This week we discussed a lot of theory about human nature and institutions. When we begin to view institutions as living organisms that are connected to the world, we begin to see how these structures are a sum of their parts and the relationships between these parts. Schools are made up of the people within the walls. Relationships between the students, teachers, staff and families make up the community. When the relationships are unharmonious, it’s typically because at least one of these elements is in conflict. Issues will remain, especially if there is a culture of sociocultural homeostasis – change can easily revert back to the status quo. Through a shift in linguistic cognitive domains and embrace in change, the parts within a school can adjust to a positive environment. That seems to be the first step for cultural change. Only once the beings within a school feel safe and supported can changes be made in the cognitive domains, along with supporting infrastructure and technology to support cognitive and cultural growth – it’s all connected.

An inner-city school I was once staffed had a history of conflict from previous administrators, and a challenging group of students working their way through the grades. Those years were simply categorized as “rough” from some of the teachers I talked to. However, once a more positive relationship with new administrators and strong support from the community was established, the culture and technology was able to change. The school was selected to be apart of a pilot program using iPads in conjunction with the area’s family of schools. While it is too soon to state the affects on student learning, I’ve realized how connected the cognitive, cultural, and technological domains are.

So how can I use this knowledge? As already mentioned, Sandy and I are trying to develop an online database and resource to provide information to teachers within our respective districts. While some of the ideas in the “bag of tricks” may not be feasible, hopefully we’ll be able to contribute to the use of ICT for new teachers.

In the future, I’d like to try to apply some of these concepts of resource based teaching and learning through the inquiry process while using technology to create (higher-level thinking according to Bloom’s Taxonomy). As we saw in Sugata Mitra’s TED Talk, students will teach themselves if they are motivated to do so. In the TL role, I’d like to look into the interest and demand for e-books, Tumblebooks, audio books and other digital media for students and teachers. If we can spark student interest with inquiry topics they want to do and provide the resources necessary, there’s no reason not to take advantage of the technological age we live it.

Today we had a chance to discuss the idea of digital world libraries in developing countries, and developing digital world libraries. What is the premise? The idea is to create online or digital resources for those in developing countries to access since many of the books developing or remote places get are out of date, hard to transport, or limited in variety. Shipping books is expensive, and having a place to store them all is also problematic. If the content were somehow accessible digitally, that would solve the issues of storage, shipping, and age. Furthermore, the physical books could not be damaged or lost. If libraries could organize their resources and allocate funds to specific topics, a number of libraries could expand their collective digital databases on a number of topics. While Internet isn’t accessible everywhere, fiber optic is being laid down in developing countries. One article I came across noted that the increasing demand for online gaming is actually encouraging the development of infrastructure. While that develops, there are other options that are more readily accessible. My initial thoughts went to e-readers since many of them can store thousands of books, have 3G capabilities to access online databases, and many have chargers that can connect to household power sockets, or even use solar chargers. Another option came from an article discussing using KickStarter to fund digital libraries housed in shipping containers that actual librarians would staff. The digital content would remain in the cargo container and people could come to access information with the assistance of the librarian. The most practical device available would be to take advantage of the most common communication device – cell phones. Cell phones are in many developing countries and are relatively inexpensive. If digital content were made available online and accessible via wifi, 3g, or even using cell phone towers, distribution issues would be resolved. Even a combination of the cargo-container concept, transfer cables and cell phones could work to distribute the content.

How does this relate to our inquiry topics? Sandy and I are collaborating on a way to share information about schools in districts and store that database online. This information would be accessible to teachers or anyone interested in contributing or learning about the ICT availability in schools. A section sharing teacher resources would draw on the digital content one might find from a digital library source. Tumblebooks and ebooks are wonderful resources, but not all books are available in these formats. With further development of digital libraries, it’s my hope that one day they will be.

Today we discussed another three terms that have to do with a more positive outlook – autopoesis, structural coupling, and linguistic cognitive domains. Autopoesis has to do with living organisms and their self-creating tendencies. All living organisms are connected to the world and humans are no different. However, many humans have been living under the false belief that humans are somehow separate and removed from the ecological system and that we are somehow above it. The way we are living now is not sustainable. While this is concerning to see in individuals, the problem runs much deeper. If humans have been raised with this belief, many of our systems and institutions have this belief built into them. The institutions created are perpetuating this misconception. As frightening as this sounds, by the same principle of autopoesis, humans have the capacity to self-regulate in our changing environment. Taken to the school level, while our environment is changing, students, teachers and staff will find a way to regulate to sustain ourselves – there’s hope. Following our discussion last day looking at dynamic conservatism and sociocultural homeostasis, there’s hope in creating new ways to adapt to our ever changing environment.

Structural coupling states our need to forge connections with our environment. Structural coupling has to do with humans and our cognitive, cultural and technological connection to our environment. All three domains are needed to survive; without them, our species could not survive. Maintaining that we are self-creating beings in an ever changing environment, in order for people to progress we must find a balance of the three domains. While traditional teaching has taken us this far, there needs to be a shift in the way we think to adapt to the change in culture. Living in what is termed Generation Z, people have never been more connected. How can we change the way we think and teach in order to adapt to these monumental changes in technology and culture?

Perhaps it has to start with our relationships within institutions to break the “us against them” mentality. How we communicate with one another affects our relationships and this is what the linguistic cognitive domains have to do with. There needs to be a level of trust and safety before we can begin to change and reframe our beliefs. In the education system, that level of trust and safety is needed before teachers can think of ways to reshape the way we’ve been teaching for so long. In order for that trust and safety to happen, we have to find better ways to communicate. Given that humans have never been more connected than we are today, we’re 1/3 of the way there. With the infrastructure in place, we now need to adapt cognitively and culturally so we can regulate with the environment once again.

Today we discussed three long terms known as institutional isomorphism, dynamic conservatism (conservative dynamicism), and sociocultural homeostasis. While I won’t be able to explain the three terms as well as our lecture, institutional isomorphism has to do with the institution as a living organism. Like a living organism, the school institution does what it needs to survive and is made up of the people, policies and procedures that occur within. Like breathing, its goal is to sustain itself and in the process, maintain policies, practices and philosophies. While this doesn’t sound harmful the problem lies in that our school system is quickly becoming outdated (if it isn’t already).

Dynamic conservatism has to do with utilizing new technology, but in traditional ways. As Larry Cuban puts it, “[educators] have hugged the middle between traditional and non-traditional ways of teaching”.  As great as PowerPoints are, it’s still the same method of presenting to your audience from the front of the classroom. While students are learning some useful skills which are certainly needed down the road, there are other things educators could try doing, especially with technology such as Smartboards and tablets becoming more accessible. This made me wonder why is there this disconnect between technology, innovation in the classroom, and educators? While there may be a few educators that are reluctant to change, I believe the issue lies with policy.

We know budget and cutbacks are an ongoing issue within our education system, and not all schools have the same level of technology – have and have-not isn’t anything new. But from what I’ve experienced, there seems to be a strong push to get students on iPads and to use technology without much of justification or mission statement explaining why? Yes, technology is important and using tablets is utilizing current technology; but why specifically iPads? Why not repair, update or expand existing computer labs? Who’s deciding all this? My concern is that policy makers are the ones pushing for these changes without consulting the teachers that are actually using these devices. Apple isn’t in the business of giving away their products for the sake of charity, so how did they get the monopoly in schools? Teachers know their students better than policy makers and therefore should be consulted, collaborated with, or leading the charge themselves with the system supporting their push for change.

Antonio Domasio’s ideas about sociocultural homeostasis have to do with how we feel and think and how they interact. Typically we feel first and then think and rationalize our thoughts. Our natural response to change is to be resistant; however, if we can reframe our attitude to try new things, that’s the first step to being innovative. I feel one of the main reasons teachers don’t is because they don’t want to “rock the boat”. Why not? Because the stakes are high. If a teacher tries something new and it fails, administrators, parents, and the school board would have no qualms reprimanding that teacher. Not to mention student education is on the line. I suppose this comes down to fear and needing to reframe how we as educators rationalize that emotion, and the attitudes from admin, parents, and policy makers.

So what do we do? I think teachers need to pick a specific goal and go from there. Start by conceptualizing what are our goals and then see if technology provides any devices to achieve that. Next would be figuring out ways to get those devices, whether it is as simple as signing something out, or approaching the parent committee, admin, or trustees to get the support and funding needed. If things go positively from there, the next step would be finding ways to get the word out so others can benefit. This certainly is not an easy task and will require time and perseverance, but the change we seek and not the one that is dictated has to start from the ground up, not the top down.

Create your own mind maps at MindMeister

Today we had a chance to share where we feel we stand now one week into the course and what are some potential inquiry questions we have. Sandy and I are in a similar situation in that we are both teachers-on-call and do not necessarily know what kind of class we’re walking into each day. This led us to the inquiry question of how we could incorporate ICT to benefit substitute teachers and the students in the class. The ideas of creating something to do with community and an online community was initially discussed, but there is already an abundance of materials available online. What we feel we need is a more specific resource that takes advantage of technology to assist in engaging with students.

Using Mindmeister, we’ve decided to create a checklist (a work in progress) for a TOC or teacher entering a new school. With this list, the goal is to quickly figure out what technology is available. If a Smartboard or projector is already set up, the teacher can easily access materials, websites, a personalized blog, etc. in the class to hook in and engage the students at the start of the day. This could be incredibly useful if the classroom teacher has not left a day plan or to just connect with the students.

However, a major problem is the disparity of technology available in schools, and even amongst classrooms. Sandy and I hope to find solutions and perhaps create a database to find ways in which we can utilize technology in the classrooms we visit.

In the case that nothing is available and one is dead-set on using technology as a resource, there are some products that are available. Purchasing a 3g subscription for a device, tethering to your phone’s data, or even looking into mini-projectors could potentially substitute a trolly full of books.

The issue is it comes down to money and how much teachers are willing to spend for their traveling bag of tricks. Another concern is how fragile these devices are and the risk of damaging or losing them when traveling from school to school. While it could be viewed as an investment, I would like to consider other cost effective avenues first. Hopefully some practical solutions will become evident as we further explore this idea.