Have you ever had one of those days where you feel that all hope is lost?  One of those days where you start to wonder if anything matters besides AP/IB scores?  One of those days where you wonder what happened to thinking?  Well, I have lots of those – probably too many for my own good.  But the other day I was shaken from my gloom by a shining beacon of student thinking.  As you may have read in previous posts, I am working with students on a social bookmarking site to hold meaningful (digital) conversations on current events in the context of learning history.  Recently, a couple of students started a conversation that was downright dangerous (in a manner of speaking) – they challenged the current systems of political and economic order – and they did it all by themselves.  If you are interested, please read on after the jump to see the conversation these students engaged in.  Remember, this was independent of me as a teacher, and these kids came up with this all on their own.  Also, these are international students – a mix of nationalities, etc.  For privacy, I have excluded the actual names of the students.  Read on at your own peril.  If you’re not careful, you too may get sucked into doing some thinking.  (Also, the conversation is rather long).

•  
  • “Democracy is the worst system of government ever invented, except for all the other kinds” – Churchill
    (just my thoughts… you are welcome to comment/answer/scrutinize)
    Why is America so convinced that democracy is the best system to rule the world? Does the world today look any better than if the Communism of the Soviet Union were to prosper quicker than had American Capitalism? Why is it that sometimes ‘democracy’ and ‘capitalism’ are used almost interchangeably?

posted by Student A on 2009-05-13

•  
  • I think this is a common question “A”, however I would argue that it has been proven bysuch places as Cuba, the USSR and North Korea that extreme communism is not economically viable. I do agree with you however that the world does not know if capatalism and democracy are the best political systems. i would argrue the Liberals view of democracy is much healthier as with without money being out into public health and education systems, you get situations like now in America where Obama have to to fix a faulted public education system. This does not mean the educaiton system should be nationalized though. Like a country like Swedon or Norway for example, they have an extremely strong social sector, yet remain democratic.I believe both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, but one thing that always have frustrated me about the Cold War is how America and the USSR were so desperate to avoid the “domino effect” that they put in place systems in weaker political systems (like Nicaragua) that were not necessarily the best for the population. Another example of this could be Cambodia.
    How after all this do we know which is the better political system?

posted by Student B on 2009-05-14

•  
  • Yeah well… I also agree that each system has its respective advantages and disadvantages. Like for example it would be nice to be assured that you will always have a job and will have food and have home to return to, as is the case in a Socialist system. There clearly are some aspects of Socialism that could be incorporated to Capitalism and like you mentioned they already are being implemented in some of the highly developed welfare states in Europe.Well, we do not know which system is better of course.
    But what I want to say about Capitalism is that, EVERYTHING is calculated with economic value that it has in many cases ironically become a setback. I think it is pretty much a fair assumption to say that in a Capitalist system, perhaps the biggest/strongest motivation for an individual to achieve something/anything is Capital(/money). And I think that it is as big of a hindrance/setback as it is a motivation. One cannot possibly NOT think of the economic benefits of anything that he/she decides to do in this current system of Capitalism.
    For instance, studies of little economic value such as botany are less popular among students because it’s not going to earn them a lot of money.
    So I think that this manner of applying economic values to whatever we do hinders us from pursuing PURE interests, or doing something out of genuine desire, without thinking of the economic consequences

posted by Student A on 2009-05-14

•  
  • And I guess this Capitalistic aspect of our society make people “know the price of everything and the value of nothing.”

posted by Student A on 2009-05-14

•  
  • And yeah, I would also like to argue that Communism in North Korea or China is not really Communism, just like America is not really a democratic state but more like a republic and just like when we say American Capitalism it does not necessarily mean Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.
    They just incorporate some aspects of the ideology that is convenient to them I think
    well I guess there always exists a discrepancy between theory and practice

posted by Student A on 2009-05-14

•  
  • i agree with “A”. and going back on what “B” said, north korea is not communist, it’s a juche state, which means self reliance. the USSR was not a communist state, it was a military dictatorship. China was not communist, blah blah blah the impression we have of ‘communism’ is military dictatorships, which they basically were. true communism will evolve from the northern european states as the entire european continent begins to lean to the left. like mr kopp said, its a joke that people can’t drink clean water because we as humans can provide this. capitalism gives us two freedoms, to enter the workforce and lose all control over what you do with bosses and orders, and in the end the product you make is not for you. your money, is not you. the other freedom in capitalism is that to starve. The worst, most sickening aspect of capitalism is the thought that is correct to ‘spread’ it and ‘give other people the gift’ of capitalism, but in reality when the united state has been doing that in history, they have been installing unpopular dictators, and forcing and embargo on a country that is possibly no threat whatsoever, and could become one of the greatest countries in the world, Cuba.

posted by Student C on 2009-05-16

•  
  • I agree with “A” and “C”, and I don’t think that these “extreme communist” countries were economic failures because they were supposedly communist, but it could also be that most of them simply skipped from “fuedal” to “socialist/communist” and also how they weren’t actually communist states. Countries that do stand a chance, such as Cuba, are only in trouble economically because the USA forces upon them embargoes that do nothing but strangle their people, and barely do anything to bring about political change. I’m quite sure that if a country like Cuba has stayed like it is for as long as it has, they’ve “self-determined” their government, but I guess it isn’t self-determination as long as they don’t choose to be socialist because that doesn’t count.

posted by Student D on 2009-05-16

    But here I am, sitting in the seat of the arm-twister, and struggling to know what is educationally valuable, and what is just fluff.  These thoughts come on the heels of an experiment that I have tried with my IB High-Level European History students.  I believe that awareness of current events is necessary for an understanding of history (but that’s another blog post).  So, for a homework grade, my students are required to follow current events and have online discussions about those events through the social bookmarking tool, Diigo.  So far, it’s been a huge improvement over my previous attempts at having students keep a “paper and pencil” current events notebook.  But here’s my dilemma:  I think students enjoy staying current on the news and debating/discussing news events in an open forum.  However, were it not for the homework grade, I doubt the students would have much motivation to continue this pursuit.  This makes me question, how beneficial is this if it is not building an authentic interest in students that will continue long after my course has finished.  More specifically, I’m thinking about the fact that summer break will soon be upon us, and while I would love for my students to continue following, discussing, and thinking about current events, I doubt they will be motivated without the looming realities of the gradebook. 

    Where to go from here?  Do I continue the arm-twisting, with the hope that students will internalize some of the lessons of following current events?  Do I eliminate the grading factor and see what happens?  Do I scrap the whole thing and try a different approach?  Argh.  I’ve tried to make this relevant by putting it into an electronic, social-networking format – but perhaps I am just “ploughing the sea” with these attempts at relevance.  Maybe there’s something of efficacy to the old arm-twisting model?  Any thoughts?

    No one knows better than Victor Frankenstein the potential for danger in creating new things.  After all, he harnessed the very power of life, only to be frightened and disillusioned when he could not control it.  Frankenstein’s message is especially pertinent in our age of technological proliferation.  Perhaps we are not to the point of creating the very substance of life, but as educators we face the possibility of watching a seemingly great creation run wild in ways that could be destructive.  So I wonder, where do we draw the line?

Not long ago, I was reflecting on this question as I read an interview with Noam Chomsky from the book Understanding Power. In the discussion in this particular interview, a woman asked Chomsky about the potentials for using technology to accomplish activist purposes and to advance a more equitable social agenda (among other things). His response to the question interested me a great deal. While acknowledging that technology, particularly the Internet, can be used to great effect in the world of activism and social justice, Chomsky cautioned that it is merely a tool – and that, like any tool, it has inherent weaknesses. He went on to point out that for all the “networking capabilities” (and, since this book was written in 2001, we can only assume this idea could be extended to modern day Web 2.0 applications) the Internet can also have a very isolating effect. Chomsky’s fundamental idea is that it serves existing power structures for people to feel isolated and powerless, because that keeps them docile and “well-behaved”. To the extent that the Internet is dominated by these structures of power, the Internet would then become more isolationist than communitarian. This is merely one example, and many of you will undoubtedly disagree on this point (and, if you do, please comment!).
But the point brings up a relevant question to educators who seek to implement IT tools: To what extent are we at risk of focusing on the tool itself (whether it be Web 2.0 or some other IT application) and missing the inherent weaknesses? Are there ways in which we are, as Dr. Frankenstein did, stoking the fires of something that may turn out to have unintended consequences? Before you label me a neo-Luddite, let me be clear that I am a fan of using technology in any way that it can improve student learning and my practice as an educator. I just wonder if I’ve missed something when I run head-long down the road of IT integration.
Let me offer an example. As a part of my recent endeavors to interest my students in the links between history and current events, I have hijacked an idea from Clay Burell (sorry to ping you again on this one, Clay) to use diigo, a social bookmarking site, as a jumping-off point for student interactions. I just wrapped up my first week with the “diigo-thing”, and it has actually been pretty cool. My students blew me away with insightful comments and linkages between present day news coverage and the events of the past. So here’s my dilemma: In encouraging (giving in to?) the use of social networking sites (diigo has the same user interface as facebook) as a part of my classroom, do I cheapen the value of some of the authentic brick-and-mortar aspects of education? Or is my thinking just so antiquated as to believe that there is any value to the school building/community itself? In other words, does “using the tools” run the risk of “losing the magic” of the classroom? Is there still value in encouraging lively debate and discussion and interaction within the walls of the school outside the realm of cyberspace? Or has that become a thing of the past? If I (and my students) begin to depend on online networking tools, will we/they feel that the classroom is a place to tune out, because they have so much more control over the online classroom that they participate in from their bedroom?
Sorry, that’s a lot of questions to ask. But does anyone have some thoughts? I’m all for students being in control of aspects of their education, but I believe the teacher still plays a vital role in helping to shape the student’s environment as they are developing a passion for learning. And perhaps the giving over of the “meat and potatoes” of the classroom to the online world will rob students of some of the value of the classroom community. What do you guys think? Am I off my rocker? Comment – let me have it – keep the discussion going -

There is so much content available about the issues surrounding digital copyright, that one might wonder why the subject even warrants a blog post from a third-rate blogger.  And to that, I respond that I am hoping to take a different approach to this idea of digital copyright.  Much has been made of the economic arguments, the artistic issues, the enforcement difficulties, etc.  But I wonder if this argument about digital copyright is the beginning of a new debate over Marxism, Anarchism, and the very political structures under which we live?  It seems that some of the fundamental issues underlying digital copyright are issues of private property (which Marx finds inherently evil).  And this brings me to the question of how to teach students about the laws and digital copyright.

    I am not personally a fan of the “who cares what we say, they’re going to do it anyway” approach to (not) teaching digital rights management.  I don’t think that gives kids (or anyone) very much credit.  Nor do I care for the record company approach of alienating their own fan-base by prosecuting petty criminals, an approach that closely mirrors drug possession laws that target some of societies’ least dangerous individuals.  I do agree that educated citizens ought to be aware of relevant laws, but I’m not sure I agree that they should be urged to follow those.  There is something strangely stimulating about the subversion of traditional power structures that goes along with what is called “piracy” on the Internet.  Even that word itself, piracy, is a loaded term that connotes swashbuckling seamen out to bring down the empire, one merchant ship at a time.  This analogy can be extended even further to the modern day.  The pirates off the coast of Somalia that have appeared recently in the news have been labelled as international criminals for hijacking the weapons cargo of merchant ships headed to Africa.  And yet, the people responsible for sending those boats laden with destructive weapons, bound for a war-torn region, are suddenly made out to be victims – stripped of their rightful profit.  Maybe those pirates off the coast of Somalia and the “pirates” captaining a MacBook from the bedroom have a little something in common:  They both posses the unique ability to challenge a power structure that is typically viewed as impenetrable and untouchable.  How’s that for a flat world, Friedman?

    So, what should we teach students?  To subvert the law of the land?  That’s probably not a great idea, though it’s not without its merits.  But I think students should first be taught about private property and the fact that private property is not a universal, absolute, unchanging truth.  They should then be taught that they have an enormous responsibility to help shape the laws to the most equitable, just, and right for the world.  So, if they are going to be “pirates”, they ought to have a good reason for it – and they ought to be engaged in more than just downloading for free the latest tune from TI.  Ha!, you say – that’s a real pie in the sky idea Kopptastic.  Well, you’re right.  It is.  But I also think it’s a good one.  What do you think?  Poke holes in my theory, challenge my thinking.  I’m interested to hear what you think.

    The acronym from the study I found is SCORE – and yet I find it no more memorable as an acronym.  You can read all about SCORE here, or you can wait for me to give you the highlights.

SCORE stands for success, curiosity, originality, relationships, and energy.  According to the researchers in this study, these are the primary motivators for students in learning.  The idea put forth in the study is that teachers ought to ask themselves, “is my classroom a place that helps kids succeed, piques their curiosity, give them the chance to be original, helps them forge human relationships, and provides them with energy for learning?” Those are good questions, and I think technology can play a role in all of those factors.

    So, no more thinking – it’s time for action!  After scoping a couple of great links from fellow educational technology sojourner, Clay Burrell, I have decided to go forward with a new method for old homework.  Here’s the story:  last semester I tried to get my students interested in the impact of history on current events.  For their homework grade, I had them create a current events notebook with news clippings, commentary, and analysis.  It sucked.  It really, really sucked (stupid, useless, crappy, kill-joy,  educationally disastrous).  The students were not into it, I was not into it, and very little (if any) learning took place as a result. 

    My new strategy is to use a combination of google news and the awesomeness of diggo (seriously, check it out – it’s that cool) to help my students engage with current events.  If you are interested in what I’m doing, let me know and I’ll give you more details, or just go to the source over on Clay’s blog and look at his explanation.  I will post some “results” as I see how it all goes.  And if it totally flops, I’ll keep you guys up on that, too.

All that to say, I posed a question to my wiki-students:  With all the information out there, with all the other resources I can access, what makes me want to read your ?  And what makes youwant to create it?  With all the other user-generated and user-edited content out there – and also all the valuable online archives and digital primary source materials, what makes me interested in your wiki?  At this point, my inability to ask simple questions emerged as I pondered the significance of this idea:  What makes us want to create?  Even if it’s just a facebook profile, a photo blog, or a family picture album – what drives us to put this stuff together and throw it out there for the world?  More significantly for teachers, I thought about this challenge – what makes me want to read your wiki? – and it occurred to me that this question should probably be asked more often in the classroom, especially with the integration of IT.  Otherwise, what’s the difference between filling out a banal worksheet versus typing that same information into an online document?  Not much, really.  And my students seemed to embrace that challenge.  Back to the deeper roots of the question (the part that goes beyond the, “uh, so I can get a good grade” response), I thought about the fact that students don’t want to engage in meaningless information gathering/regurgitating.  They want to create meaningful work, too.  Okay, that’s a bit of a pie-in-the-sky picture, and I probably sound hopelessly optimistic (which is strange for someone as pessimistic and jaded as myself).  But I think there’s something to this.  So before integrating IT into the curriculum, or trying to figure out ways to use Web 2.0, I put forth this challenge to my fellow educators:  But, what makes me want to read it?  Is this content worth creating, or is it just another thing – just part of The Game?

    IT can be powerful and exciting and cool, but it can also be done poorly as part of a well-meaning but ill-conceived idea.  For one thing, I know that my students silently curse Bill Gates and Microsoft Corporation every time I put a power point lecture up on the screen.  And who can blame them?  I’ve taken presentation software that has some pretty cool uses, and I’ve managed to suck a lot of the life out of it, making it little more than words on a page with a couple of mind-numbing clip arts strewn throughout.  With IT in our classrooms, maybe sometimes less is more?

Curriculum coverage:  a sacred idol of the teaching profession that is worshipped (willingly or reluctantly) particularly by teachers of classes with “external examinations”; typically identified as a necessary evil; content without understanding; teaching without learning.

50 Cent wrote “How We Do” to portray the life, sometimes glamorous, sometimes brutal, of the modern-day gangsta [sic].  Perhaps a similar lyrical piece ought to be made about the life of a teacher:  “This is how we do, when we’re all up in the classroom / throwing down words like it ain’t no thing / Dropping all this data as if it’s understood / so we can ease an exam-stained conscience.”  And, in a way, it’s all a game – not life on the street, but life in the classroom.  We teach kids to “play the game” of school.  Those who can’t compete are labeled as difficult, behavior problems, or simply “not college material” (or art students . . . ).  But what do we accomplish through this game?  What do we actually teach kids?  Or, more significantly, what do they actually learn?

    These questions come on the heels of discussions about the use of technology in providing students with more learning opportunities and great differentiation of instruction.  But I’m noticing a pit-fall in that even the “coolest” technology can be made irrelevant by a well-meaning teacher.  If these technological models (blogging, networking, wikis, videos) are turned into another aspect of “the game”, then we simply teach kids that even the most interesting things can be made boring or irrelevant.  So, how do I use IT without letting it become just a part of “the game”?  Thoughts?

    This idea of having students create their own “text” for class is fascinating to me.  As a history teacher, I spend a lot of time teaching students to evaluate sources of information, exploring potential bias and examining relevant assumptions.  What I do not teach is how to evaluate student-generated information, whether it be from other students in the class, or other students all over the world.  This is powerful.  Wikipedia, for instance, is essentially a peer-edited document that has a lot of value for individuals seeking information about topics as wide-ranging as the causes of World War One and the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow (African, or European?).  Though Wikipedia (and it’s ugly step-sisters) are generally not considered a “cite-able” source in academic research, it nonetheless presents us with a relevant issue:  irrespective of what students can and cannot use as a specific research source, they will use Wikipedia.  So how do we teach them to evaluate this source of information?  And how do we teach them to value peer-edited and peer-evaluated sources of information without depending solely upon them for research?  As we move further into the world of user-generated content and Web 2.0, these issues are going become increasingly relevant for educators.

    I might propose one thought:  students are loathe to trust one another’s information.  I get a sense (strictly anectdotally speaking) that students are not as engaged in peer presentations as they are in teacher-led, lecture-style classes.  I think some of this may be due to the “credibility issue”.  That is, the teacher is the expert, and students are merely bystanders in the educational process.  Convincing students of the validity of peer-generated content is an uphill battle, but one that deserves to be fought.  Whether that be through student-created, collaborative Google Docs http://tommclean21.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/using-google-docs-in-geography/, or through the use of Wikis to generate a student-created class “textbook” http://brokenworld.wikispaces.com/A+Broken+World (another idea “borrowed” from Clay over at http://beyond-school.org), or even through the use of reflective blogging.  In the end, this kind of content is only becoming more prevalent, and I simply can’t afford to put my head in the sand and hope it all goes away. 

    But I do believe that literacy in the online world is more similar to traditional print media literacy than some of us would originally think.  For example, just because the New York Times (print edition) is a large, corporate media news source, does not mean that they have no motives or reasoning behind the stories they print, the pictures they publish, and the editorial decisions they make.  Just as a crack-pot with an Internet connection has an agenda, so does anyone in the business of information dissemination.  There is a danger in assuming that print media sources do not require the same level of evaluation and critique as online sources.

    These questions are essential to explore (and to have students explore) as IT is further integrated into the “typical” classroom.

Now, on to the wiki.  I am thinking about ways to use wikis with my class, but I don’t fully understand what they can do.  I really like the idea (modeled in our course) of having students take notes in the wiki, which essentially leads to a great collaborative collection of notes.  But I want to go bigger and better than that, as well.  I usually do a “current events” project with my classes, and I would like to figure out how to adapt that to a wiki.  So far, I’m thinking of posting a news topic that our class can follow over the course of the week.  As students find articles, news reports, pictures, etc., they can post the link in the wiki and then comment on it.  Students could then collectively build an analysis of the news topic, with information from varied sources and with a variety of meaningful comments/discussions. 

    I think this is all a great plan, but I have no idea where to start or how to implement this, or how to get my students on board.  Any thoughts?