« April 2007 | Main | June 2007 »

May 31, 2007

the sound of crickets

You've heard the urban wisdom about the seven-minute lull? Attentive listeners and pattern-seekers have noted that the noise level at a party always seems to cycle up and down, with higher-decibel peaks and the occasional surprising valley of silence. The lull theory says that, periodically, conversation will stop for a moment as everyone takes a collective breath---the seven-minute lull---before chatter ramps up again. This phenomenon has also been called the Harvard pause, or a visit by Abraham Lincoln's ghost. The lull is a handy staple for sitcom writers: the unexpected silence into which the bumbling hero blurts an embarrassing truth. And hilarity ensues.

Duncan Watts has written about the small world phenomenon, and how interactions and behaviors flow in a networked system. In his 1999 book Small Worlds: The Dynamics of Networks between Order and Randomness, Watts describes how his dissertation research on "synchronization of biological oscillators" brought him to. . . crickets. Populations of crickets end up chirping in synchrony as a result of minute adjustments by individual crickets. But what (or whose) signal are they following? Who's conducting the orchestra? If we credit the small world phenomenon, Kevin Bacon may be the one waving the baton.

And does the oscillation of party chatter follow a similar pattern, all that chaotic chirping leading to a pause-point of synchrony? Are we just a bunch of crickets?

This is all just to say that I unexpectedly hit a seven-month blogging lull. But I'm happy to be back, and ready to get caught up.

Chirp, chirp.


May 03, 2007

tick, tick, tick: questioning the revolution

Another field dispatch from the Juxtapose This! department:

The latest edition of Education Week has a story on school leaders' blogs---mentions include Kim Moritz, Scott McLeod, Will Richardson, Jan Borelli, and others. But, in EdWeek as in life, sometimes the more compelling message is in the margins. The story's sidebar contains a heading called "Web Resources;" under that heading are two items:

It's interesting that EdWeek is pointing readers to Weblogg-ed as the ur-resource on the benefits of blogging just as Will is seriously questioning whether the infinite educational promise of Web 2.0 will ever be realized:

I’ve been out on my own for almost a year now, doing presentations and workshops almost non-stop, and while there are many, many teachers out there who communicate a real interest in re-envisioning their practice, on the whole, there’s little I’m seeing that suggests that any real systemic change or rethinking of the education model is occurring. We are just so stuck in the system of control.

It's tempting to call this an ironic case, but it's not. Will, as always, is using his own blogging to model thoughtful reflection and learning. His transparency and self-questioning go a long way toward demonstrating the "educational benefits of blogging." Perhaps not what EdWeek had in mind. Maybe better.

The second item is David Huffaker's paper, which provides an overview of blogging's implications for teaching and learning. His circa-2004 commentary is useful, but it feels like old news from a 2007 perspective. I found myself reading with impatience; we've already covered this ground. The paper even references how Will is using blogs in his classroom---or was in 2004:

Will Richardson’s weblogg–ed.com collects information and dialogue on implementing weblogs in the classroom. Richardson, a teacher at Hunterdon Central Regional High School in New Jersey, uses blogs for both a journalism class and a literature class.

Since Will has been out of the classroom for a year, speaking, writing, and consulting, EdWeek's choice to cite Huffaker here is enough to give one pause. Time for a relevance gut-check.  If nothing else, this serves to reinforce Will's assertion that our current systems are resistant to change---"We are just so stuck in the system of control"----and highlights that the message is going out to two different audiences in very different ways. There's an edublogosphere teeming with enthusiasts, evangelizers, integrators, and adopters who get it---and then there's everybody else. Right? Right? Clay Burell takes on the mantle of skepticism with an as-usual intelligent, fearless, and wonderfully dyspeptic criticism of the edublogosphere "echo chamber" syndrome: 

There's something of the Caste System in the edublogospyramid that says "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity" to me as well. Have you noticed how the admin edubloggers seem to sequester themselves in the admin edublogosphere, while the EdTech bloggers echo in their level, and rarely pipe in with actual teachers? Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my impression. And it's not surprising: institutional habits die hard, and transplant easy. It's not much of a leap from the physical building to the virtual space for 20th Century power structures. The "democratic" nature of the blogosphere is illusory to some degree.

And he questions the notion of blogs as instructional silver bullets:

I've been thinking about student blogging, too--from a teacher's point of view. I'm no expert, so this is not a judgment, but rather an observation: student blogging in itself is nothing to cheer about. Lousy student blogging is just lousy writing--virtual graffiti of the worst sort. Lousy blogging assignments--blogs as new bottles for sour milk, just a "non-traditional way to turn in traditional homework"--are also nothing to cheer about. . . .

EdWeek's message seems to be geared for an audience that's living in 2004---an eternity ago given what Moore, Metcalfe, Reed, and a pack of other "lawmakers" have said about exponential growth. This is reason to question its relevance.

On the other hand, the edublogosphere's messages don't seem to be making it out of the echo chamber. This is reason to question their relevance. 




 

My Photo

students 2.0

kudos and widgets and badges, oh my

conversation

Blog powered by TypePad