The average American student will take American history at least four times in the span of his or her education.  How many of those people can now recall why the Battle of Quebec, fought in 1759, was an important event in American history?

I was talking about this concept with a teacher this week, and his response was, “Ah, a perfect point for why we need repeated practice.  Just like in sports, there’s a lot of value in having our students repeat content, like repeating a skill in practice for any given sport.  If we repeat it enough, each time the student will get it a little better than the time before, and eventually he or she will master it.”  A little paraphrasing there on my part, but the essence is captured and preserved entirely.

This conversation immediately brought to mind the recent tension between the content-focused camp versus the skills-based camp.  And that gave me pause to reflect.

In my estimation, this is one of the foundational, keystone issues we’re facing in education today.  Do we focus on the skills of learning how to learn, or do we focus on the content that we believe students need to know in order to be able to apply skills contextually?  Or, as many advocate, do we need to accept these two aren’t mutually exclusive and strike a balance between the two?  Balance sounds great, but if we’re going to advocate for balance, that means we’re accepting that we need some foundational level of content with which to bestow upon our students.

How do we decide what constitutes the foundational content knowledge?

Just this morning, Karl Fisch posted these thoughts which show how so much of the content we typically classify as foundational is becoming even more immediately available, if such a thing is possible.  If content is that at the ready, do we continue spending time trying to get students to repeat until “mastery?”

For the record, the Battle of Quebec in 1759 was the turning point in the French and Indian War (part of the Seven Years War for friends across the pond).  The outcome of the war gave England control of land that sustained people who would eventually revolt and form their own country- America.  Most history teachers find this of paramount importance, and worthy to be committed to memory.  I’m willing to bet at least a few of you easily found the information using Google.

So, I’ll repeat.  How do we decide what constitutes the foundational content knowledge that every student should know without assistance?  Should there even be such a thing?

Thanks to Nathan Dainty for the Flickr image.

I know that I should, and I think that I do, but I’m actually not entirely sure what the title of this post means.  It sounds cool when you say it, and part of it is partly the title of a new project I played 1/3 of a part in starting.

A few months ago I began working with two of nature’s finest geniuses, Andy Kohl and Scott Meech, on a podcast endeavor.  I’ve always wanted to be part of such an experience, and after three shows, I’m certainly glad we took the leap.  I can say this is yet another of a drove of dynamic learning opportunities available as emergent technology continues to become less emergent and simply more accessible.

Andy, Scott, and I are engaging in dialog about the changes and shifts of education and our current culture.  We’re also learning a whole lot along the way.  It is honestly amazing what can happen when we stop and take the time to learn from one another, and I don’t just mean the three of us, I mean all of us.  There is something so refreshing and challenging about honest, open discussions, and I hope we can encapsulate that environment in our podcast.  When people are willing to leave ego behind and admit there is still so much to learn in life, the opportunity for growth is exponential.

If any of you have ever given thought to trying such a project, I simply can’t encourage you enough to take the chance and give it a try.  It’s an incredible experience.  For those of you who never have had the inkling, that’s why we’re here.  Give The Ed Revolution a listen some time, and let us know what you think.  We want to engage our educational community in relevant, meaningful discussions, and your voice can help make the conversation all the better.  Viva la revolution.

I read a story today that all but requires me to follow up with the ideas discussed in my recent post, “Technology Guidelines.”

I’ve been simultaneously encouraged and challenged by the comments to the post, and I’m heartened to see many affirm my position on the issues.  There remains, however, one nagging thought that I can’t seem to convince of its irrationality.  It’s an issue of liability.

In the first point on the post, I make mention of the implications of hosting student content on a server that a district doesn’t control.  This would include services such as WordPress hosted, Wikispaces, VoiceThread, etc.  I would say this would also include students using their own cell phones in class for learning.  The overwhelming response to this issue was that the experiences such services afford students far outweigh any potential consequences of the environments being abused.  In fact, many people poignantly pointed out that the transparent nature of learning as well as the obvious lack of IT support in most districts necessitate the decision for districts to seek outside resources for their students.

I found myself in complete agreement until I came across this article today.  I can’t encourage you enough to take the time to read it in its entirety.

I know many will respond that we can’t let such things cause us to fear making progress and moving forward with engaging students in a digital world.  However, I can’t help but wonder if those people would advocate for the same if they were in Ting-Yi’s position.  This is the very reason why this issue is much more complicated for me at the present.

Given the litigious nature of our society, and the fact that so many of you would be the ones lawyers would come to directly should something happen to the students in your district while they were online in the very environments which you established, I wonder if we shouldn’t give pause to consider the issue a bit further.  I want to offer my students the best learning experience possible.  In fact, I argued almost to the point of absurdity with the person whom which I first engaged this discussion.  I’ve now been given reason to pause and renumerate my position.

We know, as is evidenced in the article, that far too often blame is defrayed from the student and placed on the one who set up the system.  As wrong as that is, precedence proves it to be true time and again.  The last thing I want to do is let fear of misappropriated blame stop me from seeking dynamic learning opportunities for students, but I do think I need to fully consider every angle should something like this happen in the district where I am responsible.

I’m not saying I’m shuttering the windows and locking all the doors I can find.  What I am saying is I need to consider how we all respond to such issues when they arise.  What do we say to those who ask or to the angry parent who accuses us of willingly setting up an environment in which students can be harmed?  How would you honestly respond if someone purported you were to blame for students finding serious trouble within the spaces you setup outside the district?  I find it a very critical point in time for us all to work together and create a coherent, cogent response to the question.

Thanks to Chris Owens for the Flickr image.

In my opinion, most often discussions of “new literacies” are really discussions of new skills in applying literacy to new contexts. Let me explain.

Literacy, at its core, is about gathering and conveying meaning through communication. In the very beginning, before modern language, there was showing and viewing. I’d show you how to hunt a wooly mammoth, and you would view my showing. There would be meaning gathered through the act of showing and viewing.

Then the establishment of language brought in speaking and listening. I could now tell you how to make a spear, and you could gather meaning by listening.

The advent of written language allowed for the explosion of information we are experiencing today by allowing someone to write their thoughts and meaning can be gathered by reading these thoughts. No longer did people have to be in close proximity to share information. That is exactly what is happening right here. Yes, the vehicle has changed, in this case a blog post that resulted from a conversation on Twitter, two things not in existence 15 years ago, but the nature of what we are doing remains the same. I am writing my ideas, and you are gathering meaning by reading them.

This brings us to the new literacies. In my opinion, unless we’re talking about a new core way to convey and gather meaning through communication, we are talking about the application of literacy rather than the nature of literacy itself. In response to Will’s question today, I would maintain understanding transparency in my writing as technology changes is a skill rather than a core literacy.

I think this is important because it is very similar to my dislike for the Partnership’s establishment of their notion of 21st Century Skills. What they are calling “21st Century” are really rather timeless skills. We have communicated for centuries. We will continue to collaborate for likely ever. Problem solving has always been a major skill in life. Again, the application and context of these skills are certainly changing, but the skills themselves have always been relevant and meaningful.

If we held these things, the foundational learning skills as well as literacy, as timeless, we would be able to focus more on how we are engaging them in a relevant way in our modern culture rather than constantly fighting to redefine them.

And in my opinion, it’s how we apply these foundational pillars of learning that will yield true progress rather than the constant redefining and confusion brought on when everyone tries to requalify literacy and learning skills.

Thanks to Frederic della Faille for the Flickr image.