#edtech #iste12
Sir Ken Robinson leading the panel discussion at ISTE 2012.
As I have said before in this blog, I attend edtech conferences to be inspired and to steal ideas to take back to my own school. But when I left the keynote that opened this year’s ISTE 2012 Conference, I was scratching my head wondering what was the purpose of what I had just witnessed. I felt embarrassed to be an educator. Did ISTE really just do this to me? Did they sell out? Did they take inspiring me too far?
Let me start with Sir Ken Robinson, I like many other educators, got inspired by his TED talk about how schools are killing creativity. Which was followed up by the YouTube video by RSA Animate about changing educational paradigms. I took notes of these two videos and desperately tried to apply what he was talking about into my own teaching. I even bought his book The Element. But here’s the thing — most of what Sir Ken says is spot on — what I have a problem with is execution. He offers no real solution to what we need to do, just that we need to do it. And I know that he should not have to spoon-feed us to get us where we need to go. But what is the real value of someone who offers criticism with no viable solutions?
His answers for us during the Q&A session after the keynote was to provide individualized instruction – I teach 470 students a week, and I am suppose to connect with each one and have each one on their own path to finding their educational passion? Yeah, right! And another thing, I got so worried about killing students creativity that I have tried to do the right thing. But students without skills cannot do the things that Sir Ken thinks that we beat out of them.
After watching the TED talk I gave 20 fourth graders flip video cameras and an assignment, but I did not kill their creativity — I let them do it how they wanted to. Dreaming that I was doing what Sir Ken wanted me to do, I waited for the students to return with their incredible videos. What I got back was 20 videos of garbage — kids being goofy on camera. Nothing creative, nothing to show me that any of them had a passion for filmmaking.
Sir Ken seems to think that if we just give kids blank pieces of paper and a pencil that they will draw masterpieces, or write amazing poetry, or solve complex math problems. Students without skills cannot do what he thinks they can, unless maybe they’re a savant, or something. My students need the skills that I teach them in order to be creative. You cannot be creative without being taught skills. Leonardo Da Vinci was an apprentice before he became the master, and so must every one of our students.
Enough said about Sir Ken.
Moving on to the other panelists; Shawn Covell of Qualcomm and Mayim Bialik, the actress and scientist. With both of them repeating; “I am sure there are more qualified people in the audience to answer this, but…” enough said. Yes, most of us are more qualified to talk about this subject than the both of you which left me wondering why you were even there. What the heck qualifies a Qualcomm executive and a home-schooling actress to speak on education reform? Covell just bragged about how big Qualcomm was and Bialik kept pushing her new deal with Texas Instruments — so was the keynote suppose to be an ad?
Now who I did like, and who I wished was the keynote, was Marc Prensky. This guy knows what he is talking about and seems to understand education more than just stirring the pot like Sir Ken does. Well done Marc, I wish I could have heard more from you.
ISTE, you need to do better than this keynote. You need to find us the people who are qualified to lead us in education reform that we are desperately looking for. Sir Ken was right about one thing; revolutions never start at the top. So this is me at the bottom, standing up to say to you ISTE that this keynote was not what I needed. I want to feel inspired, not duped or sold to. Find me people who are not trying to sell me a book or a new program from TI.
Now excuse me, but I need to get ready to attend the keynote by Yong Zhao, maybe he will be the inspiration that I am looking for.
- Brad Flickinger, tech teacher, Bethke Elementary
Comments welcomed below…
Start Your Own After-School iPad Boot Camp
6 Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- ISTE 2012 San Diego « Teaching English using web 2.0 - [...] As you will see in this video it takes too long before he starts talking! Read some of the critical comments [...]
- Middle School Matters » Blog Archive » MSM 211: The ISTE Show Redux (Part I). - [...] Posted by Brad Flickinger on Jun 26, 2012 in school technology As I have said before in this blog, ...
Leave a Reply
Sponsors
I had the same impression at the keynote, and wrote a similar blog post on Sunday night. I wonder if ISTE needed the funds provided by those commercials.
well said…..Yong will not disappoint
Can I get an A-men?!
Alright, a bit more seriously, you raise some excellent points, especially about the need for any motivational thought leader to bring some balance to the conversation, but also on the part of those listening to be able to think things through on their own.
What’s really become clear to me (having gleaned the presentation from afar via Twitter), is that a vast majority of any conference goers (especially some of the more vocal ones), tend to take the “rah, rah!” cheerleading stance in the moment, and then push it out and amplify it via Twitter without considering the ramifications that the echo-chamber can produce. I’m all for sharing how exciting it is to be at a large conference, fill thousands of other people, listening to big speakers, but I’d rather see a bit more reflective thought (even if it does take a day or two to put together).
That having been said, I don’t think Ken is trying to get us to just give students a blank canvas to create as you mentioned doing with the Flip Cams. That would be disastrous, as you discovered. I’ve learned through my own mini-disasters in the classroom that creativity doesn’t come from being wide open, it comes from having carefully defined parameters within an open framework. That is, there are specific elements within a rubric that learners must work towards, but the form in which that learning takes should be much looser than it has been traditionally. Even after making provisions to create an open, creative learning environment that’s still focused on outcomes and clear goals, you may still fail. The important next step is to look at that failure closely and ask “why”.
Don’t blame Sir Ken Robinson, or anyone else, for the failures in your classroom. Take ownership that you are responsible for the instructional decisions in your classroom (which is what you’re already doing). Students CAN be creative without the skills you teach them; they might not just be creative in the ways you would like them to be. Which of course, means a bit more exploration….which is the really fun part about education!
Brad- great reflection. I disagree with you about Mayim to a point. She stayed on topic and talked intelligently about inspiring kids; but not as one who knows education, but from the perspective of a kid who was once inspired
Ben- great points in your response. Especially regarding the Twitter “echo-chamber” as you put it. As a relatively new Tweeter, I am starting to wonder how the many multiple retweets and quoted tweets flooding the twitter stream is beneficial to my professional learning. I am guilty myself. I would love to see and participate in more reflection. Maybe that’s the role that blogs like this one will play.
You don’t need a Keynote for inspiration at ISTE. All you have to do is come watch these kids present the wonderful things they have been doing with technology down at the Poster Sessions. Talk about “bottom up”.
Cheer leading; shallow thinking; adopting a shallow but wide-ranging curriculum; believing that teaching is an art rather than a technology (applied science); adopting theoretical methodologies in the classroom before there is any significant evidence that the theories work; teaching without purpose; or taking an eclectic approach rather than a proven, evidence-based methodology is tantamount to a callous disregard for the future of the children in our charge.
How to teach is known–we either ignore it or are ignorant of it. The data is clear. Using evidence-based methods in the classroom results in children advancing at two to seven times the rate of children in traditional classrooms. We could teach K-12 in six years, if we attended to the research.
Read the studies that already exist–NOT to disavow them, but to learn from them. Start with the much maligned Project Follow Through from the late 60s. Read “Evidence-Based Educational Methods” by Moran and Malott.
You’ll learn ways that you can individualize instruction, even if you have large numbers in the classroom. There are some very clever and effective ways to manage classrooms. See “Working with Individualized Instruction” by Esbensen.
What to teach has neither been justified nor challenged in any reasonable way other than by Joe Harless in “The Eden Conspiracy.” Read it, then challenge your Board to join the revolution.
And, finally, why do we worry about teaching creativity in the grades, especially from K-6? Creativity is a distraction and a disservice to our charges. Your reaction to your flip video debacle was right on the money.
Asahel D. Woodruff describes the place for creativity beautifully in his text, “Basic Concepts of Teaching.” He said, “There is a natural order in the operation of the learning processes, which begins with perception, moves into conceptualization and memorization, then involves try-out and practice, with further conceptual development. It may go on to analytic and creative thinking when the person has adequate conceptual background for these processes.”
He goes on to say that we cannot skip a level without interfering with the quality of thought from there on. What we like to call creativity in the grades is really just the spontaneous expressions of children. It is not creative in any significant sense.
According to Woodruff, “Creative activity, critical thinking, and problem solving are special activities that can be cultivated and used best at advanced levels of education. Essentially, these activities involve:
1. Analysis–Breaking complex concepts into its elements.
2. Synthesis–Producing new combinations.
3. Evaluation and problem solving–Developing and testing hypotheses.
In elementary education, we need to be teaching the tool skills (the 3 Rs) that will prepare the kids to learn anything they want on their own–long after they’ve left us. Before they leave us for the middle grades, they must be fluent in these essential skills (see Morningside Academy in Seattle, Washington, for a model of how Kent Johnson is achieves mind boggling results with the children (and adults) in his charge).
And, from 7 through 12, we should focus on teaching a curriculum that prepares them to be accomplished citizens upon graduation, ready for raising families, for living successfully on their own, for work, or for the rigors of post high school training and education (see Harless).
Speaking of post high school education, we need to come to grips with the possibility that a college education is unnecessary for about half of the jobs and careers in America. To require college or advanced training for these jobs inflates salaries, angers students (who, rightfully, resent having to delay their entry into the workforce and having to incur crushing debt for something wholly unnecessary), and keeps companies and nations from being competitive.