I was thinking the other day about how to teach kids in school Web 2.0 skills, prompted by my friend Brad Ovenell-Carter’s blog post on figuring out how young is too young,
Now my kids, don’t go to school, but they work actively in non-technological settings with collaboration. They spend a lot of time together co-creating games, scenarios, worlds and activities. My daughter, at 11, is helping out in a friend’s store and she helped train other workers on the inventory system the other day before taking inventory with her new trainees. She has also been working with another friend to start up an Amnesty International group on our home island.
The discussion on Brad’s blog has been about critical skills in reading, learning how to read content that is user produced on the web. To me Web 2.0 is about co-creating, so responsible writing is a key piece of the work, so in thinking more about how to teach this I thought about what a Web 2.0 based exam room would look like.
What if we tested kids on collaboration instead of individual achievement? What if a class of 30 kids was given an exam one day but instead of every student getting a test paper there would only be six papers in the whole room. The class would need to divide into groups of five and complete the exam together. The Pass mark would be 95% and they would be allowed to talk to each other, steal ideas, look in books, phone a friend, whatever. Each team of five would be responsible for the overall quality of their own answers, so they would also have to make quality decisions. If there were several long form questions, essays and the like, they could divide the work up, or have a couple of kids draw up an outline and bring it to the group for polishing.
In most school settings, this would be called “cheating.” In the real world this is how it works.
It’s not just about critical reading or accurate writing…it’s about providing real opportunities to practice collaborating and noticing that when you work together, you get a better result than if you work on your own.
Anyone know any teachers out there that have tried something like this?
Share:
Citizens and political representatives on my home island of Bowen Island, at a meeting this week in which a controversial decision was made to build an artifical turf playing field at our community school. I didn’t run this meeting…it was a regular council meeting, but the one in which the decision was made. The soundtrack is something of a political statement from the videographer, but the images are beautiful. They show my friends and neighbours as they sit pitted against one another in a tense meeting over a deep quality of life issue. Just studying and watching these faces reminds me of how hard this work really is sometimes, to tough through difficult choices and live out your principles and dreams.
Share:
I’m reading through Otto Schamer‘s Theory U again, this time with an eye to noting how his model and stories can inspire designs in my own work. I came across a story in the book (can’t remember where) in which Otto is working with a group to make some meaning and see patterns, as a way of sensing the bigger field of work. The group was given a transcript of a lot of information – interviews mostly and invited to circle or highlight those quotes that seemed to talk to the bigger patterns out there. then, as an exercise, each person read one out in turn and after a while the group reflected on what they were hearing.
This is an excellent excerise to create co-ownership over the harvest of the reams of material that come from large group processes. It is a great way to collaboratively sift through the material and make sense rather than having one person do all the reading and distill it for everyone else. Co-ownership over meaning, ensures accuracy and sustainability of results..
Share:
Last year I was invited to give a talk on the shapes of community engagement for a conference sponsored by the BC Treaty Commission called Forging Linkages and Finding Solutions. This is the slide deck I used and here is a transcript of my talk.
Share:
I can’t speak for Mexico, but this fall has had a transformative effective on the other 2 countries in North America.
First, Barack Obama. And now here in Canada, the prospect of a progressive coalition unseating the newly elected Conservative minority seems like a more and more likely possibility. So what gives?
First of all, the general mood of both countries has shifted to the progressive side of things, although in Canada, a weak Liberal leader and a screwy representational system left the Conservative party with 37% of the vote and the majority of seats and thus the first shot at forming government. Certainly Obama’s leadership, vision and message has grabbed a hold of the American left in a new and energizing way and it seems like much of the centre right opposition to his leadership has simply vanished, leaving bitter neoconservative right wing idealogues stewing in their jealous regret.
Now both the Obama administration there and the progressive coalition here are trying to do things differently. That begins by reaching out to unlikely friends. In Obama’s case he appoints Clinton and some Republican and bipartisan picks to his Cabinet. Here in Canada, Stephane Dion, the man who penned the Clarity Act which drove a fairly effective stake into the seperatist movement in Quebec, has reached a pact with the NDP to govern (with six NDP Cabinet ministers), assisted by a deal with the seperatist Bloc Quebecois who have agreed to support him on confidence votes at least for the next 18 months.
Three months ago none of this would have seemed possible. Obama’s election seared possibility into the minds of everyone, and in Canada, the Parliament, which had been completely hobbled by Conservative tactics in its last session vowed to bring in new levels of decorum in the new session. Stephen Harper, the Conservative prime minister, then did a 180 degree turn on that commitment, tabling an economic statement in the House last week to deal with the economic crisis but which contained a slew of ideological poison pills. To adopt it, the Opposition parties would have had to vote against workers rights to strike in the public service, and against the public funding that political parties receive on a per vote basis. That such a statement was made when the Canadian economy is in its worst shape in decades was simply too much for the progressive majority inParliament and they vowed to introduce a non-confidence motion, defeat the government and form their own. All the ground work has been laid for that now and we await the next moves of the Conservatives who may yet suspend Parliament to prevent the change in government. Imagine that. A party forming a minority government suspending Parliament to protect itself from a coalition representing a majority of votes and seats in the middle of an economic crises that needs a new government budget and economic policy. That would truly be the most self-serving of political acts, risking Canada’s economic position for a few months of limited power, for the Consertaives would surely be defeated in the House at the first opportunity.
Now as a progressive minded person, all of this has made me a little giddy and a little nervous. I am truly captured by the notion of politics being done differently (even though on our side the reason for it is much more opportunistic than in the States). I have been imploring my American progressive friends to remember the significance of Obama’s election and remember that what he has set out to do will be hard work and will anger and alienate many people IF people become preoccupied with the day to day struggles and appointments and policy statements. It’s akin to doing major surgery – Obama has the chance to remove a malignant pox on American politics but to do so means making friends with people and ideas that are anaethma to his supporters. But stick by him and have faith that the patient will survive.
My friend Alison made the same prescription this morning for us north of the border too. If we are to have this coalition and we are to make it wotk, we must argue its ideas with conviction but at the end of the day support it at the cost of a disunified progressive poltical sphere, ripe for the splitting by the Conservatives.
If this works, in both countries, the potential benefits are enormous for everyone. The Nothern 2/3 of North America will have a steady, progressive and creative hand on the rudder during this huge economic crises, politics may never look the same and the right wing in both countries will have a chance to reinvent themselves away from the ideological orientation of their previous incarnations, and towards a new conservatism that brings something to the table other than derision and fear mongering.
We have a chance here to seize something. Crisis. Danger. Opportunity. Political leadership will be remade in the next couple of years, and its about time. Hang on.