Education Innovation

Literacy Challenges of The Social Technographic Ladder

The ladder. Charlene Li and Josh Bernofff have written a great book titled Groundswell: winning in a world transformed by social technologies. In their book they describe The Social Technographics ladder.

“Each step on the ladder represents a group of consumers more involved in the groundswell than the previous steps. To join the group on a step, a consumer need only participate in one of the listed activities at least monthly.”

I believe that each rung of the Social Technographic ladder presents a unique literacy challenge for our students.

As an educator you know the standards, the curriculum, and the methods to bring about literacy. If technology is not part of that you are missing a major component of what our students will need in the coming years. Our students need to be able to climb the "ladder" and it is your job to make sure they get those opportunities.

Top Rung: Creators
These are the people who, at least once a month, publish a blog, put an article online, maintain a website, or upload music or videos. In the United States, about 18% of us on are the top rung or creators.

The percentage is only going to go up. So, what are you doing to prepare your students to be creators? How are you preparing your students to occupy the “top rung” of the Social Technographics ladder?

If you think about it, this is a question of literacy. For example, here are the writing standards for 6th grade in California: 

Narrative
^{write narratives, that(1) establish and develop plot and setting, and choose a point of view that is appropriate to stories
(2) include sensory details and concrete language to develop plot and character
(3) use a range of narrative strategies (e.g., dialogue, suspense)
Expository
Write expository compositions (e.g., description, explanation, comparison and contrast, and/or problem/solution) that
(1) state the thesis or purpose
(2) explain the situation
(3) follow an organizational pattern appropriate to the type of composition (e.g., if problem/solution, then paired)
(4) offer persuasive evidence for the validity of the description, proposed solutions, etc.
Research Reports
Write research reports that
(1) pose relevant questions narrow enough to be thoroughly covered
(2) support the main idea(s) with facts, details, examples, and explanations from multiple authoritative sources (e.g., speakers, periodicals, on-line information searches)
(3) use a bibliography
Persuasive
2.5. write persuasive compositions (or letters for grade 5) that
(1) state a clear position in support of a proposition or proposal
(2) support the position with organized and relevant evidence; and (3) anticipate and address reader concerns and counter-arguments}

The standards seem to say that we want students to be creators. The question I have is; are we preparing our students to occupy the top rung in the groundswell. Remember, the groundswell is: “A social trend in which people use technologies to get the things they need from each other, rather than from traditional institutions like corporations.”

In other words, the groundswell is what is taking place in this new ecosystem called the web where any person, in any place, can be a producer of media. Or, as Clay Shirky says, every person is a one-man media outlet.

So why only 18% participation?  Obviously this is an optional activity. Nobody has to be a creator. In our classrooms we require that our students be creators. We want all of our students on the top rung. We ask that our students create stories, research reports, projects, and narratives. We are teaching the next generation to succeed in this new online ecosystem. The standards seem to suggest we have the right intentions, but do those standards prepare our students for life in the groundswell? I think it depends on the teacher. The greater the teacher's understanding of the power of the groundswell in the online ecosystem, the better the assignments will utilize technology as part of learning and mastering the standards.

The next rung down: Critics
Critics react to what has been created. This is similar to the responding to literature standard.
_{Response to Literature
Write responses to literature that
(1) develop an interpretation which exhibits careful reading, understanding and insight
(2) organize the interpretation around several clear ideas, premises, or images
(3) develop and justify the interpretation through sustained use of examples and textual evidence}

Again, the question becomes, are we properly preparing our students for being a critic in the groundswell?

When I was a student, I was never allowed to comment on what other students wrote. Even in college, my job was to create. The only opportunities I had to be a critic was in writing a book report. Most of us are simply not used to commenting on blogs. We were not trained to do it as students and we had so few opportunities in our academic lives to practice it. But, our students are growing up in the online ecosystem that allows them to comment and critique nearly everything. They can comment on a song, a picture, a video, place a comment on a blog, put a book review on Amazon, or review a product on CNET.

Their world is the world of the critic. Are we as educators equipping them to succeed in this world?  Are we preparing them for life on the second rung? What opportunities do your students have to critique what others have created?

The next rung down: Collectors
Collector collect RSS feeds, save website to Del.icio.us, vote for sites on Digg, and accumulate all forms of created digital media from the online world.

So, what standards address that? How are we preparing our students to be effective collectors of information? What opportunities do our students get to practice the art of selective information collection? How do our students learn to filter information for their select needs? How are we preparing our students to be literate collectors?

The next rung down: Joiners
Members of Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, Orcut, etc. are all joiners. These are the people who maintain profiles on social networking sites. My guess is that most of our students are far ahead of most of their teachers in this aspect. But, how can we teach our students the skills necessary to properly maintain these sites for optimal effect and leverage their power to further themselves via networking?

Our students are natural collaborators and net-workers, but how are we making them literate in the power of networks?

The next rung down: Spectators
Spectators consume what the rest produce. This is the largest part of the groundswell. This is about making choices. What they choose to consume can enhance our students’ education.  So, our students need to make choices that will enhance them as people, as students, as informed citizens, etc. Of course kids will always choose the strange and offbeat, but we can equip them to understand what sorts of media are important for them to consume. What opportunities are your students getting to be selective literate spectators?

The bottom rung: Inactives
These are the people who are not impacted by the groundswell at all. For our students, it might those students who have no access to technology and the web. I still meet students and parents who have no web access. If the school isn’t providing it, and they have no access at home, when are these students given chances to move from inactive to spectator, to joiner, to collector, to critic, or to creator?  We need to think about how we can provide opportunities and resources for them to climb the Social Technographic ladder. It is a literacy issue for life in the 21st century.

Catalytic Questions

In what way is your leadership preparing your school and your students for the literacy of technology?

Is your personal leadership and catalyst or hurdle in the implementation of technologies that will provide opportunities for technology literacy?

In what ways do our current literacy standards meet or fall short of the issues and challenges faced by our students at each rung of the Social Technographic ladder?

In what way can we better prepare our students to be literate creators of information?

How might this look in a classroom?

In what ways can we provide opportunities for our students to be literate critics of created information?

In what ways can we prepare our students to be literate collectors of information?

What might this look like in the classroom?

How might we prepare our students to leverage the power of networks?

In what ways could we prepare our students to make literate choices about the networks they join and the information they place on those networks?

In what was are we preparing our students to be literate spectators of information?

How might we better equip our students to make excellent choices in the information they consume each day?

In what ways can we provide resources or tools to move the non-participating Inactive up the Social Technographic ladder? 

Education's Triple Bottom Line

How does an organization measure success?  One measure, or should I say three, is the Triple Bottom Line. According to Wikipedia,

“The phrase was coined by John Elkington, co-founder of the business consultancy SustainAbility in 1994. It was later expanded and articulated in his 1998 book Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.

The concept of TBL demands that a company's responsibility be to 'stakeholders' rather than shareholders. In this case, 'stakeholders' refers to anyone who is influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the actions of the firm. According to the stakeholder theory, the business entity should be used as a vehicle for coordinating stakeholder interests, instead of maximizing shareholder (owner) profit.”

Leadership guru Ken Blanchard defines the triple bottom line are the three most important factors of performance. Blanchard says, “It recognizes that great companies are the provider of choice, the employer of choice, and the investment of choice.”

So I began to wonder if the TBL could apply to education. A school district’s TBL might be something like…
School District XYZ is the school district of choice and its schools are the school of choice for the parents of this community.
Now, we know that public schools are the only choice for most parents, but if they had the choice, would your schools be the school of choice for parents? This isn’t a question designed to open up the debate about school choice, but rather a question to get us thinking about our school and the parent’s perceptions of our schools. After all, they are the clients we are trying to serve.

School District XYZ is the school district of choice for both experienced and new teachers.
Most teachers, especially in Southern California are just happy to have a job, but if the job market reversed and put districts and schools in the role of recruiting teachers, would those teachers choose you? What can you offer that makes a difference? 

School District XYZ is the school district of performance and results.
Results, usually defined by metrics such as state test scores, are measure of performance that tells “stake holders”- local parents and citizens- that students are learning and improving. Investments in the district are being used effectively to meet student needs.

The TBL, as defined here, is just an opening into the discussion of the various factors and variables that would impact each of the three. However, it is a valuable place to begin and forces those of us in education to look at education from a different perspective and ask some tough questions of ourselves, which, is always a good thing.

Report Card 2.0-- 32 Traits of Creative People

Robert Alan Black Ph.D. lists 32 Traits of Creative People.
I wonder if these might not make an interesting framework for a report card. Call it the report of the future, or Report Card 2.0.

1. sensitive
2. not motivated by money
3. sense of destiny
4. adaptable
5. tolerant of ambiguity
6. observant
7. perceive world differently
8. see possibilities
9. question asker
10. can synthesize correctly often intuitively
11. able to fantasize
12. flexible
13. fluent
14. imaginative
15. intuitive
16. original
17. ingenious
18. energetic
19. sense of humor
20. self-actualizing
21. self-disciplined
22. self-knowledgeable
23. specific interests
24. divergent thinker
25. curious
26. open-ended
27. independent
28. severely critical
29. non-conforming
30. confident
31. risk taker
32. persistent

Imagine the curriculum that would have to be created to generate evidence of the student's proficiency of these 32 traits. Imagine the learning opportunities that students would need to be afforded to measure their proficiency in these traits.

It could completely change education in some very important and fundamental ways.

Education's New Map

I rarely read books on Education. Why you ask?  Several reasons. First, I feel my value to the education community is the different mindset or approach I bring to the field. If everybody is thinking the same thing or thinking in the same way, then innovation is less likely.

Second, as has been famously said, “Yesterday’s solutions won’t solve tomorrow’s problems.”  Education is a reactive field. In other words, the world changes and education reacts to the change. The problem is, the change is usually decades after the cause. If you are only reading books on education, then you are usually reading about reacting to changes whose root cause occurred a decade prior.

I am currently reading (I am usually reading about 3 to 4 books at any given time) The Pentagon’s New Map by Thomas P. M. Barnett.  This book seeks to explain his innovative approach to globalization that “combines security, economic, political, and cultural factors to do no less than predict and explain the nature of war and peace in the twenty-first century.” It is a fascinating book that forces one to challenge their thinking about the world and the role of the United States in it.

In chapter one, “New Rule Sets”, Barnett says,

“ Whether we realize it or not, America serves as the ideological wellspring for globalization. These united states still stand as its first concrete expression. We are the only country in the world purposely built around the ideals that animate globalization’s advance: freedom of choice, freedom of movement, freedom of expression. We are connectivity personified. Globalization is this country’s gift to history—the most perfectly flawed projection of the American Dream onto the global landscape. To deny our parentage of globalization is to deny our country’s profound role as world leader over the second half of the twentieth century. More important, to abandon globalization’s future to those violent forces hell-bent on keeping this world divided between the connected and disconnected is to admit that we no longer hold these truths to be self-evident: that all are equal, and that all desire life, liberty, and the chance to pursue happiness. In short, we the people needs to become we the planet.”

The question that arose in my mind was how do we in education prepare our students to take on this enormous responsibility. I say responsibility in the strongest of terms. If you read The Pentagon’s New Map you will gain a new appreciation for this country’s role and responsibility in creating and maintaining the positive globalization conditions and environment.

I have some thoughts. First, Tom Peters pointed out in his book Re-Imagine, that, “Distance is dead.” Technology has allowed us to connect with almost anyone anywhere in the world. Our students have embraced this concept with ease. But, education has not been so quick to pick up the technology baton and run with it. Technology is a major component in the global economy and the connectedness of the globalized world. We must prepare our students to use these tools. Computers should no longer be optional. They should be just as fundamental as paper, pencils, and textbooks. It should be a skill set that students (and teachers) be able to demonstrate. But that is obvious to most of us in the edu-blogosphere. Everyday there is more evidence of technology changing the very nature of how education is delivered. (See When The Education Bubble Goes...Pop!)

Second, if the United States embodies the values of globalization (freedom of choice, freedom of movement, freedom of expression), then it makes sense to inculcate those values in our students to ensure that they take them with them from school in the globalized world.  This means a focus on civics, history, and learning the values that make this county so great.  Also, students should understand what the global economy is and how it works. This calls for excellent economics and business classes. 

Education today, attempts to control where students learn, what they learn, when they learn, and whom they learn from. Our educational system is the very definition of a centralized organization. The federal Department of Education tells the states what to do. State departments of education tell the counties what to do, counties tell the districts what to do, districts tell the principals, the principals tell the teachers, and the teachers tell the students. It is very structured, very systematic, very controlled, very rigid, and very closed. It in not exemplary of the values of globalization, yet purports to prepare students for their roles in the globalized world.

If you view the student as a leaders of their own learning, then they have the ability to decided for themselves the what, when, where, who, and how of their education. They must follow and meet certain expectations and norms, but they are not controlled by a centralized organization. A student is free to blend normal brick-and-mortar school, with home-school, with e-learning or virtual learning, occupational or trade schools, with other opportunities such as travel, trips to museums, internships, volunteering, etc. This blend is what I call the Open Model of Education. Maya Frost calls it "Bold School." (See The Global Student - Old School vs. Bold School)

But it also means allowing student to have opportunities to demonstrate freedom of choice, freedom of movement, and freedom of expression. I question whether our current system is providing these sorts of opportunities for students.

Good American citizens will make good global citizens. We need to inculcate those American values in our students and not be ashamed of them. Our students must have an understanding the global economy and America’s unique history, values, role, and responsibility around the globe.

Third, because we now live in the globalized world, our students will need to be adept with interacting with people from many different cultures. This means developing a skill set for understanding, appreciating, and valuing the cultures of others, while at the same time valuing their own unique set of American values. Our students must be able to navigate the multitude of cultures and develop positive relationships with people from across the globe.

This skill set has been referred to as Cultural Intelligence (CQ). Author of the book Leading With Cultural Intelligence, David LIvermore describes it the ability to demonstrate...
Drive—show the interest and confidence to adapt cross-culturally

Knowledge—understand how differences such as religion, family, education, legal, and economic influences affect the way people think and behave

Strategy—monitor, analyze, and adjust plans in unfamiliar cultural setting

Action—choose the right verbal and nonverbal behaviors, depending on context

Fortunately, America is so diverse. We must use this diversity as a strength and help our students learn from each other.

Fourth, our students will need to become adept at the art of collaboration. Globalization requires that people work with others. Students need to start practicing now by collaborating with fellow students. This is a great opportunity to introduce project base learning into our classrooms and schools. We must create opportunities for students to work together. Technology makes it possible for students to collaborate with students around the globe. I have seen some amazing projects with students in this country working with students from Africa and Australia. This reinforces my point about the need for appreciating other cultures. Collaboration as a skill set should be developed at every opportunity in our schools.

Finally, innovation and creativity skills must be taught and developed in our schools. With thousands of degrees being awarded in the coming decades, especially in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) countries, what is going to set our students apart?  Creativity and innovation will. We need these skills taught in our classrooms. 

In summary, a connected globalized world will require certain skill sets and knowledge. It is our responsibility to prepare our students to meet these challenges. I question whether, in this current system of high stakes testing and standardized curriculum, we are doing enough to prepare our students for life outside of the classroom walls.

Do We Limit Our Children's Creativity?

Do we limit our children's creativity? Take a look at this short clip about one child's creativity and the reactions from parents, teachers, and doctors. I think you will find it thought provoking.

Watch This:

Rob Jacobs

Can Geography Determine Global Competitiveness and Innovation in Education?

Does location or geography matter in education?

Let's see what kind of answer we can get by combining urban competitiveness, innovation, The Economist, the Creative Class blog, the book 101 Creative Problem Solving Techniques, colleges, and education into the Education Innovation blender.

I came across this interesting article from The Economist on the Creative Class website.

From The Economist print edition

"New York is the world’s most competitive city, according to the Global Urban Competitiveness Project. The study ranks 500 cities on their ability to attract and use resources to generate wealth. The cities are assessed on nine measures, including income, economic growth, innovation, jobs, prices and the presence of multinational firms. The report found that the gap between the best-performing cities and the worst is widening. Indeed, there is a fairly large gap between the top two cities, New York and London, and Tokyo in third place. Cities in Europe and North America are richest, but China has the fastest-growing ones. Asian cities also score highly in patent registrations and attracting multinational companies."

How do you think your school or school district would rank if compared on global competitiveness?

James M. HIggins makes this interesting point in his book 101 Creative Problem Solving Techniques.

“Research by Michael E. Porter, a renowned business strategy researcher and consultant, and several others has clearly demonstrated what we have long suspected—it is easier to innovate in some geographic locations than others. This is because these places have more of the necessary supportive environmental factors that lead to successful innovation that do other locations.”

He cites several comparisons to illustrate the point. It is easier to innovate in the Silicon Valley in California as opposed to Jackson, Mississippi. It is easier to innovate in Denmark as opposed to Germany, in Singapore than in Japan, in Boston than in Paris.

Higgins explains that there are several factors that contribute to this.

“There are several factors that constitute a supportive societal environment. Some of these are a supportive govern-ment in term of policies and economic factors such as taxes, a positive view of innovation by the society, an acceptance of entrepreneurs as being vital contributors, a positive view of achievement, major research universities, and excellent public education system.”

Is it possible that some school districts, school sites, and teachers are more successful at innovation than others? It must be.

Some school districts are bound to have a more positive view of innovation when compared with other districts. What factors would contribute to that? Leadership, history, success with innovation, openness to new ideas, and flexibility would be factors. I am sure that the same could be said for individual school sites and individual teachers. Some will have a more positive view of innovation than others.

What about acceptance of "entrepreneurs" as being vital contributors? These entrepreneurs will either be viewed as an important and welcome part of a district or a school site that is bringing new and creative ideas to the fore, or viewed as a troublemaker who is not following policy and procedures. Again, there are clearly levels of acceptance from district to district or school to school. What are the implications for the kids?

Some school districts have the good fortune of being located near or within the same city limits as a college or university. Does this translate into those districts or schools being more innovative as compared to neighboring districts and schools?  It seems that business benefits from the proximity, but does education?

How might being in a geographic area with a high concentration of colleges impact the education students in the local school district receive. For example, in the district I work in their is one junior college, a CSU campus, a private college, a law school, and an optometry school. One might think this would foster a high level of educational innovation in the local school district through partnerships and research. There has been some, but not to the extent one might imagine.

What kind of school or district are you working in, high innovation or low innovation? Are your neighbors doing innovation better? Inovation in education might come down to location, location, location.

Did You Know 4.0

Essential Education: Social Media Revolution

Curriculum and Literacy in the Digital World

Author David Weinberger, in his book Everything Is Miscellaneous, asks, “Suppose that now, for the first time in history, we are able to arrange our concepts without the silent limitations of the physical. How might our ideas, organization, and knowledge itself change? "

In my previous post, Successful Student Thinking In The Digital Age I described how I believed successful student thinking in the digital age is "lateral" and "miscellaneous."

I wondered what are the implications for curriculum and literacy in the digital world if we are not limited to the, "silent limitations of the physical."

Some characteristics of the digital world are…

“…in the digital world everything is only a few clicks away.”
Or as Tom Peters would say, “Distance is dead.”  Students can use the web to instantly reach out to any part of the planet to talk with people, or find information on anything that interests them, or collaborate on projects. They can work with the person at the desk next to them or a student on the other side of the globe. Information, once warehoused in libraries, is now a few clicks away. Student collaboration is a digital world is very scalable. Student groups can grow from the classroom room to the globe.

“Instead of being the same way for all people, it can instantly rearrange itself for each person and each person’s current task.”
It is not possible to differentiate instruction and learning to the level that is possible when a student does it for their particular individualized needs. The web makes it possible to match a student with his or her interest and ability far easier than one teacher alone could. Each click brings the student just what they need in the way they need it. Learning that is truly customized and differentiated on demand. The digital world will bend to your needs when you want it, where you want it, and how you want it. That is the future of learning.

“Instead of being limited by space and operational simplicity in the number of items it can stock, the digital world can include every item and variation…”
The digital world will provide a near infinite number of resources and combinations of resources that the physical realm of the school or classroom cannot provide. These digital resources can do what no classroom resources can do. They can remain current, right up to the minute. They can be interactive and participatory. They can be easily edited, modified, and shared. They take up no space. They can be replaced with something better or different with a click. What textbook can do that?

“…they (items) can be classified in every different category in which users might conceivably expect to find them.”
Infinite subjects unbounded by budget, space, and availability, combined in infinite ways. Unmatched variety. Best of all, the digital world avails itself to being searched unlike the physical world. In the physical world you have to know exactly what you are looking for. In the digital world you search or stumble across what you are looking for because there are so many ways to find it. For example a student working in social studies can use the index of his or her book or look a shelf of books in the library. But, the same student can search the digital way using tags that come to his or her mind. Students can search by Egypt, ancient history, pharaohs, the Nile, ancient Africa, the pyramids, etc.

“Instead of living in the neat, ordered shelves…items can be jumbled digitally and sorted out only when and how a user wants to look for them.”
The digital world allows a student access to virtually unlimited amounts of resources that can be discovered any way the student chooses to think about the subject. Going back to the social studies example, a student can search for pyramids when thinking about ancient Egypt, but the same student can search pyramids when thinking about architecture, or geometric shapes. It is all how the student chooses to approach the subject and the digital world allows them to access resources though multiple routes.

Curriculum and literacy in the digital age will be personalized, customizable, discoverable, remixable, combinable, interactive, participatory, and scalable.

Successful Student Thinking In The Digital Age

In his fantastic book Everything Is Miscellaneous, David Weinberger takes the reader through a tour of the digital order that is changing how we approach knowledge and information. This new digital order, built on bits, not atoms, allows students to think about information and knowledge in different ways. In a way, it is very similar to what Edward de Bono spoke of in his book Lateral Thinking, which was first published 37 years ago, in 1970.

Edward de Bono compared vertical thinking with lateral thinking.

“Vertical thinking is analytical, lateral thinking is provocative.”
The physical world requires that we spend a great deal of time developing a very structured set of codes, rules, and organization so information can be found. The digital world make it possible to organize information any way that makes sense to us. We are not limited to the space on a card catalog or a label. We can put as much information into a digital bit of information as we can imagine.

“With vertical thinking one has to be correct at every step, with lateral thinking one does not have to be.” Make a mistake in the card catalog or reading a label and you are not going to be successful in your search. But, as we know, there are multiple ways to search for something in search engines. Make a mistake, and you simply change your approach. You are never out of the game in the digital world because other people like you may have thought about your subject in the very same way. Our students need to learn that there are multiple approaches to a problem or an issue.

“Vertical thinking is sequential, lateral thinking can make jumps.” The physical world of information is very sequential because of the limits of physical space. The digital world allows us to jump around to look at subjects loosely related to the information one is seeking or to quickly jump to tried and true resources or new resources that have never been viewed before. It just takes a click.

“With vertical thinking one uses the negative in order to block of certainty. With lateral thinking there is no negative.” The physical world of atoms allows very few ways to organize information, while the digital world allows virtually unlimited ways to organize it.

“With vertical thinking one concentrates and excludes what is irrelevant, with lateral thinking one welcomes chance intrusions” The digital world welcomes more information, even it seems irrelevant to most. It may be very relevant to a few. Therefore as Weinberger says, “… solution to the overabundance of information is more information.”

“With vertical thinking categories, classifications and labels are fixed, with lateral thinking they are not.” For example, a type of dog, say a Rhodesian Ridgeback can be classified only so many ways in the physical world or card catalogs, charts, and shelves. Usually, following biology terms such as vertebrate, mammal, etc. Space limits what you can do. But without the limits of space, such as in the digital world, the same dog could be tagged as things with four legs, things that chase cars, things that eat dog food, things that have a tail, things that have paws, or things that bark. The choices are almost limitless. It all depends on how one chooses think about the subject, which allows one to be very creative in their approach.

“Vertical thinking follows the most likely path, lateral thinking explores the least likely.”
Anyone who has spent anytime on the web can tell you they reached some cool website or found a great book, but they have no idea how they got there. Click after click after click we follow our thinking down “the rabbit hole” and discover what we might be looking for in very odd ways. This isn’t true for a library. It will be very predictable. It will be the “most likely path.”

“Vertical thinking is a finite process, lateral thinking is a probablistic one.” I want to find a book, I look on the shelf and there it is. In the digital world though, I find the book I am looking for and 5 others that are related to the first. I then investigate one of those and discover pictures, video, and music all because someone else thinks it relates. As I continue probing I gain even more information and resources which to use.

Quite possibly, Edward de Bono wrote 37 years ago about the type of thinking that would actually allow us to be even more effective in the digital world of bits described so wonderfully by David Weinberger.

Successful student thinking in the digital age is "lateral" and "miscellaneous."