Tossing Dan A Lifeline

My colleague, Dan, who I consider to be the epitome of The Prototype Teacher 2.0 is taking fire across the bow because he's once again asking those pesky questions that stir up the Classroom 2.0 purists.

I can't sit by and not comment this time. I'm tossing a lifeline and hoping it helps him keep his head above the water.  Not that he needs my help, mind you, but sometimes it's just good to hear a friendly voice of support.

Dan is my prime example of today's teacher who is trying to pull current research, best practices, promising practices, Classroom 2.0 technologies, and proven past methods into one coherent instructional delivery model.  Occasionally he is being sidetracked by purists who seem to feel that implementing Classroom 2.0 automatically excludes any teaching method older than 2006. 

I'm not sure where anyone has gotten the impression that the Good Old Stand Up Lecture is out-moded, out-dated, or God forbid, out-lawed.

Afterall, I first learned about Web 2.0 and Classroom 2.0 through...ta da...LECTURES! How ironic, eh?

It's the same principle that keeps orchestra conductors from being replaced with metronomes.

For the record, I maintain that TO THIS DAY the best way to assess a teachers ability is to take them outside, give them a group of 20 students, no pencils, no paper, no electricity, nothing but a pleasant day and a tree to sit under.  And tell them to teach.  A true TEACHER would take this opportunity and run with it.  I'm afraid Classroom 2.0 disciples would sit and show symptoms of withdrawal. [No Powerpoint?  Nope.  What about my laser pointer?  Nope.  How do I start?]

Yes, I've seen versions of this during power outages.  My new staff flounders.  "Oh, jeez, no power, what to we do?"  My veterans open the windows, turn on a flashlight, (or whatever), and plow ahead.

Dan is using technology as a TOOL, not a crutch.  He doesn't worry about the "focal points" in all the "noise" of his Powerpoints just because he want a snazzy techno-teaching production.  He only sweats that type of detail in order to prevent the tool from becoming a distraction to the learning process.

Let me say that again, because it lies at the heart of what Dan is doing that is absolutely correct and models the ultimate use of Classroom2.0.

Dan only sweats that type of detail in order to prevent the tool from becoming a distraction to the learning process.  The medium is not the message.

Lectures are still a totally appropriate means of instructional delivery. Frankly, they always will be. I doubt that even when holographic technology makes it possible for a fully actualized 3D teacher to meet one-on-one with a student 100 miles away that it will replace the significant and subtle forms of interaction that humans need.   

Teaching cannot be fully automated.  Correction, teaching should not be allowed to become fully automated. 

True teaching and learning MUST allow for subtleties and nuance, for opinions expressed in tone of voice, for emphasis via a small hand gesture, or doubt cast with the slightest raising of an eyebrow.

Why is it the same Mozart on a printed sheet of music can be made to sound so different depending on the personal touch a conductor gives it?  Why can the same sermon - word for word - either put me to sleep to keep me on the edge of my seat depending on the style of the preacher?  Why did Mr. Smith nearly kill my desire to learn chemistry the first semester while Mr. Aizawa brought the Periodic Table to life in the second semester?  [More - MUCH more on this in future blogs**]

Student work products must be allowed to be presented and enhanced with technologies, but a wise teacher MUST look through the glitz of a Power point with sound effects, fireworks, and embedded videos of dancing elephants and pull out the KNOWLEDGE that the student gained.

Remember: it's all about GAINING KNOWLEDGE.  Classoom 2.0 means nothing without factoring in the all important component of VALUE ADDED.

Dan is becoming an expert at revolving around the issues, peeling away the onion, and pioneering how Everything 2.0 has a purpose and place in the classroom. The tried and true methods of memorization, drill, practice, teacher-led discussions, etc. are still very much valid. 

Bear in mind: Web 2.0, Classroom 2.0, Teacher 2.0, Technology 2.0, EVERYTHING 2.0 are meant as enhancements - NOT REPLACEMENTS.

Comments

[ken]

it's all just a little unfortunate that Dan even asks for 'pimping'.

i totally agree with you that the best teachers can teach under the shade of a tree. they might very well be druids, but they know that at the core of quality teaching is the foundation of a relationship.

it's this relationship that affords good teachers the ability to connect with their charges, but also to inspire and challenge them to become better people once they leave the comfort of the shady tree.

i just hope the rain holds off.

[Greg Bicknell]

I am amazed at the number of people that think technology is going to replace the teacher. What a mistake that would be. You hit the nail on the head with your descriptions of the nuances that go in to the art and craft of teaching. Power failure... no big deal for the seasoned teacher... but give them the power... and wonderful things can be added! Nice work Dan and Greg.

[Dan Meyer]

I feel like School 2.0 and I are slowly reaching some common understanding, particularly of my role within it. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter, Greg.