Bedford Bits, connected learning, Teaching Composition

Gaming the Writing Process

by  • 

The Art of Video Games 2012What would happen if we rethought the ways that we think and talk about writing and the writing process to use the kind of language and thinking that people use when they play games? That’s the question I’ve been pondering during the several weeks since Katie Salen’s webinar, Making Learning Irresistible: 6 Principles of Game-like Learning.

Last week I talked about how to make a curriculum relevant by thinking like a game designer when you structure your curriculum. This week I want to take that idea a little further by considering how a game designer might teach writing.

Read more about the 3 fundamental ways my teaching will change if I apply the strategies of game play to the writing process in my complete post on the Bedford Bits site.

 

[Photo: The Art of Video Games 2012 by blakespot, on Flickr]

Bedford Bits, connected learning

Seeing Connected Learning

by  • 

VFS Writing students workshop a scriptLast week, I shared some photos that demonstrate what I think students engaged in connected learning look like. Ultimately, I had to admit that the images might only complicate the issue, especially since none of the photos matches what you’re likely to see in the writing or literature classroom.

Writing last week’s post just led me to more questions: What does connected learning look like? For that matter, what does any kind of learning look like? How can we tell when (and what) students are learning?

Learning is never as obvious as we might wish. I’d go as far as to say that if it were, we wouldn’t need so many standardized tests to know whether students were reaching academic goals. So how can I tell when I’m seeing connected learning? This week, I decided to look back over all the images I’ve chosen and some that I rejected to try to decide what I’m looking for when I look for Connected Learning.

I explain what I see when I am Seeing Connected Learning in my full post on the Bedford Bits blog.

Bedford Bits, connected learning

Rethinking the Classroom for Connected Learning

by  • 

ClassroomI’ve always envied K—12 teachers who have a regular classroom where all their classes meet. It’s not just that they have a place to keep their belongings. What I really covet is the ability that control of the learning space gives a teacher to set the mood for the course before she ever says a word. 

Instead, the college classrooms I’ve used are typically bare bones and impersonal spaces. Rows of uniform desks stretch to the back of the room, with a teacher’s desk authoritatively at front and center. Often times the desks cannot be moved. If they are rearranged for group work or into a large circle, they have to be restored to the official arrangement for the next class of students. The usual college classroom is screaming out for a “sage on stage.” It’s not designed for student-driven, collaborative activities.

How can a college teacher rethink that standard classroom to make it more like the high school classroom? How can we make the space better suited to Connected Learning?

I think about the answers in my full post on the Bedford Bits blog.

connected learning

The Threat of Connected Learning?

by  • 

Big Sign - Little StepsLike several other folks on the Digital Is website, I was invited to blog about some webinar sessions on Connected Learning. I wasn’t completely sure what Connected Learning was, but it sounded interesting so I decided to give it a go.

After the first session, I found that I Connected with Connected Learning. It seemed to me that Connected Learning was everything I thought learning should be. As I wrote after the first session:

Connected learning is what I’ve always thought learning is supposed to be. It’s about building, and supporting a learning community that lets kids engage with education according to their own interests, building their own knowledge, and reaching out to (yes) connect with other learners.

I was excited to learn more about the model and to think about how it related to teaching in the college classroom.

What I didn’t expect was the response I got to my discussion of Connected Learning. I posted “Can Connected Learning Work at the College Level?” on another blog I contribute to, and I was quickly taken to task by a commenter. The definition of Connected Learning I shared led to the criticism that “‘connected learning’ is yet another buzz word for the corporatization of education.” Further, Connected Learning was accused of being devoid of critical thinking and of relying on “a formula for students getting what they already want to find . . . . . [rather than] broadening horizons to discover what is not already known.”

I was gobsmacked. The comments seemed to describe something diametrically opposed to what I had come to believe was Connected Learning. I assumed that I had misspoken, being, as I am, somewhat new to Connected Learning. I replied and tried to provide evidence to counter the criticisms. I hoped the additional links and details would solve the confusion.

So imagine my surprise when today I found a new criticism of Connected Learning on that post. Today’s commenter “take[s] exception to framing our educational system as broken or wrong.” She continues:

Our system gets the majority of kids out able to read, do basic math, and many with strong enough skills to go on to college. We can do better, but the system itself is not broken or wrong — it works for a majority of kids.

Apparently the word broken is another buzzword in educational literature. My first commenter returned to join the bandwagon. He explains:

The declaration that a given education system (which, for Americans, means public education) is "broken" is often the rhetorical leading edge to some scheme or other to replace it with something else: eg., a voucher system to encourage private school attendance, a charter school system that abolishes teacher tenure and any modicum of academic freedom or independence, or a for-profit learning management package whose adoption converts teachers into automatons. In short, the rhetoric of educational "failure" is part of a code whose semiotic significance is something that educators should be both aware and wary of.

So today I’m left with a post where Connected Learning is lumped in with all the problems of education: vouchers, the loss of tenure, the denial of academic freedom, for-profit education, and so forth.

Who knew Connected Learning was so threatening? Certainly not me. I had no idea that Connected Learning would lead to this response, and I’m no longer sure what to say. I want to reach out to those of you know know more about Connected Learning and ask some questions:

  • Have you dealt with similar responses when they talk about Connected Learning?
  • How do you respond to the critiques that have been raised?
  • What advice can you offer to someone talking about Connected Learning to help ensure that the model is effectively communicated?
  • Are there take-aways in the criticism? Should we be talking about Connected Learning in different ways to avoid such misreadings?

I hope to hear your responses and ideas. It appears that I need some help knowing how to talk about Connected Learning effectively!

 

[Photo: Big Sign – Little Steps by flattop341, on Flickr. This post has been cross-posted on the Digital Is website.]

 

Bedford Bits, connected learning

Can Connected Learning Work at the College Level?

by  • 

I know that Connected Learning spaces exist at the college level. The best example I’ve ever been in was the Center for Computer-Assisted Language Instruction  (CCLI, now the HDMZ) at Michigan Tech. Students and teachers alike could enter that space and pursue whatever they wanted. I had access to a dream array of digital software and hardware, and the space was filled with helpful people willing to collaborate, mentor, and inspire one another. It demonstrated the essence of Connected Learning principles.

How many colleges and universities would be willing to shift alllearning to that kind of Connected Learning space though? Would schools give up well-defined courses, structured syllabi, and departmental goals? Adopting Connected Learning models would require quite a revolution in how we think about college education—but it’s a rethinking we may need to consider.

Why? Read my full post on the Bedford Bits blog.