with/by our students) that worries us so?

Toward the end of the book, on pages 204-206, Johnson makes the connection again to modern information networks:

More important, though, the values that Priestley brought to his intellectual explorations have never been more essential than they are today. The necessity of open information networks – like ones he cultivated with the Honest Whigs and the Lunar Society, and with the popular tone of his scientific publications – has become a defining creed of the Internet age. . . . An idea that flows through society does not grow less useful as it circulates; most of the time, the opposite occurs: the idea improves, as its circulation attracts the “attention of the Ingenious,” as Franklin put it. Jefferson saw the same phenomenon, and interpreted it as yet another part of nature’s rational system: “That ideas should freely spread from one another over the globe,” he wrote in an 1813 letter discussing a patent dispute, “for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.”

, , , Building a coherent theory of the modern world without a thorough understanding of [the Internet] would have struck Priestley as a scandal of the first order.

This speaks to me so much of our often misguided Internet filter policies, the idea that by restricting the flow of ideas we are somehow protecting our students. And, again, it reinforces the concept of openness, and the sharing of student and teacher work, and that through this sharing, this cross-pollinating of ideas, we progress and improve not only as teachers and students, but as a society (see Mark Pesce’s Capture Everything, Share Everything, Open Everything, Only Connect)

He brings it home at the end of the book on pages 213-215:

The faith in science and progress necessitated one other core value that Priestley shared with Jefferson and Franklin and that is the radical’s belief that progress inevitably undermines the institutions and belief systems of the past. . . . You could no longer put stock in “the education of our ancestors,” as Jefferson derisively called it. Embracing change meant embracing the possibility that everything would have to be reinvented. . . .One thing is clear: to see the world in this way – to disconnect the timeless insights of science and faith from the transitory world of politics; to give up the sublime view of progress; to rely on the old institutions and not conjure up new ones – is to betray the core and connected values that Priestley shared with the American founders . . . How can such a dramatically expanded vista not make us think that the world is still ripe for radical change, for new ways of sharing ideas or organizing human life? And how could it not also be cause for hope?

I think this is one of the huge struggles we’re facing as we try not so much to reform education, but to transform it. Schools as we know them are comfortable, and safe. But if “progress inevitably undermines the institutions and belief systems of the past” and we should “no longer put stock in ‘the education of our ancestors,’” then we will have to face the uncomfortable and deal with disruptive innovation.

We are going to have to seize on the current crisis to make transformative change and conjure up new institutions – or least new learning paradigms. One of our core values must be to seize these "new ways of sharing ideas or organizing human life," to be compulsive sharers and utilize these tools and our learning networks to transform our schools, our communities and our world.

Will that be difficult? Sure, but it’s necessary and it’s time. And, while perhaps difficult, “how could it not also be cause for hope?”

How Should Colleges Assess and Improve Student Learning?

First, a few caveats.

1. I don’t believe that all we’re about in education is preparing future employees.


2. Just because Business says something is good doesn’t necessarily make it so.


3. I don’t know enough about the methodology of this survey to judge bias.

Okay, now that we’ve got that out of the way, I found How Should Colleges Assess and Improve Student Learning? (pdf) rather interesting:

From November 8 to December 12, 2007, Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., interviewed 301 employers whose companies have at least 25 employees and report that 25% or more of their new hires hold at least a bachelor’s degree from a four-year college. Respondents are executives at their companies, including owners, CEOs, presidents, C-suite level executives, and vice presidents.

So they polled these executives about the quality of college graduates and what they’d like to change, particularly in the area of assessment. Here are a few excerpts:

Employers are satisfied that the majority of college graduates who apply for positions at their companies possess a range of skills that prepare them for success in entry-level positions, but they are notably less confident that graduates are prepared for advancement or promotion. While recent graduates are seen to demonstrate solid skills in the areas of teamwork, ethical judgment, and intercultural skills, employers are less convinced of their preparedness in terms of global knowledge, self-direction, and writing.

When it comes to the assessment practices that employers trust to indicate a graduate’s level of knowledge and potential to succeed in the job world, employers dismiss tests of general content knowledge in favor of assessments of real-world and applied-learning approaches. Multiple-choice tests specifically are seen as ineffective. On the other hand, assessments that employers hold in high regard include evaluations of supervised internships, community-based projects, and comprehensive senior projects.

Employers’ emphasis on integrative, applied learning is reflected in their recommendations to colleges and universities about how to assess student learning in college. Again, multiple-choice testing ranks lowest among the options presented, just below an institutional score that shows how a college compares to other colleges in advancing critical thinking skills. Faculty evaluated internships and community-learning experiences emerge on top. Employers also endorse individual student essay tests, electronic portfolios of student work, and comprehensive senior projects as valuable tools both for students to enhance their knowledge and develop important real-world skills, as well as for employers to evaluate graduates’ readiness for the workplace.

And, from the “Key Findings”:

. . . Most employers indicate that college transcripts are not particularly useful in helping evaluate job applicants’ potential to succeed at their company.

. . . Few employers believe that multiple-choice tests of general content knowledge are very effective in ensuring student achievement. Instead, employers have the most confidence in assessments that demonstrate graduates’ ability to apply their college learning to complex, real-world challenges, as well as projects or tests that integrate problem-solving, writing, and analytical reasoning skills.

. . . Employers deem both multiple-choice tests of general content knowledge and institutional assessments that show how colleges compare in advancing critical-thinking skills of limited value for evaluating applicants’ potential for success in the workplace. They anticipate that faculty-assessed internships, community-based projects, and senior projects would be the most useful in gauging graduates’ readiness for the workplace.

. . . When asked to advise colleges on how to develop their methods for assessing students’ learning, employers rank multiple-choice tests of students’ general content knowledge and institutional scores for colleges as conspicuously low priorities.

So, let me summarize (bias alert! bias alert!) via a single multiple choice question:

1. According to this report:

a. Grades are pretty much a non-factor in the hiring process.

b. Multiple choice tests are an unreliable predictor of success.

c. Employers are pretty much satisfied with the content knowledge of their employees and think assessments that cover content are relatively meaningless.

d. Employers want their employees to be more globally oriented, to take charge of their own job, and they must be able to communicate effectively through writing.

e. Employers prefer meaningful, relevant, experiential learning over an isolated, content-focused-only approach.

f. All of the above.

So, keeping those caveats I started with in mind, what does this mean for what we’re doing here at Arapahoe? Regular readers of this blog can probably predict what I would say about the ramifications of this in terms of the way we grade, what and how we teach, coverage of the curriculum, and how much of the responsibility for learning we put in the hands of students. But, just in case there was any doubt (and that the above wasn’t biased enough), let me add on to the choices above.

a. Since the primary way that many folks use grades appears to be superfluous, perhaps we need to take a hard look at the efficacy of grading in the first place, and perhaps switch to a focus on formative assessment versus “grades.”

b. Other than standardized test companies, politicians, and teachers who have a tight deadline to turn in final grades (see previous item), who’s really in favor of multiple choice tests? (Yes, I’ve ranted about this before somewhere, but I can’t find it at the moment.)

c. Content is necessary, but not sufficient, to be successful in the 21st century. So perhaps we should stop trying to “cover” the content, and instead focus on understanding the essential concepts and applying them in real world settings.

d. Constructivism. Blogs. RSS. Read/Write Web. Personal Learning Networks.

e. We need to take a hard look at our current system.

I’d love to hear your thoughts (especially AHS folks, but of course everyone is welcome to chime in) on what specific changes we might think about making. If you do comment, please try to not focus on the rant portion of the above, but on the results of the survey and on meaningful changes that will benefit our students.

Global Collaboration: 1001 Flat World Tales Project

Michele has a couple of posts where she describes the initial steps in a global collaboration between her class and classes in Korea, Canada and China (so far). The idea originated with Clay Burell, who teaches at the Korea International School in Seoul, South Korea.

Clay's idea is to have students read portions of the Arabian Nights and have them then write stories about their culture, their lives, starting with truth and bleeding into fiction. The premise is a frame story (an alien has landed and you've been asked to explain our world). Students will create a Thousand and One Flat World Tales, a storybook online...students of all grades, from around the world. We'll focus on 6+1 traits, fiction techniques, and hopefully our students will see a common thread between all the stories. Maybe they'll have a bigger perspective of the world (sometimes hard to create at age 13 & 14) and leave English 9 a little more focused on their dreams, their future.

Check out the wiki that Clay has set up, and also take a look at the FAQ page. This is just getting started, so only Clay's students have any stories up yet. But this is an ongoing project (K-12 so far, any college folks want to jump in?), so contact Clay if you'd like to join.

Communication so far has been via e-mail, skype, and the discussion pages on the wiki.

I just got my account on Skype and tried out the instant messenging this morning. It was 6:45 am here and 10:45 pm in Korea. Clay Burell (http://burell.blogspot.com/) and I traded ideas, asked questions and held a free, international conversation all 15 minutes before my English Lit class started. The world has just gotten flatter in my little world.

When the stories are "finished," they will then be published on student blogs (linked from the wiki). Clay has coined the term "blook":

We gave the name blook to the idea of a new type of publication, never possible in the history of reading and writing until the invention of wikis and blogs: a "book" of short stories that is published on inter-linking student blogs. A blook.

The official list of published students will be maintained on this wiki. Whenever students officially select (and teachers perhaps agree?) a student's story for publication on the 1001 Fllat World Tales blook, the story and writer will be "promoted" from the wiki to the student's blog.

Each additional story will be added to the blook's Table of Contents on this wiki, and linked to each additional student's blog.

Readers of the blook will thus read each story on its own writer's blog, and click the hyperlink to the next successful student writer's blog, on and on. Think of the benefits of an ever-growing world audience for these students on their blogs. (And yes, we have security guidelines and advice!)

Our goal is to match--then surpass--the original 1001 tales with "1001+" of our own!

So, how did all this get started? Clay started blogging (okay, prolifically blogging - I don't think Clay sleeps much). He read The Fischbowl and linked to a couple of items. The links came into my RSS aggregator so I checked out his blog and commented. He posted the 1001 Tales idea on his blog and I commented. I shared some ideas via email (and in person) with my language arts and social studies teachers. Michele jumped in with both feet. I also have three social studies teachers that are discussing with Clay ideas for how they can work together. The most promising idea so far is taking a look at the Cold War - from the American and the Korean perspective, and specifically spending some time looking at the Korean "Conflict".

Umm, somebody explain to me again why we can't do this?

Image Citation: The Arabian Nights, originally uploaded by Shenghung Lin.