Why Do We Collaborate?

The old adage stands; 2 brains (or more) are better than 1!

When we put our minds to something, isn’t always easier when someone else come along to help get us over that hump? If we look at things only from our personal lens, are we pre-exposed to personal bias and subjectivity? Are 2 brains really better than 1? Can education benefit from teamwork and collaboration, both locally and globally?

To help answer these questions I defer first back to my previous blog posting (July 19, 2010 “It’s A Free Software World After All”) that documents the progress made by GNU programmers at M.I.T during the initial open-sourced software movement. When programmers collaborate on ideas by sharing code, they are able to make their programs better, getting a broader perspective for feedback, allowing more experienced designers to contribute, and to have the source code looked at with fresh eyes. Those who are allowed less collaboration (in our case, closed-source or copy-written program developers) lack these privileges, and just like collecting data from a survey or study, are exposed to a much smaller sample sized in the form of colleagues who are able to help program the software. In other words, when the world is opened for collaboration, greater possibilities emerge from larger population with far more potential.

Such is true in education: A teacher who keeps to oneself and rarely changes with the times, expands on ideas, or is in tuned with what is working or “trending” elsewhere in education. This teacher is far behind the curve of those who are continually developing professionally by communicating, sharing, and building new lessons and ideas with other educators of various experience, backgrounds, or ability levels. Chapter 1 of the EDU 521 textbook Teachers, Schools, and Society: A Brief Introduction to Education, lists 5 major things a teacher should know and be able to do. The course is the most elementary approach to train new educators entering the field. the 5th thing on this list is “Teachers are members of learning communities”. In other words, in layman's 101 terms:

“Accomplished teachers contribute to the effectiveness of the school by working collaboratively with other professionals on instructional policy, curriculum development, and staff development. They can evaluate school progress, and the allocation of resources in light of their understanding of state and local education objectives. Accomplished teachers find ways to work collaboratively and creatively with parents, engaging them productively in the work of the school” [3].

While we learn about the benefits of collaboration in our EDU 685 class by building PLNs (Professional Learning Networks), these PLNs are a natural elevation of the traditional PLC (Professional Learning Community) referred to in the passage. PLCs are a fundamental part of the pedagogical approach of any successful school district, in fact, some districts across the country are not only encouraging, but requiring teachers to meet in a PLC at least once a week within their school. In an article found on ProQuest examining the methodology of PLCs, Tamara Nelson, an associate professor of Washington State Vancouver concludes; “A group can conscientiously
work to develop an approach toward examining student
work that helps teachers improve their teaching and students’
learning. This potential for improving teaching and affecting student
learning makes the time and effort devoted to collaborative
inquiry in PLCs worthwhile.” [2] in addition to Nelson’s closing quote the article got me thinking of other reasons why we, as teachers, should want to collaborate:

• To get an outside point of view
• to connect new ideas
• eliminate bias or to better consider both sides to an issue
• to broaden one’s PLN
• to foster interdependence, risk-taking, and trust
• deep conversation often leads to steps towards action
• builds strong leadership and understandings
• is curriculum and standards based as part of professional development and personal growth.

In conclusion, the benefits of collaboration are undeniable, but often times the simple concept of doing so is overlooked or under valued. At a local level, Jessica Garcia, an online instructor of Human Relations in Administration, at Southern New Hampshire University, ends her 8 week online program by running a unit on collaboration where students must complete a team project and then reflect upon their collaborative experience. Garcia says her students find the collaborative project to be difficult because it must be completed entirely in the online environment, however build a new appreciation for the real-world tangibility the assignment will provide to future group based work. She adds; “While the students complain, collaborating online is an important process to practice and all of the students can see the value with building these collaborative skills in a global society”. [1]

Acknowledgements:

1. Garcia, Jessica. Instructor; Human Relations in Administration (Southern New Hampshire University). Personal Interview, July 21, 2010.

2. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, Via; Miller, David S, Karen Zittleman, Teachers, Schools, and Society: A Brief Introduction to Education, 2nd Edition, (McGraw-Hill) Copyright 2009: (17).

3. Nelson, T., LeBard, L., & Waters, C.. (2010). How to Create a Professional Learning Community. Science and Children, 47(9), 36-40.  Retrieved July 20, 2010, from ProQuest Education Journals.

Photo Story 3

Made this short film in class on Tuesday night explaining an American classroom to a foreign learner using Photo Story 3. The music is customized and the photos are licensed under Creative Commons.

Enjoy!
~Jeff

Chapter 4, It’s a Free Software World After All

 

Indeed summer vacation is upon us in full-swing! Having just covered 4 of the New England State’s in the last two weekends, plus a wedding on Long Island, and Florida to come next week, it is safe to say my Fiancée and I have been plenty busy! How does this relate to Chapter 4 of our EDU 685 reading you ask? Well, for one, since most of my out-of-class reading is done while on the go (in this case on the car ride home from Maine, don’t worry- I wasn’t driving!) it served as a conversation piece between Jessica and I (Jessica is also an Educator. An SNHU employee at that) about Free and open source software comparing experiences, opinions, and programs we’ve used both as students and on the instructor side. Also, in verbally summarizing the chapter to her from the passenger seat, I was able to draw connections between one of the chapter’s main themes and that of my own educational journey:

Bonk differentiates between the business world of computer software and the educational world. One is closed-minded and cut-throat, the other, open, collaborative and global. In my own realm of experience, these basic generalizations of the two worlds are indeed one of my driving factors behind not only being back in school, but being back in school so that I can continue to bloom in the field of education as an instructor. I personally found my experience with the business world to be too superficial-praying on every relationship for some sort of sale, to have your performance and office popularity based on numbers and performance, and I found the entire experience to have a slight negative undertone. Even co-workers were simply just that; co-workers. We shared the same mindless tasks, boring routines, and were there for the same personal gains. I did not care to learn more about them, collaborate outside of paid hours, heck, even birthdays seemed forced. Education to me is different. It is fun, interpersonal, a refreshing positive atmosphere of progression, shared ideas, and learning experiences that are viewed as very good things; unlike making mistakes on the job, which can often be costly, maybe even your last!

In relation to the text, the business world (example, Microsoft) is closed-sourced, heavily copy-written, and mainly concerned with their bottom line, so economically they sell their products for profit. The Microsoft programmers design code that cannot be viewed by the user, edited, remixed, or redistributed in any way, shape or form, so really the only people Microsoft are concerned about when designing a program, are well, Microsoft. In contrast, the world of education was founded from its hacker roots of sharing programs and helping others make them better in the AI lab of M.I.T. software is not copyrighted, in fact, it is copy“lefted” almost as to completely encourage sharing and changing it. Finally, as Bonk cited in the development of Sakai, a basically free version of our “Blackboard” that was co-developed with his university (Indiana), educational programmers are writing code for essentially the entire world to see, use, and change. One is instantly impressed with not only the global perspective that this open source software provides, but also to the sheer number of individuals that can effectively tweak and contribute to the content as opposed to sharing with only the small population of those currently employed by Microsoft to do so.

Another interesting fact, hacker does not always have to have the negative connotation of security breeching criminal. In fact, “hackers” are computer hobbyists that find the work interesting and have helped design, create, change, and influence some of today’s latest and greatest free and open source software.

Free and open source are two words that I have been using inter-changeably since my first computer class, MBE 642 last fall. To this point, I had never thought there was much difference between them, I just assumed they both meant the software was free, as in, free = $0.00, do not pay for it. It was not until reading chapter 4 however that I realized that while free does still mean without a cost, “open source” refers to programmers allowing users to view, access, edit, change, and redistribute the source code of the software. I explained it to my fiancé in the car by saying;

If you were using a program you liked, you could copy it as many times as you wanted, without having to worry about licenses or copyright laws, and give it to all of your friends and family. If your sister, then used it, but didn’t like a button, a function, or even just a color on the program, she could then change the program and use it as it fits her. Then, when she goes to share it, she can even copy and distribute her version!

I can remember taking basic HTML/CSS in college and thinking I was so cool for knowing how to click “view>Source” from my web browser. Then, as I understood more of the computer language tags, I was able to at least see the connections and how some were used. Finally, in one of last jobs, we were responsible for Search Engine Optimization, which essentially meant improving the keywords in website’s meta tags, so again I was vaguely familiar with scouring through lines of code, however would never claim to be a web developer of any kind. This Open source concept intrigues me, because as I grow to learn more and more about computer technology, it expands the possibilities of what one can do with free and open source software and how it can be used in the classroom. I wonder if one day in my future technology lab if I will not only be showing students how to write their own lines of tags, but how to critique and edit each others…

A Review of Discourse Analysis in Literacy Research: Equitable Access

 

How does discourse analysis research address movement within and across literacy sites and practices in a contemporary, globalized, and increasingly digitally influenced world?

Article Source: Rex, L., M. Bunn, B. Davila, H. Dickinson, A. Ford, C. Gerben, M. Orzulak, and H. Thomson. "A Review of Discourse Analysis in Literacy Research: Equitable Access. " Reading Research Quarterly  45.1 (2010): 94-115. ProQuest Education Journals, ProQuest. Web.  12 Jul. 2010

Equitable Access is defined as the equality of [internet] access or access to technologies used in school by all districts to all students, or (to furtherer the connection between equitable access and the digital divide) the access of the haves to the have nots out of school as opposed to in school. The growing gap between media literacy and multimodality, according to the article, is a direct result of those who are positioned to have access to these new technologies and those who are not.

The authors of this article made an interesting point to start their section on equitable access in a digitally influenced world, and that is: within the household, family members often place themselves into a digitally-literate hierarchy (based on who knows how to use the most technologies such as TV, Internet, Video Games), the more literate of the parents or guardians are often the ones who controls who uses which of these media’s when, or for how long. Growing up in my household, my parents used the internet sparingly, with minimal literacy for mainly just for Email and entertainment, while I had extensive knowledge of various hardware and software, even as a high school student. To mirror the conclusion from the study, my parents hardly ever told me what I could use or when. In fact, the technology lessons I was learning in school made me the most digital-literate member of the household which gave me a great upper hand in teaching these technologies to family members, helping maintain our home computer, network, safety, and internet infrastructure, and served as a bragging-right conversational piece amongst my parents and friends who had kids about my age at the time. If anything, the digital roles where reversed and my parents were the ones coming to me for help!

Although the example I provided of my own family rings true for many households across the country as our students become more technology literate, The authors of my article warn that the digital divide is not simply generational. Instead, a digital divide can occur when any technology resource, tool, software, hardware, or device in unavailable to a user when it is desired or needed. For example, they cite foreign language speakers learning English as a second language as an example. Inequitable access to language learning tools prove to be further educational burdens, and can thus widen the gap of the digital divide. Being technology literate does a student no good if the necessary resources are not available for use.

The part I found most interesting about the article was the conclusion that through texting and instant messaging, today’s students are gaining economical experience by playing multiple roles in a capitalistic society through mutli-tasking. '

“In a follow-up article on the same study, Jacobs (2006) further examined how multitasking youth were being prepared to become "shape-shifting portfolio persons" (a concept from Gee, 2000c), who can play the roles of "consumer, producer, and distributor" (p. 171) by building collaborative and interactive abilities as well as collecting, assembling, and distributing skills required by fast capitalism. Jacobs concluded that activities like instant messaging may provide young people with more options for economic success within a fast capitalist, information-based economy than it might people who lack access to the practices and roles afforded by a digital literacy such as instant messaging.”

While Instant messaging was a fully integral part of my college experience, having my buddy list loaded to my screen 24 hours a day 7 days a week, I was not aware that this social-pass-time had such a high educational value!The benefits of such a social activity mirror the arguments of a few of the educational videos we watched in class, asking institutions to rethink their curriculum based on a 21st century learners in school habits verse out of school habits. This thinking supports the articles Home/school mismatch hypothesis. When students are not given equitable access in school, or teachers/schools/districts are not integrating technology into their curriculum, students are not only stepping back into the 20th century when they enter classroom doors, but we are now also asking them to learn and do things that they are not doing on a daily basis and may have no future utility to their lives.

However, the argument of equality wages on even further; if instant messaging, video gaming, computer use, and texting are indeed providing base skills that can be translated to education, than once again the digital divide opens between the haves and have-nots. While some students may be privileged enough to own a computer and cell phone and can partake in these digital activities, then what about those of less fortunate situations that cannot? Should they be punished for their lack of possessions, or is it on the school to determine the amount of equitable access in which it will provide? Can public school afford to play the role of miracle workers by providing the equipment, skills, and training to all who need it? Only time will tell, however, the article ends by saying that the footwork has certainly shifted and blue-print is starting to take shape for a closing digital divide and a new, multilingual, digital classroom.